Glenn Reynolds: “Not being a conservative myself”.
HaHaHaHa!
By these standards, I am Oliver Willis, Republican.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Tila Tequila Live Streaming Mental Meltdown
- 31 Die In Chinese Mine Blast In Heilongjiang Province, 82 Trapped
- Victoria Justice Stars In New Nickeloden Show “Victorious”
- CERN’s Large Hadron Collider Back Up And Running
- Megan Fox Alive For Transformers 3
- Maryna Linchuk @ 2009 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show
- Madison Parker Works Out
- Sony Reveals Lame Attempt To Fight iTunes
- Brian Thomas: UK Man Gets Away With Killing Wife In His Sleep
- Olivia Wilde @ US Weekly Hot Hollywood 2009 Party
Live News
In my book (and his book), he’s not. But to the far-far-far-far left, the far-far-far left might seem conservative – don’t mean it is.
Dugger
Support for GWOT = conservative republican. Period.
Funny…Reynolds has linked to OW as well.
I wonder what OW calls someone who is pro-choice, supports stem-cell research, opposes bans against gay marriage, and opposes the drug war?
The same person who wants to drown government, pushes Republican propaganda, equates liberals with terrorists and supports the far right at every turn.
Think Lieberman and any other person who supports Bush in Iraq. They can’t be “real” liberals.
When I see instahack endorse a dem or stop linking to maniacs like malkin and fried green footballs I’ll take him seriously.
And Oliver thought he was being sarcastic: according to JWG, everyone from Hillary! to Joe Biden to John Kerry to Oliver Willis is a conservative republican.
I didnt’ realize how big the [R] tent really is.
Is your goal for Democrats to win elections or have idealogical purity? Because you can’t have both. In order to win, you’ve got to let some folks into camp who don’t follow you in lockstep. Even Bill Clinton knew that.
Glenn Reynolds – Supports gay rights (incuding gay marriage), is pro-choice, supports stem cell research, blasted the administration on Padilla, is more critical of Democrats than Bush on his cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia, is opposed to the war on drugs, etc.
Man, that’s some conservative for you!
Yet Oliver rejects the notion he’s a left wing liberal because he supports the death penalty.
Searching his website using google I get the following hits:
“Michelle Malkin” – 76
“Charles Johnson” – 70
“Oliver Willis” – 62
Poor Oliver just gets no respect.
But linking to Odub doesn’t make him a maniac-supporter. Linking to maniacs does.
Oh for crying out loud, here we go again with the semantics. Ok, Reynolds didn’t ‘blast’ the administration on Padilla. But he was in disagreement with them on the issue and was in disagreement with most conservatives on the issue.
Jay C;
I sure would like to read where Reynolds “blasted’ someone over Padilla.
It would be quite unlike him to show passion over anything except his
latest book.
Semantics, indeed. Apparently words have meanings, but that’s not important.
Apparently words have meanings, but that s not important.
No, it isn’t to the overall point which nobody has yet to rebut. How is a person who supports gay rights, is pro-choice, opposed to the war on drugs, and supports stem cell research a conservative?
So let’s hear it. I’d like to see somebody reconcile that. You people would never accept the concept of somebody with views in opposition to the above calling themselves a liberal simply because they disagreed with the President on Iraq and the terror war. So explain how Glenn can hold such LIBERAL views on those issues yet still be a conservative.
I’d like to see the circular logic on this one.
Easy enough, Jay Caruso. There are Repugs who profess to be atheists and won’t defend the GOP’s pandering to the religious rightwing. There are Repugs who don’t believe in censoring books or music. Doesn’t make them any less GOP.
But let’s look at all the attributes that makes InstaCracker a GOPer. Obviously, his constant criticism of all things having to do with Democrats and his willingness to excuse or overlook conservative crimes and wrongdoing.
While InstaCracker professes to be in favor of civil unions, he has tried to claim AWOL George is as well. Same goes for the use of torture; InstaCracker says he opposes torture but will look at evidence of US torture and dismiss it as an attack on AWOL George.
And let’s face the fact InstaCracker takes a backseat to no one when it comes to being a racist. His famous assertion about Washington DC: “”A lot of people in DC say that the District is essentially a colony. Well, if so I think it’s a colony that’s not ready for self-government.”
And, of course, there’s the T-shirt he proudly hawks which uses Pan-African themes and colors to promote handguns in the name of ‘celebrating diversity.’
My comment is awaiting moderation. Do hold your breath.
No, it isn t to the overall point which nobody has yet to rebut. How is a person who supports gay rights, is pro-choice, opposed to the war on drugs, and supports stem cell research a conservative?
You suggest that disagreeing with Conservatism disqualifies one from being a conservative. I think your Freudian slip is showing.
You’re also limiting the definition of “conservative” just a wee bit, no? Since I don’t read Glenn Reynolds I don’t know what the man stands or sits for, so I think a bit more information is needed from you before you have a serious argument to refute.
What are his positions on the role of government or health care, or social security? What is his position on taxes? The role and purpose of the military? What does he think about the administration’s management of the federal budget? That’s just a beginning, but will suffice for the time being.
Add Ann Althouse to that list.
Her big claim to liberalism is her feminism. Beyond that, you have
to consider the chosen careers of both. Being tenured professors
requires a good deal of compromising on principles. These two
are cut straight from the whole cloth of status quo. Their first
instinct is to protect the institution. liberals want to shake it up
and see what comes out. Generalizing a bit, I know. But citing
the exception (as many are wont to do) proves the rule.
