The Argument I Loathe & How Political Conversions Actually Happen

If you want to tell me I'm wrong, I'm ready, willing, and eager to hash that out with you. That's a good argument. If I'm wrong, I need to know it. I should not transmit ideas which are wrong.

The argument I loathe, and you will see me get my hackles up over this again and again, is that I shouldn't say something, not necessarily because it's wrong but because of reasons that have nothing to do with rightness or wrongness, like group solidarity, loyalty, defending our Strongest Generals, and so on.

If I'm wrong, I should be told so.

Please stop telling me, however, that there are reasons besides being wrong to stop staying something.

As far as I'm concerned that is the only reason. You're either right, or you're wrong.

This solidarity crap? I've had it up to my neck with it.

This is an idea of the Left and I'll be god-damned to Hell before I accept it for myself on the right. This kumbaya, "let's all get on the same page and relentlessly propagate the agreed-to consensus" is for lefties.

And I don't want to hear that it works. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I think it's creepy myself.

Let me tell you, once again, that in college I become sort of conservative. Like my second year, and then increasingly every year thereafter.

Before that, I was pretty liberal.

If you've always been conservative, then you can tell me a great many things about doctrine and such, but one place I will always have more experience than you is in terms of conversion and persuasion.

Because I went through a conversion myself. I was persuaded myself. I have only anecdotal experience; but I do have that anecdotal experience.

Anyone who's always been Solid Red doesn't have that experience.

So you can tell me you know more about conservative doctrine (this concession is easily made-- I am not a deep thinker on conservative doctrine at all) but unless you've actually changed your stripes, you cannot tell me what arguments work on persuading someone to move from liberal-ish to moderate to conservative/moderate to finally conservative.

And I will tell you this: The giddy thing about a conversion is the liberation from complete and utter bullshit -- accreted dogma, groupthink, it is so because we have said it is so.

Anyone who moves from liberal to conservative will always describe it as liberating epiphany, of breathing free air.

So please listen to me, if on nothing else at all, when I tell you that this dopey attempt to pound people into accepting the groupthinkby appeals to solidarity and appeals to authority (authority which is not universally conceded, even on the right) is a loser.

Only a few people who are truly unhinged find they can no longer live under one set of dogmas and then fly to embrace, passionately, a whole 'nother set of dogmas. Andrew Sullivan did this, but he's, frankly, a nutter. He always needs a wooby.

For most people, they convert when they want to escape a set of dogmas and then live under fewer dogmas, or even none at all.

They do not wish to jump willy-nilly and embrace a whole new set of dogmas.

The personal is not, as the left says, the political. A personal regard for a Figure of Authority, like Rush Limbaugh, cannot and must not be turned into some kind of endless crusade to merely vindicate, personally, the pantheon of accepted conservative heroes.

Heroes can be wrong and villains, occasionally, can be right.

I'm not a fan of Limbaugh. Never have been. Please stop with the endlessly-multiplying list of things I am required to believe, or to be, to be a member of this party.

Is being a Dittohead now on the list? Some think so, based on the reaction to my defense of Limbaugh below. Apparently my defense wasn't strident enough, and included some unacceptable nuance, and hence it is UnConservative.

Since the argument is forever made about "what it will take to change this country," let me share with you my own insight as a liberal-turned-conservative on this point:

What is required is as small a buy-in as possible and not, as some of you would have it, as large and voluminous and as detailed a buy-in as possible.

If you want to move someone to the conservative side, you must first convince them that conservatives are not, as the media claims, crazy or weird. That is 90% of the battle, actually, as Breitbart knew, and as he made it his life's mission to prove.

The next 10% is to offer up the smallest buy-in possible. Here's what we believe, basically: freedom, respect for citizens in their capacity and wisdom to manage their own affairs, modesty of government ambition and modesty in the government's appraisal of its own ability to manage large ventures, and the basic idea that the government exists to keep the order so that men and women may face each other as free citizens in the public square and make voluntary transactions and decisions between each other, with as minimum government intrusion and "oversight" as possible.

The rest of it? People may buy in as they please. People will buy in as they please, so there's no sense demanding they must believe a through z too. They will wind up believing b, d, g, i, m, and l as they choose, and as it appears to them.

But this massive checklist some people are now building -- that to be a conservative you must now accept...

1. That Rush Limbaugh is the First and Foremost thought-leader among conservatives,

2. That the state has a compelling and legitimate interest in monitoring women's use of non-abortifacient birth control,

3. That you must be rural and Christian to be a truly good citizen of the nation...

...and all the rest of it?

For God's sakes. Is it not elementary that the fewer things you demand someone believe will result in the largest number of conversions?

What is the actual Big Thing necessary for a conversion to Christianity? Is it a long laundry list of detailed items on this or that?

Or is it John 3:16?

You make more sales at a lower price point than a higher one. In terms of belief, and dogma which must be accepted, many people seem to think that a higher price point actually results in more sales.

I do not understand what experiential evidence or analogy one would use to prove that case. I do not believe any such evidence exists. It flies in the face of everything we know about sales.

And life, for that matter.

Once someone is open to the idea of conservatism at all, that person will likely start believing in all sorts of conservative things he once discounted as preposterous. Because, previously, the only reason he never entertained such ideas was because he'd been made to thin they were crazy, stupid, hateful, and so forth.

But he probably won't believe in all of it.

There is an idea brewing that you need people to buy into all of it or else they're "not real conservatives" and will "sell you out."

Well, may be. But the, I am now thinking that as far as conservatism goes, as far as the thing that I stress, myself -- respect for the citizen to live his own life as he chooses -- that drugs ought to be legalized.

Shall I begin insisting that no one who disagrees with me on this point is a "real conservative"?

Of course not. There's plenty of room for debate. It would be absurd to insist that such a thing now become Central Foundational Conservative Doctrine.

But then, I think the same thing about a lot of things people are now telling me are Central Foundational Conservative Doctrine.

Defend Rush to the hilt? Why? You're going to have to accept that while some like Rush a great deal, to some, like me, He's Just A Guy With A Microphone. Could care less, if you want to know the truth of it.

Should I similarly defend every single thing Hugh Hewitt says, too? No? Okay, what's the difference, apart from Rush having better ratings?

This endless conflation of intellectual beliefs and preferences with some kind of moral virtue like courage is tedious.

I'm tired of it. Yes, I know if i disagree with you on x or y that means not that we have a disagreement, and that we've come to this with differing underlying assumptions and priorities (my priority now being more "liberty" than "order," for example), I will be called a coward and the rest of it.

Can we have an end to this sort of argument by insult? People are willing to discuss issues even contentiously, with no hard feelings or anger, as long as personal factors like virtue or courage are not dragged into it.

We disagree. Am I actually a bad person, or a cringing coward, for disagreeing?

Does that mean I'd somehow be a braver man for merely nodding my head along with whatever a commenter might say?

Please tell me I'm wrong if you think I'm wrong.

But please, for the love of God, stop telling me I'm a coward or I have some bad motive (kissing up to the MSM!) whenever you think I'm wrong.


Posted by: Ace at 04:07 PM



Comments

1 J U S T S AY IT...

Posted by: M. Murcek at March 02, 2012 04:08 PM (ToZXn)

2 I'm with you Ace! Oh, wait.

Posted by: Brenden at March 02, 2012 04:09 PM (wa+SP)

3 Are you going to go all drama queen because the majority of Ace of Spaders don't agree with your take on Rush?

Your not going to win.

Just move on!

Posted by: McLovin at March 02, 2012 04:09 PM (j0IcY)

4

Ace, why even get into a discussion with people who make this argument?

Just ignore it.

Posted by: dan-O at March 02, 2012 04:10 PM (sWycd)

5 I agree, BUT.... there are times that one has to sacrifice their sacred honor for something larger.

The key is to determine when that is.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at March 02, 2012 04:11 PM (X/+QT)

6 I DO REALLY LIKE IT WHEN YOU GET ADAMANT ABOUT THINGS. It's a pity that more folks can't be like that --cheers from way down south

Posted by: rld77 en SA at March 02, 2012 04:11 PM (gObCt)

7
I believe that there are indeed times when it is prudent for our side to keep mum on certain things.

The Left is adroit at distracting us. Just one time I'd like to see all of us, in unison, give a big giant shrug to the Left's outrage.

Posted by: Soothsayer at March 02, 2012 04:12 PM (jUytm)

8
I believe that there are indeed times when it is prudent for our side to keep mum on certain things.

The Left is adroit at distracting us. Just one time I'd like to see all of us give a big giant collective shrug to the Left's outrage.

Posted by: Soothsayer at March 02, 2012 04:41 PM (jUytm)

9 You don't have to be a fan, but trying your best to shit in his mouth should be understandably out of bounds.

Not that I'd expect you to understand that, Ace.

Posted by: Ace's Ass at March 02, 2012 04:43 PM (wWrHp)

10 And you don't like the Doobie Brothers? Fuck you.

Posted by: Dan Collins at March 02, 2012 04:44 PM (qlzIv)

11 You're wrong.

I keed! I keed!

Posted by: speedster1 at March 02, 2012 04:45 PM (v40Bj)

12 >>>Are you going to go all drama queen because the majority of Ace of Spaders don't agree with your take on Rush?

I don't think this is a drama queen thing. it's annoying and counterproductive.

>>.You don't have to be a fan, but trying your best to shit in his mouth should be understandably out of bounds

sorry he's just a loudmouth with a microphone to me.

Now that we've established that, can we agree to disagree or what?

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 04:46 PM (nj1bB)

13 This push for the Right to form a solid line is coming straight from the power elites. They made their choice years ago and now the pressure is on to force us all in line.
The time for a solid front will come later when it is time to vote Obama OUT.
However, before, during and after the election, we will still have to hold feet to fire of conservative principles, no matter who wins our nomination.

Posted by: Pecos at March 02, 2012 04:47 PM (2Gb0y)

14 tl;dr

Can any Morons provided the abridged version? Ace like the movie or not?

Posted by: A. Breitbart at March 02, 2012 04:47 PM (9VBSz)

15 Boy that Light Therapy must really work!

Please do not go to the movies, ace!!!

Posted by: runninrebel at March 02, 2012 04:47 PM (N4RQj)

16 >>> This push for the Right to form a solid line is coming straight from the power elites. They made their choice years ago and now the pressure is on to force us all in line.

I do not mean this to be snarky. It's a real question:
Do you think I am pressuring you with this post, and do you think it comes from the Power Elites?

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 04:48 PM (nj1bB)

17 We need to convert the default Democrats. They already "know" that we're the party that's pro-life, anti-gay-marriage, and addicted to Rush.

Let's shut up about those things and tell them something they don't know. Small buy-ins.

Posted by: arhooley at March 02, 2012 04:48 PM (N2kxf)

18
Just face it you're the Olympia Snow of Ewoks. /sarc

Posted by: Eric at March 02, 2012 04:49 PM (YvVsN)

19 What a crock. This blog thrives on groupthink.

Posted by: lol at March 02, 2012 04:49 PM (gj4aA)

20 That you must be rural and Christian to be a truly good citizen of the nation...
--------------------------------------------------------
Spoken like a true New Yorker. What. An. Ass!

Posted by: Truck Monkey at March 02, 2012 04:49 PM (jucos)

21 14: Not. Cool.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, in Cylon hell at March 02, 2012 04:50 PM (GBXon)

22 Are these the hills to die on ace?

Posted by: Truck Monkey at March 02, 2012 04:50 PM (jucos)

23 i'm on board many things conservative, but i draw the line at country music and nascar. oh and football, basketball, and some of the pointy elbowed girls, even if they are also women like me.
and i wrote this, just because i'm raging mad at everything right now. and if i don't make sense now .
tomorrow i might not either.

nothing to do with ace's post.

Posted by: willow at March 02, 2012 04:51 PM (TomZ9)

24 Andrew Wilkow is more entertaining anyway. Ace, you'd better not try to shit in Andrew's mouth or I, I might just leave a butthurt comment on your blog.

Posted by: Rex Harrison's Hat at March 02, 2012 04:51 PM (4136b)

25 Damn it, Ace, you cowardly RINO. Quit kissing up to the MFM!

Posted by: Clueless at March 02, 2012 04:51 PM (ggRof)

26 Rush Limbaugh CANNOT be wrong. He has said so himself!

Posted by: Truck Monkey at March 02, 2012 04:51 PM (jucos)

27 Ace--Agree with your point, but for those of us that don't generally wade into the comments, it's not clear exactly who is asking you to bow to dogma. If you are referring to specific comments, other blog posts, etc, just paste them into your creed so we can follow along.

That is all.

Posted by: non-commenter at March 02, 2012 04:51 PM (MarbK)

28 >>>hat you must be rural and Christian to be a truly good citizen of the nation...
--------------------------------

Palin did suggest that. Suggest, without explicitly stating.

And yeah, it's a big buy in! If you are that, fine, but what if you're not?

If you're asking someone to change his entire worldview and mode of living to pull a frickin' switch in a ballot booth, you are asking too damn much.

It will be a No Sale for most.

Do not erect bariers to people joining the movement. Do not tell them "We only want these sorts of votes."

no, we want as many as possible.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 04:52 PM (nj1bB)

29 Ace, I love you man.

And if lovin you is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

Posted by: wheatie at March 02, 2012 04:52 PM (UOOK1)

30 Noticed on Twitter, Ted Nugent endorsed Mitt Romney

after a long heartsoul conversation
with MittRomney today I concluded this goodman will properly represent
we the people I endorsed him

disclaimer
(This year is going to be a fight..and I still think Newt is the more skilled and more tenacious fighter.)

Posted by: Shiggz RocketSurgeon at March 02, 2012 04:52 PM (RfvTE)

31
Ace, you're wrong, Glenn Beck is the First Foremost thought leader among conservatives.

Posted by: Mitt Still Sux. at March 02, 2012 04:52 PM (vdFUv)

32 I'm struggling student. Ace needs to give me a free subscription to his blog and the keys to these handcuffs.

Posted by: Sandra Fluke at March 02, 2012 04:53 PM (4pSIn)

33 "The next 10% is to offer up the smallest buy-in possible. Here's what
we believe, basically: freedom, respect for citizens in their capacity
and wisdom to manage their own affairs, modesty of government ambition
and modesty in the government's appraisal of its own ability to manage
large ventures, and the basic idea that the government exists to keep
the order so that men and women may face each other as free citizens in
the public square and make voluntary transactions and decisions between
each other, with as minimum government intrusion and "oversight" as
possible"

Excellent. In fact, I'm witnessing conversions in the Locovore Movement because of the crap the USDA is pulling raiding farm-to-fork operations. I ask people...if they can do this to your locovore, organic farm where else are they wrong?

Paragraphs like that are why it's worth reading a whole ace post.

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at March 02, 2012 04:53 PM (X9deS)

34 Yeah. I'm with you on the "Least amount of buy-in" point. I'm a socially-conservative Republican, but what I'm pushing for is a small-government candidate. I want Joe Twelvepack to vote to limit the goodies that the government offers. I can't expect him to buy into having the government expand in social controls.

I just got a call from Pat Boone telling me to caucus for Santorum. I love yah, Pat, but it don't look that way.

Posted by: Beryl at March 02, 2012 04:53 PM (LyV/8)

35 You remind me of some of my past girlfriends. Good fucking grief. Did the same person who wrote that brilliant takedown of Frum actually write this?

Posted by: Deuce at March 02, 2012 04:53 PM (E55AK)

36 >>>Ace--Agree with your point, but for those of us that don't generally wade into the comments, it's not clear exactly who is asking you to bow to dogma. If you are referring to specific comments, other blog posts, etc, just paste them into your creed so we can follow along.


well if you read the last post, you know it's a defense of Rush Limbaugh.

But many claim I'm "shitting in Limbaugh's mouth" because my defense consists of "look, not every joke is a gem, get over it" rather than just saying "Rush is absolutely, 100% right and furthermore this woman is a whore."

Then come the suggestions that I'm doing this to curry favor with the MSM which is not exactly ringing me up.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 04:53 PM (nj1bB)

37 Ace, I find that during these debates with commenters, you tend to manufacture straw men at an alarming rate. I also think you take these things to personally and become a little, shall we say, melodramatic and obsessive.

This blog is filled with a**holes, most of whom like or even love you but who disagree with you from time to time. I think you should relax a bit.

We get that you're not that much of a Limbaugh fan, to put it mildly. A lot of us are. And that's okay.

Just my $0.02.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at March 02, 2012 04:54 PM (21lBC)

38 Preach it, Ace! Hallelujah!

We're conservatives because we believe in American principles, and one of the biggest is freedom to disagree.

Does their uniformity of thought (or simply lack of thought) give liberals an advantage? Maybe sometimes. But it's a disadvantage in the long run, and it's morally wrong to boot.

Posted by: Trimegistus at March 02, 2012 04:54 PM (8+t26)

39 Posted by: Sandra Fluke at March 02, 2012 04:53 PM (4pSIn)
--------------------------------------------------------
I would give you the best 6 seconds of my life..... you ARE on the pill aren't you?

Posted by: Truck Monkey at March 02, 2012 04:54 PM (jucos)

40 Wait just a damn minute here. I demand to be called a RINO for my support of Mitt Romney. I will accept no less from true conservatives!

Posted by: robtr at March 02, 2012 04:54 PM (MtwBb)

41 Rush Limbaugh is not the leader of the republican party. Ann Coulter is.

Posted by: huerfano at March 02, 2012 04:54 PM (fIuC0)

42 now with 30% more words

Posted by: garrett at March 02, 2012 04:54 PM (FLLLv)

43 I didn't read the whole thing but I think this is one of the rare times that I agree with you in matters like this. But I'm not a big fan of Rush's either...

Posted by: Captain Hate at March 02, 2012 04:55 PM (LmCDn)

44 Ace,
This is real rich coming from you.You call Ron Paul supporters everything name under heaven and support others in doing the same. I guess only conservatives who "convert" to you're group think are ok.

Posted by: flyonthewall at March 02, 2012 04:55 PM (aZ7lL)

45 @28, I don't know if Palin suggested that, or if people thought that because of her accent. At worst, she probably thinks that those types of people are underserved by the media. But every liberal believes that they're so cosmo and urban and we're all a bunch of hicks. But, maybe we have some hicks in the party, some of us conservatives on the far right end of the bell curve who live in cities and who may or may not be christian also have a say.

Was ace really getting reamed bad in the previous post on limbaugh?

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at March 02, 2012 04:55 PM (QxSug)

46 I thought the Rush post was excellent.

But I do kinda think that it's a characteristic of groups to demand conformity.

Which is why I'm not much of a joiner.

Posted by: movigique at March 02, 2012 04:55 PM (Cepxj)

47 Doesn't this all originate from Drew's post essentially saying that Rush should just shut up?

That calling this woman, who expects to have birth control provided on my dime, a slut is just not productive? That until Rush, no one knew of Fluke?

And now people disagreeing with this are responsible for some sort of push to groupthink?

Strange... :/

Posted by: 12thMonkey at March 02, 2012 04:55 PM (fZzaW)

48
OK, the SHTF, stupid Santorum now calling Rush's statement absurd. Even if he thinks this, that is the wrong political play.

How can a candidate not know that the proper response is to avoid Rush and Fluke totally in the answer such as: "I think we see here is exactly the problem with socialist healthcare like obamacare, once the state starts telling you what you must buy or an insurance company must provide, you have lost your freedom."

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at March 02, 2012 04:56 PM (r+9M6)

49 I'm also a liberal convert.

It's small things, and small changes. It's like dominoes. I left the Democratic party because I didn't agree with Abortion, and I was chastised by other lefties for not falling into line. It drove me fucking crazy and I left because of it. When I showed up to the party that was Ace of Spades I still largely had liberal views, but as I read more and more about different theories, theories I wasn't exposed too before in the dark that is "the left." I eventually came around to almost all of it, and a full conversion had taken place.

"Breath of fresh air, Liberating"
Is exactly what it felt like.

Keep up the good work Ace, great post.

Posted by: Cashin at March 02, 2012 04:56 PM (ewvmR)

50 you're=your

Posted by: flyonthewall at March 02, 2012 04:56 PM (aZ7lL)

51 Unless I {ace} am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and not by Popes
and councils who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is
captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right
nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant.

Here I stand. I can do no
other. God help me.

Posted by: Martin "Ace" Luther at March 02, 2012 04:56 PM (h6mPj)

52 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at March 02, 2012 04:56 PM (vd4t0)

53
I'm witnessing conversions in the Locovore Movement

Does that lead to Mad Cow disease?

Posted by: fluffy at March 02, 2012 04:56 PM (4pSIn)

54 Ace, why even get into a discussion with people who make this argument?

Just ignore it.

Posted by: dan-O at March 02, 2012 04:10 PM (sWycd)


The problem is that the people who argue this are very vocal and end up dragging it into nearly every thread.

And let's not sugar coat it - it truly is an attempt to enforce conformity of thought. Which normally has been one of the most unattractive parts of the Left.

Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 04:56 PM (pAlYe)

55 Ace I love you but that was way toI many words for me

Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 02, 2012 04:57 PM (F47Sx)

56 tldr;

I agree with your sentiments at the beginning, but...

...Sometimes you have to sacrafice your sacred honor for something greater.

The calculus of that decision is the crux of the issue and should not be affirmed lightly.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at March 02, 2012 04:57 PM (X/+QT)

57 Ace, I understand your point about conversion. But, you do have to realize that for a lot of people here, we are converted conservatives BECAUSE of Rush. I can truthfully say that if I hadn't discovered Rush during my college years, I'd be one of those mushy independents and probably would have voted for Obama in '08 just because all of the cool kids were doing it. Rush solidified my conservative beliefs and revealed to me WHY I held conservative views in the first place.

I agree on an intellectual level that fair criticism of Rush, like fair criticism of anyone, is of course legitimate. But emotionally, I do cringe a bit.

Posted by: chemjeff at March 02, 2012 04:57 PM (qVUxp)

58 Dude, it's your blog, you can say whatever the hell you want. But I think you're being just a weeeee bit thin-skinned here. It's possible to be totally 100% in agreement with Rush Limbaugh **on this issue** without being in the tank for him at all times or demanding ever-loving loyalty to him. It's also possible to tell you that you are being an idiot without telling you "you must everywhere and always agree with everything Rush Limbaugh ever says or you are just helping the liberals win." I don;t believe that and I don;t think more than a couple of people here do. Honestly, I didn't see very much if any of that in the comments on the previous threads. I think you are reading a lot into some of the comments that just isn't there, maybe because you don't want to admit that most of your commenters really disagree with you on this one **on the suibstance, not on the politics** and you aren't convincing us otherwise.

You thinkRush blew it. I don't. But it's a matter of opinion. How's about we just leave it at that??

Posted by: rockmom at March 02, 2012 04:57 PM (NYnoe)

59 Would it help to consider the point I had to make with my liberal-college-kool-aid-chugging daughter about this?

The premise of that woman's remarks was absurd. Rush's response was absurd. (I heard it and you could hear the twinkle in his eye because the whole hilarious screed was fucking writing itself.)

The point is the absurdist urge for tyranny on all political sides deserve nothing more dignified than our mockery. Period.

Posted by: Scott555 at March 02, 2012 04:58 PM (wur7j)

60 I only voted for one Democrat in my life, Jimmy Carter. Hey, I grew up in Georgia so I had an excuse. Unfortunately, there were no jobs with Jimmah so I ended up going into the Marines for shitzengiggles. I'm twisted that way. So I had a job when an Old Ronnie came around and beefed up the sorry state affairs Carter had left of the Corps, and we got a 20 dollar a month raise to go with the pride we suddenly had with a real CIC. That was my conversion. I never looked back.

Posted by: infidelphia at March 02, 2012 04:58 PM (YJdgp)

61 Geez, Ace. Relax. Two movie reviews in a row?

Posted by: © Sponge at March 02, 2012 04:58 PM (UK9cE)

62 >>>Ace, I find that during these debates with commenters, you tend to manufacture straw men at an alarming rate. I also think you take these things to personally and become a little, shall we say, melodramatic and obsessive.

so it appears to you. Check the comments in the last thread. Check how many times it was suggested I was liberal, a coward, sucking up the MSM.

chique, no one likes to be insulted. You do not either.

The way we deal with poeple in the Out Group- - the left, the people we hate -- must be different than the way we deal with people In the Group.

You discuss things differently with family and friends than you do with an Asshole Stranger, right?

This crap where people treat people inside the "family" just like some dickhead liberal like James Carville?

It's annoying. I can say so. I am saying so.

I do not believe that people who post in an internet's comment section are "tough" and "courageous" as they like to imply.

I think we're just having a disagreement and that's it.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 04:58 PM (nj1bB)

63 you're=your

RINO

Posted by: fluffy at March 02, 2012 04:58 PM (4pSIn)

64 Back to Rush...tell me what good his comment does us? It makes SoCons look silly and pushes moderates away. It also changes the discussion from forcing the Catholic Church to pay for birth control to "OMG RIGHT WINGERS WANT TO CONTROL MY BODY." His comments took 18 months of positive, small government conservative comments and made us look like hillbillies.
Rush f'd up and it WILL cost us votes.

Posted by: Grim at March 02, 2012 04:58 PM (gyNYk)

65 I spend virtually all my time among liberals, and I'm constantly struck by how much work it must be for them: who are they supposed to hate this week, what are the new correct opinions, which formerly correct opinions are now obsolete, etc. No wonder they need such a massive media machine -- they constantly have to keep telling each other what to think!

Posted by: Trimegistus at March 02, 2012 04:58 PM (8+t26)

66 As a post 9-11 conservative (yes, I originally voted for Al Gore before he went completely f--ing nuts) I couldn't have put it better myself. If and when we convert we want LESS, not more being told what to believe and think and there are some commentators/news figures I like and some I don't and I don't believe I have to agree with everything Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter say, I can pick and choose because I am conservative and those are individual choices. The need to be part of the "herd mentality" where we all agree on every possible issue is a leftist, liberal idea, we should agree on only what we chose to agree on, not what someone else thinks we should agree on!!!

Posted by: Merry at March 02, 2012 04:58 PM (d3YwF)

67 I don't like Limbaugh and never have. On the other hand I like Ann Coulter very much and always have. Mystery to me too.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at March 02, 2012 04:59 PM (jTVGC)

68 I'm sure Rush could give a crap about what people think of him.Last I checked, which was a long time ago he was pulling in 60M a year. With that in the bank I wouldn't give a shit what I said.

Posted by: Jimmah at March 02, 2012 04:59 PM (Gbec2)

69 There's plenty of conservatives out there who couldn't care less about Limbaugh. I only see this sort of strident "with us or against us, all for one" attitude on the internet, not so much with other conservative/independent acquaintances.

Posted by: brak at March 02, 2012 05:00 PM (nIoiW)

70 Let me just add that there's something really fucked up that we're discussing this instead of the stopping of Volt production and the laying off of workers; all brought to yo by the SCoaMF/T

Posted by: Captain Hate at March 02, 2012 05:00 PM (LmCDn)

71 I told my wife 2 things about this "contraception controversy" last night:
(1) Government affairs will be in women's bedrooms UNTIL
women begin removing their bedroom affairs from government.

(2) Any woman who spends $2000 per year on contraceptives
is spending way to much time f*cking.

She disagreed with neither statement.

Posted by: jwb7605 at March 02, 2012 05:00 PM (Qxe/p)

72 ace,

Part of the success of the Democrat party since Reagan has been their uncanny ability to bring people into the fold -- people who would not necessarily be natural liberals or even Democrats. And how did they do this? By easing the barriers to entry. Most of it was lies, and they have convinced a generation of Americans that voting voting for the Democrat party, in spite of the empirical data that showed it was antithetical to their interests, was a great idea.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at March 02, 2012 05:00 PM (nEUpB)

73 I only voted for one Democrat in my life, Jimmy Carter. Hey, I grew up in Georgia so I had an excuse.

Posted by: infidelphia at March 02, 2012 04:58 PM (YJdgp)
-----------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry.... You'll have to leave the blog.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at March 02, 2012 05:00 PM (jucos)

74 Breitbart will NEVER read a post that long.

Not even in Heaven.

Posted by: Free Bird !!!! at March 02, 2012 05:01 PM (oASlp)

75 Dear President Obama,

We're writing with deep admiration of your masterstroke of distracting the conservatives this week. Brilliant.

BTW, we might need another $111 billion dollars or so to keep the fires lit here until the tax hikes go into place. Makes our name a big joke if you think about it. But hey! Whatcha gonna do?

We're confident that not only will no one notice the money missing from the budget (way to go on hiding that one, as well), but also that you can always distract the excitable wingnuts with another 'issue.'

Have you considered orphans? It would be fun to watch conservatives attack an orphan asking for more food stamps or something. Oooh, even better make it a crack baby with AIDS! The righties will knock over their mothers to complain about that.

At any rate, $111 billion. That's all we need for now. Thanks1

Posted by: Affordable Care Act at March 02, 2012 05:01 PM (dxTxt)

76 >>>You thinkRush blew it. I don't. But it's a matter of opinion. How's about we just leave it at that??

rockmom I don't think you get my point.

As I said -- and I wasn't lying; check the threads -- if you tell me I'm wrong I'm more than happy to engage you, and not in some antagonistic chip-on-my-shoulder way.

People have an innate ability to separate inherently intellectual discussions from any comment on themselves as people. Well, most people do. I do.

So if you tell me I'm wrong I don't find that insulting. I'll argue with you (because I think I'm right and you're wrong) but in no way have you tripped any of my "Fuck You" circutis.

It's this reduction of so many arguments into the stupid dogpile of "courageous" true cons and cowardly msm-sucking RINOs.

these are insutls. Surely you recongnize that.

Is it so strange to not wish to be insulted?

Or to ask some people to understand that mere disagrement on an issue is NOT an insult, thereby inviting an insult in return?

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 05:01 PM (nj1bB)

77 Should I similarly defend every single thing Hugh Hewitt says, too?

You know who this helps?

Posted by: Randy M at March 02, 2012 05:01 PM (vI8R6)

78 I don't like this thing! And here's what I'm doing with it!

Posted by: Winston at March 02, 2012 05:01 PM (FggW0)

79 talk radio, on both sides, strikes me as a refuge for people who find thinking for themselves to be a difficult task. the few times i have had the displeasure of listening to any show, it has devolved into a grievous insult to my intelligence within minutes.

frankly, i have to question the intelligence of those who find such shows an irresistible attraction, mush as i do those who watch the effluvia that comes out of the television during prime time.

pretty much the only service i see Rush providing is that he does attempt to make sure the knife cuts both ways on things like the slut comment.

the problem is that he has managed, both because of the overwhelming power of the MFM and his own personal acts, to become marginalized in the eyes of the main body of the American public, so that even when he's scoring points, they aren't any where near as effective as they might otherwise be.

ao y'all can love Rush all you want, but he's not all that great at what he does, nor anywhere near as influential as you might hope.

now kindly shut the hell up and play some music: you're wasting bandwidth with all this yammering.

Posted by: redc1c4 at March 02, 2012 05:01 PM (8MasJ)

80
I'm a convert too, Ace. I was leee-ber--all in college and during my most of my music career. As that wound down I started nocticing all the conflicts involved in having common sense and liberalism.

I went to work for myself and over time I became more and more conservative. But I still remember my revelation. I was young, in college and very poor. I qualified for food stamps. Used them once, and was so embarrassed by that, I told my young wife, "I will eat grass before I use a food stamp again." I made it without that which I qualified for.

I like Rush when he's entertaining, which ismostof the time. I listen to him rarely. Most of what he talks about these days I've already read about on the net, so he's not newsworthy for much.

I agree about the idea that there are way too many litmus tests being held up for conservatives these days. Get off my back with that crap. I left the R party in 2007 when I realized they were not going to do anything about the fiscal crisis. I didn't want to be amember of a moderate party even if I vote for theircandidates.So I've got my con-cred right there, leave me alone, purists.

Posted by: Sheriff Joe at March 02, 2012 05:01 PM (Usk3+)

81 #1, Rush is an entertainer who gets paid to entertain and bring in the ratings. Always remember that.

Posted by: AndrewsDad at March 02, 2012 05:01 PM (C2//T)

82 >>>4 Breitbart will NEVER read a post that long.

>>>Not even in Heaven.

he gets the general thrust of it from the comments.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 05:01 PM (nj1bB)

83 "...but unless you've actually changed your stripes, you cannot tell me what
arguments work on persuading someone to move from liberal-ish to
moderate to conservative/moderate to finally conservative."

I'd prefer that people experience or endure the folly of liberal policy. Nothing is likely to convert a leftist faster than being confronted with the consequences of what they claim to support.

Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at March 02, 2012 05:01 PM (TsNVA)

84
Ace,
Sacred Honor compels me to reveal that although you bought me my first perscription of ortho novum we broke up over your bad jokes.

W.F.

Posted by: Will Folkes at March 02, 2012 05:02 PM (VxqUc)

85 ...shakes head.

Is it time for the big blowup/apology deal?

The fact is that this site would not withstand five minutes of media scrutiny.

I denounce myself.

Posted by: nip at March 02, 2012 05:02 PM (Ym0uQ)

86 WWABD?

Posted by: Havedash at March 02, 2012 05:02 PM (JfvbF)

87 In order to be a Steeler fan you have to agree that Neil O'Donnell was the greatest quarterback ever.

Posted by: Ben at March 02, 2012 05:02 PM (wuv1c)

88 Posted by: rockmom at March 02, 2012 04:57 PM (NYnoe)

Yeah, I'm not seeing it in any of the comments, either.

I mean, Ace is essentially saying that unless we all agree here that Rush screwed up the Fluke debate we're forcing him to conform to our groupthink. Disagreement is prohibited because if we disagree we're forcing some sort of ideological purge of those we disagree with.

Huh??

Posted by: 12thMonkey at March 02, 2012 05:02 PM (fZzaW)

89 Ace, I worked with a gal, that would let you say all that, and then say, "Wait, can you start over..." Wait, can you start over? Smaller and fewer words
But I am glade that you got that off your chest, now have a beer, call it a day, or the other way around if you wish
Cheers from TX

Posted by: Rob in Katy at March 02, 2012 05:02 PM (gdGJ1)

90 Crappy sock, #80 should be from Meremortal, ace.

Posted by: Sheriff Joe at March 02, 2012 05:02 PM (Usk3+)

91 37
Ace, I find that during these debates with commenters, you tend to
manufacture straw men at an alarming rate. I also think you take these
things to personally and become a little, shall we say, melodramatic and
obsessive.



This blog is filled with a**holes, most of whom like or even love
you but who disagree with you from time to time. I think you should
relax a bit.



We get that you're not that much of a Limbaugh fan, to put it mildly. A lot of us are. And that's okay.



Just my $0.02.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at March 02, 2012 04:54 PM (21lBC)

How do you know we're assholes? I mean, aside from reading our comments?
(Ace, you don't have to toe any line as far as I'm concerned. Part and parcel of the conservative viewpoint is the inalienable right to tell people to eff off and let you be grumpy, or not agree with The Big Guy, or whatever.)

Posted by: joncelli at March 02, 2012 05:03 PM (RD7QR)

92 Posted by: jwb7605 at March 02, 2012 05:00 PM (Qxe/p)

I have never met a woman who fucked too much.

I have met many women who fucked other people too much.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at March 02, 2012 05:03 PM (nEUpB)

93
Oh and Rush Limbaugh's show had turned into a three hour infomercial.

Hey, do you want to buy shitty tea and have it shipped to your house?

Posted by: Ben at March 02, 2012 05:03 PM (wuv1c)

94 All the weird stuff in all the weird Fluking threads the weirdest idea is the though ot the MBM scanning the site looking to absorb Ace in some Borg like manner. If Ace didn't post how could we ignore the topic in the comments?

Posted by: GeneTheHappy at March 02, 2012 05:03 PM (DoFTZ)

95 Please stop telling me, however, that there are reasons besides being wrong to stop staying something.
But really, you don't believe that Ace.
For instance, this Fluke woman is clearly either a slut or an aspiring slut. But we shouldn't say that, because it turns off moderates, gives liberals a weapon against us, makes conservatives caricactures, or isn't decent. Fine, maybe that's valid. But the statement isn't wrong.

Posted by: Randy M at March 02, 2012 05:03 PM (vI8R6)

96
You don't call women sluts.

You send them pictures of your dick and then lie to Kirsten Powers' face so she'll defend you on cable tv.

#duh

Posted by: Former Rep Weiner at March 02, 2012 05:03 PM (VxqUc)

97 MIC CHECK!

Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 02, 2012 05:04 PM (/kI1Q)

98 >>>I mean, Ace is essentially saying that unless we all agree here that Rush screwed up the Fluke debate we're forcing him to conform to our groupthink.

oh my god.

I won't bother writing long stuff. it's obviously not being read.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 05:04 PM (nj1bB)

99 Nobody has even mentioned the classic Alinsky approach Rush has used here. Pick the target, freeze it, polarize it. Also, use ridicule on people who take themselves too damn seriously. It drives them crazy. Few people deserve absolute, devastating ridicule more than a wench who thinks her need for birth control is the most important public policy issue in a country that is $15 trillion in debt.

What's the worst thing ever said about Rush Limbaugh? probably Al Franken's book title, "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot." Just the title of that book probably sold millions of copies and made Franken an instant star on the Left. You think he would be a Senator today if he had written a book titled "Rush Limbaugh Is a Distasteful, Mean Person"?

I'm having a hard time reconciling the opprobrium here, coming from the guy who coined the terms SCOAMF and Granny Rictus McBotoxImplants.

Posted by: rockmom at March 02, 2012 05:04 PM (NYnoe)

100 Or to ask some people to understand that mere disagrement on an issue is NOT an insult, thereby inviting an insult in return?


Stop punching down, Ace!

Posted by: Thomas at March 02, 2012 05:04 PM (3cP29)

101 I'd prefer that people experience or endure the folly of liberal policy

But it's not perceived as "folly" if you're in the liberal bubble:

(1) All the "smart people" agree with the liberal POV, so how can it be wrong?
(2) The intention is always good and the problem is always the evil Republicans standing in the way.

That is why liberal shitholes stay liberal despite being shitholes.

Posted by: chemjeff at March 02, 2012 05:04 PM (qVUxp)

102 P.S. I'm not a liberal convert. I started out as a bright red conservative. However, at this point, we can worry about the social issues when the USA isn't teetering on f'n bankruptcy. Let's get our finances in order and then we can worry about the rest of it. Hell, if we'll reduce the government overreach, a lot of the social issues will fix themselves. What to reduce single parent homes? STOP PAYING FOR THEM. Want to fix the unemployment rate? STOP PAYING PEOPLE NOT TO WORK. Want more jobs? Stop regulating them out of existance. Want to win the war on drugs? People that are working their asses off don't have time to smoke weed every night. How many meth heads are paying for chemicals with welfare checks?

Posted by: Grim at March 02, 2012 05:05 PM (gyNYk)

103 As a woman, I found rush's statements funny... But then I didn't care that Rick perry called me heartless because I really do want to send every last illegal alien back to their homeland....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 02, 2012 05:05 PM (F47Sx)

104
Sluts don't want to be compensated for sex.

We whores do.

#couldntresist

Posted by: Sandra Fluke at March 02, 2012 05:05 PM (VxqUc)

105 Ace, the problem is that you equate Conservatism, with Classic Liberal, or modern (small L) Libertarianism.... and its not...

Conservatism is not about the most Freedom for the most people... for many its about a Certain prefered Lifestyle. The 'say' they are for smaller Government... right up until its one of their pet 'issues' which the Government will control...

Heck, Conservatism used to mean a fairly Non Interventionist Foreign Policy... now it seems to be about being the Worlds Cop...

Conservaitsm used to be about LESS Government... yet it was "Conservatives" who built the DHS...

Conservatism used to be about getting the Feds out of Schools, right up until no child left behind...

I could go on and on... but the Opportunity for a (small l) Libertarian / Modern Conservative Coalition is fracturing right before our eyes... as the Conservatives call for some 'purity' standards based on THEIR beliefs... and then call anyone who disagrees with them names, or TRAITORS (as I was on here just a couple of months ago).

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 02, 2012 05:05 PM (lZBBB)

106 I just want to say that I hate two of you for posting the Ace Movie review joke before I did

So fuck you

Posted by: kbdabear at March 02, 2012 05:05 PM (Y+DPZ)

107 Personally, I couldn't care less who gets converted to conservatism. My only goal is to pass on the message that unless we get our federal spending under control, there won't be a country left to live in. That's all that matters. Nothing else.

To that extent, the longer we let the MFM continue this narrative about "wimmen's issues" the less time we have to get our message out about the economy.

Posted by: Not an Artist at March 02, 2012 05:05 PM (Lo/3Q)

108 I like Ace AND Rush. But then again, I'm a slut.

Posted by: Jaws at March 02, 2012 05:05 PM (4I3Uo)

109
Posted by: willow at March 02, 2012 04:51 PM (TomZ9)
.
Willow!
.
You still here? I found Bernanke's financial cliff you were asking about yesterday....

Posted by: Sheriff Joe at March 02, 2012 05:05 PM (Usk3+)

110 >>>For instance, this Fluke woman is clearly either a slut or an aspiring slut.

This is a side point because it's not what I'm talking about.

But-- she is? This is a fact? You know how many men she's slept with?

I have a feeling it's one or zero, myself.

But you have the facts here? How did you get them?

Do you believe that anyone who has more than one sex partner in his or her life is a slut? And do you believe as a further step that this is now Foundationl Conservative Doctrine?

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 05:05 PM (nj1bB)

111 You're ruining your own weekend here, ace. We lost Breitbart yesterday, we've got Slutgate today, and the vile Democrat/Leftist/Media complex is still an existential threat to the nation. Tensions may be running a little higher than usual, and I think you know that no one wins when you get into these trench wars with your own readers.

I completely agree with your buy-in point. It's worth remembering and well-stated. But coming from a position of defensiveness and persecution, it's going to get lost in the friction.

It's Friday. No one expects high-impact posting today anyway. Pack it in, throw up some kitteh videos and retro advertisements, and go have some drinks with friends. JMHO.

Posted by: VJay at March 02, 2012 05:06 PM (q5NFp)

112 I do not understand what experiential evidence or analogy one would use to prove that case. I do not believe any such evidence exists. It flies in the face of everything we know about sales.

Paul Reed Smith Guitars.

Posted by: garrett at March 02, 2012 05:06 PM (FLLLv)

113 Why wont' that sock go away? GRRR

Posted by: Meremortal at March 02, 2012 05:06 PM (Usk3+)

114 as a fellow conservative greatly outnumbered in a liberal State let me say thank you. Well said. We don't need to agree on everything in order to work together. As long as we strive to increase individual freedom and liberty we are on the right path.

Posted by: NJRob at March 02, 2012 05:06 PM (SjjJf)

115 "1. That Rush Limbaugh is the First and Foremost thought-leader among conservatives,"

Yeah, I don't get that either. He's a compelling way of articulating conservatism, but in the end, he's an entertainer. As far as I'm concerned, talk radio is a media for conversion but once you've established that you're a conservative, then it's no more than an echo chamber.

"2. That the state has a compelling and legitimate interest in monitoring women's use of non-abortifacient birth control,"

Where is this coming from as a conservative value? I haven't heard anyone on our side claim this. In fact, I'd say the opposite is true. It's none of ourbbusiness in a moral or monetary sense.

"3. That you must be rural and Christian to be a truly good citizen of the nation..."

I think you missed the point here. This is a defense of the rural and Christian as good citizens. I'm sure you're aware of the coastal metropolitan opinion of those in flyover country. Hell, as a NE conservative, I hear it myself.

Posted by: John Fuckin' McCain! at March 02, 2012 05:07 PM (zxrQh)

116 Freeedom!

Freedom to agree.....or disagree. ....Freedom to rant about it. ....Freedom to be a saint or a sinner. ....Freedom to be cool. ....Or freedom to be an asshole.

That's what 'being conservative' is all about. ....Freedom, baby.

Liberal control freaks want to control every little thing in our lives. ....Conservatives don't.

