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

You know he can't hear you, right?

oh shit how do I retract

lol at right-wing putin envy. here's the best part:

Putin is almost Milton’s Satan — as if, in his seductive evil, he yearns for clarity, perhaps even a smackdown, if not just for himself, for us as well. He is not the better man than Obama but, again like Milton’s Satan, the more interesting, if only because he reminds of us of our own limitations.

this is a whole other kettle of right-wing zaniness but TAC's rod dreher -- who normally writes as the magazine's token 'thoughtful christian' voice -- wrote some really disgusting, hateful, misogynistic stuff about pussy riot, pretty much applauding their arrest. finally got me to quit reading that site altogether, except for larison.

did they just compare obama to god? or is it just any american president who's god.

"there are some people to whom health-insurance ought to remain an aspirational luxury"

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/arkansas-private-option-medicaid-021114

goole! Your boy has some thoughts on feminism.

always behind his own stable, that guy

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/370451/feminist-mystique-kevin-d-williamson

Feminism began as a simple grievance, mutated into a kind of conspiracy theory (with “patriarchy” filling in for the Jews/Freemasons/Illuminati/Bohemian Grove/reptilian shape-shifters/the fiendish plot of Dr. Fu Manchu/etc.), spent the 1980s in grad school congealing into a ridiculous jargon, and with the booming economy of the 1990s was once again reinvented, this time as a career path.

^^ NRO knows its audience.

a challenger appears

http://thefederalist.com/

Celebrate Love, Not War: Don’t Use Valentine’s Day to Attack Men

Yes, men and women are different. But the answer is not a feminist Promised Land that is exhausting, devoid of love, and not much fun at all.

Bill De Blasio’s Law Enforcement Racket

Is Bill de Blasio about to take New York City’s public safety back to the bad old days of rampant street crime and murder – or is it just a charade?

Most of these contra-feminist pieces rely on the technique of first defining feminism in exactly the terms they prefer to apply to it, then attacking that version. The inevitable conclusion: feminism is horrible and ought to be rejecting by all right-thinking people. What is rarely clear is what they endorse, which is usually a misty, nebulous, sentimental warm-fuzziness that they are certain would arise spontaneously if only feminism weren't impeding its arrival.

I'd say that's the least of their problems, but you are not wrong.

if they're attempting to rebrand the war on women as just ye olde war on feminism that's probably the smartest response they've had yet (/= actual smart respone ftr). there's still alot of women, esp among independent voters, that reject the feminist label cuz they 'don't hate men' or some other taylor swift reason.

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/370957/print

Geographically, trans in Latin is a preposition that meant “on the other side” (Caesar refers to the Germans, who dwell “trans Rhenum,” on the other side of the Rhine) and cis meant “on the same side” (Livy describes how in early Rome a certain banished ethnic group, if caught “cis Tiberim,” on this side of the Tiber, had the price of their liberty set at a thousand units of bronze, which sounds like a good deal more than the Gang of Eight would ask for).

Where we now like to apply these to galling (for some) concepts about gender and sex, the Romans used them as prefixes to refer to the province of Gaul that was on the same side of the Alps as the city of Rome — Cisalpine Gaul — and the part that was on just the other side — Transalpine Gaul.

haha

sorry I guess this isn't from The Corner, just NRO.

what we claim is lawless unconstitutional kenyan muslimism under soetero we'd be cool with under the mormon

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/370854/democrats-media-slam-president-romney-over-health-care-law-changes-charles-c-w-cooke

thohan
• 3 hours ago

Excellent piece. It's nice to have guys like Cooke on my side.

Check Your Privilege, Facebook! Social Media Giant Slights Members of 51st Gender
By Alec Torres
February 13, 2014 4:34 PM
Comments0

As Patrick Brennan recently discussed on the Corner, it’s getting harder to know how to refer to another person’s gender(s). Now, Facebook is making it even harder.

