Jan
22

Stupid Lawyer Tricks




Posted at 15:33 by Tintin
ABOVE: Dan McLaughlin

Certain parts of the junior pseudo-intellectual division of the wingnut-o-sphere have been trying for quite some time to come up with the dispositive argument on gay marriage that does not rely on some proscription in Leviticus on feather boas and Lady Gaga records. The search for this Holy Grail has proved elusive, resulting so far only in such nonsense as “Every child deserves a mother and a father” which is, of course, more an argument against heterosexual divorce than an argument against, as they call it in the Swankish tongue, homonups.

Our latest participant in this quest is Dan McLaughlin, a blogger at Red State and, at least for the moment,* a securities lawyer of some kind at the firm of Sidley & Austin in their New York office. Dan’s entry is a post modestly titled “The Winning Statistic in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate: How Are Babies Made?” (Looking at Dan you can understand why he might indeed not be entirely clear how babies are made, but that’s another subject entirely.) Dan thinks he’s got the “winning statistic” that will once and for all dispose of all arguments in favor of gay marriage and that he can then collect the long-awaited prize for doing so, which is, he hopes, a gift certificate for a lifetime of bad Caesar cuts from the Hair Cuttery.

So … drum roll, please … what is this heretofore unknown statistic that Dan has for us? It appears to be his discovery that butt-fucking doesn’t always result in a pregnancy. No, seriously.

I have made the point at great length previously … that the most obvious legal argument for why opposite-sex relationships are different from same-sex relationships – and can be recognized as such in democratically enacted laws – is that they are vastly more likely to produce children, for reasons so biologically obvious they should not have to be repeated. Now the New York Times has given us some statistics from the Census Bureau that confirm the relatively low number of same-sex couples that are raising children

Now there are several layers of hilarity here. As something of an expert in, and participant in, the various permutations and combinations of homosex, I think I can provide my expert opinion that there is no risk of pregnancy from any of them. None. As in zero. So this business about straight sex being “vastly more likely” to produce children suggests that the next time Dan sees his Dad he gets a refresher of the “daddy-puts-his-thing-in-mommy-because-he-loves-her- and-then-a-baby-is-made” lecture.

But let us say for the sake of argument that you might become pregnant if you swallow or something and that some percentage of gay men really do get pregnant, the relative percentages of how often this happens is beside the point. Rich people have fewer children than poor people. Should only poor people be allowed to get married? And why should who is more likely to produce offspring determine who should get to import a spouse from Thailand, file a joint tax return, or send out wedding invitations to extort gifts from distant relatives? Shouldn’t other statistical differences be more relevant to marriage? Like whether straights or gays are more likely to have fabulous houses that increase property values of a neighborhood. Or whether straights or gays are more likely to drink blueberry mojitos. Or own pants. Or prefer the color blue. Or speak English.

Ah, there’s the ticket. Sociological research (which can be found in the nether regions of America’s Shittiest Website™) demonstrates that kids that have English speaking parents go to better schools, are less likely to do crack cocaine in sixth grade, and have higher median incomes when they grow up. So that’s the winning statistic, Danno. I win. But you can still keep the fucking Hair Cuttery Caesar Cut prize.

[h/t Evan Hurst]


*Speaking of loathsome law firm bloggers, this warrants an asterisk for Paul Mirengoff, who apparently was once a blogger over at Powerwhite Blog but now, it seems, not so much. His improvident rant on the ugliness of Native American blessings and the law firm beatdown he got as a result has now made it into, of all places, the American Bar Association Journal, extending Mirengoff’s humiliation far and wide.

At the end of the ABA article, we hear this from Mirengoff’s for-the-moment current law firm:

Akin Gump spokeswoman Kathryn Holmes Johnson tells the ABA Journal that the law firm is currently reviewing its social media policies.

Mirengoff has not posted anything at Powerwhite since January 15.

276 Comments »

  1. vs said,

    January 22, 2011 at 15:44

    All you proponents of gay marriage just got PWNED!

  2. Jennifer said,

    January 22, 2011 at 15:51

    …they are vastly more likely to produce children, for reasons so biologically obvious they should not have to be repeated.

    Really? Someone should have told my mother. When she remarried at age 62, I don’t think she had it in mind to have more children. I guess she’ll have to seek an annulment.

    What’s so stupendendously stupid about this douche’s “argument”, aside from the fact that he’s covered already well-shod ground here, is this assumption that because procreation is a possibility of opposite-sex unions that it somehow is an excuse to limit marriage to those couples where procreation is possible. Which means all those old people out there should be barred from getting married, and likewise, younger folks thinking of marriage should have to submit to rigorous exams to see if they are fertile. And also too we should have laws on the books that say if your opposite-marriage does not produce children within X years then it’s declared null and void.

    You can’t on the one hand claim producing offspring as the raison d’etre for marriage, and then on the other, grant a pass to only some of those who marry who don’t produce offspring just because you like the fact that they don’t both have the same basic set of genitalia. You’d think as a lawyer he would recognize the word for this: discrimination.

  3. N__B said,

    January 22, 2011 at 15:53

    It appears to be his discovery that butt-fucking doesn’t always result in a pregnancy.

    But Mini__B…no, I’ve said too much.

  4. vs said,

    January 22, 2011 at 15:57

    So now we know what the “B” stands for.

  5. Titus Andronicus said,

    January 22, 2011 at 16:23

    Leviticus on feather boas and Lady Gaga records

    yummmmm

  6. Bilo said,

    January 22, 2011 at 16:27

    Egads, how could you miss the classic joke? Anal sex does occasionally create offspring – lawyers!

  7. Titus Andronicus said,

    January 22, 2011 at 16:32

    And plus too,

    that the most obvious legal argument for why opposite-sex relationships are different from same-sex relationships is that they are vastly more likely to produce children

    That’s some might fine legalish rhetorical finery right there.

    He also provides his own mangoes:

    If you cede the ground of social-science empirical arguments, you end up losing in the courts, after which winning the culture becomes moot.

    I’m engaging the opposition on its own terms here, which is what we lawyers have to do daily.

    Bill that kid at a gazillion dollars an hour! He’s Brilliant!!!11!1!1

  8. Open Cahoots said,

    January 22, 2011 at 16:46

    He starts off strong, actually getting something right:

    …the legal debate comes down to whether there exists any rational basis for distinguishing the two relationships.

    And immediately whiffs:

    The burden of establishing the complete absence of such a rational basis is on the proponents of court-mandated “marriage equality.”

    WRONG. See me during office hours. When a law is attacked on equal protection grounds, the burden is not on the aggrieved citizens to establish the complete absence of a rational basis; it is on the government to identify the rational basis that must exist for a law to be valid. WHA-BAM.

  9. Open Cahoots said,

    January 22, 2011 at 16:51

    The NYT article focused on the fact that gay couples in the heartland (Jacksonville, though coastal, is “heartland” – trust me) are more likely to be raising children than their counterparts in the elite liberal enclaves. Which runs counter to the narrative that this is just a New York-LA-Portland-Vermont issue.

