’)Usually it leads to racists, anti-semites, and the like. Which is why so many of them don’t have comments. That and their distaste of opposing points of view.
Breaking News
Dennis Kucinich Changes To A “Yes” Vote On Health Care Reform
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
Contact
Email: owillis@gmail.com
Twitter
Facebook
Flickr
AIM: oliverwill
Huffington Post Columns
Media Matters Blog Entries
Answer: No freaking way Alex.
Question: Does Oliver have any evidence beyond his own asininity to verify the claim that conservative blog comments “usually” lead to racist and anti-Semitic remarks?
I agree with Oliver here. The right wingers don’t say it outright but they lead people to have racist conversations. If you want evidence, check out the youtube videos of the sarah palin rallies or the recent documentary “right america done wrong” on HBO.
For example, when they say that the socialist Obama wants to help “people who don’t pay taxes” and “welfare queens,” its not hard to figure out that they’re telling their audience that Barack Obama is going to give their white money to black people.
Also just check out some comments on Malkin, O’Reilly, etc. That world pretends that civil rights never happened.
Jesus, reading Althouse is like watching one of those “worst police chases” videos. It’s terrible and yet you know exactly what’s going to happen and can’t look away. I love how she basically raised attention to this by wailing “how dare Ezra say I have racist commenters!!!” which led to Ezra… pointing out her racist commenters.
She did it a while ago to the EXACT same way when she started having tantrums saying “why is everyone saying I made fun of a woman’s body?” which resulted in everyone googling… the post where she made fun of a woman’s body.
I’ll give JT this…in order for Oliver to state, with any sort of scientific accuracy, the word “usually,” he’d have to spend his entire day looking at a large, large sample of conservative blogs that do allow comments and track the trends.
More power to him if he could do it, but I’d have to return the research grant shortly after one day at LGF.
Well Spider, guess what? Left wing bloggers and their commenters usually lead to bigotry, anti-semitism, and hatred.
Since I said it, it must be true. After all, a cursory glance around the comments section of Daily Kos diaries proves it.
Wow. Speaking in stereotypical generalities sure is fun!
Depends on the site, really. The commenters on Yankee Jay’s site are extremely well behaved, as they are at wizbang. At the latter typically the worst one sees is a few silly nicknames for the president, and they’re actually quite good about shouting down the racists. The comments at LGF and Free Republic are almost uniformly hideous. Red State’s Malkin’s commenters are not as bad as FR but still pretty terrible.
Conservatives blame Holocaust survivor George Soros for everything
Jay, here is a little statistical analysis that I don’t care to do but if you have a moment…
How many of the top 20 liberal blogs have comments? How many of the top 20 conservative blogs?
Speaking only from my personal experience, and this is anecdotal, most liberal blogs allow comments, and like this one, they let you stay even if you disagree.
How many of the top 20 conservative blogs that DO allow comments allow people to disagree as completely with the host as JT, Dennis, or SFC B do here, without being banned a la RedState, LGF, or FreeRepublic?
Here is an opportunity for you to use statistics to show us how wrong we are. Since I don’t think we ARE wrong, it’s your case to make.
The comments at LGF and Free Republic are almost uniformly hideous. Red State’s Malkin’s commenters are not as bad as FR but still pretty terrible.
And let’s not even get started about the outliers like Little Debbie Schlussel, Atlas shrieks, Gates of Vienna, et al……
Some of my favorite bloggers on the “conservative” side of the spectrum are Jewish and Zionist — and damned proud of both. Meryl Yourish (yourish.com), Laurence Simon (isfullofcrap.com), Jeff Goldstein (proteinwisdom.com), and Dafydd ab Hugh (biglizards.net) all come to mind.
LGF is notoriously rough on anti-Semites — they rarely get deleted or banned, but the community there (as well as the host) smacks them around thoroughly. The same with Hot Air.
Kos is a sewer. It’s anti-Semitism is almost a hallmark.
During the Bush administration, “neocon” became a shorthand term for “Jew.”
When Freeman’s nomination was derailed, he erupted in a torrent of veiled anti-Semitism.
Yes, the right has assholes like Pat Buchanan and James Baker and the like. But anti-Semitism is hardly the hallmark of either end of the political spectrum.