The Associated Press recently broke the news that Facebook now offers users a customizable gender option with about 50 different gender-identifying terms people can use to describe themselves along with three separate pronoun choices: him, her, or them.

The grammatical debate over the application of the plural pronoun “them” to a single subject aside, it’s a sad sign of the times that Facebook excluded whatever the 51st gender descriptor is, thus committing a hate crime against the dozens of people who probably describe themselves with said descriptor.

How dejected — nay depressed — must flexual people feel knowing that Facebook now accepts cisgender females, Trans*Men, and Trans*Males (don’t worry, the distinctions elude me, too) but not them and their girlfag peers.

Or what of all the trigender people who find out that Facebook will let one choose up to “bigender” but not beyond. They must be at least a third as offended as the flexuals.

it gives me pleasure to think how bad these assholes are gonna hate the future

guys, we're over here: NRO's The Corner: Obamacare ‘like a house on fire’ with more flammable parts yet to come

MODS?

xpost amen
fuck y'all str8 men

jesus christ, that Charles C. W. Cooke 'satire' piece has its head so far up its ass, it could probably discover three or four new genders just by opening its eyes

I used to be way into subjecting myself to the internet conservative cesspool; nice to see that the quality of the prose hasn't slipped:

Among her most enthusiastic boosters is Cecile Richards, daughter of the late Texas governor, who is paid nearly a half-million dollars a year for her work defending the surgical dismemberment of unborn children in the furtherance of sexual convenience.

... And You Will Know Her by the Surgical Dismemberment of Unborn Children in the Furtherance of Sexual Convenience

also, I mean, just, huge roffles at these guys scratching their heads all "The ideology of feminists is incoherent—some of them want one thing, but others want this different thing!! Whatta buncha flighty dames!!!!" (You don't need to keep capitalizing 'feminist' — ED.)

"why is it okay for Hillary to call other women in politics 'whiny', but not for me, a white man at a computer, to continue dragging Anita Hill's name through the mud??" *tears flow into bib*

hahahaha

It’s one thing to be tolerant of what once were known as “alternative lifestyles.” It’s another thing to be asked to celebrate them, as the exuberant mythologizers of Michael Sam and Johnny Weir ask us to do. And it is way beyond the pale to hold forth on any sort of sex life — perhaps apart from self-restraint — as if it’s a form of heroism.

Yet the culture of the professional Left, enthusiastically aided by the establishment media, is going bonkers in pushing active homosexuality (or any one of several exotic variants thereof) as an absolute virtue. One can hardly turn around these days without facing, in fiction or in real life, what amounts to homosexual chic. From the amount of primetime air time afforded to gay Americans, one would think they constitute at least a large minority of the population, rather than the 3 to 5 percent they actually do.

“Not that there’s anything wrong with that,” as Seinfeld wisdom had it. Most Americans assuredly don’t much care what other people do as long, as the saying goes, as they “don’t do it in the street and frighten the horses.” And if the Bible tells us it’s a sin, well, we can leave that issue between the putative sinner and a God famous for both judgment and mercy. Our job, speaking spiritually rather than physically, is to love our neighbor, not from some misguided impulse to charity but instead genuinely, as equals — and to worry about not committing our own particular brands of transgression.

active homosexuality (or any one of several exotic variants thereof)

ooh do tell!

*fans self*

Steve_Seattle • 33 minutes ago

For liberals, it is an easy step to go from support of fornication, abortion, pornography, and prostitution to support of homosexuality. It costs them nothing, while giving them an opportunity to bash conservatives as bigoted and unenlightened. For that reason alone, the MSM will not soon drop this issue.
But I sometimes wonder how sincere is this liberal celebration of homosexuality. In less-guarded forms of liberalism, such as blue-collar liberalism, you still hear gay jokes and gay epithets, and these typically go unchallenged even if the participants don't care much about gay marriage. And in unguarded moments, liberals such as Alec Baldwin resort to gay epithets when they are angry, or will refer to some conservative as a "closet homosexual."