  10. Bilo said,

    January 22, 2011 at 16:52

    http://gawker.com/5738506/did-todd-palin-have-an-affair-with-a-massage-therapist

    Hey, whycome all the social conservative neofascists of the heartland who resisted (non-poor) women entering the (white collar) workplace in the 70′s, saying that a woman should be home tending to her kids (say, keeping the daughter from getting knocked up), and tending to her man’s base urges (satisfying Snowmobile Todd) luuurvs this woman so much again? And it’s okay if she runs off to be VP? Or Prez? Or whatevs?

  11. N__B said,

    January 22, 2011 at 16:52

    And immediately whiffs:

    Somewhere the sun is shining
    Somewhere the children shout
    There is much joy in SN!ville
    Another wingnut has struck out

  12. N__B said,

    January 22, 2011 at 16:53

    The NYT article focused on the fact that gay couples in the heartland (Jacksonville, though coastal, is “heartland” – trust me) are more likely to be raising children than their counterparts in the elite liberal enclaves.

    I skimmed the article. Didn’t it basically imply that gays in the heartland came out later in life and therefore often had children from failed hetero marriages?

  13. S. cerevisiae said,

    January 22, 2011 at 16:56

    Geek, dweeb or spazz?

  14. Open Cahoots said,

    January 22, 2011 at 16:57

    Didn’t it basically imply that gays in the heartland came out later in life and therefore often had children from failed hetero marriages?

    Yes indeedy. After all, they aren’t allowed to adopt kids!

  15. N__B said,

    January 22, 2011 at 17:04

    Yes indeedy. After all, they aren’t allowed to adopt kids!

    I’d love to see some hard data to back up the press’s sociological conclusions.

  16. Xecky Gilchrist said,

    January 22, 2011 at 17:05

    they are vastly more likely to produce children

    I keep thinking that herp-derps like this must be clumsy attempts at humor, but it’s hard to tell when they’re embedded in such thick layers of st00pit.

  17. Open Cahoots said,

    January 22, 2011 at 17:09

    I’d love to see some hard data to back up the press’s sociological conclusions.

    “We asked a guy! And for confirmation, another guy! What more do you want?”

  18. Willy said,

    January 22, 2011 at 17:12

    re Mirengoff: A nice pie would soothe his butthurt.

  19. Arky said,

    January 22, 2011 at 17:12

    I did a little research (an activity Mr. McLaughin should try sometime) and I was unable to single state statute that lists “Promises to Make Babies” as one of the requirements for marriage.

    Neither could I find any statutes that prohibit married people from purchasing birth control.

    Now, call me crazy, but if the state doesn’t make baby production one of the requirements for marriage and the state doesn’t take steps to require (or even encourage) baby production, that should have been a hint to counsel that his ejaculation of EUREKA! is a bit premature.

  20. Open Cahoots said,

    January 22, 2011 at 17:17

    Neither could I find any statutes that prohibit married people from purchasing birth control.

    THANKS A LOT, JUSTICE DOUGLAS!

  21. Titus Andronicus said,

    January 22, 2011 at 17:34

    ejaculation of EUREKA!

    They’ve got medicine for that now, but still- I,N,W?

  22. Jennifer said,

    January 22, 2011 at 17:44

    This whole gay vs. opposite marriage thing is kinda like the whole smorgasbord vs. buffet thing.

    You know, what’s the difference between a smorgasbord and a buffet? A smorgasbord has Swedish meatballs, while a buffet MAY or MAY NOT have Swedish meatballs.

  23. N__B said,

    January 22, 2011 at 17:50

    A smorgasbord has Swedish meatballs

    On behalf of the Swedish eunuchs: TOO SOON!

  24. bughunter said,

    January 22, 2011 at 18:14

    Tintin, I applaud your premise as well as your snark. For years I have invited the anti-gay-marriage crowd to present an argument for their position that does not boil down to bigotry (it’s disgustin’), religion (the bibel sez so), or fertility (makin babbys). None of which are a valid basis for law.

    You’re the only other person who I’ve seen who has addressed the utter failure of hetero supremacists to make such an argument. Some have tried the “it diminishes traditional marriage” slant but when I ask them how, they revert to one of the three fallacies above. For some reason, most of them get pissed when I point that out.

    And kudos also for the lavender sparklies. Somehow they seem to fit perfectly behind Mr. McLaughlin.

  25. gbear said,

    January 22, 2011 at 18:17

    I’m going to guess that McLaughlin is (in a perfect world) also a proponenet of virgin marriage. This creates a problem in that virginity makes child production virtually impossible, and as such, the couple should NOT be allowed to marry.

  26. N__B said,

    January 22, 2011 at 18:20

    Some have tried the “it diminishes traditional marriage” slant but when I ask them how, they revert to one of the three fallacies above.

    Anyone else’s happiness, anywhere, diminishes my marriage. That’s why I try to create as much unhappiness as I can.

  27. N__B said,

    January 22, 2011 at 18:20

    Also, you can take my last post and substitute “rights” for happiness and it works almost as well. Too.

  28. bughunter said,

    January 22, 2011 at 18:24

    social conservative neofascists

    Bilo, I’m reading Niewert’s _The Eliminationists_ this weekend, and learning that the proper classification for that species is parafascists.

    Cuz, you know, if we’re gonna commit to fascist-spotting, we have to be rigorous, accurate and obsessive-compulsive about it, or it isn’t fun.

  29. DrDick said,

    January 22, 2011 at 18:24

    You shouldn’t be so hard on the poor deluded boy. He probably also believes that virgins can get pregnant.

  30. vs Ruppert said,

    January 22, 2011 at 18:25

    The fact is that people get married for a variety of different reasons:
    `love
    `sexual attraction
    `security
    `procreation
    and if you’re trying to star in your own kooky romantic comedy, a green card.

    I think that if we want to go down the path this fucknut is suggesting, we should start making little quizzes for couples who want to get married:

    1.) For which purpose do you want to get married? Check as many as necessary.

    2.) Will you be having buttsex or engaging in other sexual activities that could POSSIBLY not result in procreation? Check yes or no.

  31. vs said,

    January 22, 2011 at 18:26

    Anyone else’s happiness, anywhere, diminishes my marriage. That’s why I try to create as much unhappiness as I can.

    I know you’re joking but that really is the basis for most of wingnut thought.

  32. N__B said,

    January 22, 2011 at 18:29

    Don’t call me Shirley.

  33. DrDick said,

    January 22, 2011 at 18:29

    If you cede the ground of social-science empirical arguments

    Speaking as a social scientist with some expertise in the topic, may I say there is nothing to cede as the social science is incontrovertibly against him. Somebody may want to contact the NY State bar association about this guy’s legal competence.

  34. bughunter said,

    January 22, 2011 at 18:30

    Awesome. Teh very first mango, shorter, is “See, when you legalized contraceptives, we Catholics told you so! Now teh gays want to get married and not have babbys, too!”

    Fucking hilarious.

  35. DrDick said,

    January 22, 2011 at 18:31

    The fact is that people get married for a variety of different reasons:

    You forgot one of the most important from a cross-cultural perspective, MONEY (or at least economic security), which is the primary reason most people in the world get married.