J.
Jay Tea, you really sound nuts, seriously. Get help.
I notice you avoid talking about the racism, Jay Tea, any reason for that? Want to defend lgf on that account?
You’re right about one thing, many con-blogs are very tough on anti-Semites. Of course, part of that is because they believe that any discussion which at any point puts any blame whatsoever on Israel is inherently anti-Semitic. Let’s play a game where we define racism as broadly as the Jay Tea and lgf define anti-Semitism:
“I don’t think Obama shou..”
“RACIST!! BIGOT!!”
“Calm down, I can criticize Barack Ob..”
“AFRICA-HATER!! KLANMEMBER!!!”
“But I’m black..”
“SELF-HATING NEGRO!!”
“Whoa, negro? Dude, it’s not 1962. I’m just saying I disagree with Bar..”
“CROSS BURNER!!”
I took special care to make our Obama critic black to point out the ease with which cons and neo-cons have called liberal jews both anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic for any criticism of any Israeli policy.
J.G.Thayer: “During the Bush administration, “neocon” became a shorthand term for ‘Jew.’”
Projection.
Atwater describes how the attack of ’socialism’ was used to attack blacks looking for equal rights. ‘Socialism’ wasn’t about higher regulations. It was about black people wanting to take from white people (money, power, women, etc.).
I know. You are going to attack me for my ‘obsession’ with the Southern Strategy. However, racism is a core principle of the GOP platform, and has for more than 40 years. It worked out well for that time, because there were enough racist white people to win the south with ease. And by controlling the message regionally, it didn’t adversely affect other areas. But now, even in the south racism is losing its impact. And more importantly, a Macaca Moment happening anywhere becomes a national story. Racism is losing its strength in the south, and hurt them dramatically everywhere else.
But there are people like you who still refuse to accept that racism is part of the GOP. There are really only three explanations. You are too stupid to recognize racism, so racist that you don’t think it is racist, or seriously in denial.
Regardless. Until that changes, the GOP will not move forward as a party. And the demographics are moving farther and farther away from them.
During the Bush administration, “neocon” became a shorthand term for “Jew.”
It’s fun how you guys just make up shit. Anytime someone would criticize the neocons for being stupid enough to support the invasion of Iraq, you idiots would yell OMG YOU’RE JUST DOING THAT BECAUSE HE’S A JEW!!!!!!!
As far as comments go, lets just say I have an intimate involvement with the kind of comments conservatives make on blogs.
Can ’some of my favorite bloggers are jewish’ be the new ’some of my best friends are black’?
Speaking both as a blog-reader and a former blog-editor, I’ve never liked the idea of judging a blog by its commenters. If that was the case, then Oliver could be judged by the remarks made by, say, “Southern Strategy” Strowbridge and myself, and I sincerely doubt he’d appreciate that.
I’ve always felt that the more outrageous the comments on a blog, the better it is — because it shows the blogger is not afraid of truly vile speech, but prefers to let it stand on its own. I almost never deleted or edited comments; I preferred to deal with the commenter directly, fighting words with words.
The most oppressive blog I’ve ever encountered was the idiots over at Wizbang Blue, who banned dissenters at the slightest excuse. (Blue was our experiment in a “progressive” blog. It worked out as well as you’d expect, with a raging sociopath and all-around asshole put in charge of it — and he’s still there.)
And Michael, let me expand on your thought — “some of my favorite bloggers are Jewish and generally conservative, and routinely attacked and threatened in the most vile anti-Semitic ways by liberals and raving anti-Semites.”
But the most offensive race-based attacks I’ve seen in the blogosphere are usually aimed at conservatives who happen to belong to minority groups. Michelle Malkin, Condoleezza Rice, Michael Steele… hell, even Joe Lieberman, who’s hardly a conservative.
J.
Hey, Strowbridge, answer me this:
Almost no one had heard of the term “macaca” until whatshisname — George Something — repeated it. But last week, Obama compared his poor bowling to that of the mentally handicapped, and made fun of those suffering from hydrocephaly by referring to his dog as a “waterhead.” Could you draw the distinction between the two incidents?
J.
and made fun of those suffering from hydrocephaly by referring to his dog as a “waterhead.”