Posted by: wheatie....channeling Braveheart.. at March 02, 2012 05:07 PM (UOOK1)

117 ace many people tried to explain to you why they think you were wrong in that it was their opinion that Limbagh was not attempting to make a joke but rather pointing out the absurdity of her statements which taken at face value would make her seem a slut. You kept insisting that it was a lame attempt at humor.

There was an impasse and things escalated and tridents were thrown. Not complicated or unusual in political discussions.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at March 02, 2012 05:07 PM (jTVGC)

118 Dang! Go out into the factory to build my guys a machining fixture and Ace writes two 10,000 word essays. Somebody musta pissed him off.

Posted by: maddogg at March 02, 2012 05:07 PM (OlN4e)

119 Sock fail

Posted by: Wyatt's Torch at March 02, 2012 05:07 PM (zxrQh)

120 Jeez, you are long winded today. (Rhetorical trick to throw you off you stride.)

You not only lose your argument when you argue a point for the wrong reasons, you lose your audience and you credibility. When it can be demonstrated that your premises are wrong, all you have left are your feelings and your intuitive judgement. If we don't trust your judgment, we can't buy your conclusions.

Now a lot of people here may have a sense that you have good judgement, but we can't transfer your good judgement into sound arguments that we would like to make to those around us. So your telling us how you feel serves no purpose in making the argument to largers groups of people.

The case of Herman Caine is a good example. I don't recall any sound argument that you made against him, but it was obvious you did not like him. Your lack of substantiation left me with the impression that you did not have a rational basis for your conclusions. I couldn't agree with your conclusion based on no expressed reason. You conclusion about him had added no value to my (rational) decision making and to my own rhetoric.

Posted by: Jay Bee at March 02, 2012 05:07 PM (Xwgt3)

121 I've probably missed the comments Ace is responding to, presumably reading him out of the movement. I'll just say, though, in response to:
1. That Rush Limbaugh is the First and Foremost thought-leader among conservatives,
2. That the state has a compelling and legitimate interest in monitoring women's use of non-abortifacient birth control,
3. That you must be rural and Christian to be a truly good citizen of the nation...

To fit in among conservatives, one doesn't have to believe all the above, but you should at least not take the liberal positions, ie, 'Rush is a greedyrable rouser', 'birth control must be subsidized and/or promoted by the government' and 'country people are hicks and Christians are oppressive and dumb'.
I'm not saying you do take those positions, but I'd say we don't lose much adding them to the requirements. Otherwise our recruits simply add bi-partisan cover to leftist attacks.

Posted by: Randy M at March 02, 2012 05:08 PM (vI8R6)

122 Hold on -

what about Slut Walk?

Didn't those Slut Walk events, with women dressed sluttily, walking sluttily, and such, sluttily, remove all the taint associated with the word "slut"?

_

Posted by: BumperStickerist at March 02, 2012 05:08 PM (h6mPj)

123
93
Oh and Rush Limbaugh's show had turned into a three hour infomercial.

Hey, do you want to buy shitty tea and have it shipped to your house?
-----
Oh how much? $2 a bottle, plus $20 shipping? I'm pretty sure the shipping charge would buy me enough dry tea to make a 55 gallon drum.

Posted by: Jimmah at March 02, 2012 05:08 PM (Gbec2)

124 and, quite honestly, I think it would be rather fitting if we would Joe-the-Plumberize the Sandra "Slut" Fluke woman. Let's find out how many unpaid parking tickets she has, or what grade she received in Wymyn's Herstory Studies last semester...

Posted by: chemjeff at March 02, 2012 05:08 PM (qVUxp)

125 @Ace, some time ago you said you were 'done with the GOP!'. I agreed at the time, and still do. I don't recall anyone calling you a coward at that time.

Most poeple are fed up, I think, with the conservative/repub practice of eating our own. Why can't we learn to say, "I disgree on this point but it doesn't change the overall picture."? We need to get better at debating with lefties by saying, "I agree that X was over the line. End of that discussion. Now, about this economy and the government activites which are supressing it...."

My best friend chews with his mouth open, I don't push him off a bridge because of it. A lesson for all of us.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at March 02, 2012 05:08 PM (X/+QT)

126 Do you believe that anyone who has more than one sex partner in his or her life is a slut? And do you believe as a further step that this is now Foundationl Conservative Doctrine?

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 05:05 PM (nj1bB)
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes

Posted by: Ricky Sanitorium at March 02, 2012 05:08 PM (jucos)

127 82 >>>4 Breitbart will NEVER read a post that long.

>>>Not even in Heaven.

he gets the general thrust of it from the comments.
------------------------------

Tell ya the truth, some of the comments are getting a bit long-winded.

Posted by: Andrew's Spirit at March 02, 2012 05:08 PM (oASlp)

128 I like most of your views, Ace. I also like most of Rush's views. You two really aren't that different from each other. It's just one has a different way of expressing it than the other. I think that's where much of the disagreement originates.

Posted by: Soona at March 02, 2012 05:08 PM (eaQ7w)

129 Not to say your point is right or wrong, but ...

When Breitbart got heat from his own, did he spend a lot of time complaining about it?

It's part of the job, and harder to take than heat from the Left

Posted by: kbdabear at March 02, 2012 05:09 PM (Y+DPZ)

130
My biggest problem with Rush is that he makes everything about himself and then we'll all supposed to defend it.
Everytime he says something stupid, and this was stupid as it didn't benefit our cause in anyway, the media runs up to every single elected Republican and forces them to denounce it.

In this instance, Rush is playing into Obama's game. This started months ago when Stehpanopolous asked that question about contraception.
Obama wants us talking about women's sex lives. That's an argument Democrats will win night and day. Despite some people's beliefs, the average citizen doesn't want to be lectured on their sex life. And like it or not, that is how the issue is being framed.
Instead of us simply saying, "We're not going to pay for you to have sex", we are turning it into a moral and ethical issues and come across as preachy old church ladies.
The economy's growth is slow at best, people are still getting laid off, gas is ever increasing, but thanks to Rush's comments, the media has the excuse they needed to spend the next week or two talking about "The Rush Limbaugh Firestrom" or whatever stupid name they give it.
We need to stop playing into their hands and I'm getting a bit tired of Rush doing it for his own personal benefit when it ends up hurting the cause he claims to love so dearly.
My $0.02

Posted by: Ben at March 02, 2012 05:09 PM (wuv1c)

131 68 I'm sure Rush could give a crap about what people think of him.Last I checked, which was a long time ago he was pulling in 60M a year. With that in the bank I wouldn't give a shit what I said.

Posted by: Jimmah at March 02, 2012 04:59 PM (Gbec2)


Very true. But that cuts both ways since it also means that he's fairly insulated from the consequences of whatever he advocates. So unlike Republican politicians and GOP strategists he's free to be as extreme and bold as he wants to be since he'll still have a very lucrative gig in a Obama second term no matter what.

Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 05:09 PM (pAlYe)

132 The tea is actually good. Even one of my lib friends that does not like Rush (gosh, I sound like she who must not be summoned) had to admit it was pretty good.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at March 02, 2012 05:09 PM (21lBC)

133 Well, I agree with you. But I do think the group think does work.

I think some people engage in it for the same reason the Left does. To prevent conversion to the enemy.

I was raised liberal, too. Right-wingers were stupid and evil. Mainly stupid.

I hate the group think, too, but the evidence is that it's very effective.

It's especially effective to make saying certain things verboten in the public square. Islam is very good at this.

btw, it seems that most of the commenters were supporting you. A few, Ace is a RINO comments appear in every thread don't they.

And I like Rush. And I like the attack, attack, attack style. I like the humor in his voice.

I think he's gotten a bit old and slowed down and has lost some of his cleverness and verbal agility.

I don't listen to him daily or that often, but I tune in for a few minutes when I'm driving and he's on.

And compared to most talk radio guys, Rush is probably the best. He's smarter and funnier than Hannity. His voice has suffered due to his deafness, but it's still much more pleasing than Levin. Savage is just a nutter and, imo, a bit of a fraud. Ingraham is preachy.

Rush is probably closer to you philosophically than any other nationally syndicated talk radio guy. He doesn't preach much and most everything is done with a sly wink.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at March 02, 2012 05:10 PM (ZPrif)

134 Ace. You rule.

Posted by: brando at March 02, 2012 05:10 PM (8c6bC)

135 Rush is using the left's weapons against them. They use similar words all the time. Chrissy Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Markos Maufjdnoinifestos.....ALL OF THEM use this language with ZERO ramifications.

Rush is allowing the world to see the hypocrisy of the left, if they're bright enough to see it. The left gets away with it, if there is such a thing, because the Right finds the freedom of speech right in this country invaluable and understands that the left has the right to say what it wants. The left, however, only agrees with ITSELF and any contradiction isn't ALLOWED.

It's fucking genius, but not going to work because we don't have the media for it.

She'll be a poster child for how the Right wants to force all women to have 50 babies and we'll lose, yet again.

It REALLY sucks to be a conservative.

Posted by: © Sponge at March 02, 2012 05:10 PM (UK9cE)

136
Formatting is killing me!

Posted by: Ben at March 02, 2012 05:10 PM (wuv1c)

137 I credit my conservative outlook and origin all the way back to elementary school, 5th or 6th grade, I think. A great teacher was showing us how to read a newspaper. From how to fold it, to most importantly how to read it. I remember she made us do an exercise by picking out a paragraph and dissecting it line by line and showing us how the author put his own spin on it simply by using certain words and not others and knowing how to pick out the facts from the opinion part. I remember being blown away because it had never occurred to me that something in the news could be less than the 100% truth and it really affected me from then on. After that I just continued to develop more and more a right leaning viewpoint and remember confronting more than one teacher about anti-Reagan and pro-Sandinista statements (I was in high school during the 80's). Basically I've always been a conservative even before I knew what the term meant. heh.

Posted by: SamIam at March 02, 2012 05:10 PM (BBm11)

138
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at March 02, 2012 05:03 PM (nEUpB)
.
The alpha male knows that all women are his women. He allows other men to fuck some of his women as he can't make time to get to all them. He is heroic and generous in this way.
.
(shines fingernails on shirt)

Posted by: Meremortal at March 02, 2012 05:10 PM (Usk3+)

139
Seriously, Ace I get it. Crap week for you.

All day I missed Andrew Breitbart on Twitter. Or anywhere.
Did my best to fcuk with little slutty Sandy because I know it annoyed Eric BEELERT and the Senior Fellows.

Posted by: Nora at March 02, 2012 05:11 PM (VxqUc)

140 >>Didn't those Slut Walk events, with women dressed sluttily, walking
sluttily, and such, sluttily, remove all the taint associated with the
word "slut"?

The S word may be the new N word.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 02, 2012 05:11 PM (/kI1Q)

141 I have never met a woman who fucked too much.<<<<<

You never met your mother?

Posted by: I had to say it at March 02, 2012 05:11 PM (r+9M6)

142 I would say my early politics were what is now known as a Scoop Jackson Democrat, or perhaps Harry Truman (who when I was growing up was my favorite historical President). My main political motivation was being 100 percent against communism and thus pretty much against socialism, too. But I very much sympathized with the working class against the wealthy.

Like Ace, I converted largely from being around liberals and finding I liked conservatives better. Because political liberals tend to be actually more snobby and narrow than political conservatives--the opposite of what I believed to be true about economic class. By 1996 I'd changed teams.

Nevertheless, I remember being on a train in Europe where some Rush Limbaugh fan was holding forth all night while I was trying to sleep. And I despised him. I despised all the ditthead and "Rush is right" sloganeering. At that time I don't think I knew about Rush himself, just this annoying blowhard who quoted him like he had the arrogance of God. Does anyone remember when Rush had a TV show? I think I saw that, too, and it confirmed my opinion.

That said, I've softened on Rush over time because he is on the team, and I realize his scalp is one that would greatly embolden the enemy. He's good at what he does, and I think he's sincerely conservative. (Many people on both teams I think could just as easily play for the other if it were in their self-interest to do so.)

Ultimately, however, I agree with what Ace says here. Some people on their right with a desire for party and ideological purity do make me question whether these are the people I want to stand and make common ground with. For example, I almost never read Free Republic anymore because it has become the caricature liberals once accused it of being.

Once in a while you come across a lefty who you can respect. Aside from some differences, there is a place for common ground. It should not be a surprise, therefore, that we have our share of assholes that give conservatism a bad name. They either are totalitarian bullies at heart, or they are so insecure that if their beliefs are questioned in the least their whole world comes crashing down on them.

Limbaugh is not one of them, of course. But those who think it's impossible for Rush to make a mistake or be deserving of less than full-throated defense are.

Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at March 02, 2012 05:11 PM (gul5u)

143
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at March 02, 2012 05:09 PM (21lBC)




Ahah! chique d'curious!I knew it!

Posted by: maddogg at March 02, 2012 05:11 PM (OlN4e)

144 When you accept a collective noun as a label, then I guess you're in for some "groupthink". Especially when that collective noun means "voluntary association of like-minded people after similar goals".

Posted by: Chris Balsz at March 02, 2012 05:11 PM (3GtyG)

145 So fuck you
Posted by: kbdabear at March 02, 2012 05:05 PM


You are slipping, My Man.

Posted by: Lt Col Frank Slade at March 02, 2012 05:11 PM (4pSIn)

146 My biggest problem with rush is he says what I think but don't express... And he gets Paid for voicing my God damned opinions.... It's like he's monitoring my mind!!!!!!!

Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 02, 2012 05:12 PM (F47Sx)

147

Rush isn't funny.


QED

Posted by: Morons United against Dittoes (completely) at March 02, 2012 05:12 PM (Zw/H7)

148 @16 Sorry had a phone call. No. Not at all. I was trying to point out that all of us are feeling the pressure because we are tired. Tired of having stuff crammed down our throats by one side or the other.
Many consevatives biggest problem with Romney, for ionstance, is that he was pre- picked and now we are expected to sit down and shut up.
Ace, your reaction to being to this is a typical American one. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Pecos at March 02, 2012 05:12 PM (2Gb0y)

149 And while we've got you all riled up, ace, is Pixy working on the new blog?

Posted by: joncelli at March 02, 2012 05:12 PM (RD7QR)

150 Don't be left out in the cold.

For just $14.99 , I'll teach you how to correctly say the word "Shibboleth"

Once you learn to say "Shibboleth" properly, you'll find yourself part of the warm embrace of a caring community - but not unless and until you get the pronunciation down pat.

Remember, people who say "Shibboleth" improperly are Godless and consigned to Hellfire. And who wants that?

$14.99 - Operators are standing by.
.




Posted by: The True Conservative at March 02, 2012 05:12 PM (h6mPj)

151 @Pres.Obam, dude, w're getting killd here. Need more distractions like Fluke. Hurry. W've got pple to kill!

Posted by: Independent Advisory Panel at March 02, 2012 05:12 PM (dxTxt)

152 Paul Reed Smith Guitars.Posted by: garrett at March 02, 2012 05:06 PM (FLLLv) .Bugs Henderson loves them. That's good enough for me.

Posted by: Meremortal at March 02, 2012 05:13 PM (Usk3+)

153 This is really friedersdorkish, ace. Ideology does not only come with political positions, butwith a set of priorities as well. If you are a "conservative" who spends his entiretime and even makes his livingcriticizing conservative institutions, there will be questions asked if you are really a conservative (Sullivan, Frum, Friederdorf).Can there be such a trueconservative who does this? Yeah,sure in theory. But politics isnt theory, its not part of the vita contemplativa. Its part of the active life and of real time, materialdecisions and its completely natural that if you decide to commit limited resources like attention or blog posts to criticize institutions or persons your fellow conservatives deem important, thatthere will be a negative reaction.
Im not a Rush fan myself, but I have seen societies where they dont have Rush Limbaughsor Fox News' or NR's. Where the most conservative News-outlet would be the NYTand Im simply greatful thatwe are not completely unarmed when it comes toconservative media,even if I dont always like the quality or the content their putting out.

Posted by: Elize Nayden at March 02, 2012 05:13 PM (1ZoqB)

154 140 The S word may be the new N word.

That would be a refreshing change of pace, methinks.

Posted by: jwb7605 at March 02, 2012 05:13 PM (Qxe/p)

155
We'll win elections talking about reducing government influence in peoples lives, making government function better, decreasing taxes, increasing energy production and increasing economic growth.

We will lose ever election that is about sex, reproduction, condoms, and the like.

Let's play from a position of strength. Are their good arguments to be made concerning the latter category? Sure, but let's win the elections first.
We keep shooting ourselves in the foot.

We're like a football coach who has the best QB and WR, but an awful running back. And we're continue to run the f'ing ball and act surprised when we don't win.
Let's play to our strengths this election, Not our weaknesses.

Posted by: Ben at March 02, 2012 05:13 PM (wuv1c)

156 Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 05:04 PM (nj1bB)

Lol.
Look, I'm sorry you took offense to some of the posters in other threads apparently demanding to see your conservative card.
I live in the outskirts of Madison, and I have regular debates among friends who are aides for Democrats in the Senate and House. And what I receive during friendly lunches far outstrips anything you got in any of the threads I read.
It's politics.
Even in our own party.
Do you remember a time when politics wasn't rough?
Getting riled because you feel someone is demanding "group solidarity" of you in a political discussion is flat out silly.
Toughen up.

Posted by: 12thMonkey at March 02, 2012 05:13 PM (fZzaW)

157 You still here? I found Bernanke's financial cliff you were asking about yesterday....


Posted by: Sheriff Joe at March 02, 2012 05:05 PM (Usk3+)

yes, where can i locate it ?

Posted by: willow at March 02, 2012 05:14 PM (TomZ9)

158 Oh hell. Are we really going to argue whether we can disagree with one another? HERE?

Rush, Hannity, Goldberg, Krauthammer, Steyn, Coulter (etc.), the presidential contenders, the Ewok-in-Chief, and most of all, ALL of you (and me) are fair game. Period. Be adults, not mewling baby sheep like the chattel on the left.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 02, 2012 05:14 PM (7utQ2)

159 And let's not forget that now the left has, in their own special groupthink adopted Flook as a saint, replacing "Mother Sheehan" among other fuckers with absolute moral authority.

What stuff!

But anyway, I hope one of the benefits of being a conservative is accepting divergences from the prescribed norms of thought. There are a few things we can all agree on, things that we can say, um, that's not conservative, and I guess Rush fandom is not one of those things.

yet.

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at March 02, 2012 05:14 PM (QxSug)

160 Damn, this is long.


Could you give us a "Cover It Up" option for these treatises, Ace?

Posted by: logprof at March 02, 2012 05:15 PM (ykSKg)

161 There is nothing "wrong" with your rules on political discourse, but I disagree with your sinse of humor.
Limbaugh's screeds on Ms. Fluke have beenhilarious.

Posted by: Deafdog at March 02, 2012 05:15 PM (fOPv7)

162 She's not a slut, but this certainly isn't her first trip around the block. She's part F of the Democrat plan to make this all an issue. Like it or not Limbaugh and Santorum are just playing into their hands and giving the MFM more and more time slots to fill with this stupid ass "issue".

Posted by: rockhead at March 02, 2012 05:15 PM (ZMHGo)

163
*continuing.

sigh. time to call it a day

Posted by: Ben at March 02, 2012 05:15 PM (wuv1c)

164 122 Hold on -what about Slut Walk?Didn't those Slut Walk events, with women dressed sluttily, walking sluttily, and such, sluttily, remove all the taint associated with the word "slut"?

Exactly. ....I had the same thought on the other thread. .....The Left, itself, has been doing all this 'slut pride' stuff, so how is it insulting now to call someone a slut?

Posted by: wheatie at March 02, 2012 05:15 PM (UOOK1)

165 I am not sure I had a conversion but I know the 2000 Election and 9-11 made me aware of things within myself. Some of my views on social issues would be considered liberal, by many. However, on fiscal issues and the absolute disaster of the SCFOAMF I am deep red. I don't care about sluts, the pill or, opinions from millionaires. I wantto see the marxist lose in November.

Posted by: Sgt. Fury at March 02, 2012 05:16 PM (GMcwY)

166 Bugs Henderson loves them. That's good enough for me.

They build some nice guitars.

Posted by: garrett at March 02, 2012 05:16 PM (FLLLv)

167 Oh and I definitely get what you're saying, Ace. Your talking about when you became a conservative made me reminisce. I have to agree with you about the groupthink. We have to push back on that within our ranks as we have for those of our opposition. As a conservative I have almost instinctively objected to and been uncomfortable with following the crowd and it led to me being the self-imposed outsider many a time.

Posted by: SamIam at March 02, 2012 05:16 PM (BBm11)

168 Too many strawmen here for me.

We should not be wasting time defending, we should be counterattacking. There is no reason for anyone to bother trying to explain/rationalize/defend what Rush said, we should be counterattacking on the grounds of forcing one person to subsidize another's voluntary activity. And following that we should be attacking them on the grounds of this being a means to distract people away from the real issue, the crap economy and Obama's dismal failure.

Didn't we learn anything from Breitbart? Never defend; attack, attack, attack.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at March 02, 2012 05:16 PM (JxMoP)

169 "Getting riled because you feel someone is demanding "group solidarity" of you in a political discussion is flat out silly."

No it's not. The appeal to group solidarity is as offensive as it is stupid.

Posted by: Jason at March 02, 2012 05:17 PM (6VB4r)

170 98
oh my god.



I won't bother writing long stuff. it's obviously not being read.





Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 05:04 PM (nj1bB)

I have to say that you tolerate our tiresome bullshit better than any other site I've ran into. Don't know how you do it. You just have a blog full of people that like to argue and quibble. The fucking Sanhedrin, in other words. Get drunk.

Posted by: tubal at March 02, 2012 05:17 PM (BoE3Z)

171 Ace, I've always tried to be respectful (well, maybe a little snarky) when disagreeing with the viewpoints here (either yours or a cobloggers). I try to examine each idea I'm presented with and judge it based on merit, my own experience, and whatever kind of common sense I have.

That said, I find it hard to reconcile the viewpoint in the article here--which I agree with--with the viewpoint in the one you posted a few days ago, in which you said that people who were not willing to line up with a candidate other than Santorum, Gingrich, or Paul were only doing so because they wanted the Republicans to lose in November.

No, I am not 100 per cent consistent in what I say or believe either. I'm just saying.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at March 02, 2012 05:18 PM (DuH+r)

172 P.S.:

GM stopped production on the effing Volt today.

And we're talking about sluts, radio hosts, and ideological purity.

Just sayin'......

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 02, 2012 05:18 PM (7utQ2)

173 "Anyone who moves from liberal to conservative will always describe it as liberating epiphany, of breathing free air."

Me too, Ace. What converted me was listening to the HATE for the US after 9/11 by my "friends" in the liberal arts world and by reading Road to Serfdom. I had a million arguments on my liberal side for any issue du jour (like the Fluke "slut" issue) before that. AFter 9/11 I began to wonder about liberals' principles and started reading.

You got to lead a horse to water and let him drink, all on his own. So I'm more righty but not a "true conservative" either. But I vote GOP now, so isn't that the point?

Posted by: PJ at March 02, 2012 05:18 PM (DQHjw)

174 oh, and it is funny that ace made those comments about christian and rural when he was pimping "wrong last name" Perry. It just goes to show, big tent.

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at March 02, 2012 05:18 PM (QxSug)

175 I think in these situations, which are nothing new, everybody is wrong. Rush knows the dems will feign outrage and that the media will carry their water, but he does it anyway. The R's that complain rush is making it all about him are apparently oblivious to the fact that that their constant complaining about rush making it all about him is, in fact, making it all about him. Unless you want to kick Rush off the air so he can't do this anymore, just ignore him, otherwise you're the problem you're complaining about.

Posted by: booger at March 02, 2012 05:18 PM (29wvc)

176 I just stole this and I don't care:


@iowahawk Breaking: President OKs Sandra Fluke Memorial Federal Astro-Glide Pipeline.

- BWAAAAHAHAHAHA!

Posted by: I had to say it at March 02, 2012 05:18 PM (r+9M6)

177 I have to say that you tolerate our tiresome
bullshit better than any other site I've ran into. Don't know how you do
it. You just have a blog full of people that like to argue and quibble.
The fucking Sanhedrin, in other words. Get drunk.


Posted by: tubal at March 02, 2012 05:17 PM (BoE3Z)


--Nuggets of truth from the tuballator.
I'm already getting polluted. Join me, Ace!

Posted by: logprof at March 02, 2012 05:19 PM (ykSKg)

178 Yeah, you know, I especially like when Rush goes on about his late night trips aboard his private jet. That's really inspirational stuff. Oh, I get it. We're supposed to live vicariously through his wealth and intellect. Got it.

Please. I don't dislike Rush. I often turn his show on when a particular topic has come up because I want to hear what his sizable herd of followers will be riled up about next. And sometimes, heck, many times, he's right.

But he isn't more informed than any number of serious bloggers, or anyone with the interest and time to surf the net a couple of hours a day. And when I can predict about 95% of the time pretty much exactly what his take on something will be, that doesn't suggest deep thinking. That's dogma. Sorry.

Rush was once pretty much a "shock jock" (vacuum noises when talking about abortions, etc.) who figured out where the true money was in radio. He's a heck of a business guy and a wonderful self-promoter. But, yeah, at the end of the day, he's a guy with a microphone.

Kudos to you Ace for taking crap on your own freaking website. Most of the folks spewing hate your way wouldn't know what to do with their free time if you shut it down.

Posted by: sgr at March 02, 2012 05:19 PM (4WiB4)

179 I don't get all this mish-mash and back and forth about Rush. Who cares.

Someone please tell me what's more important than our 16 Trillion dollar deficit? Please name one thing that's more important than that.

How about your family - what's the most important thing in your family other than everyone's physical health? Isn't it your financial health and employment status?

Why are virtually all the conservative web/blog sites consumed with the "wimmen's issues"? With the one possible exception being Mark Levin - and even he get's off topic occasionally.

Every day we let the MFM control the narrative, is another day we've lost in highlighting the real problem in this country.

Posted by: Not an Artist at March 02, 2012 05:19 PM (Lo/3Q)

180 yes, where can i locate it ?
Posted by: willow at March 02, 2012 05:14 PM (TomZ9) .It's somewhere at ZeroHedge, which is a good site if you stay out fo the comment section. Three thingswill all happen on Jan 1, 2013, but I can only remember two of them: Bush tax cuts expire, and so does the payroll tax cut. .Fixing the problem just requires congressional action, so........Ut oh.

Posted by: Meremortal at March 02, 2012 05:19 PM (Usk3+)

181 What is wrong with you people?

These comments are all 300+ words.

make it short

Posted by: jake at March 02, 2012 05:19 PM (W6iIX)

182 Ace....your words may not be read before the comments flourish, but I promise, your words are read.

Don't get discouraged by us dumb fucks....just keep doing what you're doing.

Posted by: © Sponge at March 02, 2012 05:19 PM (UK9cE)

183
GM stopped production on the effing Volt today.




Heh. Some good news at last!

Posted by: maddogg at March 02, 2012 05:19 PM (OlN4e)

184 Couldn't have said it better myself!

Mega-Ewoks, Ace!

Posted by: Matticus Finch at March 02, 2012 05:20 PM (0Mr4u)

185
stupid damn sock

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at March 02, 2012 05:21 PM (r+9M6)

186
If you want to tell me I'm wrong, I'm ready, willing, and eager to hash that out with you.



Ok your wrong.


Anyone who's always been Solid Red doesn't have that experience.

So you can tell me you know more about conservative doctrine (this
concession is easily made-- I am not a deep thinker on conservative
doctrine at all) but unless you've actually changed your stripes, you
cannot tell me what arguments work on persuading someone to move from
liberal-ish to moderate to conservative/moderate to finally
conservative.



I've been solid red as a blood trail from a heart struck deer since I was whelped I argue. If you have actually converted a number of people. You get a real good idea of what works and what doesn't
I have general rules.
1. Folks have a personal overton window. Stray outside it they will stop listening to you. Someones window today may be so limited as "Conservatives aren't inherently evil" is a hard sell. Time and effort will widen it.

2. Don't be confrontational, it turns irrational folks off to reason. You're having an open discussion not a debate.
3. Know your theory. Leave the bible at home, pick up and learn, The Illiad, The Republic, Ethics, Politics, Utopia, Two Treatises of government, The Federalist, Communist Manifesto, The Wealth of Nations, the General Theory of Economics, Road to Serfdom. It will keep you from looking dumb and uneducated, and will allow you to help them make arguments for their side, (cause most liberals though so enamored with their educated prowess are usually poorly educated in the classics) this makes you look fair, even, and thoughtful against the stereotype of the uneducated hick.

4. Work backwards from current events, Meaning start with philosophy, get an agreement there *first*, then work toward societal structure, economics, and last politics and current events. I wasted a lot of time in a wonderful discussion one day learning this one. Started at politics worked at it the other direction to find the guy was a dyed in the wool collectivist and accepted it. Can't do much with that.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose finally remembers why he's here at March 02, 2012 05:21 PM (0q2P7)

187 Ace,
The discontent and snapping out you see is not a "core curriculum" of conservatism.

People, well, most people, aren't trying to get you to say a liberty catechism - but instead are stressed to hell and gone. Shit is happening - nightmarish shit. Where to hold on? When horrific vistas of future decay fill your thoughts every day - when alienation is the cup you drink deep morning, noon and night - when you feel that everything you are and believe is to die unmourned - you tend to lash out.

Never gloss over in your own mind what this is like to those you disagree with who are on your side. When your house is burning down, finding out someone is keying your car AT THE SAME TIME can make you fucking flip your shit.

That's what's happening. Our Republic is dying. We're praying for some chance at stopping it. And the media is keying our cars, pissing on our mothers' graves, and stealing our children's toys.

It isn't that odd to expect that under such high stress, people can't focus all the time.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at March 02, 2012 05:21 PM (xGjRE)

188 If the Fluke slut wants to be remembered, she needs to find someplace to get squashed.

Posted by: maddogg at March 02, 2012 05:21 PM (OlN4e)

189 I use to be a really big fan of Rush until the big scandal with the Oxycontin. After that point he pretty much had to build himself back up, I am not a big fan as a use to be but he has improved. Though honestly as a Conservative I am pretty anti-figure head. I am tired of looking to leaders to save us only to have them never live up to their own standards. We don't need a leader to tell us what to think or our own Obama to carry around on a golden throne above all criticism. We have too many inadequate people who want to be leaders of the movement as is. We need more foot soldiers, more people willing to stand athwart history and shut fuck you.

Posted by: Drew in MO at March 02, 2012 05:21 PM (BDGkt)

190 And ftr, the only time i ever listened to rush was sometime in the 90's when he had tv show and i watched a few times because i had heard about him, that's it.

Posted by: booger at March 02, 2012 05:21 PM (29wvc)

191 Splitters!

Posted by: Morons United against Dittoes (completely) at March 02, 2012 05:21 PM (Zw/H7)

192
Have the RINO Hunters, Fuck the Establishment Brigade and Social Cons all banded together to clear out the Libertarians, Moderates and Fiscal Cons?

Or were they all the same group before now?

Conservative Purity 2012: Fuck You and Your RINO Mother!

Posted by: El Kabong at March 02, 2012 05:22 PM (99eo4)

193 What is the actual Big Thing necessary for a conversion to Christianity? Is it a long laundry list of detailed items on this or that?

Or is it John 3:16?

You make more sales at a lower price point than a higher one. In terms of belief, and dogma which must be accepted, many people seem to think that a higher price point actually results in more sales.

Two things.

1. the Christianity thing doe require a big thing, it is deceptively easy but it is a very big thing.

2. there is a price. as I am sure you are aware. I am not for lock step dogma and kumbya decision making but you do have to say some things are beyond the pale. it is not necessary to drive those beyond the pale off but you should not make concessions to them.

anyway,

thank you for all the hard work.

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 02, 2012 05:22 PM (Z9EHQ)

194 >>She's not a slut, but this certainly isn't her first trip around the block.

She's a political slut*, certainly. Check her resume, she's been involved in a long list of progg orgs.

* DISCLAIMER: This is a metaphor that in no way assumes anything about her ladybits or what's been in 'em.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 02, 2012 05:22 PM (/kI1Q)

195 I kind of like it when Ace takes the time to smack the TR00 conservatives around a bit... But this is mostly because, when I found this site, I liked it because it was outreach for people like me - young, sorta conservative, sorta libertarians who stuck around for the maxim humor while further developing our own opinions in what can only be described as a conservative direction.

If I wanted to hang out at a socon website I already had townhall. But lately, it feels like the dialog here is really being hijacked by that wing of the party. Where, woefully, I don't fit the impossibly... "high standards".

Posted by: E.M. August at March 02, 2012 05:22 PM (zeBNm)

196 Yes, this post resonates with me. During college I was a "moderate" for no other reason than to signify I wasn't nuts. I'm open-minded, thoughtful, curious...just not liberal.

One of the worst examples of the impulse you discuss is in the immigration debate.

Posted by: Crispian at March 02, 2012 05:22 PM (uBMtY)

197 One aspect missing from The Right that The Left has nailed down is the Long Term Vision.

The Progressives -own- the word 'Utopia'. Moronic as a world with "everything free" including the mandatory service of others to provide your "rights" might seem, they at least have a -description- of the goals.

One thing that would -dramatically- help the right in gaining converts (IMNSHO) is managing to come together enough to define a -conservative- vision of the future.

Not the next year, the next election, or even the next decade, but the -end- game.

The opposition -has- such a vision of the Conservative: Everyone wearing burqa-like enveloping clothing, strict profanity and religion infraction policing, Ebeneezer Scrooge as typical, Lord of the Flies, Avatar, and The Jungle. All caricatures of where the Left thinks the Right wants to go.

It is -not- just the "Status Quo" that the denotation of the word conservative implies - too many things have changed for that to feel like a conservative position.

Examples of topics where the 'endgame' are undefined abound:
What would the -perfect- conservative retirement plan be? Not: "What should we do to -Social Security- to fix it?" But instead: "If you were starting completely from scratch, what would be a -conservative- approach to this?"

The 'pure' answer is probably "There shouldn't be any such thing."

But this demonstrably doesn't work - some idiot will claim 'grandma eating dog food!' and we'll be off to the races to build a massive, invasive, low-rate-of-return pile of crap that we've got now. Because the big government types are -always- in charge of designing the actual details once they've got access to the money.

But an endgame of everyone pseudo-voluntarily sticking 10% (or so) of their pretax income directly into an account - that they still own and control - seems (a) workable 'in perpetuity', (b) fiscally conservative, (c) far-enough from where we are now to call it a portion of -our- utopia.

We can't get there from here. But we can -describe- it. And describing it means it could be studied, quantified, and then espoused concretely.

We don't have such a vision.

Posted by: Al at March 02, 2012 05:22 PM (NDhQN)

198 Rush's only objective is to interject himself into the news cycle and make the conversation about him, political fallout for the right be damned. The Big Troll on the Right. The mediadangleda so-con wedge issueslike BC out there and he justcouldn'thelp himself.

Posted by: tad blatherton at March 02, 2012 05:22 PM (HueOF)

199
How about: Rush is a big boy, and can defend himself.

As libs have found out, much to their sorrow, many times before.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at March 02, 2012 05:22 PM (1hM1d)

200 166Bugs Henderson loves them. That's good enough for me.

They build some nice guitars.Posted by: garrett at March 02, 2012 05:16 PM (FLLLv) .Caught Bugs at the famous Little Bear in Evergreen Colorado last year. He was blazin' on his blue Paul Reed Smith....and his hair was not perfect.

Posted by: Meremortal at March 02, 2012 05:22 PM (Usk3+)

201 Posted by: Ben at March 02, 2012 05:13 PM (wuv1c)

-------------------------------------

Sorry to break your bubble, but we can't have conservative economics without social conservatism. Both must be discussed if we're going to pull ourselves out of this quagmire.

Posted by: Soona at March 02, 2012 05:22 PM (eaQ7w)

202 I don't think you convert anyone to being a conservative. Being a progressive is like being an alchoholic. You have to want to quit.

Posted by: The Jackhole at March 02, 2012 05:23 PM (nTgAI)

203 >>>Sorry to break your bubble, but we can't have conservative economics without social conservatism. Both must be discussed if we're going to pull ourselves out of this quagmire.

I disagree, so what are we going to do about that?

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 05:23 PM (nj1bB)

204 GM stopped production on the effing Volt today.==
Permanent, or temporary?

Posted by: fluffy at March 02, 2012 05:23 PM (4pSIn)

205 young, sorta conservative, sorta libertarians



Get off my lawn.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 02, 2012 05:23 PM (7utQ2)

206 I also admire anyone who, like Rush, puts their real name out there and has tens of millions of leftists wishing him dead and defaming him on a daily basis. It takes courage. I know he's rich, but it still takes guts to stand up and know that most of the ruling class wishes bodily harm on you. Lot of crazy people out there. Even just the shunning from dem controlled cities hurts. I remember Beck telling a story once where he tried to go to an outdoor concert in NYC with his daughter who was a student there. The crowd of strangers booed and cursed him until he left. That sucks. Public left-wingers never are in a crowd of angry, rural right-wingers.

It's also more personally threatening to be hated by young college/20-something leftists than by conservative retirees. Young people are much more likely to do something about their hate. I think it takes more physical bravery to be a public right-winger than a public left-winger.

I like Rush. Just like I liked Breitbart. I'm willing to forgive a lot of sins for a guy like Rush.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at March 02, 2012 05:23 PM (ZPrif)

207 I just love a good rant. Thumbs up.

I'm a libertarian. Santorum sez he doesn't like or agree with libertarians. Fine. Bite me, Rick. Yeah if you are the nominee I'll vote for your sorry ass but only because of the JEF. I'll dislike you right out of the gate if you are elected. I'll have lots of negative things to say about you, and distrust you to the max.

The Tea Party groups are also falling into the purity trap. The socons have the squeakiest voice within the TP, so they are getting the grease. So my participation level has gone down with them. When the movement started, the focus was on small limited government. You had Democrats, libertarians, Independents and others participating. Then came the socon agenda and a big decline in popularity.

I agree with ace.

Posted by: GnuBreed at March 02, 2012 05:24 PM (bvXGR)

208 yes I am a political slut?

Why do you ask?

Posted by: sandra Fluke, a political slut at March 02, 2012 05:24 PM (W6iIX)

209
@187
Dude. Damn dust in my eyes. Gotta drink now.


Posted by: reality check at March 02, 2012 05:24 PM (Zw/H7)

210 103 As a woman, I found rush's statements funny... But then I didn't care that Rick perry called me heartless because I really do want to send every last illegal alien back to their homeland....
Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 02, 2012 05:05 PM (F47Sx)

This warms the cockles of my cold conservative heart. Makes me want to see your ankles or something.
/I'll be in my bunk

Posted by: Randy M at March 02, 2012 05:24 PM (vI8R6)

211 Ace

Are you going to rip on Frum again? I've been waiting all day.

Posted by: Patrick at March 02, 2012 05:25 PM (SU5Lc)

212 "You make more sales at a lower price point than a higher one. In terms of belief, and dogma which must be accepted, many people seem to think that a higher price point actually results in more sales.

I do not understand what experiential evidence or analogy one would use to prove that case. I do not believe any such evidence exists. It flies in the face of everything we know about sales."

Actually, as experiential evidence, this is exactly what Martha Stewart supposedly did when she started selling her pies. She marked up the price ridiculously high, because, she noted, it would make people think it was special. She sold out.

Just throwing that out there.

Posted by: Lola at March 02, 2012 05:25 PM (8oab8)

213 I won't bother writing long stuff.

sooner say that you are going to give up hobo hunting and refuse humping.

Posted by: garrett at March 02, 2012 05:25 PM (FLLLv)

214
GM stopped production on the effing Volt today.==

Permanent, or temporary?


Five weeks. Officially temporary, but they sold less than 1,100 last month. And I wonder how many of those are in the garages of browbeaten GM employees or Chevy dealer people?

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 02, 2012 05:25 PM (7utQ2)

215 >>>Rush's only objective is to interject himself into the news cycle and make the conversation about him, political fallout for the right be damned.

this is uncharitable, and I think it conflates outcome with INTENT, which is always something to look out for.

I think he was just trying to make a glib point. Everyone who doesn't like rush has to remember he's speaking off the cuff. I'm WRITING off the cuff, but with writing, there is ALWAYS an extra few seconds to reconsider.

Plus I can always hit "Delete."

Not everything that comes from one's mouth is a gem.

I think he was trying to make a point. I think there is a point to be made here. However, his point was strained and clumsy and wound up providing a talking point for Them rather a talking point for Us.

It happens. People err. Especially talking off the cuff.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 05:25 PM (nj1bB)

216 Sorry to break your bubble, but we can't have
conservative economics without social conservatism. Both must be
discussed if we're going to pull ourselves out of this quagmire.

Posted by: Soona at March 02, 2012 05:22 PM (eaQ7w)

--I do not agree with that 100%, but I will concede that the strongest of fiscal conservatives also happen to be social conservatives. There is a strong correlation, but since Blacks (for example) are socially conservative but also fiscally irresponsible as a bloc, there's no causal relationship.

Posted by: logprof at March 02, 2012 05:26 PM (ykSKg)

217
They stopped making my Volt????
.
I'll have their fucking heads! That's my baby and those Volts are SMOKIN'! I use one at the golf course, for Allah's sakes!

Posted by: Volty McGolfington, your Prez at March 02, 2012 05:26 PM (Usk3+)

218 "We don't have such a vision."

Yeah, we do. Buckley proclaimed it. Something about standing athwart history and yelling, "Stop!"

Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at March 02, 2012 05:26 PM (gul5u)

219 Well said, Ace. Keep true to your principles. That's all anyone can ask.

Posted by: Fan'o Ace at March 02, 2012 05:27 PM (45k0S)

220 Why am I not surprised to find out Ace was a liberal. Kinda like how you can take the man out of the ghetto but you can't take the ghetto out of the man. Ace will always have a soft side for liberals. That is where his formative years were spent, so it is no surprise he sides with the left here and there.

Posted by: gride at March 02, 2012 05:27 PM (wPKc6)

221 Ace, conservatism is highly reactionary. The strident defense of Limbaugh is just a reaction to the Left constantly making him their Emmanuel Goldstein.

The religious thing is just people feeling put-upon by a recent wave of militant anti-theism (though Islam gets a pass).

The rural thing is again a reaction. I'm an Iowan (not a native) and the crap being said about my state got pretty damned awful and elitist.

And people want to be united now. They don't like the conservatives reaching for the fainting couches at every bit of false indignation from libs. And on this one, they figure that Limbaugh is more right than wrong.

So people will go too far in their reactions.

My take on Limbaugh:
1. He can be a real jerk sometimes.
2. He can also be a jerk while being right.
3. He makes the Left mad at him.
4. He makes a good Bad Cop.

He was an early version of Breitbart. He got people pissed over words like "Feminazi" and "caller abortions". I think he became an object of hate for the Left (and it effected him more than it did Breitbart) and also moved the overton window.

Frankly, I think the "slut" argument is a good one because it gets us to the core message, she wants the government in her bedroom, writing checks.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 02, 2012 05:27 PM (T0NGe)

222 I actually like Rush calling me a slut.

I'm working on my new carreer on TV

Posted by: sandra Fluke, a political slut at March 02, 2012 05:27 PM (W6iIX)

223 Regarding 'loathing'.....here's what I loathe:

Barky claimed that the Iraqi government wouldn't allow our Military to have immunity from prosecution there.....so it was time to pull them out. ....Well, that's actually a good thing, right?

But now our guys in Afghanistan are going to be put on trial for something that they were ordered to do? .....What about 'immunity from prosecution' there as well?....Or pull our guys out.

Sorry. O/T, I know. ....But I have been seething madabout this.

Posted by: wheatie at March 02, 2012 05:27 PM (UOOK1)

224 You wanna see some real groupthink, and feel the pressure to not say certain things? Wait till Romney is the nominee.

Posted by: runninrebel at March 02, 2012 05:27 PM (N4RQj)

225 @Circa sorry.. I was just err... moving along.

