NRO's The Corner: Obamacare ‘like a house on fire’ with more flammable parts yet to come

I remember when I signed up for Obamacare and was automatically registered as a member of the Gangster Disciples

LOLwry is disappointed

This guy.

Kind of staggered that out of "America First" / "enemies of the people" / "cosmopolitan" / "globalist", it's the first that he calls anti-semitic.

NRO-adjacent J. Pod tweet, but look at the actual list that he calls "sheer PC."

The sheer PCness of this list is suffocating. https://t.co/qkDH5Kf6D0

— John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) August 11, 2017

i mean i get it. too much munro.

I'm fine with him being suffocated tbh

the sheer PC-ness of Tolstoy

MEMOIRS OF HADRIAN, BY MARGUERITE YOURCENAR

great pick - read this last year. fantastic book.

ok i think calling a book list PC sucks but let's at least be honest - he's not talking about moby dick or tolstoy being PC. he's talking about nora ephron.

but let's be honest, he's talking about a book list featuring women and people of colour. and that's his problem.

right, exactly. ding him on what he's saying (that a list of women and people of color is PC) and not on what he's not (that a conventional canonical best books list is PC).

But it's not a list of women and black people and Native Americans. It's a list that includes SOME women and black people and Native Americans. It is the very heart of modern conservatism to see a group of people that's 70% white and say "what is up with this PC list of people of color"

also, that list is extremely, extremely, extremely conventional. Toni Morrison won the Nobel Prize! So did Alice Munro! Podhoretz's problems isn't that he thinks the conventional Western canon is being thrown aside in favor of no-talent women and black people, it's that he thinks the women and black people in the conventional Western canon are there by mistake!

i just counted it and it's 63 / 80 non-white male. i think it's great - i don't need to read another list of every canonical male white author. but calling that 70% white (even tho it might be true bc it has a lot of white ladies on it) misrepresents that it is definitely not a canonical list.

you didn't scroll down enough imo

All you wingnuts mad because someone might make you bake a cake for gay people can now shut the fuck up forever https://t.co/dCN2E6LjgC

— Roy Edroso (@edroso) August 15, 2017

Well! http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450469/campus-conservative-organizations-alt-right-platform-free-speech-milo-yiannopoulos-charlottesville-terrorist-attack

Later that year, Stanford’s conservative publication, the Stanford Review, considered hosting an appearance by Yiannopoulos. A lone graduate student had invited him, but needed to find a student group to sponsor the event. I, an editor at the time, was present in the meetings. “Someone should sponsor his lecture — it’s a matter of free speech,” argued a confused fellow editor. But soon other editors made different arguments: “This will create a huge stir,” said one. “It will drive the social-justice warriors crazy,” offered another.

This was certainly true, and a point worth considering. Campus leftists would definitely have protested the event, and might even have tried to shut it down. As one influential editor put it: “Best-case scenario is that the SJWs freak out and we get another Berkeley.” We all knew what he meant: Inviting Yiannopoulos could bait the Left to do something silly and destructive, drawing media coverage that would allow us to act as martyrs for free speech on campus. That is, the left-wing riots were not the price or downside of inviting Yiannopoulos — they were the attraction.

I rather enjoyed the bit about him confessing that campus conservative organizations have no money and that everyone ignores them anyway.

That is, the left-wing riots were not the price or downside of inviting Yiannopoulos — they were the attraction.

http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Wizard-of-Oz-Scarecrow.jpeg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHhZ4tpXkAEQVps.jpg:small

fighting nazis is a good thing, but

nope, not gonna read any further

Ladies and gents, Armond White.

Refute the Obama revolution that “transformed” America into an elitist state of empowered celebrities.

Huh.

spot the difference

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJIn5z9W0AAhHJb.jpg:small

he sure can amuse himself, this one:

In 1989, there was a movie title: “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids.” Some people noted that this codified, or at least illustrated, a slip in language: It was not “I Shrank the Kids” but “I Shrunk.” I thought of this when looking at our homepage, which tells us “How ‘Fake but Accurate’ Stories Sunk Liberal Journalism.”