Oh my god. You’re serious.
made fun of those suffering from hydrocephaly by referring to his dog as a “waterhead.”
You’re a lying asshole Jay Tea. Did you even hear the exchange that you’re accusing Obama of? Leno used the word waterhead on accident when speaking of the Portugese Water Dog that Obama has chosen. No where does Obama make any statement that could even vaguely be read to be disparaging to “those suffering from hydrocephaly”. In fact here’s the exchange:
MR. LENO: Wow. And it’s, what, a Portuguese water head? (Laughter.) What is it, what kind of dog is it?
MR. OBAMA: It’s not that. (Laughter.)
MR. LENO: It’s not that.
MR. OBAMA: It’s not a “water head.” (Laughter.)
MR. LENO: Whatever they are, I don’t know what they are.
MR. OBAMA: That sounds like a scary dog. (Laughter.) Sort of dripping around the house. (Laughter.)
MR. LENO: I don’t know what it is.
So for someone who howled like a demon over having been “libeled” just a few comment threads ago it seems crazy that you’d make such a libelous statement about the president. Especially when it’s so easily proved not true. I’m sure you’ll come up with some sort of bullshit excuse for this.
Come on Jay, you’re not that dense, are you? The difference is pretty simple, Allen called a dark-skinned man a macaca, a vile racist non-english slur, while Obama denegrated his own bowling ability (and his own dog) by comparing himself (and his dog) with the mentally challenged. They’re both insensitive, they’re both stupid, but only one is intended as an insult. The best comparison would be if Obama had attended the Special Olympics, pointed at the competitors, and said “look at all those retards”.
aww crap. That’s what I get for trusting JT’s accuracy w/o a thorough googling first…
J.G.Thayer: “Almost no one had heard of the term “macaca” until whatshisname — George Something…”
… Are you trying to dismiss what George Allen said? I think you are. You are trying to pretend it wasn’t racist, and that George Allen wasn’t a big name in the GOP.
First of all, it’s a racist term for blacks used in, of other places, French Tunisian; George Allen’s mother is from French Tunisian. To claim it was not racist is… Well, it’s typical for J.G. “Proud Klansman” Thayer.
Secondly, at the time of the incident, George Allen was considered one of the front-runners for the GOP presidential race in 2008. So he is not a fringe member of the party, as you are clearly implying.
Finally, your characterization of Obama’s comments, including the outright lie about his comments about his dog, show how desperate you are to ignore how fucking racist the GOP is.
It’s pathetic.
You are pathetic.
Your party is pathetic.
J.G.Thayer: “But the most offensive race-based attacks I’ve seen in the blogosphere are usually aimed at conservatives who happen to belong to minority groups.”
That’s cause when conservatives are racist, you pretend it doesn’t happen. Because conservatives being racist is 100% normal to you.
Crusty Dem says: “aww crap. That’s what I get for trusting JT’s accuracy w/o a thorough googling first…”
He’s not trustworthy in the least. By his reputation alone, you should demand a higher standard of proof than you would from a complete stranger, for example.
“some of my favorite bloggers are Jewish and generally conservative, and routinely attacked and threatened in the most vile anti-Semitic ways by liberals and raving anti-Semites.”
So the new bit of conservative trick is to try and paint liberals as anti-semitic because some liberals disagree with the policies of Israel. There are probably undoubtedly and unfortunately a few anti-semites on the left but to even compare it to the raging horde of anti-semites on the right is ridiculous. I’ve met more conservatives that thought they could say stupid little anti-semitic jokes to me because I clearly wasn’t Jewish with a cute wink and a nudge. In fact our own Dennis just last week made a “Jon Stewart’s real name is Leibowitz!” comment that most of us caught on to for what it really meant.
As for those blogs you’ve linked to, I spent a few minutes looking at the rather anemic comment threads (all besides ProteinWisdom hardly have any commenters) and I didn’t see any anti-semitic comments from liberals so it’s not as routine as your mentioning. Your side owns anti-semitism. The left should be vigilant against it, your side is neck deep in the mud of it.