Posted by: E.M. August at March 02, 2012 05:27 PM (zeBNm)

226 If Rush makes Liberal heads explode, then I support him, otherwise he's useless.

Posted by: Mitt Still Sux. at March 02, 2012 05:27 PM (vdFUv)

227 Most of this stems from Drew's original post, which boils down to, "Rush should just shut up because he's not helping the cause."

The arguments in return seemed to me about not necessarily defending Rush, or his entertainment style, but more of a disagreement about why the post attacking Rush, and eating our own instead of attacking the real problem.

It's not really a demand to conform as much as it is a questioning of priorities. If you think Rush is a major problem, as opposed to Fluke herself, well... yeah, I'm going to start questioning your conservatism then.



Posted by: 12thMonkey at March 02, 2012 05:27 PM (fZzaW)

228 Rush sucks. His material is tired - it's not funny, it's not profound, it's not even thought provoking. It is in every way conventional and boring.

Posted by: DHChron at March 02, 2012 05:28 PM (FpBe1)

229 >>>Actually, as experiential evidence, this is exactly what Martha Stewart supposedly did when she started selling her pies.

Okay, there is that. That is correct.

There is some value to increasing the price point when you can convince people that they are getting added value for that price -- like joining an attractive club (the wealthy, the smart-set, teh people whose taste is equal to Martha's, the rich people who can afford very expensive pies).

If you're trying to make an upscale sale like that, offering an (illusory) membership in a sought after class, you'd better make sure you're actually offering something along those lines.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 05:28 PM (nj1bB)

230 Fixing the problem just requires congressional action, so........Ut oh.

Posted by: Meremortal at March 02, 2012 05:19 PM (Usk3+)

I'm sure congress will try their best to do right..
well maybe.... well possibly.. they will Try ...well good luck to america.Boehner will be involved?

Posted by: willow at March 02, 2012 05:28 PM (TomZ9)

231 Megadittoes ace. And if any of you cocksuckers out there disagree with ace, why don't you just run your RINO ass somewhere else!

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at March 02, 2012 05:28 PM (+lsX1)

232 dang, forgot to jabber about the cost of lube, someones' needs to pay for my lube also!

Posted by: sandra Fluke, a political slut at March 02, 2012 05:28 PM (W6iIX)

233
Rush is trying too hard. Like all of us.

Posted by: reality check at March 02, 2012 05:29 PM (Zw/H7)

234 Posted by: gride at March 02, 2012 05:27 PM (wPKc6)



Hey--ever think before you speak? Look upthread....LOTS of converts here, including me. As Churchill said, "Show me a man twenty who is not liberal and I will show you a man without a heart. Show me a man at fifty who is not a conservative and I will show you a man without a brain."

Yeah, we're simply not to be trusted. Good luck with that strategy, genius.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 02, 2012 05:29 PM (7utQ2)

235 110 >>>For instance, this Fluke woman is clearly either a slut or an aspiring slut. This is a side point because it's not what I'm talking about. But-- she is? This is a fact? You know how many men she's slept with?
Okay, I'll be honest, there are other options.
She runs a birth control mueseum. (very low probability)
or
She is a liberal activist posing as a disadvantaged woman just struggling to live the American dream. (probably 98% probability).
The point of the slut smear is to a) irritate her into admiting the second option above, and b) de-normalize the lifestyle she is seeking to normalize in the eyes of the broader public paying attention, a lifestyle with degrades society and indeed costs individuals and the government a lot of money.
Trying to do so of course runs the risk of making us look like prudes or big meanines. As Breitbar would say, "so?"

Posted by: Randy M at March 02, 2012 05:30 PM (vI8R6)

236 all this fuss over a chubby slut? Lewinsky 2.0, or something


Posted by: SantaRosaStan, with algae between his knees at March 02, 2012 05:30 PM (UqKQV)

237 Just look at Anne Coulter tie herself in knots backing Romney FFFFF*

*Flip Flopping Fracking Flip Flopperest

Posted by: sandra Fluke, a political slut at March 02, 2012 05:30 PM (W6iIX)

238 >>>I disagree, so what are we going to do about that?

I would ask you to provide me with one relevant historical example of an amoral society that was also a free society, while I provided counter examples of free societies that lost their freedom due to a moral collapse. BTW when exactly did social conservatism graduate from gay marriage and abortion to legislating *all* morality? C'mon folks even Santorum has unequivocally stated he would oppose a ban on birth control pills.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose finally remembers why he's here at March 02, 2012 05:30 PM (0q2P7)

239 Okay, there is that. That is correct.
Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 05:28 PM (nj1bB)

also see : Bottled Water

Posted by: garrett at March 02, 2012 05:31 PM (FLLLv)

240 It's only a matter of time until Ace grows a pony tail and assigns someone named kilgore to bring out the ban hammer because we don't share his views.

Posted by: gride at March 02, 2012 05:31 PM (wPKc6)

241 You know why I enjoy dusting it up with you Ace?

Let me backtrack first. I used to have a business partner who would start fights with me all the time. I'm usually pretty tight-lipped about what I think, but when provoked I let both barrels fly and can't shut up. It took me a couple of years to figure out, but I eventually did, that the reason he was trying to get me to 'go off' was because he needed the arguments that I provided. I only figured this out when overhearing him in his office using my argument I had fought bitterly with him over days before. Then the light went on over my head.

So you and I sometimes go at each other and I win or you win -- or sometimes it doesn't matter, but the ball keeps moving. I could back this up with a bunch of statistics from business school about the most effective ways to form consensus and make the best decisions, but that shits boring.

Posted by: Niemöller's cat at March 02, 2012 05:31 PM (phlKA)

242 And yet Rush made me realize I'm a conservative. AoS made me realize it was OK to drop F bombs and talk about masturbation in the context of politics.

Posted by: USS Diversity at March 02, 2012 05:31 PM (vpe0k)

243 The Left are the ones trying to make Limbaugh the center of the debate.

Trust me, if Ace had the same poll #s and Q rating as Limbaugh, Obama and Media Matters would be running ads quoting Ace and the comments and Obama would be personally calling all the women Ace has called a scrunt over the years.
This entire blog would be referred to as the textual version of date rape or something.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at March 02, 2012 05:31 PM (ZPrif)

244
I'm sure congress will try their best to do right..
well maybe.... well possibly.. they will Try ...well good luck to america.Boehner will be involved?
Posted by: willow at March 02, 2012 05:28 PM (TomZ9) --------------Reid and Boehnerwill show up with red eyes after an all-nighter on Jan 1 and congratulate each other on some 'kick the can' deal that does nothing substantive.----What do I win!? If I keep this up I'm going into palm reading.

Posted by: Volty McGolfington, your Prez at March 02, 2012 05:32 PM (Usk3+)

245 >>>If you think Rush is a major problem, as opposed to Fluke herself, well... yeah, I'm going to start questioning your conservatism then.

I think Rush's reach and persuasiveness are overstated, and whose negatives are understated-- by his fans.

And reverse that for his detractors.

But yeah, I do think his fans are determined to vindicate him on everything. To the extent we wind up having frankly trivial discussions about a Radio Personality.

I don't dislike Rush, but I don't find him interesting. I'm not trying to knock him. But I gotta tell you for me he's like marijuana -- I do not get what all the fuss is about.

I just said to someone else, to defend Rush: Do not conflate outcome with intent.

I'd say the same thing here, but reversed: Do not conflate intent with outcome.

I think Rush has an intent to help. I think people like him because of that intent.

I do not, however, think the outcome always matches the intent.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 05:32 PM (nj1bB)

246 If Fluke needed BC for something other than Frequent Sex with various men, she and her handlers would have revealed it by now.

Posted by: SantaRosaStan, with algae between his knees at March 02, 2012 05:32 PM (UqKQV)

247 Damn, Ace - two movie reviews in one day?

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at March 02, 2012 05:32 PM (0xqzf)

248 >>>That's all anyone can ask.<<<<<

Well, that and gold plated birth control pills.

Posted by: Sandra Fluke and the Fluketones at March 02, 2012 05:33 PM (r+9M6)

249 Posted by: gride at March 02, 2012 05:31 PM (wPKc6)

Quit being a petulant cunt.

Posted by: garrett at March 02, 2012 05:33 PM (FLLLv)

250 And people want to be united now. They don't like the conservatives reaching for the fainting couches at every bit of false indignation from libs. And on this one, they figure that Limbaugh is more right than wrong.

I'm not so sure. I think there's a sizable number of people in the base who mouth the words about unity in defeating Obama bla bla bla, but expelling the RINOs and punishing the GOP 'establishment' is what really gets their pulses racing. And the heart wants what the heart wants.

You see this get played out in threads here every single day.

Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 05:33 PM (pAlYe)

251 Someone mentioning the left having an end game with utopian ideas that the right does not have. That is the biggest problem, in real life utopian thinking leads to the concentration camp and the gulag because for it to be a utopian world you can't have people disagreeing and causing problems. Thus the ends justify the means because what are 20 million peasants starved to death in light of the greater good? Human beings by their very natures aren't utopian creatures but the left does not seem to understand this. We are living in the best possible world, technology might improve, things might get better or worse but this is a golden age for the individual.

Posted by: Drew in MO at March 02, 2012 05:33 PM (BDGkt)

252 >>>If you've always been conservative, then you can tell me a great many things about doctrine and such, but one place I will always have more experience than you is in terms of conversion and persuasion.


I'm a former "life long" Democrat, so I know exactly what you mean. For me it was 9/11 that changed everything. I still feel like an outsider sometimes, though.

Posted by: Max Power at March 02, 2012 05:33 PM (q177U)

253 MikeTheMoose,

Fine. Got it.

We can't win if the sum of the message is "We won't take your birth control pills." It's that simple. We must attack and the attack options on the social issues are not optimal. We have to win first.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 02, 2012 05:34 PM (7utQ2)

254 I need Birth Control because it makes me skinnier, you yobs!

Posted by: sandra Fluke, a political slut at March 02, 2012 05:34 PM (W6iIX)

255 If I'm not mistaken, Sandra Fluke was trying to make the argument that a Catholic university should pay for her contraception/abortion/et al. She's was actually arguing beyond the Obamacare mandate, which only covered employees, not students.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at March 02, 2012 05:34 PM (pOUA4)

256 You know who wins elections?

The guy who can take his base for granted and can spend his time trying to persuade enough moderates to trust him.

Our guy and Obama are both having to spend alot of time trying to calm the fears and motivate the energy of their bases.

Posted by: Shiggz RocketSurgeon at March 02, 2012 05:34 PM (RfvTE)

257 I can't keep my socks straight. I'm out.

Posted by: Meremortal at March 02, 2012 05:35 PM (Usk3+)

258
My brother makes these kind of arguments. You can't even agree with him. Because you don't agree ENOUGH.


Fucking tiresome.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 02, 2012 05:35 PM (4iAT0)

259 Ace is punk rock. Paypal++

Posted by: Mike L at March 02, 2012 05:35 PM (pziWv)

260 #233

How about this:

Two Girls, One Red Solo Cup

Huh? Huh?

Posted by: Toby at March 02, 2012 05:35 PM (L7hol)

261 I think that economic freedom is the open door to other moral freedoms. They're using economic arguments to push abortion on the church, after all.

Of course, social conservatism is important because it leads to a decay in economic freedom, like asking congress to pay for your pills. And it makes life worse for everyone if there is an immoral environment. It's just that the economic stuff, it's easier to be homogenous with.

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at March 02, 2012 05:35 PM (QxSug)

262 I think he was just trying to make a glib point. Everyone who doesn't
like rush has to remember he's speaking off the cuff. I'm WRITING off
the cuff, but with writing, there is ALWAYS an extra few seconds to
reconsider.



Plus I can always hit "Delete."



Not everything that comes from one's mouth is a gem.


That's why listening to him is so amazing. You listen to other talk show hosts and they don't have it. That "I must listen" quality he has is missing in other hosts. And if you think Limbaugh says something impolitic once in a while, listen to liberal talk show hosts. Hoo boy.

15 hours a week is a lot of time to fill.

Seriously, how many people say stupid shit they regret (or they regret the phrasing) every day when talking to their boss?

Posted by: AmishDude at March 02, 2012 05:36 PM (T0NGe)

263 >>>So you and I sometimes go at each other and I win or you win -- or sometimes it doesn't matter, but the ball keeps moving. I could back this up with a bunch of statistics from business school about the most effective ways to form consensus and make the best decisions, but that shits boring.

you should know that on many issues I will take the exact opposite side in dealing with liberals than I do when dealing with conservatives.

on drug legalization, I will often list all the myriad problems with such a regime to a legalization proponent.

It's not always about the actual conclusion. Sometimes it's about making sure that *all* the factors are being acknowledged, by everyone, including those *I agree with.*

So if I here a drug legalizaiton proponent spinning a happy story where there are no negative consequences to such a regime, I will argue. Not because I disagree with him on the conclusion, but more because I think he's spinning happytalk horeshit and needs to be called out on it.

Basically, what I'm saying is I'm a prick who wants to argue with people.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 05:36 PM (nj1bB)

264 >>>(the wealthy, the smart-set, teh people whose taste is equal to Martha's, the rich people who can afford very expensive pies).

I think there's an actually important point here: liberalism has by and large been sold in exactly that way, as a sort of aspirational good, with high taxes promoted as a good thing to make more good things happen. And it's an accepted enough premise now even by conservatives as to make conservatism a hard sell.

Posted by: Ian S. at March 02, 2012 05:36 PM (tqwMN)

265 I'm a former "life long" Democrat, so I know exactly what you mean. For me it was 9/11 that changed everything. I still feel like an outsider sometimes, though.
Posted by: Max Power at March 02, 2012 05:33 PM (q177U)

I think that suggests a more in your face conversion than ace is advocating.

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 02, 2012 05:36 PM (Z9EHQ)

266 Oh and, "Gride" is it? Yes, and you will be first.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 02, 2012 05:37 PM (7utQ2)

267 This push for the Right to form a solid line is coming straight from the power elites.

I think not, the Republican power elites are far less doctrinaire than most commenters here.

Posted by: Decaf at March 02, 2012 05:37 PM (o5XJf)

268 "This solidarity crap? I've had it up to my neck with it."

Exactly. That's what aliens tell their abductees: We are one? One consciousness? One mind?

Posted by: S Daniel at March 02, 2012 05:37 PM (nzrDg)

269 Posted by: Vercingetorix at March 02, 2012 05:34 PM (pOUA4)

you lie! I want socialism, preferably the Fabian kind

Posted by: sandra Fluke, a political slut at March 02, 2012 05:37 PM (W6iIX)

270 Volty, dear me, I believe you are correct.

Posted by: willow at March 02, 2012 05:38 PM (TomZ9)

271 @238 -That is professorly bullshit. You aren't wrong, but your point doesn't speak to the act that there is NO example of a free and moral society that has not at some point collapsed...

Posted by: E.M. August at March 02, 2012 05:38 PM (zeBNm)

272 "Anyone who moves from liberal to conservative will always describe it as liberating epiphany, of breathing free air."
That, and shame. Shame for being such a sucker prior to the enlightenment.

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at March 02, 2012 05:38 PM (+3fAP)

273 I think Rush has an intent to help. I think people like him because of that intent.

I do not, however, think the outcome always matches the intent.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 05:32 PM (nj1bB)--------------Ok, have to address that. I think Rush is a conflation of conservatism and entertainment, and the one interferes with the other. Radio show hosts have to attract attention and end up doing silly things as a result, just likeother celebrities. That said, Rush has been going downhill for some years, imo.

Posted by: Meremortal at March 02, 2012 05:38 PM (Usk3+)

274 I voted for Clinton in '92 and it was Fox News that got me looking to the dark side, i can still remember how amazed i was at the stories they were covering because i had never seen anyone in the media cover those stories and i actually thought to myself that i can't believe "they" were letting them do it. And yeah, it was kind of like, no it was actually like realizing for the first time that was a whole different world out there i had no idea about.

Posted by: booger at March 02, 2012 05:39 PM (29wvc)

275 there is NO example of a free and moral society that has not at some point collapsed...



There is no example of a society that has not collapsed.

Next.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 02, 2012 05:39 PM (7utQ2)

276 The 'conversion' section of this post was completely brilliant. Unfortunately it gets lost in all the Rush drama...which is what usually happens when Rush takes up an issue and turns the attention on himself.

Posted by: mofo at March 02, 2012 05:40 PM (w2aGf)

277 >>>. They don't like the conservatives reaching for the fainting couches at every bit of false indignation from libs.

but why is this, that mere disagreement is likened to "fainting couches"?

I did not faint about Limbaugh. I don't really think it's a very big deal either way.

What is this idea some have that we must be United In All Things to prevail?

I guess this is what I'm trying to say: I don't find that impulse to be a sign of strong, confident movement.

I find the Let's All Repeat the Same Dogma impulse to be a sign of a very weak, timid, unsure movement.

Which we might very well be, given the very bad thing that happened in 2008.

But I think we should at least ACT like we're strong.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 05:40 PM (nj1bB)

278 Wasn't unmarried-at-the-time Rush Limbaugh caught smuggling unprescribed Viagra into the U.S.? Why does a fornicating whoremonger get a free pass to ridicule whores?

Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at March 02, 2012 05:40 PM (a5ljo)

279 "This solidarity crap? I've had it up to my neck with it.
This is an idea of the Left and I'll be god-damned to Hell before I accept it for myself on the right. This kumbaya, "let's all get on the same page and relentlessly propagate the agreed-to consensus" is for lefties."
This +1000.
Not that I want to have Ace's babies 'n shit, just saying we need to be able to disagree with each other without getting all group-thinky about it without the five minutes hate of moral outrage every day. Big tent, and all that. Aren't we the ideology of individual liberty? Or are we the ideology of collectivist triumph over the individual, only we're going to set up the collectives and death camps along different lines from the Left? Doesn't that second option just make a new kind of Left?
Fuck solidarity (not the Polish anti-communist one, but you probably guessed that). Fuck groupthink.

Posted by: The Atom Bomb of Loving Kindness at March 02, 2012 05:40 PM (CnrIa)

280 I disagree, so what are we going to do about that?

You make your case, they make theirs, meanwhile you work together where you agree. Maybe one will go over to the other...maybe not.

I guarantee if we don't get it done where we agree we do have to, the rest won't matter a whit. That's why I keep saying, fire discipline means you aren't shooting your allies.

The fact this ain't sinking in is what's put me totally on the down of late. We may, in fact, be Too Stupid To Live.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, in Cylon hell at March 02, 2012 05:40 PM (GBXon)

281 >>>Sorry to break your bubble, but we can't have conservative economics without social conservatism. Both must be discussed if we're going to pull ourselves out of this quagmire. I disagree, so what are we going to do about that?
Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 05:23 PM (nj1bB)

--------------------------------------------

Really? Then why all the discussion about a woman who wants me to pay for her BC so that she can fuck everyone she meets? The question of morality enters into many of the government give-away schemes. Welfare is the biggest one.
And morality isn't exclusive to just sexual behaviour as the left has so longtried to convince us to believe. It's about right and wrong as you wrote in your post. The concept of moral relativism has proved to be extremely expensive.

Posted by: Soona at March 02, 2012 05:40 PM (eaQ7w)

282 "The Left are the ones trying to make Limbaugh the center of the debate."

Exactly, and that's the reason for the supposed demands for "group solidarity" and questions about conservative credentials.

If we're focused more on Rush's missteps as opposed to the disaster of Obama's Contraceptive Mandate, we've lost. I enjoy this blog an awful lot, but I don't come here to be barraged with every failing of every conservative in front of a microphone. If that's the priority here, I don't need to be a reader any longer.

I'd like to see a conservative blog focus on the failings of the Obama administration, not on the failings of every Republican. Not on every failed joke Rush makes.

If that's forcing "group solidarity" on everyone, oh well, then.

Posted by: 12thMonkey at March 02, 2012 05:40 PM (fZzaW)

283 Uncharitable perhaps, but it's become a pattern for Rush during his post-scandal years. He swings for the fences with gonzo stuff like the Mcnabb and MJ Fox comments andsucks the marrowout of every bit of press he roiled up.The problem isn't that welook to him as a leader, but that the lefttries to portray him as such.

Posted by: tad blatherton at March 02, 2012 05:41 PM (HueOF)

284 @275 - I am glad you took my point.

Posted by: E.M. August at March 02, 2012 05:41 PM (zeBNm)

285 Wasn't unmarried-at-the-time Rush Limbaugh caught smuggling unprescribed
Viagra into the U.S.? Why does a fornicating whoremonger get a free
pass to ridicule whores?



Uh, he didn't ask Pope Benedict for a Benjamin to pay for it?

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 02, 2012 05:41 PM (7utQ2)

286 I was kinda liberaltarian in my college days, joined the Green Party because "the Republicrats are all the same!" I'll always remember one political conversation I had with my dad (who is probably knocking a few back with Breitbart right now) where he told me, "son, I don't know that much about politics, but one thing I do know is that a Democrat is a hell of a lot more likely to take more from my paycheck than a Republican." That line always stuck with me, kept me from buying into some of the greenies more commie bullshit.


I officially bailed on them in '04 when (among other things like AGW obtuseness) they decided that they'd help elect Kerry in states that matter. They couldn't believe that I thought Bush was marginally better than Kerry, so I said fuck 'em and moved more doctrinaire libertarian.


I got a job, and drive a lot during the day. Always was a big Stern fan, and hate the crap music so I found myself listening to talk radio a lot. Of course, this was right around the time Howard went to satellite, and K-ROCK decided as a big FU to Howard, they'd reformat to all talk (yeah, building an all-talk format after Howard leaves, it was obviously destined for failure). There was only so much sports talk a guy could take, and I found I really loved Nick DiPaulo's 12-2pm show, dude is freaking hilarious.


But after the destined failure came and they reformatted again, I was stuck. I thought, you know, maybe I'll give this Limbaugh retard a few minutes, even though I know (I didn't, just assumed from what everybody else said) he's just some loudmouth, gay-bashing, woman-hating, partisan hack. But no, I found the guy to be hysterically funny. In fact, it dawned on me that DiPaulo was just doing Rush's show, but as a professional comedian.


Rush helped pull me further to the conservative side, and his axiom, "Illustrate absurdity by being absurd" could not be more true. It's why I love this place. Humor can get people to think, and guys like Ace and Rush are great weapons for our side.

Posted by: mugiwara at March 02, 2012 05:42 PM (KI/Ch)

287 Too bad Ace can't seem to muster this much passion writing against the Progs.
Why is that?

Posted by: It's true at March 02, 2012 05:42 PM (V940S)

288 Ace do yourself a favor, if you can tear yourself away from the comedy clubs and movie theaters for a bit, get out of NYC and do some fly under travel.

I think too much exposure to the liberal brain rot in the Big Applesauce tends to ferment too many whispers in your skull.

You're not wrong, you just seem to feel that you're under attack from the Right side and you're just mistaking honest differences for criticism.

This is DEAD ON:

>>Here's what we believe, basically: freedom, respect for citizens in
their capacity and wisdom to manage their own affairs, modesty of
government ambition and modesty in the government's appraisal of its own
ability to manage large ventures, and the basic idea that the
government exists to keep the order so that men and women may face each
other as free citizens in the public square and make voluntary
transactions and decisions between each other, with as minimum
government intrusion and "oversight" as possible.<<


The rest is just noise.

Posted by: ontherocks at March 02, 2012 05:42 PM (ZJCDy)

289 Social conservatives and fiscal conservatives are going to have disagreements and we're going to argue, that's what we do, and for good reason : we actually have policy disagreements.

Liberals believe in big government and pseudo-freedom (you can't have real freedom when the government has unlimited power), so they mostly argue about tactics, which is less inflammatory. We just have to remember we need each other, because the alternative is what we have in the White House now.

Posted by: Dr Spank at March 02, 2012 05:42 PM (lVGED)

290 @283: I don't think the McNabb comment was a swing for the fences. You may have noticed that now that he's retired, sportswriters have quietly admitted that he always kind of sucked and was overhyped from day 1.

Posted by: Ian S. at March 02, 2012 05:42 PM (tqwMN)

291 Basically, what I'm saying is I'm a prick who wants to argue with people.

Gotcha. I tell my wife that I engage in 'anti-social networking' ( as opposed to the happy people who 'social network' and put the minutia of their dreary lives all over the internet as if anyone gives a f) and I'm not sure she gets it. I think you do. Not that I'm a summabitch, but I still like to learn stuff. Arguing gets it out there, and challenges assumptions.

Posted by: Niemöller's cat at March 02, 2012 05:42 PM (phlKA)

292 Well said, Ace.

Posted by: Crash at March 02, 2012 05:43 PM (8/Du1)

293
Thanks Willow!

NEW THREAD!
(rumble rumble)

Posted by: Meremortal at March 02, 2012 05:43 PM (Usk3+)

294
275

...."There is no example of a society that has not collapsed."
Next.


Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 02, 2012 05:39 PM (7utQ2)
Game. Set. Match. (I am so using this). That and the fact that God is not an American. If we want a great country we have to, uh, do something, and in the current case, maybe something different.

Posted by: tubal at March 02, 2012 05:43 PM (BoE3Z)

295 That solidarity crap, isn't that also known as Stockholm Syndrome?

Posted by: Boots at March 02, 2012 05:43 PM (neKzn)

296 I want free contraceptives.I notice when I take Oxycodone that my penis shrivels up into a useless button of flesh.
I know it is an odd way of birth control but it is my way.
I shall wait by the phone for our esteemed leader to call and give me contraception treasure from his stash.

Posted by: Drider at March 02, 2012 05:44 PM (cWLqC)

297 Dear "It's True":

You lie.

Sincerely,

Me.



Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 02, 2012 05:44 PM (7utQ2)

298 Nobody is paying for my free stuff yet.

I need some BC and lube, NOW!!

Posted by: sandra Fluke, a political slut at March 02, 2012 05:45 PM (W6iIX)

299 What's a wooby? Is that like a Nubian?

Posted by: Brad at March 02, 2012 05:45 PM (2GsJg)

300 >>>there is NO example of a free and moral society that has not at some point collapsed...

The hidden argument there, that I was giving you credit for being able to spot, which you apparently didn't, was that a moral collapse precipitates a total collapse of a free society, wherein it must either revert to totalitarianism to survive or be destroyed.

The presumption of freedom in a successful society is that it is prudently, and responsibly used.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose finally remembers why he's here at March 02, 2012 05:45 PM (0q2P7)

301 As I've grown older, I find myself thinking that most of the big boy conservative hosts on television and radio are really just people who saw an opportunity on the right to make a lot of money shouting down anyone who disagreed them in the slightest. They acquire an audience, and immediately begin churning out books, making public appearances for fees, and offering memberships in an exclusive membership deal. The thing I like about you, Ace, is you occasionally disagree with the groupthink wisdom. I got no problem with that.
My main objective nowadays is to elect anyone but the stuttering clusterfuck who is busy taking our country down an absolutely unsustainable path to ruin. And if we manage to do that, and the next guy doesn't halt the insanity, then I'll vote for someone else in the next election, assuming there is a next election after that. And that goes for members of Congress, too.
Of course, I'm just a simple old country boy from Texas, so I could be wrong.

Posted by: mikeyslaw at March 02, 2012 05:45 PM (mHBsU)

302 3. That you must be rural and Christian to be a truly good citizen of the nation...

Well - it doesn't make a truly good citizen, but we are a pretty happy lot!

Posted by: 2nd Amendment Mother at March 02, 2012 05:45 PM (L4CWX)

303 Really? Then why all the discussion about a woman who wants me to pay
for her BC so that she can fuck everyone she meets? The question of
morality enters into many of the government give-away schemes. Welfare
is the biggest one.

And morality isn't exclusive to just sexual behaviour as the left
has so longtried to convince us to believe. It's about right and wrong
as you wrote in your post. The concept of moral relativism has proved to
be extremely expensive.


The problem is that so many of you preachy moralizers have your own pet definitions of what it means to be moral. For example, the belief that it is immoral for a married couple to use contraception. That "moral" belief has nothing to do with being a fiscal conservative. Nothing. NOTHING. You don't have to be a snake handler or go to confession every day to believe in fiscal discipline and personal responsibility.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at March 02, 2012 05:46 PM (+lsX1)

304 >>>That, and shame. Shame for being such a sucker prior to the enlightenment.

not for me, I don't think, but maybe I don't remember.

I think people have a tendency to blame others so I figure I was angry at being lied to, not shamed for having believed.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 05:46 PM (nj1bB)

305 Also, let's admit it. Part of this is just because Ace is a contrarian motherfucker. Which is probably a big reason why college turned him to the right. I turned in college, too. Cause I enjoyed pissing people off and resented the conformity.

Truth is, if right-wing orthodoxy magically became omnipresent in govt and academia ... I just might turn to the Left. Partly just because I like gunking up the works.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at March 02, 2012 05:46 PM (ZPrif)

306 >>> oh my god.


>>> I won't bother writing long stuff. it's obviously not being read.


What I don't like is that you take a few comments as some kind of large movement of people. There's a few idiots who expect conformity, true. But I don't see large groups of people (certainly nothing close to a majority at least) demanding you think a certain way.

This comment is a perfect example. ONE person says something stupid and you act like everyone is saying the same thing. Based on my reading most commenters agree with you on this post and the Rush post.

This is why people sometimes say you can be too melodramatic and take things too personally.


Posted by: Kronos at March 02, 2012 05:47 PM (gD4/Q)

307 Thank you, Ace. Everything you said is true but I'm afraid to read the comments because I figure some people want to argue about it and parse what you meant by "conversion."
I was once a liberal, I think most of us were when young, and my conversion began when I noticed that all the things I thought were good like welfare and choice, etc., always seemed to require government money. Which, when I saw my first grown-up paycheck, appeared to be my money. From that to social issues and on and on, I found myself becoming more and more "conservative," simply because I've never asked for a handout and resent when others demand one from me.
But you're right: my initial buy-in was small, but very long ago. I think most of us would agree that it was in steps, some tiny and some large, that made us the bitter clingers we are today, and that the hive-mind of the liberals we so decry and mock is also something we must stop demanding of each other.
I love a good debate, a debate about ideas and facts and even perceptions. But in my crowd the first person to say "fuck you" is literally declared the loser. We need to stop namecalling and either agree to disagree or make better arguments.

Posted by: Biblio at March 02, 2012 05:47 PM (7o8VY)

308 but why is this, that mere disagreement is likened to "fainting couches"?

I'm referencing DrewM (and many, many others). In fact, the criticism of Limbaugh is that we have to have a unified message. That we can't allow any silly impolitic remark to spout from any putative conservative's lips.

Let Limbaugh call her a slut. It doesn't matter, somebody else would have.

In this instance, I think he's actually helping because the facade they built for her -- treating her as if she were a poor little pre-teen who spoke out for a new swingset on the playground -- is shattered.

She's just another snobby yuppie elitist radical activist who aspires to be a lawyer and a leech.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 02, 2012 05:48 PM (T0NGe)

309 278....ha ha good one.

Posted by: USS Diversity at March 02, 2012 05:48 PM (vpe0k)

310 Oh, and by the way, I did read the entire thing. I thought it was terrific.

Posted by: Biblio at March 02, 2012 05:48 PM (7o8VY)

311 >>>If we're focused more on Rush's missteps as opposed to the disaster of Obama's Contraceptive Mandate, we've lost

can we chew gum and walk?

This again is a variation of the "Do not say this because it undermines group strength."

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 05:48 PM (nj1bB)

312 But the, I am now thinking that as far as conservatism goes, as far as the thing that I stress, myself -- respect for the citizen to live his own life as he chooses -- that drugs ought to be legalized.

If you look at this issue purely on economic grounds then you need to work out what costs more. Do you spend more on enforcing and policing the prohibitions laws or does unfettered use of recreational drugs cost more in lost productivity and financial support ofdestitute and dysfunctional families?Have we learned anything in this regard from the experiment in the Netherlands?

Posted by: Decaf at March 02, 2012 05:48 PM (o5XJf)

313 I disagree, so what are we going to do about that?

Argue and try to convince each other? That's what people usually do. Then when in all likelihood that fails, nobody gets their panties in a bunch because the Evil True Conservatives or the Wicked RINO's are going to ruin it for everybody else.

Posted by: Heorot at March 02, 2012 05:49 PM (Nq/UF)

314 Because the media is so left that leaves us with aLOT of low hanging fruit/truths that would really disillusion democrats who are unaware that their party has been taken over by the authoritarian left.

I don't believe Republicans are somehow above lying or verbally exploiting molehills to mountains... its just that they dont need to because there is a shit-ton of the lefts real mountains of lies/scandals/corruption/abuses that the media has been aggressively hiding.

I was never far left when I was younger.. at my low point I did once brag that my small town had the vagina monologues.. not that at the time I wanted to see them or had any delusions about radical angry feminists.... I just liked the my little city felt like the wide open future instead of the old cold repressed past.

Not long after that I ran into a string of psychopath radical gays and eco-fascist hypocrits all who came at me as some sort of far right winger... while at the same the left chose to view 9/11 through the lens of denial... and Daily Show and CNN couldn't stop lying about Iraq... well at that point I started going to Fox News and other things because I wanted to hear the other side of the story.

Eventually the empty calories of Sean Hannity and Fox News in general while sweet at first left me ultimately unfulfilled.. That's when I got into the much more satisfying and healthy world of political principles, unintended consequences weighed against good intentions, and the Founders original vision.

Posted by: Shiggz RocketSurgeon at March 02, 2012 05:49 PM (RfvTE)

315 Why does a fornicating whoremonger get a free pass to ridicule whores?
Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at March 02, 2012 05:40 PM (a5ljo)

Oh, I don't know...maybe 'cause he's not asking you and me to subsidize his behavior?

Posted by: somebody else, not me at March 02, 2012 05:49 PM (nZvGM)

316 I don't want to be told what's best for the team all the time. Sometimes, sure.. All the time?

I'm tired of hearing about the team.

there is no team. there are 100 million people with a general tendency to prefer more freedom than less and who want to keep more of their stuff than less and who believe that morality is centered in the individual, not in legislation.

we do not all agree and we're really not on a team.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 05:49 PM (nj1bB)

317 Reading through the responses, I wonder how well the outcome matched your intent, Ace. Pretty well it seems.

Posted by: Crispian at March 02, 2012 05:50 PM (uBMtY)

318 @300 - I understand your point. My college professor father often times makes your point - though he likes to explain further that increased acceptance of homonormative culture as a leading indicator of a given societies collapse

I get it.

But just because I *get* that, doesn't mean I need to support a social con agenda in order to support my fiscal con agenda.

Posted by: E.M. August at March 02, 2012 05:50 PM (zeBNm)

319 Gee this whole drama thing with Ace over Rush is over my head. First, this post was too long so I got bored and went to read the earlier post, but it was too long also. I guess it will forever be a mystery why Ace is having the vapors.
I suggest a long bicycle ride along the ocean with some pictures of gears thrown it.

Posted by: Dogbert at March 02, 2012 05:51 PM (Gt46o)

320 By the time I got to the end I forgot, what movie was this again?

Posted by: Darth Randall at March 02, 2012 05:52 PM (O/onO)

321 we do not all agree and we're really not on a team.



And this, of course, is why there are no AOSHQ t-shirts.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 02, 2012 05:52 PM (7utQ2)

322 >>>What I don't like is that you take a few comments as some kind of large movement of people. There's a few idiots who expect conformity, true. But I don't see large groups of people (certainly nothing close to a majority at least) demanding you think a certain way.

Kronos, I addressed this above to rockmom, but I'll say it to you: Why do you think I'm talking about you, when you haven't done anything like what I'm talking about?

I will take this as a lesson and include the actual shitty comments the next time I complain. I should have done this earlier. I don't want people who are faultless thinking I"m talking aobut them.

But I am still not understanding why you think I'm talking about you when YOU actually did not do any of the things I'm talking about.

If I say "I'm sick of these guys who throw bags of urine on me from speeding cars" do you take that as a knock on you?

I mean, asssuming it wasn't you with the piss-bag?

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 05:53 PM (nj1bB)

323 [Basically, what I'm saying is I'm a prick who wants to argue with people. ]

Breitbart's sudden passing has left an opening for a passionately persuasive man of the right who likes to argue with the opposition. And I'm not trying to be funny it's true.

Posted by: Boots at March 02, 2012 05:53 PM (neKzn)

324 Let me tell you all the Big Secret: Rush is a chickenshit. There. I said it.
And his claim that he loves to debate liberals? BS. The morons here have better comebacks. It makes me wince whenever he has one on anymore because all he really tries to do is insult them and make fun of them while getting bogged down and off-track.

He's got millions. If he believed half of what he said, he could wreck some serious damage behind the scenes.
How many bloggers could he set up with some anonymous foundation money?
How many dirt-diggers could he finance?
Who could better feed conservative news stories and drive the agenda?
He's already the villain, why not make the most of it?
If he really believed, the county where he now lives would be turning top to bottom Republican--he has the money to make that happen slowly, quietly and behind the scenes.

Like they say about Facebook: If you ain't paying for it you're the product being sold. And Rush is not selling conservative ideas--he's selling access to a conservative audience. (Who need to buy a Sleep Number bed, some of his tea, the Limbaugh Letter and, for a while there, Herman Cain's 9-9-9.)

Posted by: Jimmuy at March 02, 2012 05:53 PM (huWOQ)

325 @278 Rush didn't demand that Americans pay for it.
Next question.

Posted by: Circular Firing Squad at March 02, 2012 05:53 PM (Zw/H7)

326 The reason not to insult the socons is because they are the largest group in the coalition. The fiscal con message cannot win on it's own.

In fact the Republican coalition is trending towards more so-con and less fiscal con as the Repubs and Dems trade white voters.

Santorum is a big government social con and doing very well in the midwest. This is not an accident.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at March 02, 2012 05:54 PM (ZPrif)

327 Fuck'em, if they can't take a bad joke.

Posted by: Fritz at March 02, 2012 05:54 PM (FDEjy)

328 Basically, what I'm saying is I'm a prick who wants to argue with people.





Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 05:36 PM (nj1bB)

So am I. I knew there was a reason I liked this place.

Posted by: chemjeff at March 02, 2012 05:54 PM (qVUxp)

329 >>>If you look at this issue purely on economic grounds then you need to work out what costs more.

I actually don't though. that would be a secondary question.

My main question is "Should an adult be free to do as he pleases?" Speaking of legislating morality, I think it's more moral to put the maximum amount of trust into a fellow citizen and permit him to make his own mistakes (or have his own victories), than to attempt to force him into good decisions by taking away some freedom.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 05:55 PM (nj1bB)

330 As someone who used to study the methods of converting people's political beliefs for real, practical effect, I have to say that Ace is 100% correct on this one. Get them to agree to something small. Soon, they're agreeing to the whole laundry list.

But -- and I can't stress this too much -- the whole point of having a pro-Liberty philosophy is that I don't have to agree with everyone or everything who claims to be on the same side as me.

The best and the brightest are still not immune from being dumb, biased, self-serving, venal or narrow-minded when the mood strikes them.

That WHY a freedom philosophy is key. Because everyone is fallible, so power concentrations are dangerous, so we distribute power amongst the people and pit it against itself.

Posted by: DriveBy at March 02, 2012 05:55 PM (C9Vc8)

331 AB was crazy and weird, which is what made him great. Whiner

Posted by: Kingk9 at March 02, 2012 05:55 PM (c+uew)

332 I fuck bitches raw -- Sandra Fluke

Posted by: Lil Wayne punchline at March 02, 2012 05:55 PM (60GaT)

333 Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 05:49 PM (nj1bB)

Thank you for stating the glaringly obvious. Why you have to is another 10,000 word post.

We are not on a fucking team. Conservatism is not a team sport. I think it is pretty obviously an individual sport.

If I wanted to be on a team I would have joined the Spartacist League or the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade when I was in college.

I like walking out of step. I hate crowds. I hate being told what to do. I want you to leave me the fuck alone.

THAT is what a conservative is.


Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at March 02, 2012 05:55 PM (nEUpB)

334 305 Also, let's admit it. Part of this is just because Ace is a contrarian motherfucker. Which is probably a big reason why college turned him to the right. I turned in college, too. Cause I enjoyed pissing people off and resented the conformity.

Truth is, if right-wing orthodoxy magically became omnipresent in govt and academia ... I just might turn to the Left. Partly just because I like gunking up the works.
Posted by: Clubber Lang at March 02, 2012 05:46 PM (ZPrif)

Yeah well it could be that in the middle of learning about a whole bunch of new things and having a whole bunch of liberal drivel force fed to you you happened to start thing about things and the falsehoods of the liberal positions became apparent.

all things being equal people who are only contrarian are not really conservative only obtuse.

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 02, 2012 05:56 PM (Z9EHQ)

335 "Please stop telling me, however, that there are reasons besides being wrong to stop staying something."

Good. So we can start talking about Obama's fraudulent social security number again?

Posted by: Average Joe at March 02, 2012 05:56 PM (bN5ZU)

336 I have to agree with Ace. However, Rush does have a favorite meme when he talks about why some people are liberal. His main point is that liberals are lazy. That critical thought is hard and it takes critical thought processes to overcome liberalism. Rush is right about this - at least in my case. I tended to be liberal in my youth until I began to actually think about the issues. Once you begin to think and reason without feelings or emotions then you can no longer remain a liberal.

Posted by: Not an Artist at March 02, 2012 05:56 PM (Lo/3Q)

337 Santorum is a big government social con and doing very well in the midwest.



He's touching 30 percent in a Republican primary. Luap Nor is doing "moderately average" on your scale.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 02, 2012 05:56 PM (7utQ2)

338 "I think it's more moral to put the maximum amount of trust into a
fellow citizen and permit him to make his own mistakes (or have his own
victories)"

sorry but this isn't conservatism.

i don't mean that as, you're not allowed to think it. but let's not pretend it's the "true conservative" philosophy or we're entering Andrew Sullivan territory.

Posted by: Aspiring Pope Benedict at March 02, 2012 05:57 PM (60GaT)

339 >>>can we chew gum and walk?


Absolutely not. In fact given our level of incompetence we are damned lucky to successfully complete one of those activities without choking to death/falling and cracking our skull.

Look you've put together two epic posts on that topic. I'm not going to say you shouldn't do that. Amendment 1, and your house, your topics. But there is an opportunity cost of not putting together epic rants against socialism instead.

I know why don't you do it? I suck. If I was as good as you I'd have my own following instead of 6 readers (hi mom) and would be on my own blog.

Don't pretend that how we spend our time, and what we (you) choose to discuss is a completely neutral decision. There are costs and repercussions as to how we spend our time.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose finally remembers why he's here at March 02, 2012 05:57 PM (0q2P7)

340
Who could have foreseen the day that America was lead by a man of African decent and that ace could make epic movie review length posts on a Friday afternoon?

Posted by: sTevo at March 02, 2012 05:57 PM (VMcEw)

341 Two strategies:

1. ) Attack college twits: feel good catharsis, conspicuous piety to reaffirm one's moral superiority.

or

2. ) Stay on message: attack Obama, his legislation and his destruction of the Constitution.

Yea, I can see how some would be confused as to the better course.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at March 02, 2012 05:57 PM (dxTxt)

342 278 Wasn't unmarried-at-the-time Rush Limbaugh caught smuggling unprescribed Viagra into the U.S.? Why does a fornicating whoremonger get a free pass to ridicule whores?
Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at March 02, 2012 05:40 PM (a5ljo)

You don't know those* were for sex. He does have a rather healty ego.
*I'm not speaking to teh veracity of the charge, just making a joke.

Posted by: Randy M at March 02, 2012 05:58 PM (vI8R6)

343 I don't think the McNabb comment was a swing for the fences. You may
have noticed that now that he's retired, sportswriters have quietly
admitted that he always kind of sucked and was overhyped from day 1.


I agree, he said he was surprised at the reaction, particularly from people who should have been willing to consider the issue more honestly.

Frankly, he didn't go far enough in his counterreaction. Rather than defend himself, he should have literally accused most sportswriters of being racist and being paternalistically condescending.

