Comments on: Happy Holidays To You, Too, Jerk!

By: dmac

dmac — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:59:14 +0000

At least on this site you can read quite a few variable opinions on who we’d like to see as the GOP nominee for ’08. There are moderates like myself who like Rudy, others who are big Rice supporters, McCainiacs, and so on. BTW, Rudy and McCain favor legalized abortion, so we have a divergence of opinion on that subject here as well…

No, it’s not an ideological free – for – all by any means, but I like visiting here for the discordant notes I often see, at least compared to my own personal views.

By: Ryan Bonneville

Ryan Bonneville — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:57:49 +0000

Mark, that’s a beauty of this whole “conservative movement” business. There is no real definition of what it is. I’m actually rather amazed myself that there aren’t more hardcore Christian social conservative types in favor of national health care. It seems perfectly consistent with the rest of their beliefs (see Catholics, who have long been “liberal” on government spending issues). Not only that, but there are also a large number of Republicans (like me) who can only really be called liberals (but who side with Republicans because the Democrats are off the deep end) who should be likely to support it (I do, as a matter of fact).

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 02:42:18 +0000

Whoa, whoa, pro-national health care?? Easy there, buddy…(I kid, of course)…

By: Ryan Bonneville

Ryan Bonneville — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:02:54 +0000

dmac – I agree that the MSM is exactly the same (on the other side of the aisle, although I don’t think it’s quite as liberal as RS or Hewitt are conservative), but that doesn’t excuse us. This argument gets used a lot – “Don’t blame the right/Bush because we are/he is no worse than the left/Clinton”. Boo that. Hewitt’s a cretin and the sooner we can all agree to that, the better.

Elephant – That’s probably accurate, although there’s something to be said for micro-lemmingism at RedState. The uniformity of opinion there is rather shocking to me. At least in my unscientific survey of the conservatives I know, there is nothing like that kind of uniformity within “the movement”. We were pretty much all ballistic over Miers, so of course they were too. But when’s the last time a pro-choice post was put up there? Are we really supposed to believe that conservatism can’t be reconciled with a pro-choice position? Or pro-gay marriage? Or pro-national health care? The folks there are a rather odd combination of social conservative/economic libertarian that I just plain don’t see much of in the real world.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:14:09 +0000

Joe, the problem with LGF’s comments is the same with those at Daily Kos; it is too easy (and I’ve been accused of doing it myself) to ascribe the views of commentors with those of the site’s proprietors. With Kos, he has said enough ridiculous stuff himself to earn condemnation on either score; can you say the same about Charles Johnson? In other words, can you give me even one example of anything Charles has said (not one of his commentors) that is the equivalent of Kos’s “I feel nothing…Screw them”?…

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:11:30 +0000

Tom, fair enough. The reason I didn’t denounce the beheading comment was that I didn’t hear about it until these posts today, but let me say I categorically condemn that sort of nonsense. I totally agree that the blogosphere (on both sides, let’s be clear) lends itself very easily to outrage after outrage, and though I think Sheehan, Moore, Streisand, et al, are politically disgusting, I wish them no harm, and indeed, a long and prosperous life. We all need to remember to avoid demonizing our opponents, even if we may ridicule their stances…

By: Tom in Texas

Tom in Texas — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 21:50:51 +0000

Mark;
I never suggested that you modified your opinions based on being on PJ’s payroll, and i don’t doubt that your affiliation with them is based on ideological agreement with most of their correspondents rather than the fact that they pay you. I suspect the case is identical at Huffington. As for the second question, the reason you should have to answer it is that you dont appear to have denounced these people specifically for their statements. Rather than taking the opportunity to do so, you defend oversimplifying issues by lumping both these bloggers together. I think they are making entirely separate arguments, and that you should attempt to adress the substance of said arguments when commenting upon them, rather than simply dismissing anything they actually said.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 21:49:50 +0000

LGF is a blatantly racist site. Just pick any post and take a peek at what gets written in the comments section there. I have seen Muslim babies called “cockroaches”, pleas for Muslims to be expelled en masse from the USA before it is too late, etc. As LGF is run by a founder of Pajamas Media, it is only a matter of time before advertisers take a closer look at this. A company like Pepsi or McDonald’s is playing with fire by allowing themselves to be associated with this kind of pseudo-fascism. Also, I think it’s a fair question: is Pajamas Media funded by a right-wing “investor” with no desire to see a return on his investment, so long as the right messages are being supported and propogated? The lack of transparency at Pajamas only fuels this kind of speculation.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 21:25:28 +0000

Thanks, AJ, you keep at ‘em, too!…

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 20:35:37 +0000

Tom, regarding question 1: I see you’re too lazy to use the search function on my blog, as I suggested, so I’ll save you some time. I’m paid by Pajamas for advertising space – period. I don’t answer to an editor, and I don’t modify one word, nor am I obligated to.

2. Of course not. Why should I even have to answer such an asinine query?

Is that all you’ve got?