In fact our own Dennis just last week made a “Jon Stewart’s real name is Leibowitz!” comment that most of us caught on to for what it really meant. Michael Over Here
F U, Michael Over Here. I wasn’t being anti-semitic in the least when I printed his his birth name. There was no context whatsover that I was talking about Stewart’s religion or heritage, I just stated his name. And you’ve never read one sentence here where I’ve even mentioned one word along the lines of anything to do with Jewish anything, much less being derogatory. You read and interpret any way you want to, but you’re a fucking idiot who believes what he wants to believe, even if it’s wrong.
Asshole.
I wasn’t being anti-semitic in the least when I printed his his birth name.
Sure you weren’t Dennis. We all know that there’s plenty of good reasons to mention his unused birth name of Leibowitz. No coded language there. Wink wink.
Jay…
maybe the best response isn’t to point out that there are bigots on liberal blog sites but to examine why people take the time to share and celebrate their bigotry on online forums.
Yes it’s a free country but being obnoxious doesn’t help anyone pay their mortgage, get a job that allows them to feed, clothe and educate their families — you know pursue that American dream that we are all in danger of losing.
FU and your coded messages bullshit too. You don’t know the first thing about me. What would compel me to speak in coded language on a liberal blog that has maybe four other conservatives who ever even post here?
Idiot.
What would compel me to speak in coded language on a liberal blog that has maybe four other conservatives who ever even post here?
Um, you’re a right wing dildo Dittohead parrot (i.e., a modern Republican) who can’t help himself? Is that it? After all, you are one.
Also, what Michael Over Here wrote.
Ok, Dennis, I’ll bite, then why bring it up? It’s not exactly germane to the topic, unless your topic is “I know you’re a big jewy jew.”
Crusty Dem says: “Ok, Dennis, I’ll bite, then why bring it up? It’s not exactly germane to the topic, unless your topic is ‘I know you’re a big jewy jew.’”
Quickest way to tell someone is racist is when they bring up someone’s race when it is not part of the discussion. The same is true for Anti-Semitic people.
Dennis brought up Jon Stewart’s heritage when there was no reason to.
Um, you’re a right wing dildo Dittohead parrot Aqualung ed
The guy on here who has one theme and one theme only on every single post calling someone else a parrot?
Quickest way to tell someone is racist is…
…also when they keep falling over themselves to defend Rush Limbaugh (or his odious ilk). That’s our Dennis!
I dind’t bring up his heritage, liar Strowbridge. I called him by his birth name, the name his brother in the invesment banking world still uses.
When you don’t have the evidence for a charge, you simply make it up. A common theme for you. Why don’t you just say I was fired for calling him his real name, idiot?
Here’s your chance to get creative, Southern Strategy. No one here seems to care when you just make shit up like the delusional fool that you are, so there’s really no downside.
Go for it.
…also when they keep falling over themselves to defend Rush Limbaugh (or his odious ilk). — Limbaugh ed
I knew you couldn’t go more than one post without mentioning Rush Limbaugh, Mister ed. You’re incapable of it.
Parrot.
I called him by his birth name,
Why?
the name his brother in the invesment banking world still uses
Oh! So he’s related to an investment banker. A Jewish investment banker! Now I understand. Wink wink.
Racist stuff in the comments and posts of con blogs. This is who they are.
No, idiot. Someone in the same business he pretends on his show to detest everyone involved in it as evil. You guys don’t pretend though.
You didn’t even make a case for anti-Semitism on that thread, Michael. Today you bring it as an example. Dishonest at the very least; blatantly lying to bolster a weak argument at the worst.
You guys for the most part are dishonest when you make all your charges of racism or anything else here. You never have examples but you think every conservative, Republican or right of center is a racist, so you just make it up.
Keith Olbermann calling a football player named Roscoe, ‘Roscoe’s Chicken and Waffles’ is no way racist to you, easily explained away. But Sean Hannity quickly reading from notecards about Obama’s NCAA picks and starting to say ‘NAAC…” before correcting himself, to you is the same thing as calling him the N word.
Dennis the Bigot: “Someone in the same business he pretends on his show to detest everyone involved in it as evil.”
Liar. Jon Stewart never said that. Never even hinted at that.
“You didn’t even make a case for anti-Semitism on that thread, Michael. Today you bring it as an example. Dishonest at the very least; blatantly lying to bolster a weak argument at the worst.”