  36. Open Cahoots said,

    January 22, 2011 at 18:32

    if you’re trying to star in your own kooky romantic comedy

    Always.

  37. vs said,

    January 22, 2011 at 18:37

    DrDick, I think that kind of falls under the umbrella of security…but, yes, exactly.

  38. klyde said,

    January 22, 2011 at 18:47

    OT- But did anyone else see an ad for for profit colleges that looked like a Sadly,No! posting?

  39. DrDick said,

    January 22, 2011 at 18:55

    But did anyone else see an ad for for profit colleges that looked like a Sadly,No! posting?

    Yes. Those have been around for quite a while and I see them on other blogs as well. Kind of annoying, but you quickly learn to spot them.

  40. Arky said,

    January 22, 2011 at 19:12

    Marriage is for Baby Making isn’t just false* it’s really kind of … sad. It reduces the act of getting married to a mating ritual.

    I mean, don’t get me wrong. Grebes are cool and all, but we’re not grebes.

    *See: unmarried baby makers and married non-baby makers.

  41. Gerald Fnord said,

    January 22, 2011 at 19:31

    Maybe this was obvious and was handled as it was for the sake of making fun of the author, but I read his ‘vastly more likely’ as an attempt to be funny through understatement.

    To quote a Terry Pratchett book:

    Mr Pin hated the sight of Charlie trying to be clever. It was like watching a dog try to play the trombone.

  42. Gordon, the Big Express Engine said,

    January 22, 2011 at 19:36

    What is it with these guys thinking it would be okay with their employers that they have gigs on the side as bloggers taking stands on the controversal issues of the day?

  43. Substance McGravitas said,

    January 22, 2011 at 19:37

    Mirengoff has not posted anything at Powerwhite since January 15.

    I enjoy that.

  44. jim said,

    January 22, 2011 at 19:41

    Hell of a major fuckload of pristine real-estate on that boy’s forehead or what?

    Also, non sequiturs make crappy dogma.

  45. moderately good looking not so hunchback said,

    January 22, 2011 at 19:47

    Awesome photoshop!!

  46. N__B said,

    January 22, 2011 at 19:52

    Hell of a major fuckload of pristine real-estate on that boy’s forehead or what?

    Are you looking to rent billboard space? Bad demographic of viewers, if you ask me.

  47. Newt Gingrich said,

    January 22, 2011 at 20:01

    My first wife and I had to split up, because homosexual marriage made a mockery of our marriage.

    And then my second wife and I had to split up, because homosexual marriage made a mockery of our marriage.

    And my friends Ronald Reagan, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani all said the exact same thing happened to them.

  48. KWillow said,

    January 22, 2011 at 20:04

    I thought butt-fucking was how Repugs were conceived.

  49. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 22, 2011 at 20:10

    “It appears to be his discovery that butt-fucking doesn’t always result in a pregnancy.”.

    The huge anount of anecdata available to me supports that statement.

  50. Mysticdog said,

    January 22, 2011 at 20:11

    think I can provide my expert opinion that there is no risk of pregnancy from any of them.

    Then what the fuck have I been sending child support payments to Roberto for?!?! That SON OF A BITCH!

  51. The Press said,

    January 22, 2011 at 20:35

    “We asked a guy! And for confirmation, another guy! What more do you want?”

    Actually, yeah. About that.
    Sorry, but you gotta pay extra up front for the “ANOTHER guy” thing now. Optimizing payroll expenses is a bitch, yo.
    What? You think these selective oversimplistic comforting narratives just write THEMSELVES?

  52. don said,

    January 22, 2011 at 21:00

    Who the flock ARE these guys?? He looks like the kind of creep your Mom warned you never to talk to on your way home from school…Republitwats just HAVE to get their noses into our sex lives. Fer shame…

  53. pedestrian said,

    January 22, 2011 at 21:00

    and if you’re trying to star in your own kooky romantic comedy, a green card.

    I could write a semi-autobiographical tale about a bi-national gay male couple and a bi-national lesbian couple who fall and love and intermarry. But I’m too lazy.

  54. don said,

    January 22, 2011 at 21:02

    And, just what the planet needs…MORE people, as we approach 7 billion worldwide. Yeah, keep breeding, that’ll fix things. Idiots.

  55. creature said,

    January 22, 2011 at 21:03

    I quit arguing the ‘why gay marriage’ thing with anyone. Too infuriating and a drain of energy. With a transgendered kid, a gay male couple as godparents to our L’I'll Creaturette, and numerous gay/lesbian friends, I avoid simpletons as much as possible.
    The last shop I was at was full of klansmen and sub-humans, but the old libertarian codger was surprisingly open about gay rights- he felt it was too much government intervention on privacy. He had a lesbian daughter- it seems reality has its advantages, once one get ‘real’.
    This attorney couldn’t argue a parking ticket. His logic machine is in disrepair.

  56. DrDick said,

    January 22, 2011 at 21:08

    Republitwats just HAVE to get their noses into our sex lives.

    I think that is because most of them don’t actually have one of their own, except occasionally when Rosie Palm relents and doesn’t scream “NO!”

  57. The Press said,

    January 22, 2011 at 21:11

    Oh, also: this kind of thing really scorches our tits RAW.

    We don’t mind being amoral power-whores one bit … but we HATE it when anyone proves it.

  58. jim said,

    January 22, 2011 at 21:15

    Yeah, keep breeding, that’ll fix things.

    The quick, no-fuss, set-it-&-forget-it fix … that just happens to be deadly.

    POBODY’S NERFECT!

  59. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 22, 2011 at 21:39

    The burden of establishing the complete absence of such a rational basis is on the proponents of court-mandated “marriage equality.”

    Put the law degree back in the cracker-jack box.

  60. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 22, 2011 at 21:45

    How is babby formed?

    It’s interesting that McLaughedAt uses the word “produced” – I guess he doesn’t care much for adoption or actually raising children – just the “production” part. Note to teh ladies, in the world of Family Values, you are wombs before you are people.

  61. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 22, 2011 at 21:48

    Hell of a major fuckload of pristine real-estate on behind that boy’s forehead or what?

    FiXXor3D for moar behinds.

  62. smut clyde said,

    January 22, 2011 at 21:51

    A smorgasbord has Swedish meatballs, while a buffet MAY or MAY NOT have Swedish meatballs.

    Ummm, I think I’ll have the smorrebrod instead.

  63. DrDick said,

    January 22, 2011 at 21:52

    FiXXor3D for moar behinds.

    I think that “barren, lifeless, and uninhabitable desert” would better describe what lies behind that snowy brow.

  64. smut clyde said,

    January 22, 2011 at 21:55

    just HAVE to get their noses into our sex lives

    DOIN IT RONG.

  65. vs said,

    January 22, 2011 at 21:57

    “just HAVE to get their noses into our sex lives

    DOIN IT RONG.”

    Don’t judge me!

  66. Lurking Canadian said,

    January 22, 2011 at 21:59

    You don’t suppose, and I’m just spitballing here, that maybe the fact that laws and bias have made it difficult to impossible for gay people to adopt might have some impact on the incidence of parenthood in the gay community? At least, you know, potentially?