I am looking forward to crowds of conservatives, milling about, holding crude signs and fervently chanting, "Down with fornication!"

For liberals, it is an easy step to go from support of fornication, abortion, pornography, and prostitution to support of homosexuality.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_kYBdM44_J58/Sa3OeSHaArI/AAAAAAAABbU/k2MeHt1WpXE/s400/PornInUtah.JPG

http://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/images/original/2013/8/27/Screen_Shot_2013-08-27_at_10.00.11_AM.png

anita queen?

OK, here you go!

http://news.tangatawhenua.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/The-Queen-7.jpg

heelllooo loyal subjects!

Quin Hillyer

In which it is shown that Jay Nordlinger has lost his mind.

Decline Is a Choice. A Bad One. But People Still Choose It. I Don't Understand It. Decline Is Bad. Hello. Is This On.

http://i.imgur.com/vrib3xM.png

The best comment I've seen in forever, on Roy Edroso's alicublog about Rich Lowry and this whole Arizona thing:

Also, if you go back to Quin Hillyer on the fainting couch about Johnny Weir gaying up figure skating, this week brings us National Review writers protecting the following from gays: 1) figure skating 2) bakers 3) florists 4) photographers. They can't even figure out which end of the slippery slope is which.

Charles Pierce had fun with LOLry: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Brewer_Veto

nutrition information labels about to become "a whole lot more intrusive":

These reforms are not minor. The most important change is that they are increasing the size of a serving, so all foods and beverages will immediately appear to be more calorie-laden than before. Anyone watching their calories could be easily caught out by this, and eat less, for instance. But that is irrelevant to the main point at issue here — the role of the First Lady.

Today's nutrition labels state the size of a serving and the number of calories in a serving of that size. Under the immanent doomsday scenario, nutrition labels will *gasp* state the size of a serving and the number of calories in a serving of that size.

dlh you dropped the best line:

But that is irrelevant to the main point at issue here — the role of the First Lady. As one food-industry insider told Politico, “I don’t think anyone is going to be foolish enough to attack the first lady — that’s just stupid.”

how wrong you are, food-industry insider

Henry Burlingame • 42 minutes ago
How about a regulation requiring Michelle Obama to put a warning label on her fat ass?

sounds like that JMU econ prof’s suggestion that incels be provided sex

guys

guys

Biden's vaccination mandate is unconstitutional!

somebody had to say it. eventually someone says it about every action taken by government, including the income tax. and mccarthy is just the dope for the job.

Andy McCarthy, in favor of torture and indiscriminate bombing when Bush sat on the imperial throne.

Dang, I kinda liked "St. Elmo's Fire."

it has come to my attention that rod dreher is getting divorced and has moved to budapest; no word on whether this experience will prompt another conversion

lmao of course

I hope he writes a novel

I hope he starts a suicide cult.

Why are these people so dramatic?

I think he’s having the time of his life.

I don’t know how he’s fixed for disposable income but being a weird natl conservative on the internet is key to that flow

I heard that these conservatives moving to Hungary for the fascism usual only last a year or so once they realize that, for instance, you get fines for putting the wrong kinds of plants on your balcony.

i miss these guys

was about to post the same

Even Mona Fucking Charen has joined the resistance:

https://www.thebulwark.com/what-country-is-the-wall-street-journal-living-in/

Hahahahaha https://t.co/nRaZhwvxqt

— noah kulwin (@nkulw) January 3, 2023

Minority opinion on here I'm sure but I kinda like French. I think he's wrong about a zillion things of course, but he's super critical of the current evangelical-political movement, and he and his wife have done legit investigative journalism in exposing some religious sexual abusers. I'll take him over Brooks and Douthat, however low that may be setting the bar.

I don't like French but, yeah, he's better than the others; it's just infuriating, though, that the NYT has a ticker-tape parade every time they add yet another conservative to their op-ed section.