Dennis, you’ve gone after me because of my nationality. You’ve used sexist language. You’ve done all you can to defend Rush Limbaugh…
Speaking of which, did Snopes lie about Newsweek, or did Newsweek lie about Rush?
Calling Jon Stewart by his obviously Jewish birth name instead of saying, ‘His brother’s a banker!’ is just part of a pattern.
In fact, your excuses since then fell very Ad Hoc. Made up after the fact to justify your anti-Semitism.
For example, you never mentioned his brother the first time you called him by his birth name. And if I recall correctly, nor did you when asked why you used it the first time.
It simply doesn’t pass the smell test.
Someone in the same business he pretends on his show to detest everyone involved in it as evil.
Jon Stewart has never ever said anything even close to this. So either your anti-semitic or painfully painfully dumb to make an argument like this:
Dennis: Jon Stuart Leibowitz!
Everyone else: Saying his last name like that, where it doesn’t apply smells fishy.
Dennis: No really! It’s his last name! Seriously! That’s all I’m saying.
Everyone else: It’s not important so saying it seems not very classy. Anti-semitic even.
Dennis: He has the same name as his brother. Who is banker! Jon Stuart Leibowitz really hates all bankers! I know I didn’t mention this earlier but it’s totally what I meant.
Everyone else: Then why not just say “Jon Stewart has a brother who is a banker” instead of saying an name he legally changed nearly a decade ago? Also Jon Stewart has never said that he hates bankers, he has only expressed frustration with those who gamed the system.
Some people have asked in the past, Dennis, if you’re a liar or stupid. I know the answer is that you’re both.
Dennis: I dind’t bring up his heritage, liar Strowbridge. I called him by his birth name, the name his brother in the invesment banking world still uses.
So what? Birth name, brother’s name. So what? It is NOT the name Stewart uses. So why bring it up? Folks here are saying it was because you were trying, in indirect fashion, to point out he’s Jewish. If that was not the case, then why not provide a simple explanation for why you did bring it up?
“If that was not the case, then why not provide a simple explanation for why you did bring it up?”
And one that matches the facts as they played out. As Michael has shown, the current explanation does not.
Rush Limbaugh is a racist asshole, and he is leader of the Republican Party.
Case closed.
Liar. Jon Stewart never said that. Never even hinted at that. — Southern Strategy
You blantanly lied when you said Jay Tea was fired. You are the liar here, Strowbridge. Bald-faced lie that you admitted you made up. You have no room to call anyone else a liar.
Stewart said long-term investing is a scam and that ‘our wealth is in our work’. That’s more than a hint, you mentally-challenged buffoon.
———
Dennis, you’ve gone after me because of my nationality. You’ve used sexist language. You’ve done all you can to defend Rush Limbaugh… —Liar Strowbridge
I didn’t go after you for your nationality, liar. I said you do little to help this country, yet you demean a large portion of its citizens constantly, the same citizens who do a lot to help this country. That’s not attacking your nationality and you know it. And I haven’t done all I can to defend Rush Limbaugh, I just don’t agree with the stupid feigned outrage you and Mister ed display here because you enjoy it so.
—
Speaking of which, did Snopes lie about Newsweek, or did Newsweek lie about Rush? —Serial liar Strowbridge
It was Newsday, idiot. You continue to make shit up.
Snopes claimed Newsday ‘reported’ that Limbaugh apologized for the remark. That’s all. ‘reported’. Nothing on record, no tapes, all anecdotal. All anecdotes from people who hate him. That’s certainly enough for you and Mister ed, but not for me.
—-
Calling Jon Stewart by his obviously Jewish birth name instead of saying, ‘His brother’s a banker!’ is just part of a pattern. — Congenital liar Strowbridge
No pattern of anything, Southern Strategy. You just make shit up repeatedly and call it a pattern. You are a known and proven liar.
——–
It simply doesn’t pass the smell test. —Scientific Method BS-er Strowbridge
You have a very strange smell test, Strowbridge. You draw conclusions from smell all the time here. You play every card you can and then repeat it as gospel. It has nothing to do with the scientific methodology you claim to have been so steeply educated in and which you say you use professionally. You are nothing more than the same bigoted liar you’re so fond of calling other people.