  67. smut clyde said,

    January 22, 2011 at 22:03

    Grebes are cool and all, but we’re not grebes.

    Courtship behavior of the common penguin begins with the male quickly but gently making a grab for the female’s shins… an irresistible object to the male penguin… Meanwhile he lightly slaps the female’s spleen with he cheeks and caresses her nose with intermittent pauses for kisses on the knees… all the while chirping to the melody of ‘honky-tonk woman’.

  68. smut clyde said,

    January 22, 2011 at 22:05

    a major fuckload of pristine real-estate behind that boy’s forehead or what?

    boundless and bare
    The lone and level sands stretch far away.

  69. vs said,

    January 22, 2011 at 22:05

    Hot.

  70. Lurking Canadian said,

    January 22, 2011 at 22:07

    Look on my argument, ye libs, and despair?

  71. vs said,

    January 22, 2011 at 22:08

    This totally makes me want to have an anal babby…just to prove this guy wrong.

  72. Candy said,

    January 22, 2011 at 22:15

    Until I commenced my paralegal studies, I thought one had to be super-smart to become a lawyer; I now realize that, while probably statistically brighter than your average Brawndo-swilling citizen, many a fine young douche bag has managed to graduate from law school and pass the bar exam.

  73. DrDick said,

    January 22, 2011 at 22:17

    This totally makes me want to have an anal babby…just to prove this guy wrong.

    As others have noted, that is where lawyers and Republicans come from. You may want to reconsider.

  74. Candy said,

    January 22, 2011 at 22:19

    Little Debbie, Althouse, Reynolds et al. Too. Also.

  75. vs said,

    January 22, 2011 at 22:20

    See what you homo-huggers have wrought?

  76. DrDick said,

    January 22, 2011 at 22:21

    I thought one had to be super-smart to become a lawyer

    In my experience (and there are notable exceptions), they are not notably brighter than your average university graduate, but are quite anal compulsive and willing to work very hard without ever asking if doing so is actually necessary..

  77. Candy said,

    January 22, 2011 at 22:34

    You’re right, DrDick, some of the students at the legal clinic where I did my paralegal internship were more than a little compulsive, very intense, and some were already suffering the consequences. On the other hand, many were bright, funny, compassionate people. Of course, the students at my clinic were working in poverty law, so they probably were not representative of the corporate law types, with whom I’ve had little experience.

  78. Suzan said,

    January 22, 2011 at 22:44

    How anyone checked to see if he got his “law” degree from one of the fraudulent Pat Robertson xtian “law” factories?

    I’m just using legal reasoning.

    Suzan

  79. tigris said,

    January 22, 2011 at 22:50

    Geek, dweeb or spazz?

    False trichotomy.

    Also, if anal sex doesn’t produced babies how come folks are always “dropping their kids off at the pool?”

    You think these selective oversimplistic comforting narratives just write THEMSELVES?

    ooh, I can see it now, plus ombotsmen, the “Dear ELIZA” column…

  80. tigris said,

    January 22, 2011 at 22:52

    See what you homo-huggers have wrought?

    AW! The cute makes me support homonups more than ever.

  81. paleotectonics said,

    January 22, 2011 at 22:53

    Arky said,

    January 22, 2011 at 17:12

    I did a little research (an activity Mr. McLaughin should try sometime) and I was unable to single state statute that lists “Promises to Make Babies” as one of the requirements for marriage.

    Neither could I find any statutes that prohibit married people from purchasing birth control.

    Yeah Arky, but they’ve got the thought, it’s in their queue, following outlawing abortion, democracy, miscegenation, and making Matlock the Supreme Court Super-Justice Who’s Cool.

    Look at those bullshit conscience clauses – birth control is in the mix.

    Also.

  82. Snidely Whiplash said,

    January 22, 2011 at 22:54

    I wish Exford had dropped by at the conclusion of the last thread. At least HE would have appreciated Palo Alto Bluesthe only fucking song I’ve written in my entire life.

    You are all heartless phiistines. I’m going away now to have a good sulk.

    I got nothin’ on this topic. But it seems to have something to do with lawyers and love.

  83. DrDick said,

    January 22, 2011 at 22:56

    anyone checked to see if he got his “law” degree from one of the fraudulent Pat Robertson xtian “law” factories?

    Sadly, he is Harvard Law. This from his bio over at Sidley’s website:

    “He regularly represents major broker-dealers, underwriters, banks and other financial institutions and industry groups as well as foreign sovereign entities in litigation under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).”

    Clearly a real sweetheart with a huge social conscience.

  84. paleotectonics said,

    January 22, 2011 at 23:00

    smut clyde said,

    January 22, 2011 at 22:03

    Hey, that reminds me, a newspaper did an article where a basset hound (sorry M. Bogg, you may not want to know this) got a freak on with an antelope and produced basselopes!

    HA! WIN! SUCK IT, ME!

  85. smut clyde said,

    January 22, 2011 at 23:02

    Before Snidely Whiplash signs off and heads for the tub, this is a convenient point to state another of the Rules of S,N! discourse:
    #17. Quotations from Bloom County are always acceptable.

    Little Debbie, Althouse, Reynolds et al. Too. Also.
    To be fair, there are probably even more fuckknuckle right-blogging psychologists than there are lawyers.

  86. paleotectonics said,

    January 22, 2011 at 23:02

    FUTagFail.

  87. paleotectonics said,

    January 22, 2011 at 23:03

    AAAAH BEGONE EXPELLIARWHATEVERTHE HELL!

  88. paleotectonics said,

    January 22, 2011 at 23:03

    help

  89. smut clyde said,

    January 22, 2011 at 23:03

    PALEOTECTONICS BROKE THE TAGS

  90. paleotectonics said,

    January 22, 2011 at 23:06

    die WP

    Try this! TWO hats, bitches!

  91. S. cerevisiae said,

    January 22, 2011 at 23:09

    He should sue Harvard. Obviously they failed.

  92. paleotectonics said,

    January 22, 2011 at 23:09

    Uggh. I’ll give 50 millions dollars to whoever takes my HTML-fu out behind the barn and buttsechses it.

  93. vs said,

    January 22, 2011 at 23:10

    Basselopes are nothing to joke about.

  94. S. cerevisiae said,

    January 22, 2011 at 23:11

    Oh-oh, you are going to get a stern talking-to from the management.

  95. Italics said,

    January 22, 2011 at 23:12

    Revenge is dish best served cold and slightly tilting.

  96. M. Bouffant said,

    January 22, 2011 at 23:12

    Doot-de-doot-de-do.

  97. Tintin said,

    January 22, 2011 at 23:14

    People, don’t play with tags if you don’t understand them. That’s why you can’t have nice things.

  98. Chris said,

    January 22, 2011 at 23:16

    Now the New York Times has given us some statistics from the Census Bureau that confirm the relatively low number of same-sex couples that are raising children

    In how many states of the U.S. is gay adoption actually legal? I only ask, because, in evaluating the question of whether or not gays are productively raising children, and if so why not, it seems like that might shed a LITTLE light upon the subject, MAYBE.