Additionally, he has repeatedly criticized Coulter in the past for her other outlandish remarks.
Not quite. He has linked to her columns and he has often greed with her. But he never criticized her.
Yet, InstaCracker said some professor in some third rate college that nobody had ever heard of–was the face of liberalism.
That must really bum out his sister-in-law.
Ah, yes…a version of the “some of my best friends are….”-defense.
That must really bum out his sister-in-law.
ou re also limiting the definition of conservative just a wee bit, no? Since I don t read Glenn Reynolds I don t know what the man stands or sits for, so I think a bit more information is needed from you before you have a serious argument to refute.
Do your own research. I’m not here to spoon feed you information.
And let s face the fact InstaCracker takes a backseat to no one when it comes to being a racist. His famous assertion about Washington DC: A lot of people in DC say that the District is essentially a colony. Well, if so I think it s a colony that s not ready for self-government.
Allright! Some serious Jadegold/Flanagan dishonesty! You never fail us JG. You of course, leave out CONTEXT and that is part of your infamous dishonesty. Anybody that wants to read the entire quote and the context can find it here. What he is saying is hardly racist. He is merely condemning the piss poor way that city is run.
And by using the pretzel logic I am seeing here, its safe to say that Rudy Guiliani is a conservative Republican and Chuck Hagel and John McCain are liberals.
He’s a libertarian (socially liberal and economically conservative). He supports free markets and less government control over most issues. He supports the liberation of Iraq and criticizes the world for ignoring the constant oppression and genocide all over Africa. He helps sponsor “PorkBusters” which heavily criticizes the Republicans for wasteful spending.
Of course, we recently saw the spectacle of “not a conservative” InstaCracker addressing the very conservative Conservative Political Activist Conference (CPAC) in DC, along with fellow “not conservatives”, Ann Coulter, Michelle Maglalang, Ollie North, Grover Norquist, etc.
And we all witnessed how InstaCracker–who had deemed Ward Churchill was the face of liberalism–refused to denounce Ann Coulter who advocated killing Bill Clinton and commiting genocide.
Reynolds:
Additionally, he has repeatedly criticized Coulter in the past for her other outlandish remarks.
I’ve hardly ever looked at Instapundit’s site. The only thing that makes me think he’s a right-winger is the energetic way right-wingers on this site trot up to defend him here whenever Oliver trashes him.
Jadegold authoritatively proclaims:
Here are but a few easily found examples of Reynolds criticizing various things she’s said or written:
and
and
and
So why do I “energetically defend him” as Wilbur points out?
1) Because it’s so easy to point out the errors
2) Because he’s a libertarian like me
3) Because the “trashing” of Reynolds is hilarious
What he is saying is hardly racist. He is merely condemning the piss poor way that city is run.
Lots of cities are poorly run.
Orange County–one of the wealthiest counties in the country–went bankrupt several years ago because of poor financial management.
Yet, InstaCracker didn’t condemn any other city or county that’s poorly run.
And let’s face the fact that it doesn’t matter whether a city, county, or state is poorly run—that is not a reason to take away their right to self-governance. They pay taxes and their citizens fight and die in wars. Except, of course, for your fellow Chickenhawks, Jay Caruso.
I don’t expect you know this, Jay–but someone who purports to be a law prof should.
It’s folly to cite his criticism of Coulter. It was only recent, only in response to Greenwald, and he was dishonest initially when he said he didn’t have to criticise her now be cause he had always criticised her (he hadn’t, and in fact had repeatedly linked/cited her approvingly) and when Greenwald called him on that he then went on to say the things you quoted. http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/02/why-ann-coulter-matters.html
Snicker. “He doesn’t criticize her…but if he does it doesn’t matter.”
I just posted repeated criticisms from the past. Only the first criticism dealt with the current “raghead” comment. Reality-Based community my ass.
So condemnation only counts if someone doesn’t demand it? Oh, Please.
Allow me to remind you of some other words you wrote: “No, it isn t to the overall point which nobody has yet to rebut. ”
Your point appears to be that you don’t have one and I was just pointing that out to you.
You are the Paris Hilton of commenters: “These are just words that I write, they don’t mean anything”.
(my apologies to Paris for the insult)
Your point appears to be that you don t have one and I was just pointing that out to you.
Actually, I did have one. And that it is silly to consider Glenn Reynolds a conservative considering his liberal views on a whole host of issues.
Orange County one of the wealthiest counties in the country went bankrupt several years ago because of poor financial management.
Yet, InstaCracker didn t condemn any other city or county that s poorly run.
So what? I’m guessing he never lived in Orange County. He did however, live in DC. Your comment is completely irrelevant.
And let s face the fact that it doesn t matter whether a city, county, or state is poorly run that is not a reason to take away their right to self-governance.
And what does that have to do with your charge of racism?
What’s really funny is that Glenn’s comments stem from his criticism of the city forcing a woman to have an abortion. That damned conservative!!
I must have missed the part where OW, the originator of this thread, provided ANY evidence that Reynolds was a “conservative.”
However, several of us DID provide evidence that Reynolds holds views that are socially liberal. (Socially liberal and economically conservative makes one a libertarian.)
The “onus” is on those who want to claim Reynolds is lying when he states he is not a “conservative.”
And I’m saying that you did not cite a “whole host of issues”, you cited 4 issues, and that is too narrow a definition of conservatism or liberalism to bother rebutting. Bottom line, the onus is on you to provide an argument worth rebutting. You haven’t yet done that. And until you do, I’m done with you on this topic because this is like having an argument with a spinning top, we just keep revisiting the same points over and over again.