He sort of implied it, but he should have soundbyted it.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 02, 2012 05:58 PM (T0NGe)

344 The problem is that so many of you preachy moralizers have your own pet definitions of what it means to be moral. For example, the belief that it is immoral for a married couple to use contraception. That "moral" belief has nothing to do with being a fiscal conservative. Nothing. NOTHING. You don't have to be a snake handler or go to confession every day to believe in fiscal discipline and personal responsibility.
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at March 02, 2012 05:46 PM (+lsX1)

--------------------------------------------------

Why so defensive about my post? I was just pointing out the correlation between bad behaviour and taxpayers like me that have to pay for it.

I think most people (and definitely Christians because it says so in the Bible) would agree with the fact that nothing should come between a husband and wife in the bedroom.

Posted by: Soona at March 02, 2012 05:59 PM (eaQ7w)

345 Ace, we take it personally because we all want you to like us. That's why we comment on your blog.

It's like a teacher scolding a class for being noisy. Even if your not the noisy one you still are getting scolded. At least it feels like that.

You are the authority figure here.

Maybe it's more like a teaching scolding a class for doing a terrible job on the homework. Unless you got an A+ it feels like you disappointed the teacher. Maybe that B is meant as an insult.

When the teacher says he's disappointed in Jimmy, we all know Jimmy fucked up. When the teacher says he's disappointed in the whole class. Well ... we're in the class. And unless the teacher excludes us by name -- Everybody sucked except Jane D'oh -- then we feel the criticism.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at March 02, 2012 05:59 PM (ZPrif)

346 defending our Strongest Generals



We have strong generals left in our military? That's news to me.

Posted by: really ... at March 02, 2012 05:59 PM (X3lox)

347 . there are 100 million people with a general tendency to prefer more freedom than less and who want to keep more of their stuff than less and who believe that morality is centered in the individual, not in legislation.

we do not all agree and we're really not on a team.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 05:49 PM (nj1bB)
Well you have your neoconservatives, the paleocons, moderates, liberal Republicans, libertarians, anarcholibertarians, constitutionalists, social conservatives, sportos and motor heads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wastoids, dweebies, dickheads...

they fail to agree on who is a righteous dude.

Posted by: CAC at March 02, 2012 06:00 PM (GSvpU)

348 Late to the thread but I have always been a conservative. However, I don't think our problem is "blindly" defending Rush Limbaugh. Al5though, personally I see no problem with calling her a slut or a a liar.

However, in the bigger picture of conservative commentators I agree with the two authors on Fox this morning for at least one of their major points.

The Democrat are always in the hard attack mode while we are in the go along to get along mode. Thus they almost always win.

We have to change this paradigm. Instead of defending Rush which keeps the ball in their court we should be moving the attack scope to them. We should be attacking them on (a) her unchallenged lies, (b) the overreaching and illegal actions of the Obama dictatorship.

We should be attacking hard on this everyday. We should not allow them to change the argument to whether or not law school students can afford $9/month birth control.

Posted by: Vic at March 02, 2012 06:00 PM (YdQQY)

349 324 Let me tell you all the Big Secret: Rush is a chickenshit. There. I said it.
And his claim that he loves to debate liberals? BS. The morons here have better comebacks. It makes me wince whenever he has one on anymore because all he really tries to do is insult them and make fun of them while getting bogged down and off-track.


That's a valid point. I think if Rush actually debated competent liberals (as callers or guests) he'd be a better debater and his show would be better for it.

Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 06:00 PM (pAlYe)

350 PS, if anyone should be admonished for not thinking about their team, it would be the original commenters (Rush in this case, but not him exclusively) who cracks wise with a remark that can be used to tar their allies without thinking of the consequences.

Posted by: DriveBy at March 02, 2012 06:00 PM (C9Vc8)

351 Spot on ace. You know..I am a fan of Limbaugh, I think he's great but he has said repeatedly.. if you don't believe in X, Y and Z then you aren't a conservative. I consider myself a conservative, maybe more fiscally than anything else. On many issuesI don't find myself firmly planted on the right. He said this again the other day and I said to myself.. okay.. so I'm not a conservative. I guess I am an indepenent. But that's no good either (according to HIM) because now that makes me a person with no real core values or beliefs.. to which I say. BULLSHIT. Not sure I am one of those that can be pegged. That's fine by me.

Posted by: jewells45 at March 02, 2012 06:01 PM (Z71Vg)

352 If I'm wrong, I should be told so.

OK, Ace, I'm gonna tell you. I've been holding this back, but you need to know the truth.

You post too much about the media, and not enough about bacon.

Also, you should add Jethro Tull videos to your posts.

Posted by: Michael at March 02, 2012 06:01 PM (fQwDb)

353 Ace, you would be a more courageous conservative if you would shorten you would write shorter posts. I can't let my wife find out I'm screwing around on the internet reading your novels when I'm supposed to be doing other stuff.

Posted by: Sad Dad at March 02, 2012 06:02 PM (Rwrs+)

354 Posted by: Clubber Lang at March 02, 2012 05:59 PM (ZPrif)

He doesn't get out of bed until noon, is probably still in his underwear, is still using a program designed in the 1990s...and HE'S the authority figure?

We are fucked. Well and truly fucked.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at March 02, 2012 06:02 PM (nEUpB)

355 I was once a liberal, I think most of us were when young, and my conversion began when I noticed that all the things I thought were good like welfare and choice, etc., always seemed to require government money. Which, when I saw my first grown-up paycheck, appeared to be my money.

Biblio, it's logical for young people to be liberal-minded particularly in regard to free government money. They regard it in the same way as they did their allowance thinking that government's money is like the parents' money. It is only when they grow up, and like you, start paying taxes that they realise that taxes are their money, not free money. And of course, the money someone else worked for is free money.

Posted by: Decaf at March 02, 2012 06:03 PM (ttftK)

356 The Left are the ones trying to make Limbaugh the center of the debate.
-----------------
Yes, and they're succeeding because he gave them more ammo. Look, we all know this is about the left/media distracting the voting public from those issues that'll lose the election for them. I presume Limbaugh is smart enough to recognize that, so why help them do it? There's only one response to this kind of bullshit and it goes something like this:

"Why are the left and the media talking about birth control when the economy is such a disaster?"

"Why are theytalking about birth control when debt is out of control?"

"Why are they talking about birth control when gas prices are going through the roof?"

"Why are they talking about birth control when so many people have given up on finding jobs?"

Instead, too many people on our side can't resist getting sucked in. You can claim it's because it's really a liberty issue, but, imo, it's bcse certain people on our side have Santorum Syndrome and put "winning" on social issues above all else. Might make us feel good, but it doesn't get Obama out of the White House.

Posted by: Tired Wench at March 02, 2012 06:03 PM (oPceJ)

357 I barely read this blog anymore. For over a year its been backbiting and fighting and sniping and all that horse shit. And it isn't just here, I can barely stomach anything political anymore, and I used to be a junky. I can't do another fight over purity or electability. Aren't you all exhausted? Go have a life, get out, enjoy your family, friends, nature.

That isn't to say that this election isn't important, but who the fuck really thinks yelling at strangers on the internet is going to make any fucking difference one way or the other?

Posted by: Alex #11 at March 02, 2012 06:03 PM (qN18x)

358 Btw, that was the brand new Fox News of the 90's i was talking about when it was really Brit Hume's station and completely different from what it is now. And the reason i couldn't believe "they" were letting them do it is pretty evident now that that the left has an entire organization (media matters) whose sole purpose is to shut down Fox News.

Posted by: booger at March 02, 2012 06:03 PM (29wvc)

359 >>> Al5though, personally I see no problem with calling her a slut or a a liar.


my problem with calling her a slut isn't a moral objection. I think she's a liar so who cares if someone adds in "slut."

But as a tactical thing?

people on the right have a saying, "always attack, always be on offense." But the thing is some attacks backfire, and wind up costing you days of defense.

So yes, always attack is a good thing to aspire to, but not every attack is productive. If you charge far ahead of a defensible line you'll be surrounded and be in a tricky bulge situation.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 06:04 PM (nj1bB)

360 >>>I think it's more moral to put the maximum amount of trust into a
fellow citizen and permit him to make his own mistakes (or have his own
victories), than to attempt to force him into good decisions by taking
away some freedom.

I do think there is a bit of reasonable factor there when it comes to drugs. As even the most reasonable educated person cannot grasp the risks of addiction until they themselves are addicted.

Is it reasonable that someone can use said drug for a lifetime?

Alcohol yes the vast majority of folks use it their whole life without serious issues.
Coffee/Cigarettes, yes, yes.
MJ I would say yes.
Coke? I would say maybe,
Crack? Probably not.
Heroin? Definitely not.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose finally remembers why he's here at March 02, 2012 06:04 PM (0q2P7)

361 Jimmy at March (324)
Let me tell you a secret. Rush is not obligated to spend money out of his stash to fund your favorite bloggers. He has taken his lumps in the business and his money is his to do with as he sees fit. If your laudry list is such a great and honorable thing, STFU and GTFO and spend your every waking moment and last dollar making it happen instead of whining about how Rush makes and spends his money.
You aren't? You won't? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Posted by: Dogbert at March 02, 2012 06:05 PM (Gt46o)

362 >>>I was once a liberal, I think most of us were when young, and my conversion began when I noticed that all the things I thought were good like welfare and choice, etc., always seemed to require government money. Which, when I saw my first grown-up paycheck, appeared to be my money.

exactly.

it's more than that, too. Until you're actually making money, and having money go out the window in taxes, all you do is talk about fairy-tale morality level stuff like "fairness" and "meanness" and all the rest of the soft-headed type stuff.

I remember when I was young not being interested, AT ALL, in talks about taxes. I always wondered why enlightened citizens and politicians were talking about such grubby details, which did not matter at all, while not talking about IMPORTANT stuff, like the Japenese slaughtering dolphins.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 06:05 PM (nj1bB)

363 I think most people (and definitely Christians because it says so in the
Bible) would agree with the fact that nothing should come between a
husband and wife in the bedroom.


You really think that most people, including Christians, agree that the use of contraception by married couples is immoral?

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at March 02, 2012 06:06 PM (+lsX1)

364 Posted by: Vic at March 02, 2012 06:00 PM (YdQQY)

+1

Okay....I agree with Vic more and more as the day goes on.

This is proof that bourbon is the cure for all things.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at March 02, 2012 06:06 PM (nEUpB)

365 That's a valid point. I think if Rush actually debated competent
liberals (as callers or guests) he'd be a better debater and his show
would be better for it.


(a) Yes, Rush is a terrible debater.
(b) Debate talk shows are boring. Boooooooring. It is a rare person who can make someone who disagrees want to listen to him. Especially a liberal, whose arguments we are inundated with. Does NPR have debate shows? Not really, and they call that calm discourse. People don't really want to listen to debates. Especially with the usual soundbyte-time constraints. It's much more interesting to listen to a good monologue.

Look at this blog. There are "debates" in the comments, but what makes this blog good are the posts.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 02, 2012 06:06 PM (T0NGe)

366 "So yes, always attack is a good thing to aspire to, but not every attack is productive. If you charge far ahead of a defensible line you'll be surrounded and be in a tricky bulge situation."

Um...the tactical solution there is a breakout attack.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at March 02, 2012 06:06 PM (3GtyG)

367 >>>Coke? I would say maybe,
Crack? Probably not.
Heroin? Definitely not.


well this is the tough part of it isn't it?

I'd keep crack illegal and legalize the other two.

Crack just seems to be addictive for the sake of being addictive.

the thing is, you know -- people in prison get drugs, don't they?

So what, exactly, are we accomplishing here?

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 06:07 PM (nj1bB)

368 Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 05:49 PM (nj1bB)Thank you for stating the glaringly obvious. Why you have to is another 10,000 word post.We are not on a fucking team. Conservatism is not a team sport. I think it is pretty obviously an individual sport. If I wanted to be on a team I would have joined the Spartacist League or the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade when I was in college.I like walking out of step. I hate crowds. I hate being told what to do. I want you to leave me the fuck alone. THAT is what a conservative is.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at March 02, 2012 05:55 PM (nEUpB)

YOU LIE .. We are all MORONS

Posted by: The Jackhole at March 02, 2012 06:07 PM (nTgAI)

369 A whore trades sex for money. Fluke wants her pills for free. She's a moocher, not a whore. Separate issue.

A junkie drug smuggler who needs help getting it up isn't the guy I want arbitrating sexual morality. If I were a liberal, I wouldn't want either Clinton as my spokesman on matters sexual.

Anyone who feigned outrage when James Carville called Paula Jones a five-dollar trailer park whore should be outraged by Limbaugh's thuggish ways.

Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at March 02, 2012 06:08 PM (a5ljo)

370 Two strategies:

1. ) Attack college twits: feel good catharsis, conspicuous piety to reaffirm one's moral superiority.

or

2. ) Stay on message: attack Obama, his legislation and his destruction of the Constitution.

Yea, I can see how some would be confused as to the better course.


Posted by: weft cut-loop at March 02, 2012 05:57 PM (dxTxt)



Can't we have both? I don't know about you, but I'm pretty capable at hammering away using both strategies. I have no problem ridiculing this cum dumpster while simultaneously pointing out Obama's overreach. It's the MFM that pretends we're only capable of strategy #1.

Posted by: mugiwara at March 02, 2012 06:08 PM (KI/Ch)

371 can we chew gum and walk?

This again is a variation of the "Do not say this because it undermines group strength."
Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 05:48 PM (nj1bB)

It's not about undermining "group strength."

It's about priorities.

I don't mind Rush, but I'm not a big fan. He's an entertainer. Should a misstep by Rush be a priority for conservatives?

Blogs have a limited number of posts. Radio and television shows have a limited number of minutes. As a consumer, I have a limited about of time to digest these.

In a perfect world, sure, we can all walk and chew gum at the same time. In the real world, we have jobs and kids and spouses and leaky roofs and cars with bad transmissions.

As a conservative, should your priority be pointing out the flaws of other conservatives?

Is it okay to do? Absolutely. But as a priority, it should be way down here. If you're spending the limited time and energy of your blog and your readers by pointing the spotlight on other conservatives, you're wasting valuable resources.

I think it's appalling to see conservatives suddenly latch onto Rush's comments, which were mostly nothing, as if it's the last meal of a dying wolf.

If you're a conservative, you don't have anything better to do?

That's not a demand for group solidarity. I think that's just common sense.

Posted by: 12thMonkey at March 02, 2012 06:09 PM (fZzaW)

372 A big part of being a Conservative is not caring about being part of the group enough to go along, not caring if you agree with me or criticize my point of view.

It's my opinion that's important - to me, always has been, friendships have suffered and at times been secondary.

Now get the hell off my lawn.

Posted by: ontherocks at March 02, 2012 06:09 PM (ZJCDy)

373 We dont need to "defend" rush , just point to bill maher and letterman they're uglier in their jokes and no fuzz about that on the left.

Posted by: Temper Tantrum at March 02, 2012 06:09 PM (AWmfW)

374 I'm with you 100%, Ace. That's why I didn't back down when Greta told us we shouldn't report on what Mike Tyson said about Sarah Palin. No matter how people impugned my motives. I didn't agree with them, and I said so.

Posted by: Jim Treacher at March 02, 2012 06:10 PM (X3KAb)

375 A whore trades sex for money. Fluke wants her pills for free. She's a moocher, not a whore. Separate issue.

A junkie drug smuggler who needs help getting it up isn't the guy I want arbitrating sexual morality. If I were a liberal, I wouldn't want either Clinton as my spokesman on matters sexual.

Anyone who feigned outrage when James Carville called Paula Jones a five-dollar trailer park whore should be outraged by Limbaugh's thuggish ways.
Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at March 02, 2012 06:08 PM (a5ljo)

who cares. she is still a slut. who said whore anyway? besides, how do you know?

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 02, 2012 06:10 PM (Z9EHQ)

376 Yes, and they're succeeding because he gave them more ammo.

No they're not. This is what I mean by the fainting couches. They were planning to have her be a poster child and probably go on a long tour castigating Republicans for being heartless about "womens' health" and being very vague about what she wanted. Limbaugh made it her against him and now she won't get away with that schtick anymore.

Plus, UE numbers come out tomorrow. Even with a name like Fluke, nobody will remember her in 2 weeks.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 02, 2012 06:10 PM (T0NGe)

377 not an artist,

yeah liberalism is the "default' sort of politics as it's so soft-headed and filled with nice-sounding but vapid aspirations. Like, "freedom from want." It's nice -- but the hidden question there is, okay, yes, who provides that?

Oh wait, I do?

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 06:10 PM (nj1bB)

378 personally i'm just sick of even obvious moral issues being framed as utilitarian ones. has the drug war worked? no. does that mean drugs should be legal? not necessarily. even if something's not entirely effective there's the value of stigma, by which i don't mean demonizing addicts but sending a societal message about what's acceptable.

Posted by: Aspiring Pope Benedict at March 02, 2012 06:10 PM (60GaT)

379 you lie! I want socialism, preferably the Fabian kind

Posted by: sandra Fluke, a political slut at March 02, 2012 05:37 PM (W6iIX)
My apologies. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.So, in that case, you nothing but a whore of The Hive. Good luck with that. Once we all go Galt, I figure no of this will be a problem anyway.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at March 02, 2012 06:10 PM (pOUA4)

380 So yes, always attack is a good thing to aspire to,
but not every attack is productive. If you charge far ahead of a
defensible line you'll be surrounded and be in a tricky bulge situation.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 06:04 PM (nj1bB)
------------------------

This is true ace, but from what I have seen and what the two authors said this morning, the right is rarely in the attack mode at all.

While Rush's "slut" statement is probably an ineffective attack, at least it is an attack. As for creating problems with liberal press and the Dems, it doesn't matter what we say, we will still be attacked.
Remember, they are ALWAYS in the attack mode. And when they have no venue for attack in an area they are losing in they will simply change the subject and attack down a different path that they think will hurt Republicans. .

Posted by: Vic at March 02, 2012 06:11 PM (YdQQY)

381 Posted by: Vic at March 02, 2012 06:00 PM

Vic, as usual, has it straight. It's why I much prefer Ace to blithering squish-blobs like Ed "Poppin' Fresh" Morrissey and his band of apologists, equivocators and all-around players at the game of politics.

I once liked Rash Fatblob but, like Howard Stern, I found his act getting tiresome. If he really were Mr Conservative, he wouldn't have to remind people of that "fact."

Even if he sometimes seems totally HUA, Ace at least is sincere and passionate about his beliefs. That's rare among "conservative" bloggers. Except, maybe, for Kathryn Lopez, and since I'm not a Catholic, I ain't buyin' her line either.

What we need to do is be relentless about hounding the stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable traitor. The miserable shit is a freekin' criminal, for crissake, and he will cause untold additional misery if re-elected. Ditto for his enablers and co-conspirators.

Wish Ace would do a little more of that, but hey, a guy's gotta watch movies sometimes, too.

Posted by: MrScribbler at March 02, 2012 06:11 PM (VrI4Z)

382 As a 'convert' to conservatism, agree with you Ace. Previous to conversion, was basically enjoying life and mindless. For some reason, 2006 got the attention. A very large education from reading, resulting in prolonged thinking and discussion, made me realize what most people knew, long ago.

The main point in the thinking is human nature, in this view, a dual human nature. However you get there (religious belief, secular belief, whatever), we humans, like it or not, inherit two traits -- a desire for personal autonomy and a need for society with others. To proceed, we require both at once.

Conservatism provides the opportunity to decide for oneself and to pursue those decisions in actual living through discourse with others. We must respect others' rights to do the same, which BTW, is equality of opportunity.

Anyone or anything that subtracts from those freedoms is something to shout about. And at this point, a need for practical morality enters the picture. Dishonesty simply doesn't work when pursuing contracts with others.

A suggestion for today and for the coming year -- do unite to vote Obama and the progressive left out of office in 2012. First things first.

As the quintessentially sane Breitbart stated: <i>"I will march behind whoever our candidate is, because if we don't, we lose .... Anyone who is willing to stand next to me to fight the progressive left, I will be in that bunker. And if you're not in that bunker because you're not satisfied with this candidate, more than shame on you, you're on the other side."</i>






Posted by: AB Catson at March 02, 2012 06:12 PM (u0GlI)

383 Not all people believe getting blowjobs on the streets on New York while shooting up heroin is a good thing.
Crazy people, but people.

Posted by: Dr Spank at March 02, 2012 06:12 PM (lVGED)

384 She's a moocher, not a whore.

No, she's a whore. It's just that her Johns are not the ones who pay.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 02, 2012 06:12 PM (T0NGe)

385 Myself, I'm pretty loose on the morals bit, I'm more permissive on that than even my liberal relatives

My attitude is, if you wanna be a drunk, buy your own drinks

My conservatism says "do what you want to yourself, but don't tell me I have to foot the bill"

Same goes for this moralism from the left about food

I'll eat burgers and fries and I won't demand that others pay for my triple bypass

Posted by: kbdabear at March 02, 2012 06:12 PM (Y+DPZ)

386 Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at March 02, 2012 06:08 PM (a5ljo)

Good point that she is a moocher. And I don't give a rat's ass that she screws alot. Personally? I think it's a lie. I'll bet she doesn't screw nearly as often as she would like us to think, and that it is a rhetorical device.

As for Rush? Who did he harm? Not me. Not you? Did he cost you anything? No.

And Carville's comment was vile, because it had no link to reality. Limbaugh's comment has a significant link to reality.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at March 02, 2012 06:12 PM (nEUpB)

387 373
We dont need to "defend" rush , just point to bill maher and letterman
they're uglier in their jokes and no fuzz about that on the left.

Amen, thank you. And that is why the left is winning. They don't bash their own. Ace is in the mold of Meghan Mccain, He thinks if he bashes the right sometimes he will gain the acceptance of the "cool kids".

Posted by: gride at March 02, 2012 06:12 PM (wPKc6)

388 >>>I don't mind Rush, but I'm not a big fan. He's an entertainer. Should a misstep by Rush be a priority for conservatives

Ayyy. Well then I guess the problem here is a divergence on where you call foul.

I guess you call foul on me for discussing this, while not going a step before that and calling foul on Rush for clumsily dropping a grenade in the tent.

You just find fault for me for taking notice that the tent seems to have suffered some blast damage.

the news is the news. I don't control it, neither do you, neither does rush.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 06:13 PM (nj1bB)

389
he's turning...he's turning..... butmeh - this from the guy who says ALL Ron Paul supports are idiots.

Posted by: jacke at March 02, 2012 06:13 PM (5Cwv4)

390

RUSH IS Tha Man.

He's always been Tha Man. He will continue to be Tha Man.

I like Ace, too. But he's simply not Tha Man.

Posted by: J. Moses Browning at March 02, 2012 06:13 PM (GiEaA)

391 My main question is "Should an adult be free to do as he pleases?" Speaking of legislating morality, I think it's more moral to put the maximum amount of trust into a fellow citizen and permit him to make his own mistakes (or have his own victories), than to attempt to force him into good decisions by taking away some freedom.
Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 05:55 PM (nj1bB)

Define free, though. Free from legislative interference? Absolutely. (And Santorum can take a hike if he wants to use the state for these ends)
Free from social pressure? I don't think that we can afford to avoid trying to convince virtue into people, even if it has a low success rate, because the vices take such a toll. (again, as does the gov't's heavy hand)

Posted by: Randy M at March 02, 2012 06:13 PM (vI8R6)

392 Oh wait, I do?

Heh. Sucker!

Posted by: Barry Soetoro at March 02, 2012 06:13 PM (pOUA4)

393 >>>He thinks if he bashes the right sometimes he will gain the acceptance of the "cool kids".

I actually think I am one of the cool kids so I don't really need to gain their acceptance.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 06:14 PM (nj1bB)

394 If you look at this issue purely on economic grounds then you need to work out what costs more. I actually don't though. that would be a secondary question. My main question is "Should an adult be free to do as he pleases?" Speaking of legislating morality, I think it's more moral to put the maximum amount of trust into a fellow citizen and permit him to make his own mistakes (or have his own victories), than to attempt to force him into good decisions by taking away some freedom.

Ace, if you find that the economic and human cost of permissive drugs policies is far greater than prohibition what do you do then? We may even find that in such a situation prohibition becomes an issue for liberals who love to enact laws 'for the children'.

Posted by: Decaf at March 02, 2012 06:14 PM (ttftK)

395 What we need to do is be relentless about hounding the stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable traitor. The miserable shit is a freekin' criminal, for crissake, and he will cause untold additional misery if re-elected. Ditto for his enablers and co-conspirators.

Amen to that!

Posted by: jewells45 at March 02, 2012 06:15 PM (Z71Vg)

396 "If you want to move someone to the conservative side, you must first
convince them that conservatives are not, as the media claims, crazy or
weird. That is 90% of the battle, actually, as Breitbart knew, and as he
made it his life's mission to prove."




That's where I think you're wrong, Ace. In trying to combat the Leftist Media propaganda we legitimize and waste our time trying to say "WE don't do that! That's not us!" while knowing full well the Media isn't going to change its narrative.

We don't need to convince people the Media is wrong, we just need people to know what we're about, and let them come to the realization that the Media is wrong...like David Mamet or Dennis Miller did.

People convert to the Right because the Right matches an ideology they always had but were either afraid to show it or didn't bother to explore it. They were Lefties in college because it was fashionable, and then they got out into the real world and took on families, mortgages, owned businesses and were subjected to a ludicrous tax system. So they moved to the center but never gave themselves the opportunity to listen to the Right; only the media's narrative of the Right.

People don't convert to the Left because they're nutjobs like Andrew Sullivan. They do so because they grow tired of having standards and morals. They want to be thought of as hip and progressive. Or it becomes financially appealing to them because they failed so badly when they were Right Wingers (i.e. Ed Schultz).

No one begins life raised as a Rightwinger and ever converts to the Left based on any other reason other than the ones I gave above.

Fighting the Media Narrative is a losing battle. Relating on a personal level is the only way we are going to get more "converts". But people don't really "convert" to Conservatism, they just allow what the beliefs they always had to see the light of day.

And Rush Limbaugh is what he's always been. A commentator/Entertainer who is very good at generating controversy when he needs one. I still agree with about 80% of what he says, but understand clearly what Rush did in this case: he manipulated the media/Left into elevating a morally questionable third year law student as some sort of hero. When centrists look into the story and realize Fluke is arguing in favor of as much sex as she wants while we should be paying her for it, they won't think much of the Left/Media and their new poster child.

Posted by: Sgt. York at March 02, 2012 06:15 PM (B4VH/)

397 I'll bet she doesn't screw nearly as often as she would like us to think, and that it is a rhetorical device.

Oh, of that I have no doubt. I think she likes the reputation. It makes her feel attractive.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 02, 2012 06:15 PM (T0NGe)

398 Okay....I agree with Vic more and more as the day goes on.

This is proof that bourbon is the cure for all things.
----------------------


LOL, I thought we always agreed on a lot of things, especially bourbon. I wish I could have some right now.

Posted by: Vic at March 02, 2012 06:15 PM (YdQQY)

399 I am not a huge rush fan, I am not sure I have ever listened to a full hour of his show since he went on the air. He was a lonely voice in the wilderness when he first started and gets props though not obedience for that.

I do think he has as much a chance of converting people as anyone else. not everyone is inclined to be converted in the same way. I see rush having more impact on older men fed up with the crap liberals keep forcing down their throats.

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 02, 2012 06:16 PM (Z9EHQ)

400 You really think that most people, including Christians, agree that the use of contraception by married couples is immoral?
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at March 02, 2012 06:06 PM (+lsX1)

-------------------------------------------

I'll try this again. The Bible tells us that nothing or no one should interfere with what happens in the marriage bedroom. If the couple want to use contraceptives, that's their divine right. The Christians that I know believe this.

Posted by: Soona at March 02, 2012 06:16 PM (eaQ7w)

401 what a bunch of commenters are describing here is libertarianism, not conservatism.

libertarianism is a component of conservatism, and even there it depends. old-line libertarianism was about not having the government force private actors to follow its rules, even if said private actors were doing something other people perceived as abridging their rights. Reason Magazine libertarianism isn't really all that distinguishable from cultural liberalism in my view, they hate the modern GOP more than the Left.

in any case it's never been the main core of American conservatism. argue that it should, fine, but it's goofy to call out cultural conservatives as crypto-fascists, not true conservatives, or whatever.

Posted by: Aspiring Pope Benedict at March 02, 2012 06:16 PM (60GaT)

402 This whole Sandy the Slut bit started out as some feminist hacktivist trying to convince America that she's somehow being oppressed because it costs money for birth control

Rather than remaining an argument for "you wanna dance, you pay the band", it became an issue of moralism rather than economics and responsibility

That's the kind of shit that Santorum can't avoid obsessing on even at gunpoint

Posted by: kbdabear at March 02, 2012 06:16 PM (Y+DPZ)

403 Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 06:14 PM (nj1bB)

Let's not go overboard. We know that your regular Tuesday night gig is actually a D and D all-nighter.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at March 02, 2012 06:17 PM (nEUpB)

404 Fluke is a skank. That much is clear. She has worked very hard to get that label and I think she would be proud of having finally earned something in her life.



You have to love the left, though. They get all pretend offended at the accurate description of "slut" (with the skank, herself, proud to claim that her slutty lifestyle is allegedly draining her wallet - while shoveling untold piles of money for that useless Lawn School) but it was the left who championed the rise of "bitch-slap". Kind of funny, though this sort of hypocritical stupidity of a very low and base nature is what the left does. It's what they are. Being only a slut would be a step up for a leftist. Of course, Fluke is not only a slut. She's a slut who is proud to tell America that we need to pay for her skanky lifestyle.

Posted by: really ... at March 02, 2012 06:17 PM (X3lox)

405 I {ace} actually think I am one of the cool kids so I don't really need to gain their acceptance.
---------------

If you have it, you don't need it. If you need it, you don't have it. If you have it, you need more of it. If you have more of it, you don't need less of it. You need it to get it. And you certainly need it to get more of it.

But if you don't already have any of it to begin with, you can't get any of it to get started, which means you really have no idea how to get it in the first place, do you?

You can share it, sure. You can even stockpile it if you like. But you can't fake it. Wanting it, needing it, wishing for it.

The point is: If you've never had any of it, ever, people just seem to know."

Posted by: Bruce Campbell at March 02, 2012 06:17 PM (h6mPj)

406 Posted by: Vic at March 02, 2012 06:15 PM (YdQQY)

The first sip will just be that much more wonderful.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at March 02, 2012 06:18 PM (nEUpB)

407 "Oh, of that I have no doubt. I think she likes the reputation. It makes her feel attractive."

If she wants to feel attractive, I recommend lingerie instead of proclaiming one's sluttiness in the halls of Congress.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at March 02, 2012 06:18 PM (pOUA4)

408 Can't we have both? I don't know about you, but I'm
pretty capable at hammering away using both strategies. I have no
problem ridiculing this cum dumpster while simultaneously pointing out
Obama's overreach. It's the MFM that pretends we're only capable of
strategy #1.Posted by: mugiwara


Sure, but don't think everyone on the Right can do both. Above-board and below-board strategies are useful in their own right but mixing them together just gets you in trouble.

Above-board for the politicians and the brand names on our 'side', and below-board for grassroot, online trench warfare.

Pols and brand name conservative pundits have to focus their attention on the issues that count or they become the story. The public isn't going to take the time to investigate every nuance of every single topic our pols and big names discuss. And as soon as our biggies go off chasing rabbits, the MSM has a headline with which to beat us over the head.

Blogs, online stuff - they aren't useful as examples of "der Evil conservatives" for MSM fodder. Have at it, go wild, be as nasty as you fucking like but why would we want to lose the bigger battles for the sake of catharsis?


Posted by: weft cut-loop at March 02, 2012 06:19 PM (dxTxt)

409 I'll try this again. The Bible tells us that nothing or no one should
interfere with what happens in the marriage bedroom. If the couple want
to use contraceptives, that's their divine right. The Christians that I
know believe this.


Just about everybody outside of the Santorum campaign believes this.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at March 02, 2012 06:19 PM (+lsX1)

410 I pretty much call anyone who says ... and demands... thatI have to pay for their pleasures a whore... and if I'm not involved or getting anything out of it, they are a whore of the worst kind.

Posted by: Reality Man at March 02, 2012 06:19 PM (L2x1w)

411
Ace, all I can say is HERE, HERE! (gulp)

Posted by: mantuaBill at March 02, 2012 06:19 PM (96j+b)

412 404 Fluke is a skank. That much is clear. She has worked very hard to get that label and I think she would be proud of having finally earned something in her life.



You have to love the left, though. They get all pretend offended at the accurate description of "slut" (with the skank, herself, proud to claim that her slutty lifestyle is allegedly draining her wallet - while shoveling untold piles of money for that useless Lawn School) but it was the left who championed the rise of "bitch-slap". Kind of funny, though this sort of hypocritical stupidity of a very low and base nature is what the left does. It's what they are. Being only a slut would be a step up for a leftist. Of course, Fluke is not only a slut. She's a slut who is proud to tell America that we need to pay for her skanky lifestyle.
Posted by: really ... at March 02, 2012 06:17 PM (X3lox)

she is a cheap version of monica lewinsky, all the sleaze, none of the sex. gives new meaning to lying ho .

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 02, 2012 06:19 PM (Z9EHQ)

413 That said, proclaiming one's sluttiness in the halls of Congress WILL get you laid.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at March 02, 2012 06:19 PM (pOUA4)

414 Then come the suggestions that I'm doing this to curry favor with the MSM which is not exactly ringing me up.

---------

No different than the suggestions from other commenters that Rush is actually purposefully undermining our election chances because his ratings our better with Democrats in control

Posted by: Rich at March 02, 2012 06:20 PM (ldOlo)

415 Catholics? never heard of 'em

Posted by: Aspiring Pope Benedict at March 02, 2012 06:20 PM (60GaT)

416 " . . . that you must be rural and Christian . . . "

Oh my goodness, Ace. One does not have to be Christian to understand that the sexual debauchery is a social ill that should be discouraged. Sociology has demonstrated that, if only to present the spread of disease. Then there's the increase in child abuse -- mom's gotta keep her love-life going, which means strange men coming and going all the time.

If it's intellectual honesty you are looking for, stop insisting that sexual proclivities are enshrined in the Constitution merely because that lifestyle is apparently central to your own self-concept . . . kind of like it's a religion or something.

Posted by: NotALibertarian at March 02, 2012 06:20 PM (EjhWd)

417 I hate crowds. I hate being told what to do. I want you to leave me the fuck alone. THAT is what a conservative is.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at March 02, 2012 05:55 PM (nEUpB)


Spoken like a true fellow jersey dude. lol


Posted by: Berserker at March 02, 2012 06:21 PM (FMbng)

418 can I make a Professor of Comedy point?

there's this dangerous middle ground in making a joke. Like, if you actually become MORE extreme, and MORE unfair, and MORE vicious, suddenly it's funny and also no one can argue about it because you're obviously kidding.

Like I'm laughing aloud at whoever just called her a "cum dumpster" and am laughing about the idea of Limbaugh saying, "So this cum dumpster..."

Ahhhh... yeah he couldn't have said that. I'm just saying, if he DID say it, it would have been so far over the line it would have been within the lines.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 06:21 PM (nj1bB)

419
374
I'm with you 100%, Ace. That's why I didn't back down when Greta told us
we shouldn't report on what Mike Tyson said about Sarah Palin. No
matter how people impugned my motives. I didn't agree with them, and I
said so.

Posted by: Jim Treacher at March 02, 2012 06:10 PM (X3KAb)

Actually , ace saw through why "milfistan" daily caller run that against Palin. Denigration.

Posted by: Temper Tantrum at March 02, 2012 06:22 PM (AWmfW)

420 >>>the thing is, you know -- people in prison get drugs, don't they?


So what, exactly, are we accomplishing here?

Well as a passive consumer. The fact that beer is available at my grocery store in 50 different varieties, attractively packaged, priced to sell, with throngs of dudes just like me grabbing packs of their favorite stuff and telling me they are planning for good times etc etc. Is a great motivator to get me to try beer.

So I try beer. Beer IS cool. I become a recreational user of beer.

Imagine if heroin had such a section at Safeway.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose finally remembers why he's here at March 02, 2012 06:22 PM (0q2P7)

421 Ace, because you wrote this, you are not a conservative.

Posted by: True Conservative at March 02, 2012 06:23 PM (ICSy6)

422 actually he would have been in real trouble for it.

but I would have laughed myself so hard I'd've shat my pants.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 06:23 PM (nj1bB)

423 So, what's the effectiveness of bitching about Limbaugh anyway? Does anybody think Limbaugh is gonna change?
Rush called her a slut?
So what? Big deal.
Even if I grant it's an own goal by Rush. So what?
Rush isn't reading this.
Rush is gonna do what he wants.
Who gives a fuck.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at March 02, 2012 06:23 PM (ZPrif)

424 Ace puts me in a "tricky bulge situation."

Posted by: McCarthyist at March 02, 2012 06:24 PM (3VBRh)

425 it's like i told y'all -- bitches ain't shit

Posted by: Dr. Dre, Godfather of Modern Conservatism at March 02, 2012 06:24 PM (60GaT)

426 But the thing is some attacks backfire, and wind up costing you days of defense.


Not this one. IMHO, attacking a privileged Georgetown University Law School slut, as Rush has done (and now Mark Levin on the air right now), presents a perfect opportunity to illustrate the difference between the left and the right.

It's not a religious or social con issue, in my view. It's an issue about what we expect the government to do for us, and how it will be paid for.

Posted by: Michael at March 02, 2012 06:24 PM (fQwDb)

427 Posted by: Vercingetorix at March 02, 2012 06:18 PM (pOUA4)

No matter how much lingerie I put on she is still going to be pretty damned ugly.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at March 02, 2012 06:24 PM (nEUpB)

428 "Here I stand. I can do no

other. God help me."

Martin "Ace" Luther got it done in several lines. Ace O'Spades took 37 pages. There's a lesson in here *somewhere*.

Posted by: Additional Blond Agent at March 02, 2012 06:24 PM (PMGbu)

429 We disagree. Am I actually a bad person, or a cringing coward, for disagreeing?
YES!
FYNQ


total sarc..who loves ya?

Posted by: hutch1200 at March 02, 2012 06:24 PM (ZB3N6)

430 >>>IMHO, attacking a privileged Georgetown University Law School slut, as Rush has done (and now Mark Levin on the air right now), presents a perfect opportunity to illustrate the difference between the left and the right.

calling her a slut illustrates that difference?

I would have focused on the dishonesty and shameless sense of self-entitlement, myself.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 06:25 PM (nj1bB)

431 I would also like to tell Fluke - keep your whore hand out of my wallet.

Posted by: Reality Man at March 02, 2012 06:25 PM (L2x1w)

432 Ace,

I'm with you on all that. Rush is a bunker-barker. He hides and shouts. He's a coward in many ways. He's courageous in that he takes on the left, but he does it from the bunker. I hate that. Same with Mark Levin in many respects.

But they are right on many things. So when they are, I'm with them. But I don't let too many people know I sometimes listen to them.

It's all about reasons, not loyalty. That's why many conservatives lean to the liberatarian side because libertarianism is, despite some glaring faults, all about reason.

That's my take anyway.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at March 02, 2012 06:25 PM (deaac)

433 430- Yes she is a slut just look at the way she is dressed!

Posted by: True Conservative at March 02, 2012 06:26 PM (ICSy6)

434 Not only are you wrong Ace, but by engaging in these needlessly contrarian excersizes as you have been more and more on this site, you are actually damaging your own reputation and potential.

Nobody in 'the tent' ever deals with firestorms surrounding explosive comments you make. Wonder why that is, Mr. Sanctimonious? Because you ain't doing shit compared to the guy with the microphone.

Whine all you like. Breitbart: So?

Only the Moron's care.

Posted by: tranquil.night at March 02, 2012 06:26 PM (X/Gwo)

435 I guess you call foul on me for discussing this, while not going a step before that and calling foul on Rush for clumsily dropping a grenade in the tent.
Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 06:13 PM (nj1bB)

And here, I think you are right.

I simply don't think this rises, at all, to the standard of dropping a grenade in the tent.

OMG... he called her a slut. Oh noes! Honestly, I think there are certainly people, outside of his listeners, who that will resonate with. "Hold on, you think I should work 70 hours a week at my job and pay for this chick's birth control pills? Seriously?"

And because I don't see this as a major grenade in the tent, I don't see the point in other conservatives dwelling on it. Is this a whole lot worse than the term Feminazi? Or his old homeless updates?

So yeah, I do call foul when someone who I consider to be a conservative points the finger at another conservative (entertainer) over something that I perceive to be fairly minor.

The liberals spend enough time doing that. Why must we?

Posted by: 12thMonkey at March 02, 2012 06:26 PM (fZzaW)

436 Posted by: Berserker at March 02, 2012 06:21 PM (FMbng)

Will you be joining us in Hoboken?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at March 02, 2012 06:26 PM (nEUpB)

437 Kinda like we shouldn't support santorum because right Ace!

Posted by: Trump at March 02, 2012 06:26 PM (uK/VW)

438 The great irony here is that Sandra Fluke's non-bankruptable student loan debt will keep her from buying contraceptives after she graduates, too. She can thank her boyfriend Obama for that.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at March 02, 2012 06:27 PM (pOUA4)

439 That said, proclaiming one's sluttiness in the halls of Congress WILL get you laid.
Posted by: Vercingetorix at March 02, 2012 06:19 PM (pOUA4)

------------------------------------

I wonder how many penis pumps were being stroked behind that congressional podium while she testified.

Posted by: Soona at March 02, 2012 06:27 PM (eaQ7w)

440 Like I'm laughing aloud at whoever just called her a "cum dumpster" and am laughing about the idea of Limbaugh saying, "So this cum dumpster..."

Ahhhh... yeah he couldn't have said that. I'm just saying, if he DID say it, it would have been so far over the line it would have been within the lines.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 06:21 PM (nj1bB)

hey that was really, really, funny. ruined a keyboard, still laughing. as funny as the phrase is, and as funny as it would be hear rush say it, it is even funnier in type.

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 02, 2012 06:27 PM (Z9EHQ)

441 Imagine if heroin had such a section at Safeway.]/i]

Totally! Imagine if any old high school kid could easily find marijuana for sale at an affordable price - the ensuing reefer madness would soon cripple the entire health care system. It is only the iron fist of the law that protects our youths from this senseless destruction.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at March 02, 2012 06:27 PM (+lsX1)

442 How bout we tie that bimbo's tubes to the doorknob and we all take turns slammin' that.

I'm buyin'

Posted by: rashlimbo at March 02, 2012 06:27 PM (ZJCDy)

443 At 369 "A whore trades sex for money. Fluke wants her pills for free. She's a moocher, not a whore. Separate issue."
I thought Rush called her a slut, not a whore. A slut is sexually promiscuous (gives it away for free).
Now say what you will about Rush's brush with the law, he was not costing us money or asking for anything. And, as someone who has listened to him for a long time, he has never said that he is a moral example of how we should conduct our sexual affairs.
As well, Carville's remark about Paula Jones was with regards to dragging a $100 bill through a trailer park.
Please get your facts straight missy or we will never begin to take you seriously.Now gobring me a sammich honey.

Posted by: Dogbert at March 02, 2012 06:27 PM (Gt46o)

444 The left brings people into the fold by offering free goodies.

We tell them "No, there are no goodies, but you get to be free."

Saying "No, there are no free condoms, also you are a slut" doesn't fit our message of freedom.

Posted by: Lauren at March 02, 2012 06:27 PM (9piWm)

445 Those first few paragrpahs apply perfectly to "Birthers" like myself. Over the last few years, I've often been told to "shut up" about the birth certificate (and the SS# and the passport, and the Civil Service card, and the EVERYTHING) not because they have proof that Obama was born in HI/is eligible to be POTUS, but because it "hurts us". BS. If it's the TRUTH, it's the TRUTH. I've also been told that "we have other things to focus on! Other things to get Obama on!" so "Birthers" shouldn't pursue what could be the biggest scandal in POTUS history because of that? Look, I can chew gum and walk at the same time. I can focus on more than one thing at a time. If some people want to prove that O's put out a forgery (and it seems that that includes Breitbart himself), let them!