Waaaahhhhh!!!! You’re all a bunch of poopyheads!!!!!
Poopyheads!
Stttoooooopppp!
Owwwnnnnnnning!
Meeeeeeeeeeeee!
Congenital Liar Strowbridge–
And as to your fake charge of sexism for my calling Jaim a pussy for lying about something I said without having courage to back it up, you can call that whatever you want, but you don’t call anyone else here sexist for using the same name, like ed, or Duros, or Jaim, who have also done it. You admitted you have called another guy a pussy yourself. And I noticed you didn’t show up to call out Oliver a homophobe for asking if Chip Reid was Rush Limbaugh’s ‘butt-boy’.
So not only is your outrage feigned, it’s also highly selective.
Some of my best bloggers are LIBERAL Jews. Like MOST Jews in America. Try again, JT.
Dennis the Bigot: “You blantanly lied when you said Jay Tea was fired.”
Oh god. Are you going to be a character witness for Mr. Thayer? That would guarantee I would win that case.
You are a bigot. That much is 100% proven. You are nationalistic, sexist, anti-Semitic, etc.
You can whine all you want, but these are facts.
Dennis the Bigot: “And I noticed you didn’t show up to call out Oliver a homophobe for asking if Chip Reid was Rush Limbaugh’s ‘butt-boy’.”
That’s cause Rush is the one that used that term. Oliver was only parroting it back at him.
Man, I will be glad when you and your kind finally die off. And they are dying off.
CSS: Man, I will be glad when you and your kind finally die off. And they are dying off.
Alas, I suspect there will always be that lingering 20%.
Dennis the Bigot: “Stewart said long-term investing is a scam and that ‘our wealth is in our work’. That’s more than a hint, you mentally-challenged buffoon.”
Let’s have some fun. Give me a fucking source.
And by the way, it is a scam. The only way to make money on the stock market is to buy low and sell high. However, each time you do that, someone else is selling low and / or buying high. No wealth has ever been created in the stock market. It’s not possible.
“It was Newsday, idiot. You continue to make shit up.”
I got the name of the magazine wrong. That’s not a lie.
“Snopes claimed Newsday ‘reported’ that Limbaugh apologized for the remark. That’s all. ‘reported’. Nothing on record, no tapes, all anecdotal. All anecdotes from people who hate him. That’s certainly enough for you and Mister ed, but not for me.”
So you are saying Newsday lied. Got it.
Fucking idiot.
Fucking bigot.
I’m separating this point so you might actually answer it…
Dennis the Bigot, why didn’t you mention Jon Stewart’s brother was a banker the first time you brought up his name?
Without an answer to that, a real answer, all you phony excuses you are using to cover your anti-Semitism are just that, phony excuses.
CSS: And by the way, it is a scam. The only way to make money on the stock market is to buy low and sell high. However, each time you do that, someone else is selling low and / or buying high. No wealth has ever been created in the stock market. It’s not possible.
It’s a zero sum game? I don’t buy that. If what you suggest is correct, every dollar made by one should be mappable to a dollar lost by another. The net wealth of the nation would be a constant. I don’t think you could show that’s been the case.
CSS: And by the way, it is a scam. The only way to make money on the stock market is to buy low and sell high. However, each time you do that, someone else is selling low and / or buying high. No wealth has ever been created in the stock market. It’s not possible.
Sean D. Martin says: “It’s a zero sum game? I don’t buy that. If what you suggest is correct, every dollar made by one should be mappable to a dollar lost by another. The net wealth of the nation would be a constant. I don’t think you could show that’s been the case.”
Why would the net wealth of the nation would be a constant? There are people out there doing real work and creating real wealth.
Dammit. I heard that “Waterhead” was used in the Leno piece, didn’t check for myself, and got it wrong. I apologize, and (god help me) Michael, thanks for pointing that out. No thanks for the style and manner of the correction, but for the correction itself — thanks.
And the Portuguese Water Dog… in one of the most oblivious moves I’ve ever heard of, Ted Kennedy has one he named “Splash.”