English is a funny language (in addition to a great one). We have “sing,” “sang,” and “sung” — I sing it, I sang it, I’ve sung it (or I’d sung it). We have “shrink,” “shrank,” and “shrunk” (still). We have “sink,” “sank,” and “sunk” (still). We have “drink,” “drank,” and “drunk.” (“Drunken” throws a curveball.) But only “swing” and “swung.” Have you noticed that little kids say “I swang at it”? Why shouldn’t they?

I’ve often said, I have no idea how foreigners learn English. So much is so random, or random-seeming.

P.S. People thought that something important occurred in 1975, when ABC launched a show called “Good Morning America.” Where was the comma? It wasn’t there. A lot of people thought that that stank. Or stunk?

P.P.S. Reagan, talking once about something on his nose, said, “I squoze it.” I loved that. Sounded like Mark Twain, and Reagan’s native Illinois. P.P.P.S. How do you feel about “sneaked” and “snuck”? Can you say that you snuck into the theater? Sure. One could go on …

Everyone always thinks their own language is so fucking strange and unique.

Steven Pinker has written like umpteen million books about this and I'm sure they have each other's phone numbers.

Charles C.W. Cooke gets his civil rights history wrong:

And what of the protestors who have raised the president’s ire? Irrespective of the merits of their cause — and, for what it’s worth, I think they’re confusing some genuinely terrible incidents for a “structure” or a “trend” — it strikes me that they, too, are going about this in precisely the wrong way. The most successful movements in American history have elected to laud America and its ideals, and then to complain about exclusion or hypocrisy or a failure to consummate vows. This, eventually, was the course Frederick Douglass took. It was the course that MLK took, with his soaring talk of a defaulted-upon “promissory note.” It was the course taken by the suffragettes. To appeal to America at the outset of an indictment is to ensure that skeptical listener hears the subsequent criticism as “we want in” rather than “we want out.” In taking the opposite path, Kapaernick and co. have made a serious tactical mistake — a mistake that will stunt any growth they hope to enjoy. Before the details of their charge were ever known, they were seen disparaging the core symbols of the nation — symbols for which many have died and bled, and which are often taken as proxies for the Constitution, the family, and even for God — and, in some cases, they were seen praising the dictator of a perennial American foe.

https://out.reddit.com/t3_72a34m?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ff03nphrq5vnz.png&token=AQAA5ybJWeg7QwmCyyl4RmGhOlq_kWoatly72UZutCxRLTjY1yDL&app_name=mweb2x

Related to this NYT op-ed from Sept 1st:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/opinion/civil-rights-protest-resistance.html

OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS
Waiting for a Perfect Protest?

By MICHAEL MCBRIDE, TRACI BLACKMON, FRANK REID and BARBARA WILLIAMS SKINNER

SEPTEMBER 1, 2017

is Rich Lowry in bad health? He looked cadaverous on Meet The Press yesterday w/one eye severely bloodshot. of course he spewed flag-wrapped "patriotic" nonsense about the NFL protests

and, in some cases, they were seen praising the dictator of a perennial American foe

Like, say, V. Poutine?

is Rich Lowry in bad health? He looked cadaverous on Meet The Press yesterday w/one eye severely bloodshot. of course he spewed flag-wrapped "patriotic" nonsense about the NFL protests

― Amazing Random (m coleman), Monday, September 25, 2017 1:29 PM (fifty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

double bourbons at Peggy Noonan's brunch

man if that's what it was he looked like the hitch on his absolute worst morning-after

VDH, excited about writing purple prose again:

Outside the NFL bubble today, most of America, to the extent it still watches, now sees Sunday afternoon pop demonstrations as increasingly a farce, played out among players who appear neither exploited nor as exemplary model sportsmen, but rather as overpaid and pampered. Given the NFL’s enormous overhead, even a 10–20 percent reduction in attendance and viewing could send financial tsunamis throughout the league.