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at March 02, 2012 06:28 PM (KL49F)

446 my problem with calling her a slut isn't a moral objection. I think she's a liar so who cares if someone adds in "slut."
But as a tactical thing?
people on the right have a saying, "always attack, always be on offense." But the thing is some attacks backfire, and wind up costing you days of defense.
So yes, always attack is a good thing to aspire to, but not every attack is productive. If you charge far ahead of a defensible line you'll be surrounded and be in a tricky bulge situation.

----------

And I agree with this, but this is just like the TR quote from yesterday. I am not going to criticize the strong man who is trying to lead the attack everyday. He may slip up, but I do the cause no good to constantly seek to criticize him everytime he does, because he's still the one in the arena.

I view Paul Ryan the same way. The guy voted for TARP...and I say, so? The man is in the arena fighting the good fight everyday. I'm not going to snipe from the cheap seats when he's moving the ball forward, even if he occassionally messes up.

Now, I don't think you did snipe Limbaugh today. Your post was actually a defense. But I do feel that, at times, you tend to pick at petty things with those are actually advancing the ball in the correct direction most days.

Posted by: Rich at March 02, 2012 06:28 PM (ldOlo)

447 377
not an artist,



yeah liberalism is the "default' sort of politics as it's so
soft-headed and filled with nice-sounding but vapid aspirations. Like,
"freedom from want." It's nice -- but the hidden question there is,
okay, yes, who provides that?



Oh wait, I do?

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 06:10 PM (nj1bB)

-------------

Exactly right. It's another reason I enjoy your posts. I know before reading them that you have actually thought about and applied reasoning to the subject before spewing out the verbiage. Therefore, I must do the same before commenting - which is a rule to be remembered.

Posted by: Not an Artist at March 02, 2012 06:28 PM (Lo/3Q)

448 Question:

If Ace is tired of sexual moralism, does that mean he'll loosen up on the amount of skin allowed on cheerleader pictures?

Oh well, thought I'd give it a shot

Posted by: kbdabear at March 02, 2012 06:28 PM (Y+DPZ)

449 I would have focused on the dishonesty and shameless sense of self-entitlement, myself.

I would have focused on the fact that she's in law school.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 02, 2012 06:28 PM (T0NGe)

450 (b) Debate talk shows are boring. Boooooooring. It is a rare person who can make someone who disagrees want to listen to him. Especially a liberal, whose arguments we are inundated with. Does NPR have debate shows? Not really, and they call that calm discourse. People don't really want to listen to debates. Especially with the usual soundbyte-time constraints. It's much more interesting to listen to a good monologue.

Many are - but that's often the fault of the talk show host and not debate itself.

For an example of how to do it well tune into a Dennis Prager show when he has a lefty on. Not only can he debate and refute their points in detail but he's very good at getting them to reveal the hidden assumptions that go into their arguments - which can be interesting even if they're not very good arguers. All the while keeping it pleasant and not degenerating into a shoutfest.

Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 06:28 PM (pAlYe)

451 Rush has probably converted more people than anyone else in the past 20 years. Because he's on the radio and millions listen.

It's part of the reason for the shift in white voters. Cause it's poorer whites who don't have office jobs that are out and about driving as part of their work and have the radio on.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at March 02, 2012 06:29 PM (ZPrif)

452 i broke it

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at March 02, 2012 06:29 PM (+lsX1)

453 My turn to play.

Ace: FWIW, I'll post something when I think you're incorrect in your assumptions, logic, conclusions, or whatever. I suppose this is part of the sport in commenting here. But, more usefully, I'll post something when I think you might find that a different course of action will yield better results.

Rush's poke at Fluke: Rush is, among other things, an entertainer; he lives by ratings, and they largely dictate to him what he should do and say.Suppose Rush had spent more time discussing Fluke: that she is 30, known to be an activist, reportedly applied to Georgetown to challenge their policy ... and where did she get the money to attend Georgetown Law? If she has the money, how is it that she cannot afford an extra $11.00 per month for The Pill? If she is on scholarship ... same question. And Trojans ... how many does she use per week?The costs that Fluke provided seem to not add up, and everyone knows it. And what is Fluke's history as an activist? Comedy gold, a descent into a sewer, or both? These facts may not need additional comments, only clarification ...

Judging by the Left's reaction, Rush stuck the pig hard. Someone needed to do this, and more-or-less this way.The Left ishurting, as they have been caught in ... a fabrication? an activist's concocted drama? a lie? Clearly, trusting testimony from a Leftist is unwise; it is much too frequently highly inaccurate and unreliable, and potentially made up. Everyone needs to see this, and be reminded ... everytime a Leftist makes a public statement. But I think a bit more script- and word-smithing would have been better: more pain, and less recourse.

I think it's important not to get distracted.Remember, the larger story is JEF's trampling of religious freedom. The even larger story is JEF's assumption of quasi-dictatorial powers;mandatory contraception insurance is not the first case, andnot only case.

Simply add this situation to the arsenal, for later ... perhaps late May or early June.

Posted by: Arbalest at March 02, 2012 06:29 PM (Lzsce)

454 Because you ain't doing shit compared to the guy with the microphone.

The guy with the microphone in this instance just derailed an argument conservatives were winning. That seems more unhelpful than not.

Posted by: Slublog at March 02, 2012 06:29 PM (tyz/1)

455 yeah, Ace, are you going to the moron meet up in hoboken? it is a hobo rich environment, its in the name man!

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 02, 2012 06:30 PM (Z9EHQ)

456 "No matter how much lingerie I put on she is still going to be pretty damned ugly.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at March 02, 2012 06:24 PM (nEUpB)"

Yeah, but she might "feel" attractive, which all the left cares about: feelings, whoa, oh, oh , feelings.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at March 02, 2012 06:30 PM (pOUA4)

457 Totally! Imagine if any old high school kid could easily find
marijuana for sale at an affordable price - the ensuing reefer madness
would soon cripple the entire health care system. It is only the iron
fist of the law that protects our youths from this senseless
destruction.

If you had been paying attention to the upthread you might notice I gave MJ the thumbs up and heroin the thumbs down because I thought MJ *could* be tried and used responsibly in a recreational manner, and heroin could not.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose finally remembers why he's here at March 02, 2012 06:30 PM (0q2P7)

458 >>>I would have focused on the dishonesty and shameless sense of self-entitlement, myself.

Those are the points, to be sure, but it's a golden opportunity that the left is using a brazen slut to present them.

Posted by: Michael at March 02, 2012 06:30 PM (fQwDb)

459 But the thing is some attacks backfire, and wind up costing you days of defense.



Only if you let them, or if some idiot apologizes for no reason. This is what kills things. Whenever Rush or anyone says something that is obviously true and accurate, some shithead in the GOP runs out and apologizes and then the rest of the pussies line up behind him. THAT is how to lose an argument - even one that you are perfectly correct on. This is why having Vichy allies is FAR more trouble than it's worth.

Posted by: really ... at March 02, 2012 06:30 PM (X3lox)

460 "For most people, they convert when they want to escape a set of dogmas and then live under fewer dogmas, or even none at all.


They do not wish to jump willy-nilly and embrace a whole new set of dogmas."
This may be true of political conversions, but I don't think it's true of religious conversions. Which, of course, wasn't what you were talking about. Still.

Posted by: Knemon at March 02, 2012 06:31 PM (c/SKq)

461 It was back after the 2008 election that Rush made a similar argument, that it isn't his job to carry the water for the GOP.

Rush was right then.

Ace it right now.

Posted by: Dave in Fla at March 02, 2012 06:31 PM (Why44)

462 Has anyone interviewed her proud parents yet?

Posted by: ontherocks at March 02, 2012 06:31 PM (ZJCDy)

463
"2. That the state has a compelling and legitimate interest in monitoring women's use of non-abortifacient birth control,"

Where the heck did this come from? I have not seen this as a legitimate debate point, though some want the populace to believe it is. I thought the debate was whether the governmentshould forcea person with a sincere belief in theinhumanity of contraception and abortifacientsto pay for other peoples' contraception and abortifacients.

Posted by: Craig Graham at March 02, 2012 06:31 PM (SO4gE)

464 political junkie sites overestimate how popular libertarianism is. Because right wing political junkies are much more likely to be libertarian types than the avg right-winger.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at March 02, 2012 06:32 PM (ZPrif)

465 Imagine if any old high school kid could easily find marijuana for
sale at an affordable price - the ensuing reefer madness would soon
cripple the entire health care system. It is only the iron fist of the
law that protects our youths from this senseless destruction.

Think: elementary school.

Also, we have a welfare state. Are potheads known for their industriousness?

Posted by: AmishDude at March 02, 2012 06:32 PM (T0NGe)

466 Republicans abandoning sense for emotion is not unheard of. It's not even necessarily wrong, but in slutgatefest I see the worst of it.

Haven't you figured out that this is a wedge issue, and who is giving you the wedgie?

I happen to be ashamed of Republicans who call this woman a slut who sleeps with anything that moves because she was wrong and has the wrong idea of what government should do.

You got baited. To outfox you don't pull out the tramp stamp and start stamping. That's a losing argument and, in my opinion, really really bad manners. I'm a prissypants its true. But I am legion. Lots of people are offended at a gut level by sexual insults hurled at women - and almost all of the people you could persuade through interest and reason would be.

To win don't play Obama's "war on women" game. It's not about that woman's sex life or any woman's sex life. It's about the role of federal government in healthcare.

You redirect. If you don't think the government should order a private company to contract with a third party to cover, at the government's whim, any particular treatment or medication, you've got a great case without resorting to the emotional battle Obama want's to wage. Without boorish behaviour that alienates, or relates to women in particular at all.

I don't think the federal government should order employers to pay for sex. Not for birth control - not for pregnancy (a natural consequence of sex only) and not, for that matter, for Viagra. But also not appendectomies or the setting of broken legs.

Conservative solutions focus on keeping government away form that kind of power. If the government wants to foster access to care, it can shelter income from fica and income tax for health care expenses/insurance the way it does for employers. If people could get reasonable insurance untethered from their employer, then NO one gets up in anybody's business.





Posted by: Sarahw at March 02, 2012 06:32 PM (LYwCh)

467 Will you be joining us in Hoboken?


Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at March 02, 2012 06:26 PM


Whats going on in Hoboken??

Please don't tell me a meetup, I hate that fucking town. If there is a single blade of grass there you would have to prove it to me. Its a 5 mile brick wall with windows. Holy shit please noooooooooo. lol

Posted by: Berserker at March 02, 2012 06:32 PM (FMbng)

468 455
yeah, Ace, are you going to the moron meet up in hoboken? it is a hobo rich environment, its in the name man!

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 02, 2012 06:30 PM

Hoboken? Oooooo, I'm dyyyyyiinnnnnn !!!!!!

Posted by: Bugs Bunny at March 02, 2012 06:32 PM (Y+DPZ)

469 "Judging by the Left's reaction, Rush stuck the pig hard."

Posted by: Arbalest at March 02, 2012 06:29 PM (Lzsce)

An old friend of mine has a saying: "Funny how when you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the only one who barks is the one who got hit."

Posted by: Vercingetorix at March 02, 2012 06:32 PM (pOUA4)

470 Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at March 02, 2012 06:27 PM (+lsX1)

Please don't equate marijuana with heroin.

Decriminalizing some drugs to decrease the legal costs to the country is probably a good thing. Suggesting that because our society handles marijuana use adequately (and even that is open to debate) we should legalize heroin is infantile.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at March 02, 2012 06:32 PM (nEUpB)

471 She's a liar not a slut.

Posted by: Serious Cat at March 02, 2012 06:32 PM (2YIVk)

472 For an example of how to do it well tune into a Dennis Prager show when he has a lefty on.

You are using Prager as a counter-argument to boring radio? I mean, I love him but he can be a snoozefest.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 02, 2012 06:34 PM (T0NGe)

473 WOW! Ace, you're wrong (per your request). Yousay, "You're either right, or you're wrong." You champion your 'conversion' and 'persuasion' as superior to my experience because of the 'anecdotal' experience.
Myalways Red conviction is borne of nothing but anecdotal experience. I don't just read (groupthink) Red stuff. Isoak-up everything the Left throws out there and challenge every assertion they make. For decades now. And your experience is somehow superior? Bullshit!But I still like your blog.

Posted by: Ed at March 02, 2012 06:34 PM (7U7hA)

474 "this concession is easily made-- I am not a deep thinker on conservative doctrine at all"

You want to be intimidated on this? Sit in a bar with Jonah Goldberg and Mark Steyn as they discuss the finer points of Hayek. Fucking scary.

Posted by: Dave in Fla at March 02, 2012 06:34 PM (Why44)

475 I think everyone should be forced to pay for my Val-U-Rite and Red Bull. It's a violation of my rights to compel me to pay for the sweet Lethe of alcohol poisoning.

Posted by: The Atom Bomb of Loving Kindness at March 02, 2012 06:35 PM (Pl6My)

476 ....but don't you DARE to call me a drunkard!

Posted by: The Atom Bomb of Loving Kindness at March 02, 2012 06:35 PM (Pl6My)

477 Posted by: Rich at March 02, 2012 06:28 PM (ldOlo)

I really object to this notion that by calling for miniscule offenses by our side not to be hammered repeatedly by other conservatives we are, in reality, demanding everyone step in line as a part of "group solidarity."

Apparently Rush committed such an unpardonable sin that even Republican presidential candidates must denounce him for it.

And if we suggest that it's silly for conservatives to point our guns at other conservatives, we're demanding "solidarity."

Okie dokie, then.

Posted by: 12thMonkey at March 02, 2012 06:36 PM (fZzaW)

478 Posted by: Sarahw at March 02, 2012 06:32 PM (LYwCh)

nope. you are wrong. slut is a word. it has a definition and she is covered by it. indeed no one is really complaining about her decision to have sex as much as that she has mad such unbelievable claims that make her look like a slut and a liar.

slut is used in prime time broadcast television, it is not as bad as us used to be.

you are making a mistake in by ceding ground in free speech for no good reason. does the use of the word in this instance affect you voting plans?

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 02, 2012 06:37 PM (Z9EHQ)

479 As a converted liberal I will say that one of the turning points in my conversion was that I could no longer tolerate or ignore the hypocrisy of thought on the left.

Case in point: People jumping on the outrage train because Limbaugh called Fluke a slut who ignored (or cheered) Maher calling Palin a c**t.

So I'm offended by both. If pressed, I'd admit that Maher's comment inspired a more visceral outrage. Human nature that I'm inclined to be angrier at the offense when it comes from the "enemy". But I'd be a hypocrite to condem Maher and offer full-throated support to Limbaugh.

Posted by: Dumb_Blonde at March 02, 2012 06:37 PM (pVLyr)

480 Posted by: yankeefifth at March 02, 2012 06:30 PM (Z9EHQ)

coalitionoftheswilling told me the same joke, and I told him that I was stealing it....but you beat me to it!

ace is too much of a pussy mainstream Republican trying to ease his way into the halls of power. He would never show up at a Hoboken meetup.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at March 02, 2012 06:37 PM (nEUpB)

481 She's a liar not a slut.

------------

There is no more proof that she's a liar than there is she is a slut. All we know is that she is one or the other, so I see no problem in calling her both.

Posted by: Rich at March 02, 2012 06:37 PM (ldOlo)

482 >>>Sit in a bar with Jonah Goldberg and Mark Steyn as they discuss the finer points of Hayek.

If you actually did that instead of checking out the women nearby, I feel sorry for you.

Posted by: Michael at March 02, 2012 06:38 PM (fQwDb)

483 469 Vercingetorix at March 02, 2012 06:32 PM (pOUA4)

Too true.


FWIW, I lifted the line "Rush stuck the pig hard." from the preceeding thread. I forget who used it, but repeating it seemed descriptive.

Posted by: Arbalest at March 02, 2012 06:38 PM (Lzsce)

484 Half the outrage from the "true conservatives" is just made up bullshit anyways. I just was at Hot Air reading a post on how Romney blew it with his comments on the Blunt Amendment and all the commenters are playing along, ripping into Romney. The fact of the matter is, none of those people knew what the fuck the Blunt Amendment was last week either. Fuck'n disingenuous idiots.

Posted by: lowandslow at March 02, 2012 06:38 PM (GZitp)

485 " Can we have an end to this sort of argument by insult?"

I don't know. Can you refrain from calling people who have tactical disagreements with you "yahoos?"

Also, someone upthread said "leave the bible at home." Are you f'n kidding me? Even an atheist should know it - along with the works you cite, it is foundational.

Posted by: Knemon at March 02, 2012 06:38 PM (LcOke)

486 I'm not a big fan of handing my enemies a stick to beat me with. Unforced errors are unhelpful. But I don't see it as a huge deal.

Bugs me though that I can't make myself say "hey, that was great", and people disagree with me, and go straight to impugning my motives because "Well motherfuck, there just can't be no good reason for this disagreement so you're a fuckin RINO sell-out pussy" whatever.


It's lazy thinking, it requires no thought at all. Sloppy and annoying.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 02, 2012 06:38 PM (WvXvd)

487 We tell them "No, there are no goodies, but you get to be free." Saying "No, there are no free condoms, also you are a slut" doesn't fit our message of freedom.
Posted by: Lauren at March 02, 2012 06:27 PM (9piWm)

-----------------------------------------

You're wrong. What we're saying is that Fluke is free to be a cum dumpster. We just don't want to be forced to pay her to do it.

Posted by: Soona at March 02, 2012 06:38 PM (eaQ7w)

488 I mean, I like Golberg and Steyn, but I'm not going to pay much attention to their conversation about Hayek in a bar.

Posted by: Michael at March 02, 2012 06:39 PM (fQwDb)

489 Decriminalizing some drugs to decrease the legal costs to the country is
probably a good thing. Suggesting that because our society handles
marijuana use adequately (and even that is open to debate) we should
legalize heroin is infantile.


I'm not advocating the legalization of heroin. However, I would point out that the war on drugs hasn't seemed to make it very hard to get. But, I guess SWAT teams and methadone clinics and free needle programs are expensive, so we need some way to fund them. May as well be an enormously expensive and equally ineffective bureaucracy, it's the only thing that makes sense.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at March 02, 2012 06:39 PM (+lsX1)

490 Well said. Ace.
Gratefulness is a virtue lacking in many of your "true conservative" commenters. Thanks forall the hard work you do at no cost to us.

Posted by: scomo at March 02, 2012 06:40 PM (E5TiP)

491 "There is an idea brewing that you need people to buy into all of it or
else they're "not real conservatives" and will "sell you out.""

This is a point I've always been curious about regarding Romney. Many in the Pro-Life movement distrust him because he changed his position. But isn't that what we want? To convert people to realizing the reality of infanticide against a backdrop of the inconvenience of pregnancy?

Posted by: Dave in Fla at March 02, 2012 06:40 PM (Why44)

492 Posted by: Sarahw at March 02, 2012 06:32 PM (LYwCh)

I think this conservative clusterfuck is caused by absent leadership.

Mitt romney is the next in line , but there are no leaders.

Posted by: Temper Tantrum at March 02, 2012 06:40 PM (AWmfW)

493 that I was stealing it....but you beat me to it!

ace is too much of a pussy mainstream Republican trying to ease his way into the halls of power. He would never show up at a Hoboken meetup.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at March 02, 2012 06:37 PM (nEUpB)

yeah I am not sure there is enough contrarian oportunity in nj now that you guys have christie. needs to feed of the bloombergcuomo dark side of the force.

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 02, 2012 06:40 PM (Z9EHQ)

494 I really object to this notion that by calling for miniscule offenses by our side not to be hammered repeatedly by other conservatives we are, in reality, demanding everyone step in line as a part of "group solidarity."

Apparently Rush committed such an unpardonable sin that even Republican presidential candidates must denounce him for it.

And if we suggest that it's silly for conservatives to point our guns at other conservatives, we're demanding "solidarity."

Okie dokie, then.


------------


Exactly. And the people who complain about "group think" will then turn right around and tell you to get in line and vote for Mitt Romney. I love it.

Posted by: Rich at March 02, 2012 06:40 PM (ldOlo)

495 So...I guess there is a moron meetup in hobroken. Damn....

Posted by: Berserker at March 02, 2012 06:40 PM (FMbng)

496 Ok then. Good luck with that.

Posted by: Sarahw at March 02, 2012 06:40 PM (LYwCh)

497 You know..I am a fan of Limbaugh, I think he's great but he has said repeatedly.. if you don't believe in X, Y and Z then you aren't a conservative.

As Ace often says,at election time you don't need the complete buy-in, just enough for people to vote your way. Conservativish is good enough for me provided people follow through. Being a staunch conservativewho doesnot voteis less useful than a wishy washy person who does. Simple really.

Posted by: Decaf at March 02, 2012 06:41 PM (Csf6P)

498 slut is used in prime time broadcast television, it is not as bad as us used to be.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think that's a shame. I hate the coarsening of our culture and language.

Posted by: Slublog at March 02, 2012 06:41 PM (tyz/1)

499 Hey, at least if we're going to be losers, it's because we're stupid, not...

Well, shit. Talked myself into a corner again, didn't I?

Carry on.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at March 02, 2012 06:41 PM (bxiXv)

500 I certainly agree that our politicians shouldn't engage in these types of insults, I think the thought leaders should be careful, but they get a lot more leeway. I really have no problem with Rush calling some dumb bint who would get in front of Congress and talk about her yearly need of a truckload of condoms a slut, especially when ridiculing idiot liberals is what he does on a daily basis.

Then again, I'm the one who called her a cum dumpster.

Posted by: mugiwara at March 02, 2012 06:42 PM (KI/Ch)

501 Thought about TL;DRing it, but I didn't and I'm glad. This is exactly how I've been feeling about this whole True Conservative thing lately, and just haven't been able to put it to words as eloquently.

Fsck purity tests. Individuality is the whole point of conservatism.

Posted by: thirtyandseven at March 02, 2012 06:42 PM (HJRI7)

502 slut is used in prime time broadcast television, it is not as bad as us used to be.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think that's a shame. I hate the coarsening of our culture and language.
Posted by: Slublog at March 02, 2012 06:41 PM (tyz/1)

I agree with you. I am only making the point that its usage is not as rare as it was.

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 02, 2012 06:43 PM (Z9EHQ)

503 Ace is a squishy conservatism slut. And dammit I want his ewok tapes!!

Posted by: Rush Limbaugh at March 02, 2012 06:44 PM (HJRI7)

504 >>>people disagree with me, and go straight to impugning my motive

We don't really doubt your motives. We just think you're stupid.

Posted by: Michael at March 02, 2012 06:44 PM (fQwDb)

505 I'm out of order?

YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER!

THIS WHOLE BLOG IS OUT OF ORDER!!!

Posted by: REAL Conservative at March 02, 2012 06:44 PM (tB2tX)

506 That's what's happening. Our Republic is dying. We're praying for some chance at stopping it. And the media is keying our cars, pissing on our mothers' graves, and stealing our children's toys.

It isn't that odd to expect that under such high stress, people can't focus all the time.Posted by: Inspector Asshole at March 02, 2012 05:21 PM (xGjRE------------------------------Very well said. Alinsky Rule 1-9000, keep opposition offguard with bedlam from all fronts (seiu, crony capitalists, enviornmentalists, MSM, economy) so enventually they give in to majority of our wants. Democrats are doing this brilliantly right now.

Posted by: Turn it upside down at March 02, 2012 06:45 PM (rZZA3)

507 Maybe I'm old fashioned,


Posted by: Slublog at March 02, 2012 06:41 PM (tyz/1)


If you were old-fashioned, the first word that would come to your mind when some girl complained that she wanted you to pay for her anonymous and wanton sex would be, "slut".

Posted by: really ... at March 02, 2012 06:46 PM (X3lox)

508 I agree with you. I am only making the point that its usage is not as rare as it was.

Ah. We agree. Well, crap. That's just boring.

Posted by: Slublog at March 02, 2012 06:46 PM (tyz/1)

509 "Stuck the pig hard" sounds like an oil field term, and therefore I like it.

Posted by: Dogbert at March 02, 2012 06:46 PM (Gt46o)

510 Bugs me though that I can't make myself say "hey, that was great", and people disagree with me, and go straight to impugning my motives because "Well motherfuck, there just can't be no good reason for this disagreement so you're a fuckin RINO sell-out pussy" whatever.

It's lazy thinking, it requires no thought at all. Sloppy and annoying.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 02, 2012 06:38 PM (WvXvd)

You're right... but if someone thinks Rush's comments were catastrophic to conservatism and he need to "Stop Doing That" I think it's fair to ask what their priorities are.

Rush has been doing this for decades. Feminazi. Homeless Updates. Barney Frank updates with "My Boy Lollipop" as the intro music.

This really qualifies as something we need to call Rush out for? We as conservatives don't have anything better to fight than Rush?

Again, to me it's priorities.

I heard it, and kind of shrugged it off. If you hear it, and think a heartfelt apology is now in order, I might feel the need to put you in the David Brooks category of conservatism.

Posted by: 12thMonkey at March 02, 2012 06:46 PM (fZzaW)

511 469 "Judging by the Left's reaction, Rush stuck the pig hard."

Posted by: Arbalest at March 02, 2012 06:29 PM (Lzsce)


The problem is that the ultimate goal is not to make the Left squeal - it's to convince enough people to vote for our side so we can enact conservative policy.

Right? Or did I miss a meeting somewhere?

Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 06:47 PM (pAlYe)

512 Oh, mmmmmyyyyyyyyyyy...

I can't confirm this as true with my own eyes, but I hear from reputable sources (with no reason to lie) that the slutty moocher is well known at the D.C. nightclub Phase One. And, well, let's just say that most of the ladies at Phase One don't need much in the way of medicinal birth control.

Discussion rages on a members-only message board. I'll link when it spills over into a public forum.

Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at March 02, 2012 06:47 PM (a5ljo)

513 Just don't accept the left's premise all the time. You're a sucker for that.

Posted by: dagny who loved andrew at March 02, 2012 06:47 PM (u50z0)

514 Hi Slublog.

*waves*

Posted by: Michael at March 02, 2012 06:47 PM (fQwDb)

515 Soona, then that should be the explicit message.

You really don't need to throw in the slut bit. Say "Hey, aren't you liberals always saying you want the governmet out of the bedroom? Why are you trying to bring it in?"

It's much better to force them to live.up to their own rules than to say a soundbite destined to end up on Pandagon as an example of "patriarchal slut shameing".

Posted by: Lauren at March 02, 2012 06:47 PM (9piWm)

516 Posted by: Berserker at March 02, 2012 06:32 PM (FMbng)

Yes. If you want info shoot me an e-mail at:

nynjmeet at optimum dot net

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at March 02, 2012 06:47 PM (nEUpB)

517 You are correct Ace. You expressed that well.

Posted by: Percopius at March 02, 2012 06:48 PM (UZc7i)

518 If you were old-fashioned, the first word that would come to your mind
when some girl complained that she wanted you to pay for her anonymous
and wanton sex would be, "slut".


You, perhaps. For me, the first word that comes to mind is mooch. I have never in my life called a woman a slut and I don't plan to start just because I disagree with someone politically.

Posted by: Slublog at March 02, 2012 06:48 PM (tyz/1)

519 I wish Breitbart were reading this.

Posted by: Travis at March 02, 2012 06:48 PM (9WkMB)

520 Hi Michael. Hope you and your lovely wife are doing well.

Posted by: Slublog at March 02, 2012 06:49 PM (tyz/1)

521 Ace: "I won't bother writing long stuff. it's obviously not being read."

Please continue writing long stuff. You get to some great points, and you make them well.

Posted by: Don't mind me, I enjoy being helpful at March 02, 2012 06:49 PM (YTGKQ)

522 I can't confirm this as true with my own eyes, but I hear from reputable sources (with no reason to lie) that the slutty moocher is well known at the D.C. nightclub Phase One. And, well, let's just say that most of the ladies at Phase One don't need much in the way of medicinal birth control.

Discussion rages on a members-only message board. I'll link when it spills over into a public forum.
Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at March 02, 2012 06:47 PM (a5ljo)

she has a stall there?

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 02, 2012 06:49 PM (Z9EHQ)

523 Ace I am a fan of both you and Limbaugh! You are right arguments are good and if we couldn't disagree we would be Democrats! My problem with Rush is when he tells other people how to live.....like about working etc... I don't care if you sit on your ass all day as long as you don't expect me to feed ya!

Oh yeah Obama is a SCFMF!

Posted by: Dave Doyle at March 02, 2012 06:49 PM (EgHYq)

524 Good god, I get Ace's point but the people who are acting like this was some great travesty to conservatism need to stop. If that's the case how many of these type of comments do you think you'll find on Ace's twitter feed? Are each and every one of those destroyers of the movement too?

Posted by: Rich at March 02, 2012 06:50 PM (ldOlo)

525 Oh please, women call themselves and each other sluts all the time. Lighten up.

Posted by: dagny who loved andrew at March 02, 2012 06:50 PM (u50z0)

526 We are so proud of our daughter, and her courage to withstand endless sucking of cock and maintain a devoted commitment to anal-only while getting her ticket to leech off the taxpayers. God forbid she had ever been punished with a child.

Posted by: Sandra Fluke's Parents at March 02, 2012 06:50 PM (pOUA4)

527 "Individuality is the whole point of conservatism."

no it isn't. it's a component used differently in pretty much every ideology

Posted by: JDP at March 02, 2012 06:50 PM (60GaT)

528 Ace,

I'm with you on Rush. He never really appealed to me and I have basically the same opinion - loud guy with a mic. We're both on the same side, but he just doesn't float my boat.

But you've got to realize you exhibit the very same behavior you're railing against. The most recent example: many people disagreed with you about Romney vs. Santorum and you used your rather powerful platform to insult and condescend to those who disagreed with you. You could have focused on more substantial problems with Santorum, but you chose the most childish non-issues and lashed out at those who disagreed with you. "You want to lose."

Well, actually, no, asshole. And you're well within your rights to be an asshole. So why are you getting butthurt when people are assholes back?

You relied completely on polling information to push Romney v Santorum. How is this any different than relying on groupthink? There was a good debate to be had and you took the cheap road. Whoever said you construct strawmen at an alarming rate earlier was spot on.

I'll never forget during the O'Donnell/Castle clusterfuck your blatant appeal to authority in citing major conservative pundits to back up your opinion in a direct response to me on one of those sorry, sorry threads.

Just tone it down on the righteous indignation eh? So people are vocal and drag it into threads. Is your self-esteem so low or your philosophical foundation so weakthat random internet commenters calling you a coward or liberal are going to make you lose sleep?

Seriously, just ignore it.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at March 02, 2012 06:50 PM (rX1N2)

529 519 I wish Breitbart were reading this.

Posted by: Travis at March 02, 2012 06:48 PM (9WkMB)

Don't be so sure he's not, in some way or another.

Posted by: thirtyandseven at March 02, 2012 06:50 PM (HJRI7)

530 Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at March 02, 2012 06:39 PM (+lsX1)

That's a valid point, but enforcement shouldn't be all or nothing.

Moving toward an easing of restrictions on some drugs and focusing on the big dealers for the hard drugs is a much more efficient use of our LE dollars.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at March 02, 2012 06:50 PM (nEUpB)

531 I guess all those "Rush tossed a grenade into the tent" people know that Preznit Obama called Sandra Fluke "to see if she was alright" and Boehner has condemmed Rush's remark. That's the company I want to be in!

Posted by: Dogbert at March 02, 2012 06:51 PM (Gt46o)

532 "I'm not going to pay much attention to their conversation about Hayek in a bar"

The only woman there was my wife. Steyn checked her out.

Posted by: Dave in Fla at March 02, 2012 06:51 PM (Why44)

533 Posted by: Bugs Bunny at March 02, 2012 06:32 PM (Y+DPZ)

Join us!

nynjmeet at optimum dot net

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at March 02, 2012 06:51 PM (nEUpB)

534 >>>I'm not advocating the legalization of heroin. However, I would point
out that the war on drugs hasn't seemed to make it very hard to get.

I never suggested the "war on drugs" be continued as it has. However, as easy as drugs might be to get for you. I assure you I can get beer in a much easier manner than I can any form of illegal drugs.

What needs to be considered is in a consumer society, we are by our very nature, encouraged and even predisposed to "trying" stuff in the market place to see what we like. Some drugs have to remain outside of the legitimate marketplace because even an educated person cannot quantify the risks.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose finally remembers why he's here at March 02, 2012 06:52 PM (0q2P7)

535 527 "Individuality is the whole point of conservatism."

no it isn't. it's a component used differently in pretty much every ideology

Posted by: JDP at March 02, 2012 06:50 PM (60GaT)

yeah, but aren't we the ones saying you ought to be free to do what the hell you want so long as it doesn't involve causing harm/stealing from someone else?

How much more individualist does it get?

Posted by: thirtyandseven at March 02, 2012 06:52 PM (HJRI7)

536 not to wander too far afield, however, I have recently learned, the hardway - watching television wit my visiting relatives - that there is a new show called gcb - good Christian bitches. the add they are running has a gold, diamond encrusted cross as an ornament on a cowboy hat. i think the show is about a bunch of women that attend the same church and are anything but Christian in their behavior.

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 02, 2012 06:53 PM (Z9EHQ)

537 >>>The problem is that the ultimate goal is not to make the Left squeal -
it's to convince enough people to vote for our side so we can enact
conservative policy.Right? Or did I miss a meeting somewhere?

Um, sorry to say, you did miss the meeting. It was in Arkansas. We all agreed that winning was not important, we just want to feel self-righteous.

I'll try to get you on the mailing list for the next meeting.

Posted by: Michael at March 02, 2012 06:54 PM (fQwDb)

538 Just don't accept the left's premise all the time. You're a sucker for that.Posted by: dagny

Begs the question, don't it though?

Posted by: weft cut-loop at March 02, 2012 06:54 PM (dxTxt)

539 528 has it. Someone calling Ace a coward because of his thought is no different than Ace telling everyone last week who didn't fall in line behind Romney that it was because they just wanted to lose on purpose. Lazy argument that was trying to impugn someone's motive of not supporting Romney w/o actually thinking about it.

Posted by: Rich at March 02, 2012 06:54 PM (ldOlo)

540 Fsck purity tests. Individuality is the whole point of conservatism.

Posted by: thirtyandseven at March 02, 2012 06:42 PM (HJRI7)


Not really. Private property rights are necessary for any individual liberty to actually exist, so private property rights (and that must include a strictly limited set of governments with well-defined boundaries of a specific sort and placement) are really what conservativism is about. Individualism is the most powerful force on Earth. Conservativism is about constructing the specific sorts of governments that enable that, and thus far in the world only the US Constitution has provided such a definition, though this is mostly because just about every other country on Earth runs under a totally different system that is party-oriented with no separation of powers at all (the legislature must be owned by a faction before that faction can even form the Executive branch, thereby meaning that both branches are almost literally joined at the hip), no real limits on government action, no regular periods of government turnover ... Basically, no one else in the world has even tried, yet ...

Posted by: really ... at March 02, 2012 06:54 PM (X3lox)

541 not to wander too far afield, however, I have recently learned, the
hardway - watching television wit my visiting relatives - that there is a
new show called gcb - good Christian bitches.


Yeah, that's brave of them, isn't it? I'd like to see them try that with the religion of peace.

Posted by: Slublog at March 02, 2012 06:55 PM (tyz/1)

542 "yeah, but aren't we the ones saying you ought to be free to do what the
hell you want so long as it doesn't involve causing harm/stealing from
someone else?"

depends on the issue. in general i view politics more as a clash of society-wide visions -- not all of which require direct federal legislation -- and "neutrality" as generally dubious, and frequently used as a cloak by the Left.

Posted by: JDP at March 02, 2012 06:55 PM (60GaT)

543 Fuck yeah, Ace. +100

Posted by: Heralder at March 02, 2012 06:56 PM (N8zmf)

544 I'm heading over to the Belmont Club. Richard Fernandez is covering the "Rush called her a slut" story. That should raise my IQ by a few points...maybe even enough to bring me up to moron status.

Posted by: Dogbert at March 02, 2012 06:56 PM (Gt46o)

545 538
Just don't accept the left's premise all the time. You're a sucker for that.Posted by: dagny

Begs the question, don't it though?


Posted by: weft cut-loop at March 02, 2012 06:54 PM (dxTxt)

What?

Posted by: dagny who loved andrew at March 02, 2012 06:56 PM (u50z0)

546 What should really be a lame straw dog social argument can't be dismissed as such because this misguided 15 minutes of fame future litigator wants us to pay.

Rush is just calling foul in a sleeping theater.

No team involved, and you don't have to like either side, just your wallet.

Posted by: ontherocks at March 02, 2012 06:57 PM (ZJCDy)

547 Whatever.

This self-righteous delusional 'sincere artiste' load of fuck is coming from the same guy who was buying that Jared Lee Loughner was probably a right winger and that we should all be civil and worry about absolute accuracy in all things while being called racists and fascists. This is from the guy who was all too happy to partially blame the rhetoric of tea party nuts for Joseph Stack's decision to burn his house to the ground and bounce his plane off of some IRS offices in north Austin.

You have REGULARY shown yourself EAGER to think the worst of your side of politics and subjected yourself to the analysis of your political enemies and tried to pass your self off as a sort of enlightened guide leash holding us all back from the path of ruin and atrocity. You seem to think that you are the only good conservative and that everyone else is exactly what the democrats describe.

You quickly threw your weight behind Sharon Bialyeck and Goria Allred in their bizarre accusations and postulated that four accusations even if vague and from unnamed women was practically a conviction

I don't give a fuck if you think you are pretty tough and independent or whatever and I don't worry a bit if you praise Breitbart or piss in Rush's eye. I know where you stand. Protesting too much about any reader dissatisfaction with that won't change anything for you or anyone else. It is what it is.

What it is, is not heroic or impressive. You suck up to the press and accept their stupid premises and then claim it's being honest. Bullshit. It's being dumb and arrogant and blind to what is going on. You try to play too hip for room and often come as as not hip enough for the neighborhood.

I don't see you as much different than what Michael Steele or Frum do for that matter.

In your quest to be different and individual you zig and you zag and step on your own tongue and when that doesn't score the points you'd hoped it would, you rend your garment curse all the people for being too stupid to appreciate your antics.

You think you are one of the few who have the guts and brains to stand up to Rush. I think you don't have the brains or the courage to even try to take and hold the ground Rush aims for. You are timid, fretful, reluctant, easily swayed by leftist talking points, and you seem to confuse naysaying for prudence. You seem filled with a greater amount of contempt for your own allies than you have for your opponents.

Posted by: cackfinger at March 02, 2012 06:57 PM (BtIvK)

548 lauren: How nicely expressed that was. Simple and really non-prissy. It also conveys indirectly the danger of handing over that kind of power - that it could backfire.

Posted by: Sarahw at March 02, 2012 06:57 PM (LYwCh)

549 Yeah, that's brave of them, isn't it? I'd like to see them try that with the religion of peace.
Posted by: Slublog at March 02, 2012 06:55 PM (tyz/1)

yeah, not a lot of people willing to die for their art in hollywood these days. I do not really care what they do but I am surprised they think it is wise to make such an offensive and blatant attack. it will probably not last a season.

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 02, 2012 06:57 PM (Z9EHQ)

550 Didja ever notice that when Ace finds a hill that's worth dying on, it's always one that insults or pisses off a lot of his own readership?

I find that instructive.

Posted by: tsj017 at March 02, 2012 06:58 PM (vOH26)

551 so private property rights are really what conservativism is about.

Posted by: really ... at March 02, 2012 06:54 PM (X3lox)

Fair enough; I think we're looking at it from two different perspectives. Like you say, private property rights are essential to individualism, I guess I'm focusing more on the end (individualism) and you're looking at means (private property). Both legitimate; when I said that's what it's about, I was referring to ends.

Posted by: thirtyandseven at March 02, 2012 06:58 PM (HJRI7)

552 and Boehner has condemmed Rush's remark.

Posted by: Dogbert at March 02, 2012 06:51 PM (Gt46o)



I'd like to really give that guy a reason to cry. I can't believe he's still Weeper of the House. That is friggin nuts.

Posted by: really ... at March 02, 2012 06:58 PM (X3lox)

553
@Slublog
"The guy with the microphone in this instance just derailed an argument conservatives were winning. That seems more unhelpful than not."
An arugment which HE'S BEEN LEADING!In fact, his outburst was at the absurdity of the necessity for the argument to begin with!
Where's the evidence he's derailed anything? Absolutely nothing has changed on the policy argument. Liberals are still the ones dictating their social values. I believe you are extrapolating a conclusion based on your own political perspective. If anything, it might very well be possible that Rush is able to take this controversy and use it to directnational political discourse back to fact that nothing has changed with regards to that the regime isunconstitutionally mandatingthiscoverage, which is the main point that RUSH KEEPS SAYING is the whole reason why the Democrats manufacture theSandra Fluke testimony.

Posted by: tranquil.night at March 02, 2012 06:59 PM (X/Gwo)

554 I refuse to subsidize Sandra Fluke's contraception because my principles exclude me from her bedroom.

Except on Tuesdays. That's when she usually calls. I'm not proud of it, but hey.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at March 02, 2012 06:59 PM (pOUA4)

555 554 I refuse to subsidize Sandra Fluke's contraception because my principles exclude me from her bedroom.

Except on Tuesdays. That's when she usually calls. I'm not proud of it, but hey.
Posted by: Vercingetorix at March 02, 2012 06:59 PM (pOUA4)

come on, you are a moron, you can do better.

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 02, 2012 07:00 PM (Z9EHQ)

556 You seem filled with a greater amount of contempt for your own allies than you have for your opponents.

Yep. Very McCain-like. The conservative who can be reliably counted on to take a dim (and press/media-approved) view of his own side.

Posted by: tsj017 at March 02, 2012 07:00 PM (vOH26)

557 what's wrong with you wingnuts, is this Nazi Germany or something? I thought this was Amurrrrica

Posted by: Sandra Fluke Marsh at March 02, 2012 07:01 PM (60GaT)

558 Oh you also bitch about how the party is obsessed with purity and then you go around laying down lines and litmus tests of your own that you claim makes YOU a better breed of conservative. It's all very silly and petty and unconvincing to try and be above it all and down in it at the same time. You whine about Palin. You spin like a motherfucker to make Santorum and Newt look worse than they are and then spin some more to make Romney look better than he is. Then you think we all need to admit that we owe you something because you stand up to anything you don't like and try to shout it down from your sad little corner of the blogosphere? Whatever.

Posted by: cackfinger at March 02, 2012 07:01 PM (BtIvK)

559 Ace, I've made two conversions. I've gone from liberal(ish) to conservative, and then from conservative, to libertarian. And you're right on about how conversions happen.

Posted by: Mr. Estrada at March 02, 2012 07:02 PM (7dE7j)

560 depends on the issue. in general i view politics more as a clash of society-wide visions -- not all of which require direct federal legislation -- and "neutrality" as generally dubious, and frequently used as a cloak by the Left.

Posted by: JDP at March 02, 2012 06:55 PM (60GaT)

Well. I think I tend to be waaay more suspicious of "society-wide visions"... usually sounds like another way to make me contribute something that belongs to me, to the Common Good.

You're right about neutrality being abused by the left, but I think it's generally the best approach in terms of govt policy, you just gotta know that, the left being the left, they will try to distort it.

They lie; it's all they know how to do.

Posted by: thirtyandseven at March 02, 2012 07:02 PM (HJRI7)

561 Conservatives will never march in lockstep. Leftists do because they are a singular species of retard. They are all carbon copies of the same mental defect. I'll go as far as saying that it shouldn't even be framed as conservatives verses libtards, because in reality its libtards verses the entire spectrum of free thinking mankind.


Posted by: Berserker at March 02, 2012 07:02 PM (FMbng)

562 Boehner's my congressman. I'm seriously considering voting against him in the primary, and maybe even in the general. I hate the thought of handing the Dems and media his scalp, but . . . he's earned involuntary retirement.