Hmm… I see someone triggered one of Strowbridge’s nigh-infinite number of Pavlovian triggers and he went off on his frothing “Lee Atwater/Southern Strategy” frenzies. I hope someone kept him from swallowing or biting his tongue during his conniption…
Dragging the topic back to the original topic… it’s bullshit to judge a blog by its commenters. It’s a no-win position for the blogger; they are either censoring and oppressing dissent, or tolerating and fomenting hate.
I’ll stick to the Alan Dershowitz notion: the best answer to bad speech is more speech; let the assholes rant and rave and in general discredit themselves and their ideas, with an occasional swift kick in the rhetoric to make certain that everyone knows that the commenter in question is an asshole.
J.
CSS: Why would the net wealth of the nation would be a constant? There are people out there doing real work and creating real wealth.
Which isn’t reflected in the stock market?
Remaining with your original comment here (which I’m just trying to understand) “No wealth has ever been created in the stock market. It’s not possible.”
Jay Tea: let the assholes rant and rave and in general discredit themselves and their ideas
Which is about the best you can actually hope for. That others will view the speakers as discredited, cause there is certainly little evidence the commenters (on both sides) ever change their views much.
let the assholes rant and rave and in general discredit themselves
Jay Tea, I assume you’re speaking primarily of yourself here.
Dammit. I heard that “Waterhead” was used in the Leno piece, didn’t check for myself, and got it wrong. I apologize, and (god help me) Michael, thanks for pointing that out. No thanks for the style and manner of the correction, but for the correction itself — thanks.
Unbelievable. Jay Tea, what about the “the style and manner” in which you pushed a story that was totally wrong? Thanks for that!
And Jay Tea, you recently admonished CSS for not doing “The most casual diligence” before saying something about you. it is, apparently, a standard you do not hold yourself to. Ever.
J.G.Thayer: “And the Portuguese Water Dog… in one of the most oblivious moves I’ve ever heard of, Ted Kennedy has one he named ‘Splash.’”
Okay. Now that’s funny. Tasteless (and highly offensive to Mary Jo Kopechne) but funny.
“Hmm… I see someone triggered one of Strowbridge’s nigh-infinite number of Pavlovian triggers and he went off on his frothing “Lee Atwater/Southern Strategy” frenzies.”
Yeah, how dare I bring up Atwater when you accuse liberals of being anti-Semitic. There’s absolutely no connection between those topics.
Tool.
And Jay Tea, let me ask you. Where did you here that “waterhead” had been used in the Leno piece? Was it on another blog?
If so, please tell us all how being so misinformed has colored the credibility of that person or blog in your mind.
Could you please name the source of the information so we’ll know not to trust what read there?
CSS: Why would the net wealth of the nation would be a constant? There are people out there doing real work and creating real wealth.
Sean D. Martin says: “Which isn’t reflected in the stock market?”
Remaining with your original comment here (which I’m just trying to understand) ‘No wealth has ever been created in the stock market. It’s not possible.’”
Right. Wealth is not created by the stock market; however, it might be reflected in the stock market. Might be.
If a company creates a new product that sells well, it is creating wealth. This could cause their stock to go up.
If a company is the target of a takeover bid, which will result in fewer job, less competition, less production… i.e. less wealth, their stock could go up.
There is a correlation, but not causation.
Strowbridge, I was showing that anti-Semitism is not the sole providence of either side. I’m starting to think that there are perhaps five topics that you WON’T tie into your beloved “Southern Strategy” — and I’m not sure about two of those.
Fafaroo, I don’t recall precisely where I heard or read about the “waterhead” remark — it might have been on the radio.
I’m amazed that Strowbridge caught the irony of Ted Kennedy’s dog — and quite impressed he hasn’t made that a racial issue.
J.
No thanks for the style and manner of the correction, but for the correction itself — thanks.
The style and manner were a befitting response to a complete hypocrite.
J.G.Thayer: “Strowbridge, I was showing that anti-Semitism is not the sole providence of either side.”
So you made something up? It’s projection. On the one hand you have the architect of the GOP political machine saying ‘Socialist’ was code for ‘Blacks taking your money.’ On the other hand, you have NOTHING! You have a fucking claim with no goddamn evidence.