    Christ on a pogo stick. It’s like making it illegal for black people to hold any position higher than janitor, then pointing and saying “see? There are no black intellectuals or nuclear physicists or captains of industry, so this proves black people are dumb and we shouldn’t let them into those jobs!”

    Not that I’m implying ANY connection or similarity between the people who did that to blacks and the people now doing that to gays, naturally.

  99. M. Bouffant said,

    January 22, 2011 at 23:17

    Hey, the LEAFS really do SUCK!!

  100. DrDick said,

    January 22, 2011 at 23:19

    There are no black intellectuals or nuclear physicists or captains of industry, so this proves black people are dumb and we shouldn’t let them into those jobs!”

    The conservatives (notably William Buckley) tried that back in the day (some still are trying it). They really are one trick ponies.

  101. tigris said,

    January 22, 2011 at 23:25

    People, don’t play with tags if you don’t understand them.

    Playing with italics is vastly less likely to produce children.

  102. paleotectonics said,

    January 22, 2011 at 23:25

    sorry mr. tintin sir grovelgrovel

  103. vs said,

    January 22, 2011 at 23:27

    Playing with italics is vastly less likely to produce children.

    I’m gonna have a tilt-y babby just to prove you wrong!

  104. paleotectonics said,

    January 22, 2011 at 23:34

    Give it a rest VS. By my count your are up to spending the next 25 3/4 months preggers. You’ll get knackered, baby…

  105. N__B said,

    January 22, 2011 at 23:36

    Sadly, he is Harvard Law.

    My brother and sister-in-law met at Harvard Law. They’re both morons. Take from this whatever moral you choose.

  106. Candy said,

    January 22, 2011 at 23:44

    To be fair, there are probably even more fuckknuckle right-blogging psychologists than there are lawyers.

    They have more time on their hands, I would imagine. When you think your shrink is listening to your deepest, most heart felt issues with your mom, he or she is really thinking about how to use your messed-up life history to prove that liberals are all teh crazee.

  107. N__B said,

    January 22, 2011 at 23:51

    When you think your shrink is listening to your deepest, most heart felt issues with your mom, he or she is really thinking about how to use your messed-up life history to prove that liberals are all teh crazee. playing Angry Birds.

    Fiqqst for more anal ist humor.

  108. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 23, 2011 at 0:06

    I wanted to be a psychiatrist, but only so that I could get people to tell me about their mothers.

  109. vs said,

    January 23, 2011 at 0:08

    When you think your shrink is listening to your deepest, most heart felt issues with your mom, he or she is really thinking about how to use your messed-up life history to prove that liberals are all teh crazee. playing Angry Birds.

    I’m playing Angry Birds as I write this.

    (SRSLY, how great is Angry Birds?)

  110. DrDick said,

    January 23, 2011 at 0:12

    Take from this whatever moral you choose.

    I shall take it as confirmation of my point above about lawyers.

  111. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 23, 2011 at 0:20

    There are many reasons I decided not to go to law school, and having to spend a lot of time with law students was one of them.

  112. N__B said,

    January 23, 2011 at 0:22

    There are many reasons I decided not to go to law school, and having to spend a lot of time with law students was one of them.

    That’s also a good reason not to become a stripper.

  113. DrDick said,

    January 23, 2011 at 0:30

    That’s also a good reason not to become a stripper.

    You get to meet a lot of brokers and traders that way as well.

  114. exford legs said,

    January 23, 2011 at 0:40

    ‘Your kid is called Dudeskull?’

    ‘No, Dudeskull

    ‘Dudeskull?’

    Dudeskull.

    ‘Oh, Dudeskull

    ‘Yeah, that’s it.’

  115. That Girl said,

    January 23, 2011 at 0:43

    Yes, this makes sense. If gay people are told that they have no hope of gay marriage ever being legalized, they’ll get over this whole “being teh ghey” thing and go marry an “opposite sex” partner and have a bunch of babbys. They wouldn’t just, say, continue to live with their same sex partners and enjoy life together. Conversely, also too, if gay marriage is legalized, all heterosexuals will immediately become gay when they find out they can be gay married. The human race will, then, die out.

    Re lawyers being smart: I took the California bar — the bar exam that has the rep of being the most difficult — and it was pretty easy. That doesn’t mean I’m super smart, or anything. It just means that the bar exam isn’t that difficult, so most idiots can pass it.

  116. Shell Goddamnit said,

    January 23, 2011 at 0:56

    Thank you for the basselope, it’s a thing of beauty. “Slobber device” is my favorite.

  117. Smut Clyde said,

    January 23, 2011 at 1:03

    That’s also a good reason not to become a stripper.
    You get to meet a lot of brokers and traders that way as well.

    This aspect of DrDick’s CV does not feature on his university webpage.

  118. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 23, 2011 at 1:13

    That’s also a good reason not to become a stripper.

    Oh, Jesus, I know! There was this one lawyer who was always…..

    nevermind.

  119. DrDick said,

    January 23, 2011 at 1:18

    This aspect of DrDick’s CV does not feature on his university webpage.

    All entirely in the name of social science research mind you.

  120. Embarrassed Lawyer said,

    January 23, 2011 at 1:26

    I wonder if it’s too late for me to go to cooking school.

  121. Smut Clyde said,

    January 23, 2011 at 1:28

    All entirely in the name of social science research mind you.
    D-KW uses the same excuse for his own activities.

  122. DrDick said,

    January 23, 2011 at 1:31

    D-KW uses the same excuse for his own activities.

    I worked quite closely with his mother during my research.

  123. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 23, 2011 at 1:33

    Excuse? I’ll have you know that jiggle physics is a very important science.

  124. N__B said,

    January 23, 2011 at 1:46

    I’ll have you know that jiggle physics is a very important science.

    I’ll have you know the correct term is breast physics.

  125. Shakira's Ass said,

    January 23, 2011 at 1:52

    Is it getting warm in here?

  126. N__B said,

    January 23, 2011 at 1:55

    Must be the leather pants you’re encased in.

  127. DrDick said,

    January 23, 2011 at 1:56

    Is it getting warm in here?

    Not sure about that, but I think I felt the earth move.

  128. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 23, 2011 at 1:58

    And a couple of days later, the clips from the interview were up on the Andy Breitbart blog, a right-wing blog.

    I guess we can be glad they didn’t go the fuzzy handcuffs and sex tape machine route.

  129. N__B said,

    January 23, 2011 at 1:59

    fuzzy handcuffs

    Magnetized and covered in iron filings?

  130. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 23, 2011 at 2:04

    By the way, have I mentioned that Sex Tape Machine is the name of my new band? Or Obvious Sex Tape Machine. I haven’t decided yet.

  131. DrDick said,

    January 23, 2011 at 2:18

    I guess we can be glad they didn’t go the fuzzy handcuffs and sex tape machine route.

    I think there are some folks around here who are disappointed that there is no sex tape.

  132. tigris said,

    January 23, 2011 at 2:24

    All entirely in the name of social science research mind you.

    The peer-review process doesn’t usually feature quite so many bills stuck in your g-string.