Posted by: tsj017 at March 02, 2012 07:02 PM (vOH26)

563 Posted by: lowandslow at March 02, 2012 06:38 PM (GZitp)
HA is full of disingenuous idiots. That's why I left. They jumped from one unqualified jokecandidate to the next (HA was the bastion of Cain-the-cad defense) and threw damn good candidates like Perry under the bus. And thanks to idiots like the commenters there, we now have a choice between four RINOs.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at March 02, 2012 07:03 PM (KL49F)

564 Didja ever notice that when Ace finds a hill that's worth dying on, it's always one that insults or pisses off a lot of his own readership?

I find that instructive.
Posted by: tsj017 at March 02, 2012 06:58 PM (vOH26)

I find it instructive that you think his "readership" consists only of the people who comment.

Posted by: Heralder at March 02, 2012 07:04 PM (N8zmf)

565 "come on, you are a moron, you can do better.

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 02, 2012 07:00 PM (Z9EHQ)"
I know it's pathetic. I'm actually so ashamed I thought about turning gay. But I don't have that good of a body.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at March 02, 2012 07:04 PM (pOUA4)

566 HA is full of disingenuous idiots. That's why I left. They jumped from one unqualified jokecandidate to the next (HA was the bastion of Cain-the-cad defense) and threw damn good candidates like Perry under the bus. And thanks to idiots like the commenters there, we now have a choice between four RINOs.

---------

Yes, it wasn't Perry's fault that when he jumped into the race he had all of the support in the world behind him, only to then fumble it away. It's those moronic commenters!!

Posted by: Rich at March 02, 2012 07:04 PM (ldOlo)

567 I'm with Ace on this one and I get what he's says. Limbaugh, and especially Levin, have been dividing people and groups on the right the same way Obama does to the population at large. This whole I'm more conservative then you, and only the Most Conservative wins is bullshit.
I'm a conservative, I know why I'm a conservative; my first vote was for Ford, hell I voted for Reagan twice and every republican since then, but since I now support Romney, well hell I'm not conservative enough for the leader of the Republican party, Mr. Limbaugh. This is what Ace is referring to: this whole not conservative enough group-think.
As Rush likes to say, "trust me on this". Mark Levin's IGNORE THE LIBERAL MEDIA bumper stickers will Not be a factor in this election.

Posted by: ZuluTom at March 02, 2012 07:05 PM (NhERI)

568 >>> Didja ever notice that when Ace finds a hill that's worth dying on, it's always one that insults or pisses off a lot of his own readership?

How did I do that?

Here's the thing: If you find mere disagreement "insulting" or provoking you to become "pissed off," I think you may have to toughen up.

And I do find this. I find that disagreement is often quickly taken to be some kind of Attack.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 07:05 PM (nj1bB)

569 561 Conservatives will never march in lockstep. Leftists do because they are a singular species of retard. They are all carbon copies of the same mental defect. I'll go as far as saying that it shouldn't even be framed as conservatives verses libtards, because in reality its libtards verses the entire spectrum of free thinking mankind.


Posted by: Berserker at March 02, 2012 07:02 PM (FMbng)

Just figured this needed reposting.

It's dead on.

Posted by: thirtyandseven at March 02, 2012 07:06 PM (HJRI7)

570 also an aside, it's one thing to say the Right shouldn't overly focus on social issues, but trying to cast even really obvious culture war topics -- drugs, sex 'n rock and roll -- as simple matters of who's paying for what and personal liberty is incredibly reductionist. it's Economic Man, the phrase EvilPaleo Sam Francis coined for GOP talking heads who think every issue under the sun should be weighed in terms of economic benefit/liberty.

Posted by: JDP at March 02, 2012 07:06 PM (60GaT)

571 Raised Democrat. Started out as a Clinton supporter, switched to Perot, voted for Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain.
I gave money to the GOP in spite of the fact that I'm a public school teacher. When my co-workers bashed Republicans, I stood up for them vigorously. Back when Granholm was governor, I pointed out that Republicans were proposing to CUT the Educational Bureaucracy (i.e. less administration, cutting ISD's, penalties for districts who wasted money outside of the classroom).
I then watched as George W. Bush passed NCLB. I watched my school district hire MULTIPLE BUREAUCRATS (assessment directors, cognitive coaches) to supposedly help comply with the law. I watched standards being dropped and HUGE amounts of pressure being put on teachers to give all students passing grades so we wouldn't be in danger of having our graduation rate drop.
I have now watched the Republican legislature and Governor Snyder do NOTHING but expand and empower the educational bureaucracy. I now have a dozen jackass bosses, many of whom spent minimal time teaching and know less than nothing about what it takes to increase student achievement.
Now, you can call me a lazy union hack all you want, but, in reality, I'm a top notch employee who has received outstanding evaluations. My bosses screw with me far less than they do with others because I get good results. Still, they waste my time with nonsensical paperwork, worthless "training", and condescending, idiotic lectures about bullying, racism, sexism, multi-culturalism, diversity, etc.
All "conservatives" who support this sh*t are doing is empowering the left wing educrats who run our schools and undercutting good teachers. Still, as the public has fully realized that right wing social engineering like NCLB doesn't work - and is actually damaging our kids' educations by making every class a giant pile of test prep, many Republicans have decided to blame the failure of their testing regime on fat, lazy, degenerate union slobs like myself.
The Republican party has made it clear to me that I am no longer welcome. ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. That's why I, along with many, many of my good friends are saying f**k you to the GOP.
Check out how Obama is polling in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
Ask yourselves where the Reagan Democrats have gone?
Then, ask yourselves: How in the HELL do you win national elections if you can't persuade middle-class white voters to pull the lever for you in the middle of a Depression?
(Notice, none of my complaints were related to compensation. I can live with a lower salary. I can't live with being labeled lazy and stupid because I'm not down with idiotic big-government "conservatism.")

Posted by: stickety at March 02, 2012 07:06 PM (+Vm+w)

572 Personally, I don't believe in "Ace," but I like the cocktail parties.

And the Furries.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at March 02, 2012 07:07 PM (pOUA4)

573 I'll predict that "GCB" tanks harder than "Emily's Reasons Why Not" and "The Playboy Club" combined. With full-on smut on basic cable, the adolescent vulgarity of broadcast TV can't draw an audience anymore.

Except for "Two and a Half Men." There's no explaining that POS.

Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at March 02, 2012 07:08 PM (a5ljo)

574 "Excellent. In fact, I'm witnessing conversions in the Locovore Movement because of the crap the USDA is pulling raiding farm-to-fork operations. I ask people...if they can do this to your locovore, organic farm where else are they wrong?"

33 Great point. As big government pisses off more people about core things they care about there is a bigger and bigger opening for individual freedom, and more local control!

If the lefties want to join to shrink the USDA or end farm subsidies that's great and I'll nicely emphasize that the principle of small government has similar benefits elsewhere too!

Posted by: Steve Adams at March 02, 2012 07:08 PM (vxP3Q)

575 Right on the money, Ace. Conservatism as it is today is intellectual freedom, and can only be characterized by trends instead of absolutes, with one exception. We are not totalitarians, and have no interest in ever restricting what we or others are allowed to say, do, or think. We may yell, scream, and disagree vehemently, but you have the fundamental right to be as you are. What calls itself Liberalism demands dogmatic obedience, and we want none of that.

Posted by: Cato at March 02, 2012 07:10 PM (btRMw)

576 tsj,

do you actually find disagreement to be inherently "insulting"?

If I do not agree with you, do you take that to be an indirect attack on your person and your world view?

Do you believe that such "constructive insults" should then be met with actual insults in return?

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 07:11 PM (nj1bB)

577 @571...ugh, dude, I'm not sure what you're complaining about. No one here and no one currently in the Republican field thinks more bureacrats is a good thing.

Posted by: Rich at March 02, 2012 07:12 PM (ldOlo)

578 Posted by: yankeefifth at March 02, 2012 06:53 PM (Z9EHQ)

I've seen the ads for GCB, too, and was really upset that Kristin Chenowith, who's a Chrstian, would partake in this bash-fest! It's simplyLiberal Hollywood portraying good Christian Southerners as hypocrits. Hollywood wants people to think that the upstanding ppl of the South do not practice what they preach. I am not a Southerner -- I'm Chicagoland born and bred -- but I am SO sick of Hollywood mocking the South.
Of course, Hollywood loves to mock small-town America, whether those towns are in the South or not. I recently was learning about the show,"Twin Peaks". It is about the "dark underbelly" of small-town America. I am of the opinion that that kind of thing is written by jealous city boys who always wanted the white picket fence and when they couldn't have it, they decided to comfort themselves by pretending that all small-towns are evil at heart.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at March 02, 2012 07:13 PM (KL49F)

579 What?Posted by: dagny

It kind of hinges upon what you consider the Left's premise.

Is the premise that Americans won't recoil when they are shown licentious behavior ?

Or is the premise that many Republicans don't understand why making personal conservative philosophy a public/political matter is a losing strategy?

If I am reading Ace's comments correctly, barking at every bell the Left rings is politically retarding. We get no where barking about shit that doesn't matter.

Rejecting the premise in this case involves ignoring meaningless bait like the obscure scrunt. 'Accepting the Left's premise' in this case would mean that we truly have no idea where the personal becomes political and we're happy to force the Federal government to enforce morality.

These arguments that we keep running head long into are yards of unclear premises and unstated givens. Are we arguing strategy or the philosophy of conservatism? Ace is attempting to argue strategy and others are insisting upon some philosophical allowance that allows us to fling shit at opponents.

A lot of the bitching and moaning here would be more productive if not cleaned up if the core elements here were made clear.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at March 02, 2012 07:14 PM (dxTxt)

580
As a guy who is pretty prone to busting Ace's nuts, I have to say I agree with him on this to a point.
I thought that was a pretty well reasoned defenseby Acefor a person that Ace demonstrably does not like.
I DO think it justa bithypocritical that everyone is being admonished for "calling names" etc by Ace.Ace, do you really not recall all the people YOU have insulted for having the temerity to disagree with you?

Posted by: FederalismIsThePoint at March 02, 2012 07:17 PM (SVYQM)

581 Mere disagreement is generally insulting when it is laced with implicit and explicit insults and an air of superiority that stems from contempt of ones fellows. When you say that you disagree with Rush because YOU are the authority on what is right and wrong and HE is a merely entertaining unserious demagogue who is followed by stupid automated legions of dur-hurs who cannot tell right from wrong it hurts your credibility. When you say that Santorum is a Rubberless Theocracy of Oppression waiting to happen it hurts your credibility. It makes you look either like a cynically dishonest person trying to stir up and divide republicans on a false basis or it makes you look like a guy who swallowed a particularly dumb and shrill meme hook line and sinker and passed it off as thoughtful analysis.

When you try to pass off Romney not knowing that the hell the Blunt amendment was, when asked by the press, as no big deal then that also hurts your credibility. You are hyper critical and hyperbolic when dealing with the other candidates and you put on the soft glove for your favorite and start extending second chances and providing defenses for what you'd lay into any other candidate for.

Right and wrong don't seem to come into in any meaningful way. It's much more of a favor/disfavor sort of thing. It's mere taste. Romney-yum, everyone else, yuck yuck yuck they are unacceptable and can't be elected and they will lose. Then you pass that off as your deep concern with right and wrong that won't let you follow all the people that you've declared wrong.

It's silly.

Posted by: cackfinger at March 02, 2012 07:18 PM (BtIvK)

582 Yep. I have been guilty of wanting a feel good family vibe in the party. Now I am just after liberty for me and mine. I used to like Limbaugh but have grown weary of his act. I thought AB was this generations Limbaugh with less baggage. Sad.

I remember when Ace was pissed at Michael Steele and there was a move to replace him. I wanted a nicer way of handling it and thought we were letting the media mess with us. Now I wish we had moved him out.

We are reaching critical mass and no longer have the option of treating the party like a church social. This election is a pass or fail test for America. Game on.

Posted by: Locus Ceruleus at March 02, 2012 07:19 PM (GMzH2)

583 >>>Didja ever notice that when Ace finds a hill that's worth dying on, it's
always one that insults or pisses off a lot of his own readership?

Ever notice of the huge number of hills that are likely worth dying on, you only hear about the ones people actually fight over?

Ever notice when you've lost something you always find it in the last place you look?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose finally remembers why he's here at March 02, 2012 07:19 PM (0q2P7)

584
Stupid computer...
that should read "its just a bit hypocritical".

Posted by: FederalismIsThePoint at March 02, 2012 07:20 PM (SVYQM)

585 nope. you are wrong. slut is a word. it has a definition and she is covered by it. indeed no one is really complaining about her decision to have sex as much as that she has mad such unbelievable claims that make her look like a slut and a liar. slut is used in prime time broadcast television, it is not as bad as us used to be. you are making a mistake in by ceding ground in free speech for no good reason. does the use of the word in this instance affect you voting plans?
----------------------------
You can make all the semantic arguments you want, but a female conservative (I presume SarahW is female) is telling you that calling women sluts alienates potential female voters. Why is that point so hard for some people to grasp?
It doesn't matter if the woman is, in fact, a slut. The facts aren't at issue here. Tactics are. Look, we're trying to win the votes of a bunch of mushy middle-ground female voters who've been told ad nauseam that the right hates women. Right now, those women are up for grabs. So explain to me how using a loaded word like slut is a winning tactic? Especiallywhen there are so many other ways to win the argument.

Posted by: Tired Wench at March 02, 2012 07:20 PM (oPceJ)

586 511 Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 06:47 PM (pAlYe)

... it's to convince enough people to vote for our side so we can enact conservative policy.

True, but ... people respond to this, and in various ways:

- Leftists will learn quickly that there will be a quick and painful public response to their garbage,

- Conservatives will take heart that they too can dish out real pain,

- Others will see that there really are two sides to issues, maybe more, and that the Conservative side has merit

- Some may "recoil" (in horror!1!!) from Rush's ... crudity( ? ) ... and still vote 'D', but I think very many more will see it as Conservatives not putting up with Leftist garbage, and returning the "favor" ... Conservatives are not effiminate pansys who will take crap and like it. We don't all have to do as Rush did, and we can admire the butthurt of the Left,andthese arenot reasons to trash him, or abandon Conservatism, or vote 'D' ... and we should say so.

- Some people see a refusal to do what Rush did to be a weakness, an inability, the sign of a dull mind, a sign of "loser"ergo, beinga wuss, ... who wants to sign on to The Party ofWuss?

The list goes on. The only way to put an end, and it's always temporary, to dirty politics is to play dirty politics. Rush can do it, and can afford to do it publicly, and pay whatever price is needed (if needed).

The rest of us need do nothing, or maybe comment, and drink a beer or two in celebration. My point earlier, about choosing a path to get better results, is essentially this: Rush could have done better, I think, but this result is ok, maybe good, but not The Best. But something like this needed to happen. Ok, it's happened.

Politics is like making sausage, remember? Rush might turn off some, but "Rush" is equal to "Rush", not "Conservatives", not Tea Partiers", not "Republican". There are others, and while they might not approve of Rush (or maybe they do), they do not feel the need to follow Rush blindly, or defend all of his actions, or ..... etc.

Then there's the potential hiddenpurpose of Fluke: a distraction from theongoing utter job performance falure that is JEF.

Ok, we're discussing Fluke, but there are also very much bigger things to deal with. Do not lose sight of the goal(s).

Posted by: Arbalest at March 02, 2012 07:21 PM (Lzsce)

587 Cackfinger +1

Posted by: Burn the Witch at March 02, 2012 07:22 PM (rX1N2)

588 >>>Mere disagreement is generally insulting when it is laced with implicit and explicit insults and an air of superiority that stems from contempt of ones fellows.

thank you for confirming you will take any disagreement as insult.

You will read into it all your small-minded worries about "airs of superiority."

Get this, Genius: Obviously when anyone thinks he's right, he believes his position is *superior* to competitors.

You have a chip on your shoulder. You are from the What, You're Better Than Me? Brigade.

It is impossible to have a discussion with folks like you that does not devolve into insults because you are thin-skinned and perpetually aggrieved.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 07:22 PM (nj1bB)

589 Confident people do not go around flinching from phantom slights and imagined insults.

But you'll take every disagreement as just that, because... well, because. Let's leave it that.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 07:24 PM (nj1bB)

590 Cackfinger +100

Posted by: FedralismIsThePoint at March 02, 2012 07:24 PM (SVYQM)

591 -->Look, we're trying to win the votes of a bunch of mushy middle-ground
female voters who've been told ad nauseam that the right hates women....

Any woman that actually believes that conservatives hate women, can buy their own damn contraception, or get her lib partner to spring for the condom(s).

I'm sick to death of walking on egg shells to pu-leezeeeeeeee the mushy middle. and, I don't think I'm alone.

Posted by: Carolyn at March 02, 2012 07:27 PM (CQId4)

592 sorry but the What, You Think You're Better Than Me? Brigade is going to have to stop getting butthurt at every disagreement.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 07:27 PM (nj1bB)

593 >>>Any woman that actually believes that conservatives hate women, can buy their own damn contraception, or get her lib partner to spring for the condom(s).

I don't think you could find 5% on the right who disagree.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 07:28 PM (nj1bB)

594 Ace + infinity

Posted by: Percopius at March 02, 2012 07:28 PM (UZc7i)

595 You think you are one of the few who have the guts and brains to stand up to Rush. I think you don't have the brains or the courage to even try to take and hold the ground Rush aims for. You are timid, fretful, reluctant, easily swayed by leftist talking points, and you seem to confuse naysaying for prudence. You seem filled with a greater amount of contempt for your own allies than you have for your opponents.

Posted by: cackfinger at March 02, 2012 06:57 PM (BtIvK)


Sooo...cackfinger - why do you hang out here then?

I'm kinda snarking but you do seem to be very, very unhappy and unsatisfied with with what Ace and the other cobloggers post here and many of the other commenters as well. And yet you come here every day and bitch about it and insult ace. Why?

Perhaps there are other blogs that are more to your taste and point of view. Why frustrate yourself here?

Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 07:29 PM (pAlYe)

596 You will politically die in a fire trying to be in compliance with leftist speech and though codes. They are designed to paralyze you and keep you intimidated into silence on sensitive topics. The game is fixed. If you are afraid to offend everyone by saying what you actually believe and think you can somehow fly below the radar of political correctness as a modern progressive compatible gentleman opponent to progressivism and trick people into supporting conservative policies from that position of stealth then fine.

BUT

That's not how Breitbart did things. He knew better. He knew that all that shame and contempt from the left is based on quashing opposition rather than presenting a just and honorable arena for a good debate.

Breitbart knew that breaking rules is important to show that the rules are widely resented on the basis that they are a bunch of crap set out to cause mediocre minds to stumble. Breitbart knew that getting the other side to break their own rules in a moment of heated passion would show how unserious and unfair those rules really are and how quickly the left will abandon them for a cheap shot while demanding that the right follow them.

Posted by: cackfinger at March 02, 2012 07:30 PM (BtIvK)

597 I just wish I heard the passion and cogent apologetics here displayed by one of our candidates.

Posted by: Locus Ceruleus at March 02, 2012 07:30 PM (GMzH2)

598 I'm kinda snarking but you do seem to be very, very unhappy and unsatisfied with with what Ace and the other cobloggers post here and many of the other commenters as well. And yet you come here every day and bitch about it and insult ace. Why?

Perhaps there are other blogs that are more to your taste and point of view. Why frustrate yourself here?
Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 07:29 PM (pAlYe)

I come for the commenters.

Posted by: cackfinger at March 02, 2012 07:31 PM (BtIvK)

599 I don't think you're wrong and I appreciate your focus on standards.

Posted by: Ben(the original) at March 02, 2012 07:32 PM (I1Iah)

600 Cackfinger- Breitbart would have made the issue the funding of the birth control and not the sex. I think I am not alone in not giving a rip about the sex this girl supposedly has.

Posted by: Locus Ceruleus at March 02, 2012 07:34 PM (GMzH2)

601 I come for the commenters.

Posted by: cackfinger at March 02, 2012 07:31 PM (BtIvK)


Okay then. But that doesn't mean you have to complain about the opinions that ace dares to express on his own blog on nearly every single thread.

Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 07:35 PM (pAlYe)

602
Think for yourself, Ace. ...and ALWAYS do your own research.
Research means using multiple and unrelated resources, even to the point ofreading competing points of view regarding those resources, and accepting nothing less than facts, proofs and evidence to support your position.Everything else is bullshit.
*see dictionary for the meanings of 'fact', 'proof' and 'evidence.'I don't think those wordsdon't mean many of you think they mean.
Way back when, I voted for Jimmah. Yeah, but I was young and didn't know any better. I was also a Marine at the time. Later, I voted for Reagan. Yeah, but I was still young and naive...and still a Marine.(They both got friends of mine killed for no discernablepolitical, economic or military objective.) Even after Reagan screwed the pooch,I stuck to my guns wrt conservatism...until my many years of research and study, including reading shd studying hundreds of original resources, proved to me that conservatives still had it wrong.... especiallyafter groupthink became the standard for belonging to the 'tribe.'
These days, to me, if it isn't in The Constitution, it's bullshit. It's worse than bullshit. As you've found, conservatives use liberal progressive tactics against anyone and everyone they disagree with...and against whoever disagrees with them. Both sides accuse the other of being evil and vile for doing this, but both sides do it, anyway.
The core problem is, many conservatives, like their ideological opponents, only give lip service to The Constitution. Freedom for the things they want to do with goverment power and coercion, even if it isn't in The Constitution, but they shouta loud 'Fuck You' to everyone else who tries the same thing...and heaven help anyone who wants them both to shut up, sit down and leave the rest of us the hell alone.
These days in Ameria, it's not even Repoublicans vs Democrats. If the truth were known, it's Trotsky vs Lenin. It's not a matter of 'where' we're headed. It's simply a matter of who gets to take us there.

Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at March 02, 2012 07:35 PM (MpJXw)

603
Imagine if heroin had such a section at Safeway.


Posted by: MikeTheMoose finally remembers why he's here at March 02, 2012 06:22 PM (0q2P7)

There are many people who use heroin as a painkiller, but get off it fairly easily. So even heroin is not as bad as you think it is.

Posted by: MetaThought at March 02, 2012 07:36 PM (XaAJS)

604 If you are afraid to offend everyone by saying what you actually
believe and think you can somehow fly below the radar of political
correctness as a modern progressive compatible gentleman opponent to
progressivism and trick people into supporting conservative policies
from that position of stealth then fine.


Being a gentleman was once thought to be a positive thing. Chivalry was something to which we used to aspire. Now people are arguing that it's okay to call a woman a crude name because you disagree with her political views.

The left has done that for years. I don't want to be like the left.

Posted by: Slublog at March 02, 2012 07:36 PM (tyz/1)

605 592 sorry but the What, You Think You're Better Than Me? Brigade is going to have to stop getting butthurt at every disagreement.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 07:27 PM (nj1bB)

See? It's clearly the disagreement we hate, not the tone, the inconsistency, the content of the disagreement or anything else. And we aren't angry or disappointed, we are Butthurt. And we are a brigade.

When ace disagrees he is a demigod descending into the underworld.

When anyone else disagrees they are a butt hurt over sensitive "brigade" who think god sent them to rule the world and who thoughtlessly crawl up Rush Limbaugh's butt for warmth in the church of Palin and who sort of share blame for the shooting of Cathy Giffords. We can't handle the truth n' we type too loud n' shit.

Posted by: cackfinger at March 02, 2012 07:36 PM (BtIvK)

606 Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 07:22 PM (nj1bB)

The Making Sense Meter just pegged 0. Followed by Pot and Kettle argument at:

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2012 07:27 PM (nj1bB)

Posted by: Burn the Witch at March 02, 2012 07:37 PM (rX1N2)

607 Sorry he's just a loudmouth with a microphone to me.

And what's this blog but a microphone?

Posted by: GMan at March 02, 2012 07:38 PM (UkbKS)

608 The left has done that for years. I don't want to be like the left.

Then enjoy the continuing asskicking that the left will be performing on you.

Posted by: GMan at March 02, 2012 07:39 PM (UkbKS)

609 Reading Ace's thoughts and the many comments that follow has been an educational experience. I was, as a young woman, a liberal but made a self-conversion when I had a family and laterjoined the workforce. I certainly cannot point to a specific date or data point - it just happened and as the left moved ever more leftward, I remain firm in my belief in the individual. Recently, I posted a note on another conservative website that did not try and attack Romney, Actually, what I did is state that I understood Ann Coulter's support of Romney. That's it. For this grave misdeed, I was banned from ever posting on that site. I was and remain shocked. Are conservatives becoming the 'my way or the highway' crowd? Must we all agree on everything? I would also be a heretic there for wishing the government would stay out of people's bedrooms (though I am not sure they are aware of this egregious belief!). Currently, I am havinga lot of trouble with Santorum for his misleading claims that he was a conservative senator and his never-ending religious references. I want a leader who can stop the spending, create an environment for businesses tothrive, take on public-sector unions (especially teachers) and create a once-again robust USA. None of the GOP candidates is perfect -- they are all immensely better than Obama.
While I agree that a woman who is attending a $45K/year law school while living in one of America's most expensive cities is just crazy for thinking her birth control should be subsidized, I wish conservatives would take the high road with regard to name calling. Do we really want to be Bill Maher? I personally can think of few people more reprehensible.

Posted by: JudyNM at March 02, 2012 07:39 PM (ie/uy)

610 And what's this blog but a microphone?




Posted by: GMan at March 02, 2012 07:38 PM (UkbKS)



Actually, it's more like a fax ... with bad formatting.

Posted by: really ... at March 02, 2012 07:40 PM (X3lox)

611 See, this crap about "Ace's blog, his opinion is king" crap just boggles the mind. If all he ever wants to hear is his OWN opinion, then why have a blog at all?
Trust me, I'm not all butt hurt that you disagree with me. Like you, I am trying to persuade you to MY position.
Difference id, I don't think calling people retarded and insuating that they are a bunch of bible banging, no teeh jackasses does much to sway their opinion.

Posted by: FedralismIsThePoint at March 02, 2012 07:40 PM (SVYQM)

612 Ace is god here, actually. I mean, this is his creation we are in right now.

Posted by: Percopius at March 02, 2012 07:40 PM (UZc7i)

613 "2. That the state has a compelling and legitimate interest in monitoring women's use of non-abortifacient birth control,"

Ace, this is so breathtakingly dishonest that I'm reconsidering what I'm doing here if you are going to peddle such bold faced lies about what conservatives think and believe.

Where is your head at?

Posted by: Village Idiot at March 02, 2012 07:40 PM (utXSy)

614 Okay then. But that doesn't mean you have to complain about the opinions that ace dares to express on his own blog on nearly every single thread.
Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 07:35 PM (pAlYe)

No disagreement is the preferred state. Got ya.

Posted by: cackfinger at March 02, 2012 07:41 PM (BtIvK)

615
"Wah! I don't like it that Ace has different thoughts than I do! He should think exactly the same as I do! That's how we're different than those lockstep thinking-alike liberals!"
Anyone, such as cackfinger, who goes about trumpeting this sort of nonsense will not get many converts, such as me. I ain't listened to Rush but once, and I'm slowly becoming a more conservative person; if anyone were to order me to listen to Rush (George/Sean/Michael Moore), I would do the opposite. Just because. Same reason why whatever a Kennedy proposes or does, I do the opposite...haven't drowned or assaulted anyone yet.

Posted by: Quint&Jessel, Sea of Azof, Bly, UK at March 02, 2012 07:42 PM (7l7KA)

616 Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 07:29 PM (pAlYe)

Can't speak for cack, but lately (at least regarding Repub candidates), it is the commenters. I learned far more about Romney's and Santorum's positions (the meaningful ones) from the comments section than from what the majority of the cobs post. Drew has probably had the most reasonable, informative posts.

The rest of you guys? It's been like reading a fucking tabloid. Can't wait for this insane primary season to be over and the majority of the blog, minus Malor of course, to get back to informative, well-reasoned posts.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at March 02, 2012 07:42 PM (rX1N2)

617 . . . pease don't ban us for disagweeing . . .

Posted by: starboardhelm at March 02, 2012 07:43 PM (hHgxI)

618 This post is just to add one data point:

I fcuking love this site, I'm with Ace on 90% of the issues, and I'm actually a little bit to the left of where he is.

Ace: don't let the bastards get you down.

Posted by: Lewis at March 02, 2012 07:44 PM (6TClq)

619 I don't want to be like the left.


Posted by: Slublog at March 02, 2012 07:36 PM (tyz/1)



“those who are kind to the cruel, will be cruel to the kind”
Talmud Qohelet Raba, 7:16

Posted by: really ... at March 02, 2012 07:44 PM (X3lox)

620 "Wah! I don't like it that Ace has different thoughts than I do! He should think exactly the same as I do! That's how we're different than those lockstep thinking-alike liberals!"

Yeah, stupid fucking strawmen like this is what really makes this blog go round lately.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at March 02, 2012 07:45 PM (rX1N2)

621 Meanwhile. I have three cars in the driveway with a combined mileage of almost 500k miles. Wife's car is at 183k and pisses antifreeze and oil all over the driveway -- and the dashboard is lit up with more lights then a Christmas tree -- you name it, ABS, Check Engine, Oil and probably a couple I'm too tall to see. I have to figure out if the 2011 model with a V6 at 20 mpg at a substantial discount can ever beat this years 27 mpg at this years price. So far, at 3.75 a gallon, not so good. I'm afraid to project the beating I'll take at 5.00 per gallon.

While the liberals tell me I need to shell out for Sondra Flake, future 200k per year lawyer, and morally challenged sexual athlete whose heartwarming story of impoverishment due to her lack of 'reproductive rights' is destined to win the hearts and minds of more then 50% of the electorate in November.

Maybe I'll lease and just drive that fucker to Costa Rica.

Posted by: Niemöller's cat at March 02, 2012 07:46 PM (phlKA)

622
Then enjoy the continuing asskicking that the left will be performing on you.


Posted by: GMan at March 02, 2012 07:39 PM (UkbKS)
“those who are kind to the cruel, will be cruel to the kind”
Talmud Qohelet Raba, 7:16


Posted by: really ... at March 02, 2012 07:44 PM (X3lox)

This is also a strategical thing. The left has media cover, we don't.

Posted by: MetaThought at March 02, 2012 07:46 PM (XaAJS)

623 Then enjoy the continuing asskicking that the left will be performing on you.

Ah, in order to advance conservatism it's vital that I be allowed to call someone I disagree with a slut. Somehow, I don't think lowering my standards is going to make me start converting people to my point of view.

So, no thanks. I'd rather not use Bill Maher or Ed Schultz as the yardstick by which I measure my behavior as a person.

Posted by: Slublog at March 02, 2012 07:47 PM (tyz/1)

624 614 Okay then. But that doesn't mean you have to complain about the opinions that ace dares to express on his own blog on nearly every single thread.
Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 07:35 PM (pAlYe)

No disagreement is the preferred state. Got ya.

Posted by: cackfinger at March 02, 2012 07:41 PM (BtIvK)


No - there's disagreement and then there's being a continual jerk about it.

You don't seem to like ace very much and you disagree with most everything he writes. And you feel compelled to complain about it and insult him and other commenters every single day. That's not 'disagreement' - that's being a jerk.

You say you come here for the comments yet are oblivious to how your own daily uncivil comments actually make the comment section less enjoyable for everyone else.

Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 07:50 PM (pAlYe)

625 I'm tired of the excuse "but the left has the media". It's an *excuse*. Humiliate the bastards. Make them feel alone, make them feel like the outsiders. Make them understand that their behaviors are unacceptable. Do to them what they do to us. Fuck them. I'm tired of being talked to by these assholes like I'm 5 years old. Why the *hell* should I act like it's ok for them to treat me, us, that way? Why should I buy a single premise of theirs. Push the fuck back. They fight *everything*. It's damned time we do the same. The handwringing about calling a stupid whore a "slut" is dumb. It's *giving* them the argument. It's letting them win without even fighting.

Posted by: GMan at March 02, 2012 07:50 PM (UkbKS)

626 I've always been conservative so I've not experienced, as Jules put when eating his muffin, "a moment of clarity". Really, conservatism is as basic as it comes. You believe in personal responsibility, inherent rights, and limited government. Everything else pretty much flows from those basic ideals.

If you follow the Bible, the basics boil down to the golden rule. If you follow that, the rest pretty much is a result of that ine basic rule. Everything else is someone's interpretation of how that rule is applied. And unfortunately, that's where the problems begin. The new testament isn't filled with rules, it's filled with stories and advice. Jesus was sent because man was unable to follow all these rules. So forget the rules and just follow him.

To me, conservatism is the same. If you follow the basic philosophy, there are no rules. Just how you interpret that philosophy and live your life. No two people are going to have the exact same interpretation so no one is ever going to be right or wrong. It should be enough to agree where we agree and where we disagree, let us debate and persuade. Failing agreement, we each pursue our own way, so long as it's as individuals. If you try to use coercion, then you've left the path of conservatism. It really is that simple, IMO.

Posted by: Jon In TX at March 02, 2012 07:50 PM (owr6M)

627 I'm sick to death of walking on egg shells to pu-leezeeeeeeee the mushy middle. and, I don't think I'm alone.------------

You may be sick to death of it, but reality doesn't much care. Like it or not, they're the ones who decide tight general elections. You don't want to court them, then don't, but there's a whole lot of room btwn not courting and alienating.

Posted by: Tired Wench at March 02, 2012 07:52 PM (oPceJ)

628 Ace is god here, actually. I mean, this is his creation we are in right now.

Yes indeed. It's just as he has made it.

Posted by: Heorot at March 02, 2012 07:53 PM (xXGK4)

629 "the mushy middles" need to pick a fucking side then.

Posted by: GMan at March 02, 2012 07:53 PM (UkbKS)

630 Ah, in order to advance conservatism it's vital that
I be allowed to call someone I disagree with a slut.


Posted by: Slublog at March 02, 2012 07:47 PM (tyz/1)



No. You stand aside. I'll call the slut (whose entire point was that it's too expensive to be a slut these days and she thinks that she has a Constitutional right to live out the sluttiness that emanates from her very being) a "slut". Just don't hit me in the back with anything.

Posted by: really ... at March 02, 2012 07:54 PM (X3lox)

631 625
I'm tired of the excuse "but the left has the media". It's an *excuse*.
Humiliate the bastards. Make them feel alone, make them feel like the
outsiders. Make them understand that their behaviors are unacceptable.
Do to them what they do to us. Fuck them. I'm tired of being talked to
by these assholes like I'm 5 years old. Why the *hell* should I act like
it's ok for them to treat me, us, that way? Why should I buy a single
premise of theirs. Push the fuck back. They fight *everything*. It's
damned time we do the same. The handwringing about calling a stupid
whore a "slut" is dumb. It's *giving* them the argument. It's letting
them win without even fighting.


Posted by: GMan at March 02, 2012 07:50 PM (UkbKS)

But you must respect reality though. And the reality is that the Conservative media is comparatively small and not very good at defense. Breitbart was trying to change this. So, GOP politicians will have to keep a tighter check on themselves than the Dem counterparts. Same applies to radio hosts. For the foreseeable future.

Posted by: MetaThought at March 02, 2012 07:59 PM (XaAJS)

632
@slublog / @ace
I think you've misinterpreted the analogy. When Rush actually called her a slut, the context is that he was going to then say that the people she was demanding to pay for her consequence-free sex were her pimps, but shortly realized that the analogy didn't fit. Instead, correcting the analogy prompted him to demand the sex tapes as proof that his money was going to its intended use. One of Rush's oft repeated sayings is "Great humor always has an element of the truth in it" which is what applied here, and actually contradicts with one of the main points of Ace's last post. It WASN'T just a joke because this ISN'T about just a difference in political opinions. The message he was trying to bluntly communicate is NOTHING TO DO with contraception, but that it is not virtuous in any sense to go to the government and demand people pay for your personal choices - it's offensive, it's disgusting, to the responsible people being forced to pay for it. It's slutty, pure and simple. That is not an inaccuracy, however cruel it may be to say. The fact that all the outrage centers around the words and not the actions actually impacting the taxpayers here is the real outrage. And the fact that AoSHQ are once on the sidelines casting stones at allies only goes to further an element of the reputation that's been solidified here among other warriors in the movement.

Posted by: tranquil.night at March 02, 2012 07:59 PM (X/Gwo)

633 " Ah, in order to advance conservatism it's vital that I be allowed to call someone I disagree with a slut."

In your opinion is the slut term really stemming from disagreement with Rush or from someone going to an expensive Law school and complaining about not being able to afford spending $1000 a year on something that can be easily had for $150 or less a year at Walmart without insurance and then requiring that the government FORCE someone else to pay for the more expensive option?

Is she monogamous? I don't know. I don't much care. Is she striking you as a responsible and reasonable individual with a good point? I think the better word for her is "parasitic client of collectivism". I am less concerned with the state of her sexual honor (many women claim to want to reclaim the turn slut and turn it into a positive appellation that means popular and uninhibited by societal pressure) than I am with her insistence that I should be required by law or regulations to BUY HER STUFF because she wants to go to an expensive law school.

See I don't worry about "slut" because Ace posts picture of a leering ewok along with text to the effect that he's going to 'get someone in the turd hamper'. He makes jokes about killing hobos. Why does Ace have a license to be outrageous and provocative and Rush does not? I think it is more common to find something potentially offensive, crass, creepy, or risque on this blog than it is Rush's daily three hour radio show.

Posted by: cackfinger at March 02, 2012 08:00 PM (BtIvK)

634 629
"the mushy middles" need to pick a fucking side then.


Posted by: GMan at March 02, 2012 07:53 PM (UkbKS)

When you put it that way, I'm sure that will convince a lot of people to vote GOP. /s

Posted by: MetaThought at March 02, 2012 08:00 PM (XaAJS)

635 No disagreement is the preferred state. Got ya.

Posted by: cackfinger at March 02, 2012 07:41 PM (BtIvK)

Disagreement is fine. Being a whiny bitch at every opportunity is a bit offputting.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at March 02, 2012 08:00 PM (+lsX1)

636 Man, you'd think Rush Limbaugh called Michelle Obama a fat-assed cunt the way the Lefties are carrying on today. They are waaaay overreacting as usual. I heard some nincompoop on CNN tonight saying this was maybe the worst thing anyone has EVER said in the entire history of American political discourse. Fer chrissakes. Joy Behar says worse shit than this every fucking day. So does Bill Maher.


These clowns are still desperate to silence Rush. They will NEVER NEVER NEVER forgive him for "I hope he fails." NEVER.

I don't care if he was a total ass and yeah, he made the whole issue about sex and blah blah blah. The left thinks that This Time They've Finally Nailed The Bastard. So yeah, I'm inclined to defend him now.

I'm with GMan: Fuck them.

Posted by: rockmom at March 02, 2012 08:01 PM (YPgCz)

637
Conservatives, in the near future, need to be asking "What Would Andrew Breitbart Do", WWABD.

Posted by: Jesus at March 02, 2012 08:01 PM (VMcEw)

638 If we're only worrying about people voting GOP, then we've fucking lost. If so many people are accepting the left's premise by default, and with no push back from anyone on the right, then we've fucking already lost, and it's time to get out.


Posted by: GMan at March 02, 2012 08:03 PM (UkbKS)

639 No - there's disagreement and then there's being a continual jerk about it.

You don't seem to like ace very much and you disagree with most everything he writes. And you feel compelled to complain about it and insult him and other commenters every single day. That's not 'disagreement' - that's being a jerk.

You say you come here for the comments yet are oblivious to how your own daily uncivil comments actually make the comment section less enjoyable for everyone else.
Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 07:50 PM (pAlYe)

EVERYONE ELSE huh? Including the people who also come here to complain about the blog who ace also calls naive jerks while complaining about people being insulting?

Posted by: cackfinger at March 02, 2012 08:04 PM (BtIvK)

640
Sorry, as usual late to the game. Word FUN: Fluke-
#1 -half of a a tail of a whale
#2-an accidental success
#3- a type of flounder
Feel free to mix and match.
A fluking #3- president, who wonby a fluke #2, called Sondra Fluke, after she created an inverse fluke #1-a whale of a tail.

Posted by: seamrog at March 02, 2012 08:05 PM (yCmKb)

641 Ace, as a "convert" who lives in deepest blue Chicago, I agree, and appreciate your point of view. That's one of the reasons I'm here.

Posted by: dandoz at March 02, 2012 08:05 PM (O9p3Y)

642 Whats wrong with you Ace, cant you line up and be part of the herd?
I hear the path leads to the cliff, sounds like a great party no one herd minded wants to be left out.

The new debate, do we reclaim the term "Conservatism" from the leftist leaning liberal minded who slap it on politicians who do not stand for the beliefs and principles espoused by our founding fathers.
Or do we relenquish the term and adopt a new one that better reflects and makes clear the core values and principles of small government with a limited role over us and support of our constitution with out compromise for any of our bill of rights.

Posted by: mr_e_m_t at March 02, 2012 08:07 PM (BQpNJ)

643
"Yeah, stupid fucking strawmen like this is what really makes this blog go round lately."
I'm not the kind of slut who fucks strawmen, thankyouverymuch.

Posted by: Quint&Jessel, Sea of Azof, Bly, UK at March 02, 2012 08:08 PM (7l7KA)

644 635 Disagreement is fine. Being a whiny bitch at every opportunity is a bit offputting.
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at March 02, 2012 08:00 PM

Whiny bitch, butt hurt brigade, jerk, stupid party, goal is to lose with the right candidate', and I'M the only insulting guy.

-RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.) -

Posted by: cackfinger at March 02, 2012 08:09 PM (BtIvK)

645 EVERYONE ELSE huh? Including the people who also come here to complain about the blog who ace also calls naive jerks while complaining about people being insulting?

Posted by: cackfinger at March 02, 2012 08:04 PM (BtIvK)


Well it's ace's house. Notice that ace doesn't come to your home and bitch about what you say and do every day.

Have you considered Blogger, Wordpress.com, or Tumblr? All of them will allow you to create the perfect blog for you.

Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 08:09 PM (pAlYe)

646 --->This is also a strategical thing. The left has media cover, we don't.

Honestly, I think this is changing. and imo, Rush calling a spade a spade is not going to in any way affect a liberal or mushy middle voter.

---> You don't want to court them, then don't, but there's a whole lot of room btwn not courting and alienating.

See, that's where you and I have to agree to disagree
I don't consider telling a 30 year old law school student, that states she is going broke due to the cost of her yearly contraception, that she needs to feel some shame.
If that takes calling a spade a spade, so be it.

Posted by: Carolyn at March 02, 2012 08:11 PM (CQId4)

647 A blog is a public place where hits bring in ad support. It's not a house. It's a store front where you sell advertisers the eyes of the people who post here and read the blogs.

Posted by: cackfinger at March 02, 2012 08:11 PM (BtIvK)

648 I like ace and little green footballs, but hopefully after his conversion, he wont be quite as weird.

Posted by: Mactalivch at March 02, 2012 08:12 PM (e7iGy)

649 Also, Rush was at his absolute best when I heard him play Barney Frank's voice at 1.5x speed making him sound (more) like a cartoon. That made me laugh so hard I nearly drove my car off the road.

What I don't get is Rush playing the "lollipop" song again and again, which is just dressing up calling Barney Frank a cocksucker. That's a little beneath Rush's supposed level of wit, I would think. And it doesn't make any converts, either.

Posted by: dandoz at March 02, 2012 08:12 PM (O9p3Y)

650 I am gay and I just want to live free, why won't you let me?

Posted by: Mactalivch at March 02, 2012 08:16 PM (e7iGy)

651 tranquil.night at March 02, 2012 07:59 PM (X/Gwo)

This might be good time to point out that there is no subsidy to the students who purchase health insurance through the law school. They pay; the school picks the plan. The group discount and tax benefits go to the school.

So Scruntness notwithstanding, she technically was asking neither college or the government to cover the cost of coverage. She was advocating the HHS mandate. I disagree with the mandate for a host of reasons. The college would lose its power to restrict coverage the students pay for out of pocket without subsidy.