By the way, no one is claiming every GOPer is racist, or that only GOPers are racist. However, the racism in the GOP is by design. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
“I’m starting to think that there are perhaps five topics that you WON’T tie into your beloved “Southern Strategy” — and I’m not sure about two of those.”
Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.
Translations: Shut the fuck up, you goddamn racist piece shit.
You don’t even bother trying to argue the GOP isn’t racist, you just complain when I bring it up. And there is no argument. The GOP is a racist organization, as much as the KKK is. It’s racist from the top to the bottom. The people on the top use racism to get elected, and they foster racist attitudes in the people at the bottom.
And your response to this? ‘Waaaaaaaahhhhh!’
Some of my favorite bloggers on the “conservative” side of the spectrum are Jewish and Zionist — and damned proud of both. Meryl Yourish (yourish.com), Laurence Simon (isfullofcrap.com), Jeff Goldstein (proteinwisdom.com), and Dafydd ab Hugh (biglizards.net) all come to mind.
What I love here is how you equate Judaism and Zionism as though they go hand-in-hand. Despite the fact that the vast majority of “Zionists” are fundamentalist Christians with ulterior motives.
During the Bush administration, “neocon” became a shorthand term for “Jew.”
As opposed to “Hollywood” or “East Coast Liberal”? Neoconservativism refers to a political ideology, mainly in terms of foreign policy. which, in layman’s terms, states that the U.S. can invade whoever the hell they want whenever the hell they feel like.
(Blue was our experiment in a “progressive” blog. It worked out as well as you’d expect, with a raging sociopath and all-around asshole put in charge of it — and he’s still there.)
Was it you? No wait, you said he wasn’t fired.
I wasn’t being anti-semitic in the least when I printed his his birth name.
I don’t think you’re the most unbiased judge of that.
“What I love here is how you equate Judaism and Zionism as though they go hand-in-hand. Despite the fact that the vast majority of ‘Zionists’ are fundamentalist Christians with ulterior motives.”
Exactly. They only care about Israel because they need the Jews around to to bring about Armageddon. And then they expect all the Jews to die and go to hell.
Fafaroo, I don’t recall precisely where I heard or read about the “waterhead” remark — it might have been on the radio.
And all you had to do was “the most casual diligence” before you repeated it. But you didn’t do even that. I’m sure this will be the last time you ever do that again!
J.G.Thayer: “Fafaroo, I don’t recall precisely where I heard or read about the “waterhead” remark — it might have been on the radio.”
fafaroo says: “And all you had to do was “the most casual diligence” before you repeated it. But you didn’t do even that. I’m sure this will be the last time you ever do that again!”
Methinks the case is not closed, despite what Mr. Thayer said at the time.
Speaking both as a blog-reader and a former blog-editor, I’ve never liked the idea of judging a blog by its commenters.
And yet, this is precisely what you do in regard to Kos.
Funny that.
There are probably undoubtedly and unfortunately a few anti-semites on the left but to even compare it to the raging horde of anti-semites on the right is ridiculous.
Just waltz on over to Hal Turner’s site for some anti-semitic and all-around “hate everybody” goodness.
I wasn’t being anti-semitic in the least when I printed his his birth name. There was no context whatsover that I was talking about Stewart’s religion or heritage, I just stated his name.
dude can’t even read his own code anymore.
No, idiot. Someone in the same business he pretends on his show to detest everyone involved in it as evil. You guys don’t pretend though.
Which is probably why he knew more about it than Cramer when he was on the show.
Neoconservativism refers to a political ideology
Er, no Zython, by the end of GWB’s second term “neoconservatism” seemed to refer to every political ideology. The Honourable Jim Flaherty was attacked as a “neocon” because he engaged in public-private partnerships to build bridges and hospitals. Prime Minister Harper was running his “neo-conservative vision of vision of letting the market decide what is best for the society. Meanwhile “the neocons” are simultaneously “anti-business”. “Neocon” is a totally empty word: one minute you’re in the “religious right”, the next you’re a “neocon”. “Neocon” policies can be summarized as “any policy which happens to be conservative”. If you want to cut personal taxes and remove restrictions on gun sales, you’re suddenly a member; what you call a “political ideology” is in fact a whole set of (often contradictory) ideologies, each applicable whenever you want to attack a politician in a letter to the editor.