Is there even anyone actually good in the NYT columnist rotation? Jamelle Bouie I guess. So tired of almost all of them.

bouie is excellent. michelle goldberg and zeynep tufekci are good.

check out what you're missing in the washington post op-ed section!

https://i.imgur.com/ze02A1i.png

bouie is in his element on tiktok and twitter imo

wrong thread?

lol AOC missed vote 3 and I think I heard her holler "Jeffries!" a few seconds later.

whoops def wrong thread

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/how-often-do-men-think-about-the-roman-empire/

Apparently, men think about the Roman Empire frequently. This is news to most women, who I’d venture rarely obsess over Marcus Aurelius.

A TikTok video of a woman asking her husband how often he considers the Roman Empire went viral this week. He responded without pause that it was an “everyday thought.” More women are adding to the trend, asking their spouses and boyfriends how much brain space Rome occupies.

So, men: Is this serious? How often do you think about the Roman Empire? There are many reasons to think about Rome — reasons one of my dude-brained colleagues will probably flesh out in the future — but women . . . don’t. Or, at least, we think about it less frequently. Although I’m reminded of Rome often, it doesn’t pop into my head randomly, except in the cases of a few Catholic or architectural queries.

That men and women are different is, it seems for many online, still shocking. To destroy, conquer, and build empires has historically been the stuff of men. While there’s room for sexes to blend their interests, women tend to care more about the social aspects of history and probably identify better with aesthetic traditions (Jane Austen’s romanticism, Renaissance art, qualities of various royal reigns) instead of specific eras.

There’s no cause for social uproar every time we notice another distinction between men and women — isn’t it enough to just admit that we’re different? This week’s viral trend will probably manifest into think pieces over how the Roman Empire came to be a male-exclusive interest, or how more women need history degrees.

The Rome discourse mirrors an office discussion we had the other week, about our favorite films. The men couldn’t narrow down their lists unless they devised categories, and even then, there was painful debate on the merits of each movie’s script, score, and technical quality. Meanwhile, I’ve had the same favorite movie for the past decade, and my girlfriends agree that we choose our favorite films based more on emotional appeal than anything else.

Thousands of years have passed, and hundreds of empires have burned, only for men and women to remain fundamentally different. Some things never change.

how many ages hence
shall this our lofty scene be acted over
in states unborn, by dudes as yet unknown

been too long

Still got it

Conservative media is the most robust affirmative action program in the world pic.twitter.com/RHtPQhV00r

— Jay Willis (@jaywillis) December 6, 2023

singing "imagine there's no country" at the funeral of a country singer smh

https://i.imgur.com/HEtfLKO.png

Now I can't unsee it

missed u boo

Entirely reasonable description of January 6 as an event in which 'many of the...protesters broke the law in what may have started as a protest but turned into a riot.' Especially so in light of absence of DOJ insurrection charges against anyone involved. https://t.co/FfQfKTjYet

— Byron York (@ByronYork) April 5, 2024

probably need a new thread but that site is full of tired cranks griping about woke

Are you familiar with that old joke from the Eric Andre Show, where the host asks a guest, “Why would you say something so controversial yet so brave?” It’s become ironically memetic shorthand for moments when someone expresses an entirely banal or inoffensive opinion. And yet, strangely enough, Fetterman’s position on the Gaza war fits this frame to an almost shockingly perfect degree: It’s both popular among his constituents, and certainly among Americans at large, while also authentically controversial and brave, certainly when compared to where his Democratic peers in the Senate are. I hesitate to speculate about the origins of the seeming change that has come over him, other than guessing that the discipline and strength of character required to recover from a life-altering stroke also suggests a certain willfulness. (To be fair, I do also like my other theory, which is that Chuck Schumer unwittingly leveled him up by stuffing him back into a suit.) Fetterman has clearly demonstrated he is now his own man and also a savvy hand at public relations; I doubt he’s unaware of the political armor his medical situation gives him, and good for him — he’s wearing it straight into battle.

Ah yes that old joke