I kinda think it would be better if individuals selected their own group plans /provision for care expenses and individuals got the tax bennies.

Posted by: Sarahw at March 02, 2012 08:16 PM (LYwCh)

652 Whoops the group discount benefits the students; the tax benefits go to the school.

Posted by: Sarahw at March 02, 2012 08:16 PM (LYwCh)

653 Its words like that that make me want to have yourEwok babies Ace,er, if I could have babies that is.

Posted by: Rich K at March 02, 2012 08:18 PM (X4l3T)

654 647 A blog is a public place where hits bring in ad support. It's not a house. It's a store front where you sell advertisers the eyes of the people who post here and read the blogs.

Posted by: cackfinger at March 02, 2012 08:11 PM (BtIvK)


You're free to look and read but ace is under no obligation to allow you to post here.

Have you considered that you're functionally a troll here? You may not intend that but your comments aren't really different from someone determined to troll the blog.

Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 08:18 PM (pAlYe)

655 Whiny bitch, butt hurt brigade, jerk, stupid party, goal is to lose with the right candidate', and I'M the only insulting guy.



-RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize
it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy.
Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than
institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized
criticism and ridicule works.) -


Are you now posing as a martyr? A victim of an Alinsky-style conspiracy? Dude, you're just a fucking anonymous whiner on a blog. You're incessant complaining and bitching is not insightful, funny or inspiring. This can't possibly be the first time people have grown tired of your shit.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at March 02, 2012 08:18 PM (+lsX1)

656 And no I don't think a Catholic school should have to pick a particular plan with mandatory coverage of anything including birth control, or any plan at all.

Posted by: Sarahw at March 02, 2012 08:19 PM (LYwCh)

657 Have you considered that you're functionally a troll
here? You may not intend that but your comments aren't really different
from someone determined to troll tghe blog.


Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 08:18 PM (pAlYe)



I don't think cack writes like Gabe, at all.

Posted by: really ... at March 02, 2012 08:19 PM (X3lox)

658 Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 08:09 PM (pAlYe)

Golly, I guess I thought ace was a bit stronger than this.

You guy's lack of self awareness is approaching legendary proportions.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at March 02, 2012 08:21 PM (rX1N2)

659
This just in >>>>>
Sandra Fluke, shocked at the unwantedattention given, has rescinded her own scholarship of "public interest".
" I reject all this public interest in my opinion"
"I'm done with Georgetown, I'm applying at Duke, I love lacrosse"
This might offend everyone.( well maybe not everyone)

Posted by: seamrog at March 02, 2012 08:21 PM (yCmKb)

660 "You're free to look and read but ace is under no obligation to allow you to post here."

You are as the dogs in Animal Farm. KGB

Posted by: Mactalivch at March 02, 2012 08:22 PM (e7iGy)

661 660 "You're free to look and read but ace is under no obligation to allow you to post here."



You are as the dogs in Animal Farm. KGB



Posted by: Mactalivch at March 02, 2012 08:22 PM (e7iGy)



Yes because the idea of personal property and being a guest at someone's site is so fascist.

Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 08:26 PM (pAlYe)

662 So the animals say... Napoleon of course knows best, the windmill...

Posted by: Mactalivch at March 02, 2012 08:29 PM (e7iGy)

663 Ace,

I don't have time to read all these comments (so this point may have, and probably has been made more concisely and elegantly). I read this site every day... religiously. refresh more than 10. if you think that a vocal minority of the relatively small group of people who comment reflects the proportionately and vastly larger majority of those who read a lot and don't comment (see, breitbart, andrew) for many and diffuse reasons (it's a work computer/i'm on the train/too f'n busy), then you need to get some perspective. Most readers, is suspect, read this site because of your articulate and persuasive take on things. tell the bots to go fuck themselves. Please. Most of your readership would welcome it, if not comment on it.

Please know that there must be thousands of folks who are reading this and are mentally slapping you upside the head. You are losing perspective. Trust your instincts (most people agree with your minimalist buy-in approach). Have balls. Like breitbart!

carry on.

Posted by: slackmac at March 02, 2012 08:30 PM (4WxVM)

664
Predictable as sunrise, it's our favorite fungal infection. Can it get trollhammered?

Posted by: irongrampa at March 02, 2012 08:30 PM (SAMxH)

665 Are you now posing as a martyr? A victim of an Alinsky-style conspiracy? Dude, you're just a fucking anonymous whiner on a blog. You're incessant complaining and bitching is not insightful, funny or inspiring. This can't possibly be the first time people have grown tired of your shit.
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at March 02, 2012 08:18 PM (+lsX1)

Martyr? No. But the tactic is being employed by people complaining that they are being pressured not to disagree.

For what it's worth, I'm pretty tired of your shit too and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Posted by: cackfinger at March 02, 2012 08:30 PM (BtIvK)

666 Nice 666 comment Maet.

heh

Posted by: Burn the Witch at March 02, 2012 08:33 PM (rX1N2)

667 There is no argument going on about right or wrong here. It's all down to being declared insightful, funny or inspiring according to the readers sympathy with your content.

Oh and unwelcome "disagreement" is now incessant whining and bitching that ruins the comment sections. Except when it's pro Romney. Then it is suddenly sensible. Even if it is just someone shouting THEOCRAT or making a productions of shuddering about the treatment of Newt's Ex Wives.

Posted by: cackfinger at March 02, 2012 08:35 PM (BtIvK)

668 Uh you do know that socking other people is a bannable offense right?

It's one of the few absolute no-nos here.

Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 08:35 PM (pAlYe)

669 Mætenloch hit the nail on the head, functional troll.

Posted by: Percopius at March 02, 2012 08:36 PM (UZc7i)

670
@LauraW
"So Scruntness notwithstanding, she technically was asking neither college or the government to cover the cost of coverage. She was advocating the HHS mandate."
That is a true point and thank you for the correction. I think a piece of my error was in operating off the premise that as things are now Private Health Insurance is going to be dead soon, which we know is the Left's stated objective, and so when the dust settles this mandate is going to be left attached to the single-payer system. However, it doesn't change my opinion that demanding that the government force your insurance provider, whoever, to pay for your birth control isn't slutty - and shouldn't be regarded as a firealarm for just how detached our culture isgrowing fromthe intended constitutional role of government.

Posted by: tranquil.night at March 02, 2012 08:40 PM (X/Gwo)

671 Damn, guess I should've checked the hash.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at March 02, 2012 08:40 PM (rX1N2)

672 Maetenloch, fuck off with the hall monitor act. The day Kilgores like you win the day here is the day this blog loses most of its value. Ace is a sharp guy and a great writer but (a) sometimes he's wrong; (b) as Breitbart of blessed memory knew, the comment section adds a lot of value to the blog. It's the only place where the whole right gets together to brawl.

If ace wants someone to leave, he can tell them, if they don't take a hint, he can ban them. I don't know what value your act is adding on this thread.

Posted by: Knemon at March 02, 2012 08:41 PM (LcOke)

673 Ah, in order to advance conservatism it's vital that I be allowed to call someone I disagree with a slut. Somehow, I don't think lowering my standards is going to make me start converting people to my point of view.

---------


My friend, self-awareness is not one of your strong suits is it? This blog right here posts more "tasteless" stuff than what you heard Rush say, and yet no one says shits. Mainly, because no one cares about it. It's a joke. But suddenly, Rush Limbaugh says it and we yet again have the inside baseball brigrade who storm into action wondering "Does this hurt our chances in November??I think it does? PANIC!!!"

Ace says the same stuff or something similar, crickets.

And note I'm fine with Ace saying stuff like that. I do it all the time. I'm tired of trying to be so politically correct all the time for the sole purpose of appeasing the great media monster with the hope they won't say something bad about me.

Posted by: Rich at March 02, 2012 08:42 PM (ldOlo)

674 And note I'm fine with Ace saying stuff like that. I do it all the
time. I'm tired of trying to be so politically correct all the time for
the sole purpose of appeasing the great media monster with the hope they
won't say something bad about me.


Exactly, and they will say something bad about you, no matter what you say. Trying to play nice is not working.

Posted by: GMan at March 02, 2012 08:44 PM (UkbKS)

675 Here's Maet's hash:

pAlYe

There's a lot of bullshiat socking of a co-blogger going on here, and the ban hammer is coming out, I jest knows it.

Posted by: Lewis at March 02, 2012 08:46 PM (6TClq)

676 Sees whut I means?

Posted by: Lewis at March 02, 2012 08:48 PM (6TClq)

677 Exactly, and they will say something bad about you, no matter what you say. Trying to play nice is not working.

---------


And I swear to God that this was exactly the point Breitbart was always trying to get across, and yet here we are, all worked up about what people think about us in the media. I don't get it.

Posted by: Rich at March 02, 2012 08:48 PM (ldOlo)

678 Seriously Bbl5l, knock it off.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at March 02, 2012 08:48 PM (rX1N2)

679 #677 yep.

Posted by: GMan at March 02, 2012 08:50 PM (UkbKS)

680 It's just the usual strategic defensive/tactical defensive gambit we're always playing. The left plays unrepentant, unrelenting strategic offensive/tactical offensive and we wonder why they win.

We play to protect what we have, they play to take it.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at March 02, 2012 08:52 PM (rX1N2)

681 And to more address one of Ace's actual points. It's fine that you don't like Rush, and it's also fine that you think that maybe calling the cheap whore a "slut" was a bad idea. Howver, agreeing with the left on this (on *anything* really) does NOT help our side. You don't have to agree with Rush, but for crying out loud, don't stab him in the back. Don't give the jerks on the other side the ammunition of "even AOS thinks this was over the line".

Posted by: GMan at March 02, 2012 08:53 PM (UkbKS)

682 672 Maetenloch, fuck off with the hall monitor act. The day Kilgores like you win the day here is the day this blog loses most of its value. Ace is a sharp guy and a great writer but (a) sometimes he's wrong; (b) as Breitbart of blessed memory knew, the comment section adds a lot of value to the blog. It's the only place where the whole right gets together to brawl.

If ace wants someone to leave, he can tell them, if they don't take a hint, he can ban them. I don't know what value your act is adding on this thread.

Posted by: Knemon at March 02, 2012 08:41 PM (LcOke)


It's fair to ask someone who seems to hate this blog, the main bloggers, and other commenters exactly what they're getting out of staying around and complaining. Why make yourself (and the other readers) so miserable?

There are such a thing as bad commenters - ones who cause endless conflict and end up poisoning the overall atmosphere. They drive away the normal people and manage to make every thread a fight. They're bad for the blog. And I think cackfinger is one of these.

Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 08:56 PM (pAlYe)

683 frankly, I'm embarrassed that I left a comment this far down the thread that it is surrounded by socks and retards (with some obvious exceptions). Maet, I love your ONT's btw. Best of the web in my humble opinion. Always clicking here at 10 eastern just to get my fix.

Posted by: slackmac at March 02, 2012 09:00 PM (4WxVM)

684 goes to show you why most readers probably don't bother commenting: too little, too late, unread

Posted by: slackmac at March 02, 2012 09:01 PM (4WxVM)

685 before i get busy with some broads i make sure they're Fluked up.

Posted by: Pimp Trick Gangsta Clique at March 02, 2012 09:04 PM (8HhF2)

686 685, you got me. keep dishing it you fucking retard.

Posted by: slackmac at March 02, 2012 09:04 PM (4WxVM)

687 Hahahaha! Ace: the Orestes of the blogosphere.

For several weeks, he was haranguing not-Romneys to get in line because to do otherwise is a clear indication of stupidity. This week, he's feeling the sting of push-back from the same people he tried to ram-rod, instead of convince with a compelling argument. It's understandable he chose that route, as all the other Romney supporters have, given Romney has nothing objectively conservative to sell beyond an (R) beside his name. Yet it's schadenfreud-tastic to now see the results.

What did you expect, Ace? You propped yourself up as a supporter of someone ALOT of other people don't like + this is the internet.

Welcome to backlashville. Those of us who could give less than two shits about right-wing social policy (and actively oppose much of it, in fact) and support generally small government, with the exception of national security and a few other areas, have been in your shoes for years. As I said, welcome to the fucking party.

Posted by: Socratease at March 02, 2012 09:04 PM (a4CUi)

688 oops! Some deleting going on. 685 does not read as it did a moment ago. Guess i'm the retard now, huh?

Posted by: slackmac at March 02, 2012 09:05 PM (4WxVM)

689 before it's over, I may be 685. amateur commenter mistake.

Posted by: slackmac at March 02, 2012 09:06 PM (4WxVM)

690 Posted by: Socratease at March 02, 2012 09:04 PM (a4CUi)

This is that glaring lack of self-awareness exhibited by both ace and Maet in this thread.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at March 02, 2012 09:09 PM (rX1N2)

691 Who in tarnation has proposed "monitoring" who uses birth control? I can't think of anyone now, but under ZeroCare, I guess someone in the Ministry of Health Re-education might take an interest in the subject.

Posted by: Gerry at March 02, 2012 09:15 PM (8vgpw)

692 This is one of the best posts you've written. Even Jesus, when his disciples told Him they'd stopped a non-believer from casting out demons in the name of Jesus, rebuked them: "He who is not against us is for us." Sheesh. This ideological purity conceit just opens us up to division and distraction. The number one priority is to VOTE OUT OBAMA!!

Posted by: ExExZonie at March 02, 2012 09:17 PM (r+C1J)

693 cause endless conflict and end up poisoning the overall atmosphere. They drive away the normal people and manage to make every thread a fight. They're bad for the blog. And I think cackfinger is one of these."

So maybe take your own advice:

"Have you considered Blogger, Wordpress.com, or Tumblr? All of them will allow you to create the perfect blog for you."

On your own "perfect blog," you can ban everyone you want. But this isn't "MaetenlochHQ." Ace has his own method - let the cackfingers rage at him in the thread, wade into it and occasionally blow up on the front page

For every cackfinger (granting arguendo your view of him) who's "bad for the blog," there are three others who *constructively* dissent, and the shit you're peddling in this thread would risk shutting them up and scaring them off.

Posted by: Knemon at March 02, 2012 09:17 PM (LcOke)

694 this fuckin thread is kinda bullshitty to one who has always been conservative. Read Flukes bio from G.U. She is a fucking ringer put up by fucking leftists to advance a fucking leftist cause. We have aborted 50 million Americans since Roe. We have imported millions and millions of workers from our southern neighbors to replace them. Clear Conservative Issues and this thread has gone to 700 fighting over something said by Rush Limbaugh. The whole damn thread has a vague LGF feel to it.
aaaiiieee! pulls hair.

Posted by: Artruen at March 02, 2012 09:22 PM (fDGF1)

695 And to the original post:

"If I'm wrong, I should be told so."

...

"2. That the state has a compelling and legitimate interest in monitoring women's use of non-abortifacient birth control,"

You're wrong. No one is proposing that. This has been pointed out again and again in the last two weeks, and you keep saying it. It's a big part of what is infuriating many here.

Posted by: Knemon at March 02, 2012 09:24 PM (LcOke)

696 On your own "perfect blog," you can ban everyone you want. But this isn't "MaetenlochHQ." Ace has his own method - let the cackfingers rage at him in the thread, wade into it and occasionally blow up on the front page

For every cackfinger (granting arguendo your view of him) who's "bad for the blog," there are three others who *constructively* dissent, and the shit you're peddling in this thread would risk shutting them up and scaring them off.

Posted by: Knemon at March 02, 2012 09:17 PM (LcOke)


I'm not banning cackfinger - just pointing out the cognitive dissonance of continually complaining at a site that he apparently loathes. AoSHQ is not the only blog on the web - so if you're constantly disappointed here, why not look for another one or create your own?

And the truth is that a lot of the blog regulars don't comment here any more. I've heard and seen their complaints. And the constant incivility and nastiness of commenters like cackfinger is one of the reasons.

Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 09:27 PM (pAlYe)

697 And yet no acknowledgement of the high handedness, condescenscion, and outright insulting nature of ace's posts lately? That doesn't have an effect on readership?

Positively shocking!

Good to know we have so many delicate flowers haning around here.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at March 02, 2012 09:29 PM (rX1N2)

698 hanging*

shit, I'm done

Posted by: Burn the Witch at March 02, 2012 09:30 PM (rX1N2)

699 Can this go for Hannity too?

Posted by: Olliander at March 02, 2012 09:30 PM (ueSaP)

700 692, great post, I agree. And Ace, I can't agree more with you, at the risk of sounding like a complete suckup.

Posted by: Ellen at March 02, 2012 09:30 PM (B1FXc)

701 And the truth is that a lot of the blog regulars don't comment here any more. I heard and seen their complaints. And the constant incivility and nastiness of commenters like cackfinger is one of the reasons.
Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 09:27 PM (pAlYe)


It seems like he is saying that he thinks ace's tone lately has been wrong. So why should it be that you cannot say that you think ace's tone is wrong? And you have just gone "fuck off troll" to him and you're talking about civility? really?

Posted by: buzzion at March 02, 2012 09:31 PM (GULKT)

702 "Those of us who could give less than two shits about right-wing social policy (and actively oppose much of it, in fact)"

this is not conservatism this is not conservatism this is not conservatism this is not conservatism

i don't care if you "whatever bloats your goat" types represent yourselves as libertarians, as you sometimes do, but you're not in a position to lecture the type of people who made the GOP the majority party. the core base is not made up of Cato Institute/Reasonoids who get exercised over the estate tax and think Rick Santorum is Cotton Mather. jettisoning the GOP's cultural platform would lose way more votes than them, say, agreeing to a small tax increase.

Posted by: Evil Theocon at March 02, 2012 09:33 PM (8HhF2)

703 I come for the commenters.
Posted by: cackfinger at March 02, 2012 07:31 PM (BtIvK)

Unfortunately, you're a dumb, belligerent twat, so not all commenters come here for you.

Posted by: Heralder at March 02, 2012 09:36 PM (N8zmf)

704 I can only speak for myself, Maet. I'm a regular, been here since early 05, and the tune you're singing turns me off a lot more than the admittedly shrill 'finger. If Ace runs a long post in which he throws down a gauntlet, and then you come in and bully those who choose to fight back - and I am telling you directly: your close to a dozen "fuck off and get your own blog" comments may be *addressed* to cackfinger but they can be *received* by everyone who dissents - then all that's remaining to complete the Johnsonization is for you to start banning.

Ace is right that he's under no obligation to swear loyalty to Rush, or even to like him. He's wrong to constantly pose as a victim of socons, and i'll continue to tell him so - although I myself am not a socon and am in fact measurably squishier than him, you or most of the board.

Posted by: Knemon at March 02, 2012 09:36 PM (LcOke)

705 The problem is that ace not only is indifferent to social conservatives, he seems actively opposed to them. And that's a huge problem. He has this northeastern "those hicks embarass me" mentality. The fact of the matter is that northeastern conservatives can't figure out how to win an election where they actually live, yet feel like they alone know exactly what to do.

Posted by: Chris at March 02, 2012 09:36 PM (XGZYX)

706
Unfortunately, you're a dumb, belligerent twat, so not all commenters come here for you.


Pot. Meet kettle.

Posted by: GMan at March 02, 2012 09:39 PM (UkbKS)

707
Did it ever occur to you that without Limbaugh, you'd be nothing. That's because before Limbaugh there was nothing.

Buckley putting out a couple of hundred inscrutable and unread copies of the National Review doesn't count.

When the wicked left gin up a controversy to take down one conservative voice, or they luck out and have one conservative voice drop dead, they gain,we lose.

You want to have an election limited to discussion of the deficit and monetary policy?. Great me too. And maybe, someday, in some alternative, perfect universe inhabited by hobbits and gnomes we will.

But not in this universe. Not now. And so, to get to affect Fed policy at all we've got to talk some about some icky things like religious liberty. Squeamish as that may make some.


Posted by: Stranglehold 2012 at March 02, 2012 09:39 PM (u3N3z)

708 It seems like he is saying that he thinks ace's tone lately has been wrong. So why should it be that you cannot say that you think ace's tone is wrong? And you have just gone "fuck off troll" to him and you're talking about civility? really?

Posted by: buzzion at March 02, 2012 09:31 PM (GULKT)


Well then argue that ace's tone is off and why you think he's wrong.

But I'm mostly seeing constant insults and demands that ace post exactly what people want to hear on his own blog. I don't always agree with what ace posts but I don't take it as a personal insult when we disagree.

And then there are certain commenters who never bring teh funneh or insight - just constant complaints and insults to most threads.

And you have just gone "fuck off troll" to him and you're talking about civility? really?

I have been civil. I also think his comments have been troll-like and bad for the blog.

Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 09:40 PM (pAlYe)

709
I know identical twins that argue about almost everything.
If I agreed with everything Ace wrote, I wouldn't bother reading his posts. I agree with some of his, some of Limbaugh's, some of Coulter's some of Beck's.
No one has it all 100% correct.
I believe somewhere in the first Amendment is freedom of thought and reconsideration. I've learned a lot from lurking here. Do I agree with all of it ? NoWay, but I appreciate the opportunity to see things as others do.
Will I change my thinking, probably not, but I sure have become a much better arguer. Facts are scary things,most liberals don't know they exist

Posted by: seamrog at March 02, 2012 09:49 PM (yCmKb)

710 Maet, I and others ((Chris Taylor, e.g., with whom I have precisely zero else in common) have been trying for weeks now to explain just that: that ace's tone is off.

He doesn't listen. Fine. Maybe we're wrong, maybe he's wrong. But it's just plain inaccurate to say ace is only facing insults and demands.

Posted by: Knemon at March 02, 2012 09:49 PM (LcOke)

711 Ace: who is ever born a conservative? You know any? Maybe some folks in really rural farm country. Low population counties and every one in the county is conservative, maybe.

Even then, I'd bet that a lot of the youngsters (especially those who came of age around the 60's had second thoughts and maybe even expressed them. Especially if they went to college.)

Those kind of conservatives are in the minority though.

I believe the majority of conservatives are convertees or to be more accurate; found out that most of what they saw on tv, movies or read in books was either major phony made up bs OR that what they believed the world was like or could be (for whatever reason and inspired by whatever media) wasn't close to reality and wouldn't work or hadn't worked or was a power play by those looking to be on top instead of those already there.

That was my converting moment. When I realized that all the liberal revolutionary, radical chic antagonism for "the man" was really all about a bunch of OTHER PEOPLE wanting to be in charge and tell everyone what to do and impose their beliefs and try out their ideas for society. In other words THEY wanted to be "the man".

Like The Who said; "here's the new boss, same as the old boss". Or Orwell's Animal Farm. (which ironically, I was introduced to in school by a lefty civics teacher. Hmmm maybe he wasn't so lefty after all?)

I think most of the complaint has been that except for your own personal favorite, you've pretty much found something to complain about (and claim that it made them unelectable) every other candidate. (except now Romney cause who else that you haven't picked on as being unelectable is left?)

We don't need conservative bloggers spending a lot of time carping about the electability of this or that candidate; we've got the lefty media to do that for us. And we didn't like having our time wasted by hearing the same crap from you.

Still, I visited every day and some of what you had to say was worth reading and thinking about, so; Thanks.

Meanwhile; WHAT ELSE HAVE YOU DONE FOR US LATELY THOUGH?


Posted by: Please, please SMOD, smite us NOW! at March 02, 2012 09:49 PM (CP+yl)

712 Pot. Meet kettle.
Posted by: GMan at March 02, 2012 09:39 PM (UkbKS)

If I even get around to doing less reading and more commenting and I turn out to be like cackfinger, by all means, pot will meet kettle.

Posted by: Heralder at March 02, 2012 09:50 PM (N8zmf)

713 704 I can only speak for myself, Maet. I'm a regular, been here since early 05, and the tune you're singing turns me off a lot more than the admittedly shrill 'finger. If Ace runs a long post in which he throws down a gauntlet, and then you come in and bully those who choose to fight back - and I am telling you directly: your close to a dozen "fuck off and get your own blog" comments may be *addressed* to cackfinger but they can be *received* by everyone who dissents - then all that's remaining to complete the Johnsonization is for you to start banning.

I think you're hearing things that aren't being said. Can anyone really believe that ace or the rest of us don't tolerate commenters who dissent?

Most threads are full of disagreement and dissent.

But the blog and ace are what they are. If you really don't like them and are continually in disagreement, it's hardly LGF-like to broach the possibility that perhaps this isn't the best fit for you and that haranguing ace to be something he's not is unlikely to be successful and will just make everyone miserable.

There are plenty of blogs on the web and it's not like you owe ace anything or he owes you.

Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 09:54 PM (pAlYe)

714 >>There are plenty of blogs on the web and it's not like you owe ace anything or he owes you.

And by 'you' I mean some person - not you personally buzzion.

Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 09:57 PM (pAlYe)

715 "What is the actual Big Thing necessary for a conversion to Christianity?
Is it a long laundry list of detailed items on this or that?"

Answer: Romans 10:9-10

Posted by: koblog at March 02, 2012 09:59 PM (CeR2/)

716 I don't even know why you felt the need to address me.

Posted by: buzzion at March 02, 2012 09:59 PM (GULKT)

717 Go ahead, say it: "you people"

Racist. Or would it be commentist?

Yeah that's it prejudice against commenters who's opinion doesn't resonate with the HIVE.

You, you, commenterist, you.


Posted by: Please, please SMOD, smite us NOW! at March 02, 2012 09:59 PM (CP+yl)

718 buzzion at March 02, 2012 09:59 PM (GULKT)

Every arrow of thought needs a target.

Posted by: Please, please SMOD, smite us NOW! at March 02, 2012 10:01 PM (CP+yl)

719 716 I don't even know why you felt the need to address me.

Posted by: buzzion at March 02, 2012 09:59 PM (GULKT)


Okay yeah - that didn't really make sense. It's late and I'm tired and cranky.

Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 10:01 PM (pAlYe)

720 John 3:16 does it well also.

Posted by: Please, please SMOD, smite us NOW! at March 02, 2012 10:03 PM (CP+yl)

721
There are plenty of blogs on the web and it's not like you owe ace anything or he owes you.


Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 09:54 PM (pAlYe)

I suspect that is not true. Blogs with no readers die. Causes without a voice wither.Maybe we could get along before Barry-O is appointing three more Supreme Court Justices.

Posted by: Artruen at March 02, 2012 10:04 PM (fDGF1)

722
"The Tea Party groups are also falling into the
purity trap. The socons have the squeakiest voice within the TP, so they
are getting the grease. So my participation level has gone down with
them. When the movement started, the focus was on small limited
government. You had Democrats, libertarians, Independents and others
participating. Then came the socon agenda and a big decline in
popularity.

Posted by: GnuBreed at March 02, 2012 05:24 PM (bvXGR)"


Goddammit, to the extent that TP-ers are behind Gingrich or Santorum or Cain, it is only because they think that Romney will not exert himself to reduce the size of government. Because of the things that he has repeatedly said, most particularly about the goodness of Romneycare and the individual mandate.

That's it. That is all. He seems otherwise to be a decent guy, and a potentially good choice. But he has given the very strong impression that he simply will not fight for smaller government.

In that category, Santorum sucks, too -- golf ball through a hunnerd feet of garden hose -- but he is much more believable when he says he will fight to repeal Obamacare.

Posted by: Troll Feeder at March 02, 2012 10:04 PM (V6pz5)

723 "tsj,



do you actually find disagreement to be inherently "insulting"?



If I do not agree with you, do you take that to be an indirect attack on your person and your world view?



Do you believe that such "constructive insults" should then be met with actual insults in return?"

Jesus, Ace. You might want to look in the mirror. Or just re-read any of your posts about Palin, O'Donnell, Santorum, so-cons, Tea Partiers, or any other subject that attracts your textbook Northeastern Republican disdain (which is positively Brooksian).

I believe you'll find the words "naive", "paranoid", and "delusional" used a lot.

But you're not being insulting. Oh no. You're just being reasonable, right?

You get your panties in a wad when you think you're being told to shut up and get with the program, but it's perfectly OK for you to denounce others for not getting with YOUR program.

Don't get pissed off at us for noticing the pattern.


Posted by: tsj017 at March 02, 2012 10:05 PM (vOH26)

724 The ship is taking on water, Captain Andrew has been swept overboard. Proceed to bail out the ship, regardless what the stowaways may say! Look Lively NOW!

Posted by: seamrog at March 02, 2012 10:05 PM (yCmKb)

725 Blogs without readers never die.

They just suffer in silence.

There's bloggers out there who'd give their left {nut/ovary} to have someone disagree with them in the comments like what happens here.


And don't you forget that ace. If we didn't love you, we wouldn't care.

Posted by: Please, please SMOD, smite us NOW! at March 02, 2012 10:06 PM (CP+yl)

726 Of course ace owes me nothing, if anything I owe *him* for countless laughs and insights and killer lines I've stolen to use in meatspace arguments.

But dude: the tone here has changed, it is not (just) the fault of those attacking ace for his perceived heresies, and you are not helping.

I have offered my diagnosis on other threads, FWIW i'll repeat it here: now that ace is repping Romney as the last acceptableto-him-option,he's become a lot nastier,a lot hackier, and generally less fun.

I suspect (of course I cannot prove) that this is because he knows - hell, he told us repeatedly when Perry was still on the scene! - that Romney is a disaster. I understand that having to defend a guy who sucks against another guy he thinks sucks more is not fun. And (as long as he doesn't start in on calling me a "yahoo" for suggesting he stop loudly and copiously shitting on the social right - and I've got the cites to back that up) I sympathize with the bind he's in.

I love this place. It's a refuge when I'm bored or procrastinating or depressed with the state of the nation. It's a digital home for me. And I see war being waged on both sides, and I worry where it's headed.

And what I am trying to tell you in particular, Maet, is tnat on this thread, in my eyes, you are beeing a sneering bully, and i'll take a monomaniac like cack over a Kilgore-in-waiting any day.

Posted by: Knemon at March 02, 2012 10:07 PM (LcOke)

727 Romney could still save himself, even now, if he would just repudiate Romneycare and the mandate.

I personally wouldn't [em]believe[/em] him but that's just me.

I think there's plenty out there that would be less negative about him.

It's this lack of steadfastness about him that makes people go for Santorum (imo). Santorum is the notRomney candidate.

Posted by: Please, please SMOD, smite us NOW! at March 02, 2012 10:10 PM (CP+yl)

728 And the truth is that a lot of the blog regulars don't comment here any
more. I've heard and seen their complaints. And the constant incivility
and nastiness of commenters like cackfinger is one of the reasons.


I'm not sure but it seems like there are fewer cobloggers and/or they're posting less.

Posted by: Heorot at March 02, 2012 10:11 PM (xXGK4)

729 knemon, I suspect that my leaning is far more to the right than yours, but that apparently doesn't affect your judgement at all. hah, hah. I watched the lgf slo-mo melt down and this is beginning to have the same feel.
Yeah, I come here for my own good, also. I only comment when exasperated. Like now. I appreciate your clarity.

Posted by: Artruen at March 02, 2012 10:15 PM (fDGF1)

730 the Tea Party is the religious right. it's "new" as in a new group but it is the same bottom-up conservative movement that has existed since the '80s.

that's not a shot by the way, because the religious right is conservative across the board. just that this idea that the Tea Party was some kind of new, libertarian movement that never liked Bush was inaccurate.

Posted by: MLP at March 02, 2012 10:15 PM (8HhF2)

731 And what I am trying to tell you in particular, Maet, is tnat on this thread, in my eyes, you are beeing a sneering bully, and i'll take a monomaniac like cack over a Kilgore-in-waiting any day.

Posted by: Knemon at March 02, 2012 10:07 PM (LcOke)


Okay fair enough. There is a power imbalance and it is bad form to keep criticizing cackfinger when he's no longer around.


Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 10:21 PM (pAlYe)

732 No, MLP. It is not religious anything. It was a bunch of Americans freaked out by the trifecta of House, Senate and President controlled by Socialists. I know, I got out and met them and they met me. And I sure ain't no religious type.
and do you proofread or just fling?

Posted by: Artruen at March 02, 2012 10:21 PM (fDGF1)

733 Artruen, I appreciate that. Yes, my leanings are quite a ways to the left. Hell, I voted for *Nader* in 2000! I'm a northeastern (by upbringing: now Utahan by the grace of Gawd) squish like ace, but unlike him

(A) I know that you dance with the one whut brung ya
(B) I know there's a lot more precedent for squishdoom than truecondoom in presidential elections.
Romney is inevitable, but we have to keep prodding him to the right.

Maet, that is a manful concession, and i'll demonsrtate my inherent squishitude by apologizing for any lines *I've* crossed.

I meant what I said this morning on another thread: we can rage during the primaries, but the day Romney sews it up it's Voltron Time. And, in the apparently unlikely event that Santorum pulls it off, THE SAME GOES IN REVERSE. They both suck, but IF we stay focused we can do this.

Good night, everyone.

Posted by: Knemon at March 02, 2012 10:27 PM (LcOke)

734 @732

What you said.

There are a lot of religious people who identify with the TP because the TP looks like it is effective.

And there are a lot of non-religious people who want the religious folks to stop pushing their religion on a non-religious rebellion against government overreach.

Many of the latter group are completely new to the politicing bidness, but are too pissed off to let it go anymore, even if they do have to put up with more bible-thumping than they are comfortable with.

Posted by: Troll Feeder at March 02, 2012 10:29 PM (V6pz5)

735
This is all starting to sound vaguely familiar. Didn't a certain pony tail bike rider go through this form of menopause? Must I again be a refugee in search of a home?

Posted by: Sphynx at March 02, 2012 10:39 PM (M0c4a)

736 The gem to take away here is the talk about conversion. I did it in the 90's - just in time to join in the revolution in '94. I was almost on a high for years as I kept discovering new thinkers who were so powerful in a discussion I had just discovered. For me, the change was not so much about low buy-in as finding the right place to buy in at. I wasn't fazed at demolishing an ediface of ideas that was years in the making and I wouldn't be fazed to do it again. Maybe it's different for everyone.

But getting to that first hole in the dam matters a lot. It's a good thought for most of the political cycle.

Maybe it's my Irish but I don't share your turmoil. This is the primary season. We're supposed to be at each others' throats. And once my family is finished fighting each other, it will unite and rain fire on the enemy outside.

Bitching and accusing and fighting over orthodoxy is what we're supposed to be doing right now. And most of us (by which I mean, YOU GUYS) are wrong just as a point of arithmetic. Give it back when you take some hits (easy enough for me to say, I know) but at least recognize where we are. This is just the brawl at the family reunion. We'll all still love each other after and God help the outsider who tries to break it up in the meantime.

Posted by: VRWC Agent at March 02, 2012 11:25 PM (NbODQ)

737 Ace,

I admit having read none of the 700 plus responses above; I am just compelled to respond. Firstly, I size you up from across the room at once in two ways. As one of those people, who for some reason or other, was just sort of born conservative and never changed, I am grateful for you. While I like to run into people like myself with whom I can relate on a very basic level -and who doesn't? - I place more value in people who are not entirely like myself who have come to join the same team by some path or another.

Secondly, having found your own way to conservatism, not entirely unlike how C.S. Lewis found his way to Christianity, or how Reagan found his way to the GOP, I value your insight in how to convert oneself and others to the great defensive cause as vital. In many, many, many ways, I find myself a minority in the very same country with which I identify on so many issues, from things seemingly as settled as the separation of powers to the laws of conservation of mass and energy, to my Irish immigrant heritage of not being particularly fond of being dependent on the state.

You have much to offer, Ace. With Breitbart gone I'm not sure who will read the comments anymore, but over the years I've grown accustomed to appreciating your conservative take on things from a very different perspective from my own. I suspect (well, know) that you and I, for instance, support different candidates for the republican nominee for the presidency. That is of relatively little importance compared to the fact that we both recognize the urgency of what is needed in this next election, that being a win.

As far as Limbaugh goes, I can tell you this. When I'd left active duty after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of Operation Desert Storm (in which I should disclose that I saw no combat) I spent the spring of 1992, while waiting for admission to law school, working with my brothers in my dad's roofing business. On a break I tuned into the radio and heard Rush for the first time, and have been almost an addict to his show for these twenty years, much like the AOSHQ has been a daily read for me since a message board user on a site I used to run clued me in to you in eight years ago. What I mean by all that is that I, perhaps incorrectly, but I suspect not, know and understand Limbaugh simply by virtue of a now significant number of hours listening, and thus I think that where he is right now will look different in the long game than it looks right now. That's my experience with his show; that it can't be judged by the firestorm of the week or month.

I swerved off the point I meant to make in the last long paragraph. I think the real point of what you've written here is about how to keep up the conversions, rather than spending energy defending the famous and the stars on our side. You are completely right about that, and I imagine Rush would agree with you on that. To conclude a long comment with a couple of simplistic thoughts, Rush is a big boy and will take care of himself, and offense beats defense almost any day.

Have a good night, Ace, you who are one of my favorite addictive conservative minds.

Posted by: ArrMatey at March 02, 2012 11:25 PM (3YA+O)

738 By the way, any idiot who can't see that Newt is the best hope we have is either too stupid to understand what we are up against or working for the other team.

Posted by: VRWC Agent at March 02, 2012 11:27 PM (NbODQ)

739 The GOP has become the party of the stupid and uninformed.
A party with a base so small and deranged that it will soon be able to bury itself in a bathtub.

4 more years losers.

Posted by: Bob at March 02, 2012 11:30 PM (IUtPl)

740 Let's say that a person used to like zombies but now has come to the conclusion that they must kill zombies-- survival. There are basically two types of converts to the new belief system. The 1st convert - the person has an epiphany and embraces their new life in every way and reject the beliefs of their old life. they love it and spread the word. often they are outspoken and sometimes they are better advocates than the old timers.

The 2nd convert- some people convert but hang on to the remnants of their old life. their new beliefs are foreign to them and often in constant struggle with their natural instincts (i.e. they love the zombies because they see remnants of their family and friends and have reluctantly taken up the cause). So they are trapped in the basement with people they used to hate (zombie killers) but they must work together to destroy the zombies trying to break in and kill them all. The 2nd type of convert makes sure that they let the people in the basement know that they really can't stand them but will tolerate them to achieve their mutual objective. By word and deed they show their contempt for the beliefs of the original zombie killers and keep telling them to STFU whenever they talk about issues related to the zombies. The original zombie killers get sick and tired of being patronized and their beliefs scorned and they shout back.

David Horowitz would be an example of the 1st convert. He grew up with leftist and communists and eventually rejected their belief system. He clearly and unequivocally rejects everything about it! He doesn't believe that conservatives are racists or stupid, and therefore, he does not waste his time lecturing us on how to look "smart." Instead, he says that you should not tolerate people who are trying to destroy you and devises ways to defeat such people.

You cannot "persuade" haters to stop the hate, you can only defeat them. Anything else is a waste of time.

Posted by: BlackRedneck at March 02, 2012 11:31 PM (nyz8i)

741 The number of comments on this thread is still less than half the number of Sandra Fluke's sex partners.

Is that cum-bucket slut aptly named or what?

Posted by: Sgt. York at March 02, 2012 11:46 PM (B4VH/)

742 Ace, this is a great site....I send people here all the time, even my daughters and their friends.

You draw the best comments around....and funny too.

Don't fret, these disagreements are normal and constructive.

Especially in the Primary season....Rinos, moderate Repubs, and Conservatives are always at each others throats.

For many good reasons.








Posted by: Pam at March 02, 2012 11:51 PM (ywL4Y)

743 Man, I missed all the "fun."

Posted by: taylork at March 02, 2012 11:56 PM (ppNDn)

744 Tomorrow's message: "Why you must support my candidate or thereby prove you are a poopy-head. And Ron Paul voters must die."

Posted by: MlR at March 02, 2012 11:56 PM (vj9lA)

745 Posted by: Temper Tantrum at March 02, 2012 06:22 PM (AWmfW)

The word "actually" is traditionally reserved for things that are actual.

And you seem to have missed Ace's point about impugning people's motives instead of engaging their argument.

Posted by: Jim Treacher at March 02, 2012 11:58 PM (X3KAb)

746 142.

"Ultimately, however, I agree with what Ace says here. Some people on
their right with a desire for party and ideological purity do make me
question whether these are the people I want to stand and make common
ground with. For example, I almost never read Free Republic anymore
because it has become the caricature liberals once accused it of being."

AOS is my new home. I have listened to Rush off and on since the 80's. He was an important influence to me then. I still can't decide if he screwed this one up or not. Nobody hits 100% Its like the guy flipping burgers in the diner. He could cook a perfect burger every time, still nobody would call him a chef. Suck one cock though and.........

This place even at its worse is like heaven


Posted by: owlpellets at March 03, 2012 12:00 AM (dmEoV)

747 Couldn't agree more w/Ace on the article (no, I didn't read the comments). I just wonder why a leash is being placed on those of us willing to meet the Proggies on their level and debate the drug-addled, semi-literate commies in their language. I work with trailer trash gangsta wannabe hand out addicts all day. It is a different world from the lily white piety of SoCon land. We're already handicapped by Libtard definitions made for us to lose. Now we have to deal with the Purity Patrol too? Eff that. You can try to win w/o getting your gloves dirty. Mine are bloody as hell and I'm already 8 rounds in. We can knock them out, or we can give up, because they own the judges the announcers and the ring girls, and the house has bet in their favor.

Posted by: @TheLuvChild at March 03, 2012 12:19 AM (9HAs4)

748 As I said earlier tonight after an exasperating discussion where no criticism of Rush's tactics was tolerated - if Rush Limbaugh is whom we turn to for intellectual inspiration, we are seriously fucked. He is a clown, an intellectual lightweight. He is fun, I agree with him in principle, but ffs, he's not a think tank or even as serious a thinker as Ace or even Ann Coulter.

We are never going to have Paul Ryan or anyone like him as President because he is serious about the issues. People want their politics in a shiny package, artificially sweetened and bite-sized, and as repellent to infidels as possible. It's too much work to actually understand the details of the issues and the adherence to the constitution and conservative principles; it's much easier to repeat absurd rhetoric that entertainers use to illustrate absurdity and pretend they are serious arguments that will win the debate in public opinion (where it matters!). Nobody repeats Paul Ryan or any serious people who are busting their asses to move the conservative agenda forward. They repeat Rush Limbaugh, because it's simple and is more fun because it gets the libs all worked up.

The Left is, as usual, completely full of shit with their hypocritical faux outrage, but that's no reason to keep parroting Rush's hyperbole when it's completely obliterated the REAL arguments about this "free contraceptives" unconstitutionality and absurdity. And that's not "playing the Left's game," that's called actually trying to make the case on its real merits. The conservative argument does have real merit, but it's completely lost to absurd name-calling from a pop culture guy. We went from Obrezhnev shitting on the Catholic Church and the constitution to arguing about some Georgetown Law chick and Rush calling her a whore? Really?
Pathetic.

Posted by: Beth (ABOP/SMOD 2012) at March 03, 2012 12:23 AM (kBxk7)

749 And I really don't see what good it does to play the libs game, getting down in the mud with them. It might be fun, but we aren't going to change the angry Left's minds. We CAN change Joe Schmo's mind if we aren't so repellent.

Posted by: Beth (ABOP/SMOD 2012) at March 03, 2012 12:25 AM (kBxk7)

750 Oh, bullshit about Rush screwing the pooch. The guy has done 3 hours EVERY DAY since the 80s. Most of it impromptu riffing. Are you going to say something you wish you had done differently at some point? If I were the radio guy in question the answer would be, "Every single day."

I don't care one way or the other about this "controversy." Rush is a big boy and can handle this on his own. If he's under attack, I'm betting his ratings go up.

Posted by: VRWC Agent at March 03, 2012 12:26 AM (NbODQ)

751 >>>He thinks if he bashes the right sometimes he will gain the acceptance of the "cool kids"

It's not "bashing the right," or trying to gain acceptance from anyone. It's called a DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. But obviously some people think that "difference of opinion" means "RINO" or "bashing the right" or whatever. These days, everyone is called a RINO. Even Ann Coulter. *eyeroll*

Posted by: Beth (ABOP/SMOD 2012) at March 03, 2012 12:31 AM (kBxk7)

752 So, what is the fundamental "conservative" position, aside from "don't make waves"?

Posted by: Rmoney Vaoter at March 03, 2012 01:02 AM (7MFxV)

753 Holy shit, I just saw a pic of Fluke.


WOULD NOT BANG!