  133. vs said,

    January 23, 2011 at 2:30

    Hey, N_B, I watched Despicable Me tonight. Cute. Very cute. My favorite line: IT’S SO FLUFFY!!!!

    Hee!

  134. vs said,

    January 23, 2011 at 2:35

    Hey, did anyone else find Heath Ledger’s performance as The Joker to be really labored and irritating? All those tics! Jebus, we GET it.

  135. Smut Clyde said,

    January 23, 2011 at 2:40

    The peer-review process doesn’t usually feature quite so many bills stuck in your g-string.
    I haz photo of DrDick.
    I haz Photoshop.
    This will not end well.

  136. vs said,

    January 23, 2011 at 2:43

    Christian Bale, though…yum.

  137. DrDick said,

    January 23, 2011 at 2:49

    This will not end well.

    Especially for anyone who has to look at that photo.

  138. vs said,

    January 23, 2011 at 2:59

    When Christie pals around with terrorists he really pals AROUND with terrorists

  139. Ice Nine-Tails Whiplash said,

    January 23, 2011 at 3:37

    Okay, I give up. No more sulking. Here’s a parting gift.

    Perhaps the younger Sadlies don’t know the late John Lee Hooker. I imagined Hooker’s voice when writing Palo Alto Blues. (Among the other voices in my head.)

    This is a duet with Bonnie Riatt. If you like good bottleneck work, stick around for her solo. She has the chops.

    Plus Bonnie Riatt is totally hawt! (Redheads. Only once, and so long ago.) Don’t believe it? Stick around to the end [5:20].

  140. Ice Nine-Tails Whiplash said,

    January 23, 2011 at 3:41

    VS: Two possible names, both derived from this thread:

    Angry Bird (native American?)

    Harvard Law (already elite)

    And thanks for the weaponized basselope. Still, he’s not as scary as the Fears in the Binkley’s closet.

  141. Ice Nine-Tails Whiplash said,

    January 23, 2011 at 3:42

    Angry Bird is also useful when the bebe is cranky.

  142. vs said,

    January 23, 2011 at 3:43

    Ha! That’s true. Gosh, I’d forgotten those chapters of BC…

  143. St. Trotsky, Pope-in-Avignon said,

    January 23, 2011 at 4:13

    Personally, I’m in favor of more posts that combine the stupidity of wingnuts with videos of Phoenix Wright and Avenue Q, just to see how many of the Sadlies are up to snuff on culture.

    Or perhaps just reply to every supposition by a wingnut with the “Professor Layton gets an answer wrong” sequence.

  144. N__B said,

    January 23, 2011 at 4:23

    Hey, did anyone else find Heath Ledger’s performance as The Joker to be really labored and irritating?

    Someone’s watching TNT…

    I sort of liked Ledger’s act. I was disappointed they killed off Two Face so fast – he’s under-rated as a Batman villain.

  145. N__B said,

    January 23, 2011 at 4:24

    Very cute. My favorite line:

    “Bank of Evil, formerly Lehman Brothers.”

  146. St. Trotsky, Pope-in-Avignon said,

    January 23, 2011 at 4:42

    I sort of liked Ledger’s act. I was disappointed they killed off Two Face so fast – he’s under-rated as a Batman villain.

    I suppose after something like a decade of Batman movies always ending in the death of the villains, I’ve gotten used to the prospect that the conclusion of the movies would wind up killing a dude. That Scarecrow has survived is something of an outlier, like when Jim Carrey’s Riddler only went to the nuthouse.

  147. rodertrudis said,

    January 23, 2011 at 5:15

    For almost two years I dated a beautiful blond man girl. She was so beautiful it was a problem so that I had to start carrying a gun so other dudes wouldn’t steal her from me. When I applied for my permit to carry, the police interviewer asked me why I needed the gun, and I told him I dated a really beautiful girl and dudes were always trying to steal her away from me. He asked if I had any proof, so I showed him her picture. He went pale as milk. He told me that my “girl” was actually a dude. I got really mad at the cop and asked him how the hell he knew that and he told me because she was his brother who had got a sex change about three years earlier. He said she was not a natural blond either. Well, this really upset me, but I didn’t show it, because I didn’t want to blow the permit. So I told him I didn’t care she had dyed her hair. He said I could have my permit, but I had to promise that I wouldn’t tell his brother that I knew she was a he or that I had met her brother. I said ok. He also told me that I shouldn’t get mad at her because he had always wanted to be a girl, because when he was little boy he played with dolls and wore their mama’s high heel shoes around the house and said he wanted to look like Debbie Reynolds.

    Once I got my permit to carry I felt a lot better about going out in public because I knew that all I would have to do to scare away the other dudes was wave my pistol around. Well, one day a group of dudes followed us out of the Shoney’s and surrounded us at the car. One of the dudes said “We’re going to take your chick, punk, and there ain’t nothing you can do about it.” My girlfriend told me to show them my gun. Then the dudes all ran away, scared. After that things were never the same so we broke up.

  148. N__B said,

    January 23, 2011 at 5:28

    I suppose after something like a decade of Batman movies always ending in the death of the villains, I’ve gotten used to the prospect that the conclusion of the movies would wind up killing a dude.

    Putting aside the issue of predictability, it’s unfortunate. The best Batman stories are always about the same topic – fear – and killing off the bad guys tends to release the pressure.

  149. C.C. Fuss said,

    January 23, 2011 at 6:05

    Playing with italics is vastly less likely to produce children.

    Oh yeah, but the blink tag…. On Off On Off On Off On Off*

    Anyway, I guess my marriage shouldn’t have been allowed. Owing to a certain surgical procedure, it is as much vastly less likely that it will produce children as it is that a same-sex marriage will do so. Much as in a gay marriage, we do not have all the required equipment to grow our own. Heheh. I’m in ur hallowed social institution, devaluing ur marriagez…

    * ‘Huh? Where’d it go?….Oh, there it is…Huh?…..’

  150. Spengler Dampniche's Auto-Post Apparatus, Still In Beta said,

    January 23, 2011 at 6:25

    These fuckers. My wife and I can’t have any nippers because they’d come out looking like a cross between Betty Boop and a dolphin. But we got married anyway. I find this kind of argument — that marriage has some goddamn programming to fulfill beyond the simple commitment of two loving people — shockingly offensive.

  151. St. Trotsky, Pope-in-Avignon said,

    January 23, 2011 at 6:46

    And let’s address some of the other problems here.

    The argument is “to produce children”. But how are we defining “children” as a quota? Because to me, children suggests multiple figures. So if a couple only produces one child, are they then devaluing the necessary children-to-marriage ratio?

    Is the argument then that if one does not meet up to the 2.5 children numerics, one is engaged in invalid shammery?! And if so, are they not suggesting that all only children are, by their very nature, illegitimate and therefore bastards of all manner?

    I don’t know what to make of all this, but y’know who else called me a bastard?

  152. St. Trotsky, Pope-in-Avignon said,

    January 23, 2011 at 6:47

    (The answer is Stalin, by the way.)

  153. C.C. Fuss said,

    January 23, 2011 at 6:53

    Stalin!