Nor do the protesting players come across as informed, brave social-justice warriors on the barricades of dissent, but as mostly unable to explain to their fans precisely why and how they are mistreated or why America is a flawed society that does not deserve momentary iconic respect each week. If players were concerned about violence and injustice, why not collect a voluntary 10 percent contribution from the league’s multimillionaire players and use it to fund programs that address systematic and lethal violence in inner-city communities such as Baltimore or Chicago? And if ethics and values are the players’ issues, why over the last decade has there been an increase in player off-field violence and arrests, often marked by well-publicized violence against women?

The owners, again fairly or not, are not viewed any longer so much as maverick tycoons and eccentric entrepreneurs or philanthropic regional family dynasties of the past, but rather as billionaire corporate magnates who invest their riches in glitzy cultural trophies and expect the state to subsidize their excesses. They are going down the Google/Apple/Facebook grandee path of losing their cultural appeal and, with it, their brand.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/451695/trump-nfls-problems-house-cards

in other national review related news, i never heard about this "affair" until this morning's newspaper. kinda like bill buckley's jack henry abbott!!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/24/nyregion/edgar-smith-killer-who-duped-william-f-buckley-dies-at-83.html?action=click&contentCollection=obituaries®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront

that whole story is *insane*

surely Vidal had some pithy comments about it

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLYec6vXoAAX4b3.jpg:small

lol this kid

Dennis Prager has a message for y'all.

Here is a list of eight truths about males and sexual objectification for those who have a degree in any of the “social sciences.”

1. It is completely normal for heterosexual men to see women to whom they are sexually attracted as sex objects.

2. That such sexual objectification is normal and has nothing to do with misogyny is proved by, among other things, the fact that homosexual men see men to whom they are sexually attracted as sex objects. If heterosexual men are misogynists, homosexual men are man-haters.

3. One reason for this is the almost unique power of the visual to sexually arouse men. Men are aroused just by glancing at a female arm, ankle, calf, thigh, stomach — even without ever seeing the woman’s face. Those legs, calves, arms, etc. are sexual objects. That’s why there are innumerable websites featuring them. There is nothing analogous for women. Of course, a woman can be aroused seeing a particularly handsome and masculine man. But there are no websites for women to stare at men’s legs or other male body parts.

4. Every normal heterosexual man who sees a woman as a sexual object can also completely respect her mind, her character, and everything else non-sexual about her. Men do this all the time.

It is a sign of the times that these eight points need to be spelled out. The question is, Why? Why are any of these points — known to just about every woman and man who ever lived prior to the 1960s — controversial to so many well-educated people today?

The answer is leftism and its offshoot, feminism.

makes u think

That is a taut and satisfying answer which neatly addresses any follow-up questions I might have otherwise had.

It's electrifying to be alive during such a renaissance of thought. It's like sitting at the feet of Play-Doh.

i'm sure this has been discussed on this thread before and/or others, but are there ANY "conservative intellectuals" who aren't just actually idiots with thesauruses? As much as I dig the Crooked Media gang, they often make passing reference to the existence of some kind of serious conservatism that argues intelligently and in good faith, but for the life of me I cannot think of one single actual example of such a person. Do they really still mean, like, George Will? Jesus...

there ANY "conservative intellectuals" who aren't just actually idiots with thesauruses?

no

My takeaway is that we need to start a website that features the body parts of men (not their faces), the first of its kind, so that women can fantasize about them. I’m no entrepreneur, but I believe demand vastly outweighs supply, and it’s time to capitalize

I get the impression that the "center conservative intellectuals" are actually among the dumbest figures on the right. I'm sure that Bannon and the more radical "alt-right" thinkers are smarter than anyone who writes for National Review or the Federalist.

valerie solanas to thread xp