Not enough beer in Milwaukee to change that.

Posted by: Sgt. York at March 03, 2012 01:04 AM (B4VH/)

754 Ah, I am so happy Ace wants to protect my honor.

Posted by: Fluke at March 03, 2012 01:06 AM (6F00J)

755 Fluke is a cross dresser who is not even trying.

Posted by: Rmoney Vaoter at March 03, 2012 01:06 AM (7MFxV)

756 Call me honey.

Posted by: Fluke at March 03, 2012 01:06 AM (6F00J)

757 >>>h. I think the real point of what you've written here is about how to keep up the conversions, rather than spending energy defending the famous and the stars on our side.

I think that's my main point too, though I didn't make it.

My post on Limbaugh didn't really criticize him. It defended him. However, it was also intended to be an "and now let's move on from this sillness" post.

Some people just want to seem to sit here defending millionaires, I guess to make sure their lives are even better than they are.

I sort of want the millionaires to take care of themselves.

I think the Limbaugh post was deemed insufficient because I didn't say "Rush was right-- she's damned whore!!!" which I guess is what "Conservative" discourse is now.

If someone can explain to me what we "win," exactly, even if we prevail in the scary-important propositon "Sandra Fluke is a dirty dirty whore," please, do enlighten me.

Because I see it as a bunch of trivial jerking-off by trivially-minded people.

I think it's star-fucking. I think it's hero-worshipping.

I think it doesn't matter a good god-damn.

I think we ought to move on, rather than deciding the word has come down from Mount Rushbo that the next big fight we need to have is over whether Sandra Fluke is a slut.

Posted by: Sondra Fluke, Who's V-Hole Looks Like A Municipal Pool on the 4th of July, Except With Sperm at March 03, 2012 01:06 AM (nj1bB)

758 >>>So, what is the fundamental "conservative" position, aside from "don't make waves"?

We don't dwell on the trivial, where the trivially-minded may prefer, but which gets us nothing.

Or can you explain to me what great principle swings on whether we can successfully press the case of slut-dom against Sandra Fluke?

Sorry, I think you have your heads up your asses. I think you are indulging in reality-tv nonsense, akin to arguing about the Kardashians, but pretending it's "political" just because it involves Rush Limbaugh.

This is a celebrity story, not a political story.

If Celebrity Stories are where you live, that's your bag. it's not mine.



Posted by: ace at March 03, 2012 01:09 AM (nj1bB)

759 What is the fundamental "conservative" position?

- We don't dwell on the trivial, where the trivially-minded may prefer, but which gets us nothing.

Non-answer. In fact, the very definition of trivial.

My zeroth position is, "Do not steal".

Posted by: Rmoney Vaoter at March 03, 2012 01:17 AM (7MFxV)

760 sorry, no, you'll have to explain to me how the ball is advanced by endlessly yapping about your preferred crude trivialities.

Maybe that's your speed. I have higher speeds. This is a fucking joke to be dispensed with quickly, not a cause.

Posted by: ace at March 03, 2012 01:20 AM (nj1bB)

761 Does no one see the irony that those who vow they're the most interested in "taking the country back" are also the most interested in having eight-grade-level celebrity spats about who's a slut?

Posted by: ace at March 03, 2012 01:22 AM (nj1bB)

762 why do I feel like I was sorta engaged with some dude talking to somebody else on his bluetooth earbud...

Posted by: Rmoney Vaoter at March 03, 2012 01:32 AM (7MFxV)

763 I am looking at the implication of your question. I am not answering a rhetorical question like "what is the fundamental conservative position apart from not making waves?"

You seem to be suggesting we must "make waves," and this is to be done, if I may guess from context, by arguing that Sandra Fluke IS a slut.

Then, somehow, we "win." Or something.

Becuase we fight over trivialities. Becuase we're not smart enough to tell the profound from the absurd. Because we like having reality-tv squabbles.

That's what I take your meaning as.

Posted by: ace at March 03, 2012 01:35 AM (nj1bB)

764 Ace, I just finished reading the entire thread on your previous post.

I have no idea what set you off - around #262 you start ranting about Stepford wives and collectivists, but as far as I can tell you're arguing with shadows. I saw maybe five comments calling you a rino/pussy ... out of of *hundreds.*

If you really can't take less than 5% of the comments coming from truecons flexing, maybe you should set up registration. I'll miss the ability to sock at will, but if it prevents you from having these fortnightly freakouts it'll be better for everyone.

For what it's worth, I get what you were saying in that post. As do the vast majority of commenters, even those who think you're a squish.

You're letting a handful of comments drive you into a rage that does not befit a man of your talents.

Posted by: Knemon at March 03, 2012 01:37 AM (B17vr)

765 >>>I saw maybe five comments calling you a rino/pussy ... out of of *hundreds.*

Yes about that.

>>>If you really can't take less than 5% of the comments coming from truecons flexing, maybe you should set up registration

I can't and I will.

It's crude, stupid form of argument, made by crude, stupid people, and we'll have less of it.

Yes, it's only 5%.

Why do people INSIST on thinking "he means all of us" when I am specifically talking about a specific mode of behavior inapplicable to 95% of people?

Posted by: ace at March 03, 2012 01:40 AM (nj1bB)

766 As to your 763, the profound here for a libertarian is the mandate, for purely economic reasons. For a socon the profound is that *plus* the objection that we're now all on the hook for something they might object to for reasons, which reasons you in turn find objectionable. There's a way to go coalitional/additive on this, but it's *not* to insist people limit themselves only to those arguments you (or I - remember, I am not a social conservative, I just don't see the angle in antagonizing them) are okay with.

Posted by: Knemon at March 03, 2012 01:42 AM (B17vr)

767 and the conflation of issues is out of control.

I am not objecting to "socons," as I think you said in this thread or a previous one.

I am objecting to A S S H O L E S.

The two are not equivalent. I didn't say they were, so why are people making that connection and getting mad that I, supposedly, am making that connection?

But yeah, look, if you think the most important thing in the world is arguing about who's a slut, and by doing so, defending a millionaire who's frankly going to retire in 2-3 years, then you've got your head up your ass.

It is what it is. Serious people talk about serious things. Trivial people talk about trival things.

Idiots talk about trivial things but then make up ridiculous reasons to justify them as "serious" and "bedrock conservative principles" and whatnot.

no.

it's a fun, cathartic thing to throw invective around.

I do it myself for that reason. It's fun!

But don't mistake it for "serious."

Whether sandra fluke is a slut or not is no serious. And no serious person gets on a soapbox and yells about how important it is to vindicate Rush by winning the Major Conservative Point that Sandra Fluke is a slut.

Posted by: ace at March 03, 2012 01:44 AM (nj1bB)

768 >>>he profound here for a libertarian is the mandate, for purely economic reasons. For a socon the profound is that *plus* the objection that we're now all on the hook for something they might object to for reasons, which reasons you in turn find objectionable.

what the bloody hell are you talking about? Of course the mandate is obnoxious and must be defeated.

Are you on crack? Who the hell is even arguing this?

Yes, THAT is important.

Sandra Fluke's alleged slutitude is not important. it's a sideshow for slack-jawed dullards.

Posted by: ace at March 03, 2012 01:45 AM (nj1bB)

769 because I agree the mandate is obnoxious and liberty-killing I must dive into the Retard Pool and get into "serious" discussions about whether Sandra Fluke is a slut?

What the hell does that retarded argument have to do with the serious one?

Posted by: ace at March 03, 2012 01:47 AM (nj1bB)

770 I don't get this.

Do you really think that if I find this whole Retard-bait discussion about who's a slut obnoxiously stupid that I don't care about the issue it's supposed to be about?

The slut thing is bad because it puts us on the defensive where we'd like to be attacking. Because the actual HHS mandate must be defeated.

But how you think that Slut Shaming gets you closer to this, you'll have to elaborate.

Basically you guys have just gone Full Tribal. There is no discrimination here. If someone in your Tribe is saying it, you're are all in. Right and wrong, smart and dumb has nothing to do with it. Tribe Over All.

Posted by: ace at March 03, 2012 01:50 AM (nj1bB)

771 For the same reason that when truecons argue with *other commenters* in the thread you often assume they're talking to you (it is your blog and all, but still,by the three hundredth comment there's a lot of cross-talk) and you come running in all rrrrage like a pro wrestler.

Go back and read the previous thread, and tell me if you think you were responding proportionately and rationally. To me, especially in the comment about "some people are just dumb and need Villains," for the first time you actually *are* starting to sound a little CJish.

And I say that way more in sorrow than in anger. I meant what I said upthread: I love this place, and (in the best Viking tradition) I love you, and I hate to see it turning into this. Yes, it sucks that some people can't read a post without reducing it to Boo or Hooray. Yes, it beyond sucks that Breitbart is now worm food, that vile creatures gloat and that we're probably going to lose this fall.

But don't let it go on like this. Not like this. There has to be a better way.

Posted by: Knemon at March 03, 2012 01:52 AM (B17vr)

772 >>>ut "some people are just dumb and need Villains," for the first time you actually *are* starting to sound a little CJish.

Some people are dumb.

Some people, in fact, can only conceive of heroes who are always right and villains who are always evil (and for whom no minimum standards of conduct are ever owed).

The idea that Rush Limbaugh might be basically a good guy who told a bad joke is just INCONVEIVABLE! He's a hero, so he's playing a crafy game of 9-dimensional chess with the liberals with his slut-talk.

Add into that the obnoxiously dumb double standards (can't call Laura Ingraham a slut, but can drop it on this Sandra Fluke fluzie) and demand that other people debase themselves by contorting themselves to these double-standards.

No thanks.



Posted by: ace at March 03, 2012 01:56 AM (nj1bB)

773 Knemmon, honestly? Please find another blog. You're not happy here, and I'm not happy with you.

Go find some other blog and yap-yap-yap about how I disrespect you by disagreeing with you and so I'm CJ.

Posted by: ace at March 03, 2012 01:57 AM (nj1bB)

774 Sigh.

I have not gone Full Tribal. I don't think the slut shtick was particularly helpful. I appreciated your, dare I say, nuanced post on the failure of the line.

So say that. And when a few percent of the hundred comments say you're a RINO or whatever, maybe don't go Full Aggro Retard with a flamethrower, because it is like pouring gas on a fire, and then the rest of the thread is mostly devoted to increasingly loud cycles of YOU'RE A PUSSY/NUH UH YOU'RE A STEPFORD WIFE.

Or, whatever, *do* keep doing that. As the saying goes, your blog, your rules, your style, your fights.

But .... WWABD? Yes, he had fights on occasion with, e.g., those who wanted to keep GOProud from spnsoring CPAC.

But did he *dwell* on them? Did he *revel* in them? Did he go out of his way to provoke them, like picking at a scab?

You're better than that.

Posted by: Knemon at March 03, 2012 01:58 AM (B17vr)

775 Okay. Goodbye. Good luck. Maybe i'll check in in a while.

Posted by: Knemon at March 03, 2012 01:59 AM (B17vr)

776 hey knemon? Breitbart didn't interact with his commenters much.



Posted by: ace at March 03, 2012 02:05 AM (nj1bB)

777 The problem is that the people who argue this are very vocal and end up dragging it into nearly every thread.

And let's not sugar coat it - it truly is an attempt to enforce conformity of thought. Which normally has been one of the most unattractive parts of the Left.


Posted by: Mætenloch at March 02, 2012 04:56 PM

What's ironic is that ace and all his co-bloggers don't even realize that this whole kerfuffle started here when DrewM. and co decided to enforce their conformity of thought onto Rush Limbaugh. Those who disagreed were then accused by the ones who started this whole mess of "enforcing conformity of thought". So ace and co-bloggers push the issue, when people disagree, they are told they are the ones pushing the issue and forcing ace and co-bloggers to conformity of thought. Brilliant.

Doubly ironic, since that is exactly what has been going on with social conservatism. Social conservatives don't push social issues. The Left pushes the issues in pushing to redefine marriage, pushing for abortion-on-demand, pushing for taxpayer-funded abortion and contraceptives, etc. Then, social conservatives respond. Then, 'true conservatives (read fiscal conservatives)' throw a hissy fit and complain about social conservatives messing things up and pushing issues that don't matter, when it was the Left who started it all.

Seems like many converts to conservatism still use the tactics of the Left to shut down people when they get their feelings hurt.

But, you do have to realize that for a lot of people here, we are converted conservatives BECAUSE of Rush.

Posted by: chemjeff at March 02, 2012 04:57 PM

Yep, I'm one of them as well. In addition, at my last job, I turned on many people in my office to listen to Rush and they were converted over the years as well. There are a LOT of us out there. Those who listen to his show know this to be true as well, as he has people calling in all the time to thank him for what he does, because they were turned on to conservatism by him. He's been on since 1988 and has been converting people to conservatism for 20+ years. So, yeah, people are going to get pretty annoyed when some recent convert to conservatism rips on him all the time and blows him off as just a guy with a microphone.

Ironically, that's what the Left thinks of Andrew Breitbart, he's just a blowhard with a microphone.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at March 03, 2012 02:07 AM (vUK/h)

778 "because I agree the mandate is obnoxious and liberty-killing"

"liberty" is the "equality" of the Right, a catch-all piece of rhetoric that means everything and means nothing. i have a hard time seeing why people'd get so worked up over this bill (other than as a partisan exercise) when the constant implication here seems to be that the Catholic belief against contraception is about as reasonable as human sacrifice.

me, i oppose it cuz i don't agree with the "normal" mentality that every single instance of (Jon Benjamin voice) "Consensual." sex exists in some sacred realm immune from criticism, and think free contraception encourages this mentality. but i'm a theocon joykill like that.

Posted by: J Parker at March 03, 2012 02:08 AM (8HhF2)

779 bill, mandate, bleh

Posted by: J Parker at March 03, 2012 02:10 AM (8HhF2)

780 >>>What's ironic is that ace and all his co-bloggers don't even realize that this whole kerfuffle started here when DrewM. and co decided to enforce their conformity of thought onto Rush Limbaugh. Those who disagreed were then accused by the ones who started this whole mess of "enforcing conformity of thought". So ace and co-bloggers push the issue, when people disagree, they are told they are the ones pushing the issue and forcing ace and co-bloggers to conformity of thought. Brilliant.

You just don't get it, do you?

If you want to disagree, disagree. No one disputes your right to do that.

It's the I N S U L T S I'm sick of. Do you get that?

Attempting to persuade me? Telling me I'm wrong? Utterly fair. it's what makes arguments, and it's what makes comments sections lively.

Trotting out the same crude insult every goddamned discussion?

That's attempting not to persuade but to sting someone, so that they don't say the thing you don't want them to say anymore. Not because they agree with you, but just because they're tired of being insulted.

Enough, enough.

Posted by: ace at March 03, 2012 02:12 AM (nj1bB)

781 ... you just asked me to leave, and I don't want to be rude, so I will, but since you addressed me again (776), i'll respond:

I know he didn't. And I know you like argument. As do I, as do most or all of us here.

I am not unhappy here. Even when it's an internecine! shitstorm it's still a fun place. Whenever I've suggested you take a different tack I never meant you were outside the Tribe or whatever, just that I thought it was bad tactics. If that was out of line as a commenter, I apologize.

I won't comment anymore, if that's what you want, but i'll keep reading and lurking, because this is the best blog around.

Posted by: Knemon at March 03, 2012 02:13 AM (B17vr)

782 And clyde, if you are such a social con you cannot process a non-so-con opinion without reading it as an insult to your very being, please do us both a favor and leave the site.

Posted by: ace at March 03, 2012 02:13 AM (nj1bB)

783 I am looking at the implication of your question. I am not answering a
rhetorical question like "what is the fundamental conservative position
apart from not making waves?"



Ahhh, a bit late, so it may not matter...



The question was not rhetorical, but quite literal, if I may truncate, "What is the fundamental conservative position"?



My personal position is "Do not steal"...



Do not steal somebody's property.

Do not steal somebody's money.

Do not steal somebody's virginity (er, uh, treasures if they are not a virgin..)

Do not steal somebody's privacy (in their own property)

Do not steal somebody's life (murder or slavery or detention)



the list goes on and on...



Posted by: Rmoney Vaoter at March 03, 2012 02:14 AM (7MFxV)

784 >>> And I know you like argument. As do I, as do most or all of us here.

Less and less. It is not FUN to be here any more.

My choice is to get rid of the fucking insult committee or else my only interaction will be on twitter -- where I can tell people to fuck off without this endless griefing about it.

Posted by: ace at March 03, 2012 02:15 AM (nj1bB)

785 Some of you have to get it through your heads, finally, that an opinion disagreeing with your own is NOT an insult.

Further, you will have to limit the number of people who you treat as "yourself" for purposes of deciding when you've been personally insulted.

Joe says something critical of Rush. You have decided for all intents and purposes Rush is "family," so Joe's disresect of Rush invites an insult against JOE in return.

Um, Joe did not insult YOU. YOU are not Rush. Let's not conflate you and he for these purposes.

If joe insults YOU, by all means hit him back.

But this crap where you personally defend every hero by insulting people who don't consider them heroes?

Enough. Then that's just taking every criticism as a reason to lodge an insult.

Posted by: ace at March 03, 2012 02:18 AM (nj1bB)

786 yessir

Posted by: Coldly Rational Conservatives Who Never Get Emotional at March 03, 2012 02:21 AM (8HhF2)

787 Okay, but I don't think I ever insulted you, except for the time I called you an unstable drama queen (but you had called me a "yahoo" in the same thread, so I was pissed).

I think I have done exactly what you say you *want* people to do when they disagree with you - give you *reasons* for their disagreement ... but then you call that "yap yap yap."

Yes, there are a small but extremely vocal handful of people who keep insulting you. Ban them or ignore them, would be me advice, but I'm not the target so that's easy for me to say.

It would be a fucking tragedy if you shut this place down. Don't come into comments as ofte if you must, but don't let that handful ruin what's left of the old HQ vibe.

I'm sorry you no longer have fun here. To the extent my verbose butthurt is part of the reason why, I apologize, and I will not comment again if that's what you want.

Posted by: Knemon at March 03, 2012 02:23 AM (B17vr)

788 "...but unless you've actually changed your stripes, you cannot tell me what arguments work on persuading someone to move from liberal-ish to moderate to conservative/moderate to finally conservative."

Well, those who have converted some of our liberal friends/family/coworkers to conservatism also know what arguments work to persuade.

The key is that it is different for every individual. There is no universal way. What works to convert one does not necessarily work to convert another. Not everyone cares about the same issues.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at March 03, 2012 02:23 AM (vUK/h)

789 >>>The key is that it is different for every individual. There is no universal way.

There is no universal way but there is a universal principle. The higher the price, the fewer the sales.

Posted by: ace at March 03, 2012 02:25 AM (nj1bB)

790 >>>Yes, there are a small but extremely vocal handful of people who keep insulting you.

Why is this so hard to acknowledge? Why keep getting on me about this, rather than getting on them to stop with the same worm-eating griefing?

Do you really think it's interesting to see the sixty bazillionth iteration of RINO/coward/Cocktail Party?

How much fucking meat is left on those particular bones?

Posted by: ace at March 03, 2012 02:27 AM (nj1bB)

791 There is no universal way but there is a universal principle. The higher the price, the fewer the sales.

THAT is a feature if you thinks that peak oil is near...whether that is the case or not, and you can afford it and want to conserve... jacking the price is the way to go.

i.e.: fuck middle class america

Posted by: Rmoney Vaoter at March 03, 2012 02:29 AM (7MFxV)

792 Ace, Thanks for these posts. I've been bothered by what the hell is going on around this who stupid contraceptive issue and you've brought some clarity.

I also cannot believe we fell for the Dem's Jedi mind tricks.

Posted by: sexypig at March 03, 2012 02:37 AM (wWV5q)

793 It's not at all hard to acknowledge! If I thought it would do any good, I would tell them too, but I AGREE WITH YOU, the ones who keep unironically saying "oh shit ponytail time" ARE ASSHOLES, and if they won't listen to you, the host, or your cobloggers,who have banning power, why the hell would they listen to "Knemon?"

Look at 203: someone said "we need to talk about social stuff as well as economic." You said "I disagree. What ar we going to do about that?"

A little upthread from here, my "yap yap yap" was an attempt to answer that question: divide and conquer. For some, the economic argument will work. Others want the social. So different voices should focus on different legs of the stool. Additive, not purgative - in either direction

And yes, a small but venomous chorus will insist you go Full Spectrum 24/7. I have no idea what to do with those people other than ignore them.

I don't think you're insulting me when we disagree. If people think that, fuck them. They're not worth the time it takes you to respond, and they get you (understandably?) so pissed off that honest disagreement gets crowded out.

Be our leadeer. Put us some fucking knowledge. And if people can't handle it, flush 'em and move on.

Posted by: Knemon at March 03, 2012 02:41 AM (B17vr)

794 BTW, let's say we wanted to do jujitsu on the contraceptive mandate, here's my thinking:

1) The average low information voter who is not religious doesn't care about mandates or the 1st amendment...they may have vague anti-government feeling but that's about it.

2) The people who truly care about this should be Catholics and whoever else can't use contraception. They will be informed by their groups and be angry enough - why try to push this issue on to people who don't care?

Posted by: sexypig at March 03, 2012 02:46 AM (wWV5q)

795 Oh, if you so cons want some evidence of what issues people really care about, check out Q and O...

http://www.qando.net/?p=12566

Check out where social issues come in...dead last, and even with Republicans no more than 46% care that much.

Posted by: sexypig at March 03, 2012 02:49 AM (wWV5q)

796 this isn't even about the social issues. there is 95% support on the right (and probably 55% support with indies) for the idea the government has no business mandating this coverage.

it's broken down in the typical dumb conversation about who's King Kahuna of Konservatism.

Posted by: ace at March 03, 2012 02:59 AM (nj1bB)

797 Okay, so, Where Do We Go From Here? You've established that you think Limbaugh was out of line (I mostly agree) and that people who think you're a pussyRINO for thinking that are assholes (I fully agree) who are ruining the blog (I don't agree, but it's your blog so if ace ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.)

What I don't quite get is whether you think people wno disagree with you on the first point - who think the limbaugh line was 'eh' or who actually approve - are ipso facto idiots and tumors on the blog, or just those who try to compel you to clap along.

If the latter, it'sall good. If the former, that's apparently a big chunk of your commenters/audience/the coalition, and so that's going to be a serious problem, right?

Posted by: Knemon at March 03, 2012 03:05 AM (B17vr)

798 BTW, let's say we wanted to do jujitsu on the contraceptive mandate, here's my thinking:..

Here's the thing, the lazy fuck money grubbing whore (the previous five words are a direct reference to work ethic) insisted it cost $3000, now we hear over about three years... and it's not just for contraceptive values, but other medical reasons..

Given the lazy fuck money grubbing whore's definition (note careful avoidance of the sexist slur 'slut'), it is hard to see how this would exclude anybody from these personal costs. Strikes me she is a bit of Tom Sawyer painting the fence, convincing her neighbors that they will have a grand ol time painting her fence (double entrendre)... but, whether her prefessed cost is accurate or not, it cost evberybody the same, so same cut the crap, cut the middle map uncle sam, let her paint her own damn fence, no pun intended.




No joke or insult was intended towards conventional whores, sluts, or prostitutes.

If any feelings were hurt I apologize in advance and stress that any prercieved ad hominoms were adressed to the "lazy fuck money grubbing whore". Generally, whores, sluts, and prostitutes are accepted, respected, an often times well rewarded members of our American community.Best wishes to you all and may you have a prosperous and fruitful weekend.

Posted by: Rmoney Vaoter at March 03, 2012 03:11 AM (7MFxV)

799 "Then why all the discussion about a woman who wants me to pay for her BC so that she can fuck everyone she meets?"

Use BC = fuck everyone she meets.

Soona, you're a piece of work.

Posted by: sexypig at March 03, 2012 03:18 AM (wWV5q)

800 @Rmoney Vaoter, Oh I agree...the only reason she was called a name was because someone did that math and said..."uh, how much sex you having, lady?"

That's also where our arguments should have ended.

Because we know the answer to that questions isn't "yeah, I'm a big slut" but "yeah, I'm a lawyer so don't ask me math questions" or "ummmm, over 3 years?"

The answer to the astroturf "they want to ban contraception" is to say " it costs 9 bucks a month - about the same as netflix."

Posted by: sexypig at March 03, 2012 03:22 AM (wWV5q)

801 Ace, #785 - THAT. Exactly.

Not so coincidentally, that happens with people's preferred Presidential candidates as well. BORING. They should go to church, find a real messiah. Rush, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, whoever - they are human beings. It's okay to disagree with them or their style, and it doesn't mean the dissenter is even one iota less conservative or "pure." Absolute conformity is for middle school girls, totalitarians, and idiots. Deal with it.

Posted by: Beth (ABOP/SMOD 2012) at March 03, 2012 03:25 AM (kBxk7)

802 Until now I'd assumed your recent self-restraint was due to a sense of noblesse oblige, in the wake of Obaromney's Michigan-thingy "victory". Guess not, eh?

Posted by: Born Free at March 03, 2012 04:21 AM (cnH1l)

803 Born Free,

I seem to be surrounded by a sea of oppressed souls. Souls oppressed by mere fact of my not agreeing with them on everything.

I cannot express my condolences for the weight you struggle under.

Posted by: ace at March 03, 2012 04:56 AM (nj1bB)

804 Born Free, seriously, there are a lot of Rah Rah blogs out there. You have your pick. Please frequent them and not this one so much. It's a bad fit.

Posted by: ace at March 03, 2012 04:57 AM (nj1bB)

805 Why did Romney win? He won for the reasons I've laid out for you. Santorum's social-issues first-and-foremost (and a stronger dose of them than ever before) is a poor fit for an election when people are facing 18% real unemployment. He speaks darkly and critically of America, without offering the usual feel-good sunniness that winners do. He cannot speak of freedom in a positive manner without undercutting his point and speaking of its perils and how we've gotten a little too free in some areas.

And this happened even in an R primary.

In the general? It would be worse.

Romney is a flawed candidate but the fact that he is bad in many ways does not make his challengers *good.*

Romney is a weak front-runner. His challengers are even weaker.

That is not RINOism talking. It's reality.


Posted by: ace at March 03, 2012 05:00 AM (nj1bB)

806 Ace, you made a point above, about her sluttiness or not, being trivial politically, and I have to take you to task on this. That's *bullshit*!!
What would Reagan do when faced with a possibly horny woman in her 20s speaking out? What about Lincoln, or Washington?
You can see that these great men would recognize at once the gravity of the situation and would't trivialize it as you have done.

Posted by: Random at March 03, 2012 05:20 AM (0uue9)

807 33
"The next 10% is to offer up the smallest buy-in possible. Here's what

we believe, basically: freedom, respect for citizens in their capacity

and wisdom to manage their own affairs, modesty of government ambition

and modesty in the government's appraisal of its own ability to manage

large ventures, and the basic idea that the government exists to keep

the order so that men and women may face each other as free citizens in

the public square and make voluntary transactions and decisions between

each other, with as minimum government intrusion and "oversight" as

possible"

Excellent. In fact, I'm witnessing conversions in
the Locovore Movement because of the crap the USDA is pulling raiding
farm-to-fork operations. I ask people...if they can do this to your
locovore, organic farm where else are they wrong?

Paragraphs like that are why it's worth reading a whole ace post.


Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at March 02, 2012 04:53 PM (X9deS)

Ace, you and some of the others here sound to me like obsessed Libertarians. If you don't like social conservatives that's fine, but understand that most Republicans want various degrees of both fiscal and social conservatism. The trick is to find someone who can embody the whole package and do it in a way the American people can understand.
A great politician like Reagan let people buy in to whatever appealed to them, but he tried to appeal to all these concerns. You seem to think it's O.K. to chuck the concerns of the most active and dedicated part of the Republican base. Sorry, won't work. Your particular experience is exactly that, your experience, not everyone else's. My own shift to the Republican party began slowly, but accelerated when I became a Christian.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't have priorities, especially now with Obama. But Obama is attacking us on defense, social issues and the finances of the country. While we need to have some focus, we must fight back with some issues in each of these areas. The Republican party works best when it stands on the triple legs of a strong defense, financial conservatism (limited government, low taxes and regulation, fighting fraud and corruption) and social conservatism (pro-life, pro-heterosexual marriage and family).

Posted by: Worf the Wonder Klingon at March 03, 2012 05:44 AM (wL5Cc)

808 Conservatives were winning this argument until Santorum and Limbaugh jumped in with their nonsense. Rush is not infallible, but he will never admit he is wrong about anything. It doesn't even matter if the girl is a slut or not, that was never the point.

Her argument was idiotic and Rush could have merely made that case instead of going the "slut" route. She is just some dumb kid for fucks sake, she doesn't deserve to be called a whore by a guy with a national radio audience. It comes off as bullying a girl and that is dumb as shit.

We have bigger fish to fry and we aren't going to get there with people on "our side" creating controversy for no good reason. Limbaugh was indispensable in the early days as there were no other Conservative voices on the airwaves.

Lately he is just repeating the same nonsense and it is all horse race politics and trashing Obama. We need to get back to talking about ideas. We can defend ourselves and win people over without getting into the mud like the Bill Maher's of the world.

Posted by: Ken Royall at March 03, 2012 06:06 AM (9zzk+)

809 you're wrong.

Posted by: redneek24 at March 03, 2012 06:59 AM (/DeBx)

810 " if you tell me I'm wrong I'm more than happy to engage you, and not in some antagonistic chip-on-my-shoulder way. 

Haha, ace, when you engage people it is with a foul mouth and personal attacks. You fancy yourself this great logical intellectual, no, you're just very wordy.

And ace, you are not necessarily a leftist, but you are a liberal in many ways. You are an arrogant elitist. Your politics are not based on principles but your own delusions of grandeur. As much of a snob Limbaugh may be, he does have principles.

Posted by: Andrew at March 03, 2012 08:45 AM (HS3dy)

811 For many of us, conversion to conservatism did not occur as a sudden, game-changing epiphany. There was no single "come to Burke" moment on The Road to Serfdom, but a series of smaller steps.

Unlike with Breitbart, the demonization of Clarence Thomas only served as one more article of evidence of the left's corruption, but it wasn't the defining moment. Many of us were not liberals before we became conservatives; We were moderate Democrats who had been raised that way.

Rush had a profound impact on my conversion, but I wasn't hearing many pearls of intellectual conservative wisdom from him. It was the pure entertainment value of the way he lampooned liberals and Democrats that appealed to me. He was and is an entertainer after all, not the conservative thought leader that the left and media insist he is. As with many entertainers, he sometimes says things that are beyond the pale.

Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, more by their deeds than just their words, proved to me that liberal criticism of conservatives was based not on fact, but rather on lies. The intellectual argument, mostly made by William F. Buckley, came later.

Posted by: Josh Painter at March 03, 2012 08:56 AM (bDaeK)

812 Rush's shit was way out of bounds. I think we may come to learn that perhaps he was lashing out at his new wife.

Posted by: Canoedad at March 03, 2012 09:14 AM (L76Lq)

813 every moment that national conversation is focused on the latest outrageously outrageous thing that Limbaugh said is a win for Obama. just helps the media and Dems to caricature the right as racist woman-haters.

Posted by: DavidW at March 03, 2012 09:41 AM (5fsc5)

814 Ace,

If you come back to this after sleeping it off, just try a little introspection and realize that lately you've frequently been guilty of the very things you're railing about. You haven't offered reasonable analysis for disagreement - you've insulted, belittled, condescended to, and stoked fires.

I don't really disagree with your underlying premise on these arguments, but you make them in a really nasty way. This is fine by me, but don't go all deer-in-the-headlights when you get what you dish out.

It IS about tone here, and don't forget that you're the one that sets it.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at March 03, 2012 09:41 AM (rX1N2)

815 wow. Ace, I been thinkin. I read the whole thread. I want to be free to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I want to be secure in my possessions. The philosophy behind those ideas were developed over the last 2000 years or so. I wish to resist those who wish to take these freedoms from me. As I have previously said, I am no religious person but I am struck by the thought: if not from man then from who? If a noble can grant then a noble can take away.
To think that all these ideas are not tied to the thread of social conservatism is to not understand conservatism.
I enjoy this site because there is no stormfront talk and I can write the word 'fuck' into my comments and, hey, still be here.
I toss out an opinion from time to time, try not to clash with the host or anyone else.
What is my gain? I see a broad spectrum of opinion here and it helps temper my thought. I think you should have some pride in what you have done. I think you should not worry about perceived insult. And it is perceived. Keep putting on the clothes of conservatism, they may be wrinkled and bumpy but when you fully wear them , they will feel good.
Finally (dead thread so it makes no difference what I write), these discussions should held be over crossed swords or mugs of beer. Not in internet world. Next time you are in Austin, stop by my house. We will have that beer and I will give you a tour of flyover country.

Posted by: Artruen at March 03, 2012 09:49 AM (fDGF1)

816 RE: 808

Absolutely right. Limbaugh's approach only generated sympathy for Fluke. His attacks crossed over into ad hominem. He should have stuck to the facts.

1. $1,000/yr. seems to be an absurdly high figure.
2. Even with most insurance coverage, after deductibles and co-pays, most would be out-of-pocket anyway.
3 It is reprehensible to bemoan the fact that as a matter of principle a religiously affiliated institution refuses to subsidize pre-marital sex (in her case).
4. At $1000/yr. the cost is $20 a week. That's not much even on a tight budget. Maybe she could make some extra cash by babysitting, shoveling snow or cutting lawns.

There is not doubt that Fluke's sense of entitlement is outrageous, but precisely because she is such a naive, whiny ingrate it is important not to respond in a manner that makes her look like a victim. But that's pretty much what Limbaugh did. He carried it to such an extreme that it now appears that misogyny is the basis for Limbaugh's critique and Georgetown's policy. That's not a logical conclusion, but that is where the argument has landed, because of a disproportionate response.


Posted by: kraki at March 03, 2012 10:05 AM (ylLDT)

817 >> 'That the state has a compelling and legitimate interest in monitoring women's use of non-abortifacient birth control'

My single objection to what is otherwise a very reasonable post. I'm not aware of anyone on the Right who is calling for that kind of monitoring. Though I am very aware of people on the Left who want to portray the desire not to pay for other people's sexy times as a "ban on contraception."

If you have evidence that someone on the Right is calling for this, I think that would merit a main post in itself, so that you could both present and properly dismantle the argument.

Posted by: The Chap, etc. at March 03, 2012 10:10 AM (9o456)

818 I seem to be surrounded by a sea of oppressed souls. Souls oppressed by mere fact of my not agreeing with them on everything. __

Send the oppressed souls to me, my son.

Posted by: Our Lady of the Perpetually Aggrieved at March 03, 2012 10:49 AM (jm/9g)

819 Sadly, it appears to me that once again BHO has taken our eyes off the ball. We have high unemployment, a bloated bureaucracy for a government, ridiculous gas prices, a serial apologizer for Prez and decent Americans being slain by allies in Afghanistan. .....and we are all focused on paying for Sandra Fluke's birth control. Axelrod is a genius.

Posted by: JudyNM at March 03, 2012 10:50 AM (ie/uy)

820
It's the I N S U L T S I'm sick of. Do you get that?


>>>> Right Ace.....which is fine. But you've been pretty insulting towards plenty in this thread alone, and towards the not-Romneys for awhile now.

Which is your right. Your blog, roll as you wish.
Admit your hypocracy, and I think all sides can call it a day. Simple enough.

Posted by: trump at March 03, 2012 11:00 AM (5tjhu)

821 Good grief, you don't think Mr. Limbaugh really thinks this young woman is a slut? He' making a point and the more hand wringing, the more pertinent it becomes. PC for me but not for thee. Wake me up when liberal entertainers' insults, of which there are many, get carried as part of a main stream news show. Know your enemy! It's the media and they are playing us like a fiddle. They always do.

Posted by: csm at March 03, 2012 11:06 AM (6MiMG)

822 In Christianity there are must believes and can believes. Must believe John 3:16. Can believe church should be on Sunday / Saturday.

Posted by: Mark at March 03, 2012 11:15 AM (1Ha15)

823

Having a life and trying to keep up with this blog is a full
time job. In reviewing what has happened
in the past 36 hours, it comes down to this:



Drew, imagining himself on a television set where people
tuned in to hear the opinion of “reasonable conservatives”, sitting in a
wing-back chair in his smoking jacket and with a pipe jauntily angled to one
side, wrote a post saying in effect that Rush went over the top and he should
apologize.



He did this hours after tributes poured forth for a man who
lived by the code that once you accept the liberal narrative of a situation,
you’ve lost the battle.



A large number of the more politically savvy rightfully
jumped on him and voiced their opinions of why Drew’s position was
ill-conceived and not helpful to the cause.
Ace then decided to write a post taking the middle ground, calling the
slut reference a bad joke (which it was).



In the ensuing comments, barbs went back and forth in true
AoS style. Then, in what must have been
a moment of Val-U-Rite and Red Bull fueled insanity, Ace suggested a valued commenter
find another home. This is not where we
should be.



Breitbart recognized the value of the AoSHQ comments. Right now, this is the currency that
political blogs deal in. There was
nothing said in the exchange about Ace’s mother, what his sexual preferences
are or anything else that could be interpreted as personal. As Hyman Roth said to Michael Corleone “I let it go. And I said
to myself, this is the business we've chosen.”




Knemon
makes reasoned, intelligent arguments and is an asset this blog shouldn’t let
go.

Posted by: jwest at March 03, 2012 11:21 AM (FdndL)

824 Amen, Ace!

I've read a few comments:
Artruen, right on! Live and let live!

Kraki, excellent point! Last night, I even took the added step of sending a note to Rush, pointing out how he is helping Obama with his, Alinsky style, attack at name calling of Ms. Fluke. Not that he'll change anything because of my note...

There is a right vs left paradigm out there that most people buy into. IMO, the only thing that right vs left paradigm has helped is distract we-the-people to facilitate the intrusion of government power into the everyday lives of free people, which will eventually lead us to be not-free.

The paradigm should really be freedom/liberty vs. tyranny.

For years, while many have claimed corporations have bought our nation's government and blamed corporations, I have said it is the selling of that which should not be sold, government power, that has led to the level of abuse, by corporations, politicians, bureaucrats and individuals, of government power we now witness.

A few months ago, my fingers stumbled across the site below.

Ace, if you haven't already done so, I'd enjoy reading your critique of this:
kickthemallout.com

Posted by: Daniel at March 03, 2012 12:24 PM (qtswS)

825
As a liberal turned conservative (after having actual conservative beliefs explained to me by conservatives, rather than fake conservative beliefs fed to me by liberals), I agree with Ace.
I would add that a liberal won't be persuaded by someone they dislike. Only by someone they love and trust.

Posted by: Average Jen at March 03, 2012 01:19 PM (Y4H6x)

826 where I can tell people to fuck off without this endless griefing about it.
--ace



Really?

Posted by: baldilocks at March 03, 2012 02:29 PM (T2/zQ)

827 >>>My single objection to what is otherwise a very reasonable post. I'm not aware of anyone on the Right who is calling for that kind of monitoring.

What happened was that Santorum was criticized for comments along those lines (he wanted to have a "discussion" about this "Important public policy issue" and noted that birth control was "not okay") and then some supporters, to defend him, began insisting this was standard conservative doctrine and no one should get annoyed by it.

It's not standard. We have not agreed to anything like that as some kind of consensus platform.

Posted by: ace at March 03, 2012 03:58 PM (nj1bB)

828 >>>You've established that you think Limbaugh was out of line (I mostly agree)

I actually didn't say that. Not really. I said that some jokes are going to be misfires and rather than sitting here defending and defending them just let them go with a minor "eh, that one got away from me."

I don't think he's "out of line" in the sense he didn't have the right to say it.

Was it smart to say it? No. Is that a hanging offense? No.

My problem is with the lack of proportion. That it's suddenly "important" we actually defend the remark by proving she's a slut, or something, rather than just saying "hey, it's a joke. Grow up."

Posted by: ace at March 03, 2012 04:00 PM (nj1bB)

829 Did we all kiss and make up?

That will be $3000 please..........wait not please...........N.O.W.!

Posted by: Fluke at March 03, 2012 04:54 PM (6F00J)

830 827 - I agree with your recounting of how it went down ... partially. Let me preface this by saying that Santorum is too socially right for my taste, especially in tone/presentation/focus. If I were the only one making the decisions, there'd be a married gay couple on ever block and a dildo in every dresser.

But I'm not. And I'm always aware of that. It's fine for you if you want to set a general libertarian editorial tone for your *site,* because, like, it's *your* site. But believe it or not, a lot of people here see you as a key player in the dextrosphere, and many of them are seeing your recent efforts as an attempt to set a tone not just for discussion here but for the coalition generally, essentially telling the social right to shut up or GTFO.

I know you think you're not doing that. I accept that that's not your intent. But not everyone who takes it that way is an idiot or a theocrat or a baby or a stepford wife or whatever.

828 - "I actually didn't say that. Not really."

Okay, but when you write a multi-thousand-word piece that shifts internal gears multiple times, you have to anticipate that some people - not (necessarily) because they're dumb, but in many cases because this blog is not their job but is something they access furtively *at* their job - are going to misread what you're trying to say.

If someone reads what you wrote and says "fuck you you pussy RINO," sure, go medieval on them.

If someone says, as *several* of the comments that set you off yesterday said, something more along the lines of "hey, man, Rush has done a lot, maybe cut him some slack," as frustrating as it is, wouldn't it be a better idea to either not respond or to respond by simply observing "Hey, I actually *was* cutting him slack -- read the post again!" And if someone concludes from that that you're "going Charles Johnson" - and yes, I did kinda sorta say that last night, albeit specifically about the "dumb" line - then just brush that dirt off your shoulder. Most of the people here, even the ones who do not like the way you've been handling the whole BC thing, know how unfair the LGF accusations are.

Anyway, ace, let me know if I'm not welcome here. I meant what I said: I don't want to troll, and if I'm a detriment to the vibe (and you are the only one who gets to decide that, because you built this place, and I do respect that), I'll restrict myself to lurking.

(Alternative Modest Proposal: make me a cob and have me inside the tent pissing out. Audacious, I know.)

Posted by: Knemon at March 03, 2012 04:59 PM (B17vr)

831 You guys have the greatest comment section.
I especially love it when ace gets a bee in his bonnet!

By the way, this place is great, I get all the comments about me directly uploaded into my Gpad. I can only comment here though.

Go get em bitches! How bout someone do a sneak video of a GM dealer on the purchase of a Volt. You can ask if it comes with an electric fire rated fire extinguisher. Or say a breakdown of the complete taxpayer bailout costs per car. How much the GM pensions add to the cost of each care. If the unions are directly calling themselves communists now. You get the drift. Get to work. I got to go.

Posted by: Breitbart's Ghost at March 03, 2012 04:59 PM (6F00J)

832 Ace, thanks for the response. I can easily believe that commenters have made that argument. I can also easily believe that Santorum may have made remarks that, if not explicit,could at least be interpreted as a "dog whistle" in support of government regulation of contraception. I just want to be sure that the site is as precise and accurate as a site full of vodka-swilling hobo-hunters can be, because truth be told, AoSHQ is to me what the Daily Show is to even chumpier chumps than myself -- i.e.,my main or sometimes sole source of news.

Posted by: The Chap in the Deerstalker Cap at March 03, 2012 08:32 PM (P5s5Y)

833
"You make more sales at a lower price point than a higher one. In terms of belief, and dogma which must be accepted, many people seem to think that a higher price point actually results in more sales.
I do not understand what experiential evidence or analogy one would use to prove that case. I do not believe any such evidence exists. It flies in the face of everything we know about sales. "

Haven't you heard about Veblen goods?

Posted by: Charles E. Winchester at March 05, 2012 03:46 PM (n6vwe)






Processing 0.16, elapsed 0.178 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0473 seconds, 842 records returned.
Page size 556 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