  154. Spengler Dampniche's Auto-Post Apparatus, Still In Beta said,

    January 23, 2011 at 7:55

    Was it Lenin?

  155. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 23, 2011 at 8:06

    Kids, if you don’t want to have to fight trolls with ant-sized brains with one arm tied behind your back while you’re half-baked and slightly drunk, don’t mention Erick Erickson’s name 5-10 times on Twitter in the span of 10 minutes.

    I mean, I guess I could ignore them, but their pure inability to understand ANYTHING I say on ANY level is rather amusing to me. Also, their inability to pick up on insults.

  156. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 23, 2011 at 8:09

    It’s like arguing monetary policy with a three-year-old while he just wants to talk about horsies. If I gave a fuck, I’d almost feel bad for them.

  157. S. cerevisiae said,

    January 23, 2011 at 8:18

    But.. SOSHULIZM! ..and…CAUSE I SAID SO… and …SHUT UP THAT’S WHY!

  158. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 23, 2011 at 8:22

    I asked this dude what he thought Erick Erickson meant when he tweeted: “Does Atlanta need its own version of Katrina to get its schools fixed?” He responded: “I think for myself!”

    I know, sweetie. That’s why I asked you what you *thought*.

  159. C.C. Fuss said,

    January 23, 2011 at 8:44

    For some reason, that reminds me of some experiments done with little kids. They have two experimenters (or puppets or something) and Experimenter 2 watches Experimenter 1 hide an object in a box. 2 then leaves the room, and 1 moves the object to a new place. When you ask very young kids where 2 will look for the object when she comes back, they say the new place, because they can’t differentiate between what they know and what everyone knows. Older kids have learned the difference and have the concept of false beliefs, so they reply that 2 will look in the original hiding place.

    …..Uh, anyway, I’m saying that maybe these guys never developed to the point of being able to grasp the highly sophisticated concept of thinking about what someone else thinks….

  160. Christopher said,

    January 23, 2011 at 9:42

    Amazingly, this isn’t just a stupid argument, it’s an unusually stupid version of a stupid argument.

    Most wingnuts would just say “Gay folks can’t have kids” and leave it at that, but Dan torpedoes his own argument by including statistics about gay couples who have kids.

    I assume that Dan didn’t just cite those statistics for no reason at all, so he must be implying that the 34% of gay couples with kids are just as acceptable kid-havers as all the straights with kids.

    Which means that the government has a significant interest in promoting gay marriage, on the condition that the gay people adopt.

    Meanwhile, Dan’s own preferred solution of civil unions doesn’t do anything to promote the government’s interest in making babies, and in fact could even be counter-productive, by making gay couplehood more appealing to childless couples.

    So, even if we accept every one of Dan’s ludicrous premises, his argument doesn’t follow at all.

    I find it disappointing that a lawyer with years of experience has worse argumentative skills then any given member of a high school debate team, among whom I include the kids who only compete in that event where you have to improvise a short after dinner speech based on a Yogi Berra quote and then end the round by loudly badmouthing the judge to their friends while he’s still in the same room.

  161. N__B said,

    January 23, 2011 at 12:07

    He responded: “I think for myself!”

    The epilogue “I’m a big boy” remained unspoken, eh?

  162. Newt Gingrich said,

    January 23, 2011 at 14:13

    Law enforcement sources tell us … the 28-year-old defensive powerhouse was named in a police report filed by a woman who claims the whole thing went down after Komisarek decided to lift her up in the air at a Hollywood nightclub.

    We’re told the woman claims she demanded Komisarek put her down — but he refused — so she slapped him in the face.

    The woman claims Komisarek immediately set her down … and then punched her in the face, causing her to bleed.

    The woman claims Komisarek left the club … so she went to the cops. We’re told investigators are hoping to speak with the NHL star as soon as they get the chance.

    So far, no comment from Komisarek’s camp.

    Didn’t Harold Ballard once say, “If you can’t beat ‘em in the nightclub, you can’t beat ‘em on the ice.”…?

  163. Ooops.... said,

    January 23, 2011 at 14:31

    … that wasn’t Newt Gingrich, that was me.

  164. Newt Gingrich said,

    January 23, 2011 at 14:32

    Never post here with my name again!

  165. El Manquésito said,

    January 23, 2011 at 16:35

    Ah believe ole Newt done kilt the thread.

  166. N__B said,

    January 23, 2011 at 16:59

    Newt kills anything he dumps a load on.

  167. Ice Nine said,

    January 23, 2011 at 17:35

    Ah believe ole Newt done kilt the thread.

    It deserved to die. One of the dullest I’ve ever seen at S,N!

  168. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 23, 2011 at 17:48

    Mark Levin killed The thread. And Vince Foster.

  169. Spengler Dampniche's Auto-Post Apparatus, Still In Beta said,

    January 23, 2011 at 18:15

    I claim this thread for all humanity.

  170. moderately good looking not so hunchback said,

    January 23, 2011 at 18:43

    Thread is still alive!!
    NPR got it wrong.

  171. W. Kiernan said,

    January 23, 2011 at 18:49

    For the purpose of argument, let us provisionally adopt Esquire McLaughlin’s assertion that the principal reason homosexual marriage is unacceptable, is that the sole purpose of marriage is the production of offspring, while homosexual marriage can not result in pregnancy. That is, homosexual marriage is not wrong because the ancient author of Leviticus proscribed it (for males only), nor because esteemed modern moral authorities such as the Rev. Ted Haggard also proscribe it, but simply and singly because it is sterile. Let us further go along, provisionally, with his implications that a.) childless marriage is an abomination, b.) ditto artificial insemination, and c.) adoption is also out of the question. Finally, let’s assume that every marriage must meet the criterion of fertility. It is not enough that some marriages create children; all instances of whatever social arrangement we call “marriage,” to be acceptable to Mr. McLaughlin, must have the potential of making babies. (I hope you understand the reason why I am so strictly limiting the topic. It’s because I don’t want to have to chase his anti-homonups argument hither and thither like a lepidopterist with a net; I want to focus exclusively on the notion that homosexual marriage is immoral because of the no-babies aspect.)

    OK then. An average young man is capable of sexual intercourse at least once a day; women of child-bearing age are generally physically able to keep up with that rate of copulation, and surpass it. A female human can get pregnant no more than once every 270 days. I’m going to guess that even if one practices the rhythm method and schedules heterosexual intercourse for the most fertile times in the female partner’s menstrual cycle, one wouldn’t expect the woman to get pregnant every time, but one could expect that, say, ten or twenty acts of optimally timed heterosexual intercourse would, on the average, result in pregnancy.

    So now let us consider three regimens of sexual behavior with regards to Mr. McLaughlin’s criterion for acceptability. The first, traditional heterosexual marriage, obviously satisfies that criterion; babies get created, hooray! The second, exclusive homosexual marriage, obviously fails to meet that criterion; the entire species would go the way of the Shakers. How about this third: imagine a definition of “marriage” in which two males are married to one another and live together, and two females are married to one another and live together, and for thirteen days out of fourteen they go at it like rabbits, frolicking and reveling in loving mutual sensual gratification, and then once every couple of weeks they trade off partners and dutifully engage in heterosexual intercourse, in the interest of preserving the species. It follows by arithmetic that the all-important production of offspring would be every bit as successful under this third system as it would be under the traditional system of exclusive heterosexual marriage; the children would all have two parents per household to take care of them, everyone would be happy.

    Can I take it, then, that Mr. McLaughlin would be content with such a definition of “marriage”? If I take his argument at face value, the answer would have to be “yes,” but somehow I don’t think he actually would.

  172. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 23, 2011 at 18:54

    I include the kids who only compete in that event where you have to improvise a short after dinner speech based on a Yogi Berra quote and then end the round by loudly badmouthing the judge to their friends while he’s still in the same room.

    I thought he’d gone to the bathroom!

    The first real debate round I participated pretty much ended with one of our opponents saying, “Oh, yeah we’re totally screwed.” Good times.

  173. vs said,

    January 23, 2011 at 18:56

    Since it’s slow, I don’t feel guilty going into to some food porn. I’ve made two amazing meals in a row.

    Night before last, I made a tomato, sausage and fennel pasta sauce with fresh and sage and rosemary that was UNBELIEVABLE.

    And last night I made a pot roast with carrots and parsnips and shallots in the slow cooker that was a teeny bit dry, but the veggies were cooked to perfection and the gravy I made from the juices from the crockpot was one of the most flavorful and yummy I’ve ever had.

    The cooking liquid I was used was comprised of the following ingredients. They may seem odd, so bear with me:

    Beef broth
    Tomato paste
    Worcestershire sauce
    Horseradish
    Red wine
    Soy sauce
    Fresh parsley and rosemary

    Just a little of the “weird” ingredients. Seriously…one of the most delicious gravies I’ve ever tasted.

    Served it over smashed fingerling potatoes. Yum!

  174. N__B said,

    January 23, 2011 at 19:03

    Fingering potatoes sounds like an activity that would get Jack McCoy all het up.

  175. Snorghagen said,

    January 23, 2011 at 19:03

    (The thread) deserved to die. One of the dullest I’ve ever seen at S,N!

    I found it spectacular, sensational, sweeping in scope, exuberantly lyrical, masterfully constructed, classical in its lucidity and yet baroque in its deep sense of drama and excitement. And there was a reference to Newt Gingrich’s poopoo!

  176. N__B said,

    January 23, 2011 at 19:07

    And there was a reference to Newt Gingrich’s poopoo!

    [Bows, sweeping the floor with the ostrich feather in my hat as I take it from my head.]

  177. vs said,

    January 23, 2011 at 19:08

    There were BASSELOPES, for chrissakes. I dig this thread.

  178. vs said,

    January 23, 2011 at 19:16

    Fingering potatoes sounds like an activity that would get Jack McCoy all het up.

    And it would get Bill the Cat, the veggisexual, all aroused.

  179. Charles G. Ruppert Dickens said,

    January 23, 2011 at 19:21

    It was the best of threads, it was the worst of threads; it was a thread of wisdom from the heartland, it was a thread of the usual lunatics posting the usual shit, which indeed, was central to their point…

  180. How's your blood pressure? said,

    January 23, 2011 at 19:25

    http://www.fox43.com/news/nationworld/sc-dc-0122-thomas-disclosure-20110121,0,5735004.story

    WASHINGTON…Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed over the course of at least five years to report his wife’s income from a conservative think-tank on his financial disclosures, according to the watchdog group Common Cause.

    Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, was paid $686,589 by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, according to a Common Cause review of IRS records. Thomas failed to note the income in his financial disclosure forms for those years, choosing instead to check a box titled “none” where “spousal non-investment income” would normally be disclosed.

  181. N__B said,

    January 23, 2011 at 19:28

    2/3 of a million to buy a supreme? Who says there are no bargains?

  182. Snorghagen said,

    January 23, 2011 at 19:28

    There were BASSELOPES, for chrissakes. I dig this thread.

    And now, it’s got the Battle of Zama! And Nazi flying saucers!

    If you ask me, no thread can have too many Nazi flying saucers.

  183. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 23, 2011 at 19:37

    2/3 of a million to buy a supreme? Who says there are no bargains?

    I don’t know, that seems like an awful lot to pay for a pizza, even if it does have all the toppings.

  184. vs said,

    January 23, 2011 at 19:40

    And now, it’s got the Battle of Zama! And Nazi flying saucers!

    If you ask me, no thread can have too many Nazi flying saucers.

    Truly his thread is bounty of randomness.

  185. The Pentagon said,

    January 23, 2011 at 19:41

    I don’t know, that seems like an awful lot to pay for a pizza, even if it does have all the toppings.

    Hell, I pay that much for the little packets of parmesan cheese to shake on it.

  186. El Manquésito said,

    January 23, 2011 at 19:42

    $159,000 a year for a little part time action? I’m gonna have to talk to Soros about this.

  187. Snorghagen said,

    January 23, 2011 at 19:53

    Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, was paid $686,589 by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank… (Judge) Thomas failed to note the income in his financial disclosure forms

    Hell, the poor guy probably just forgot. I know people are always paying me hundreds of thousands of dollars for no particular reason. I hardly even pay attention to it anymore.

  188. N__B said,

    January 23, 2011 at 19:58

    I don’t know, that seems like an awful lot to pay for a pizza, even if it does have all the toppings.

    Mr. Justice Thomas is a bit short on toppings.

  189. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 23, 2011 at 20:02

    Hell, I pay that much for the little packets of parmesan cheese to shake on it.

    Time to switch from Cheney’s Pizza Palace to Domino’s, kiddos.

  190. Xecky Gilchrist said,

    January 23, 2011 at 20:10

    Time to switch from Cheney’s Pizza Palace to Domino’s, kiddos.

    They’re not as fun anymore since the Operation Rescue-supporting guy sold it off.

  191. N__B said,

    January 23, 2011 at 20:18

    They’re not as fun anymore since the Operation Rescue-supporting guy sold it off.

    Elephant scabs is elephant scabs.

  192. Snorghagen said,

    January 23, 2011 at 20:44

    Elephant scabs

    Now that’s a pizza topping.

  193. moderately good looking not so hunchback said,

    January 23, 2011 at 20:46

    non-union pachyderms

  194. smut clyde said,

    January 23, 2011 at 21:10

    Did someone say “Nazi flying saucers“?
    Also.

  195. Snorghagen said,

    January 23, 2011 at 21:45

    Did someone say “Nazi flying saucers“?

    Had it not been for this link, I would still be unaware that the Earth is facing the imminent threat of invasion by moon Nazis led by Udo Kier. Sweet sizzling Jesus, why hasn’t the lamestream media reported this?!?!?!

  196. El Manquésito said,

    January 23, 2011 at 21:53

    Nazi flying saucers“?

    Hippy flying saucers

  197. Whale Chowder said,

    January 23, 2011 at 22:11

    (Judge) Thomas failed to note the income in his financial disclosure forms

    Gee, if only there were a way to recall a Supreme Court Justice for high crimeƒ and misdemeanorƒ. Sadly, I’m afraid the current House will be unable to see any way under the Constitution for such an event to occur.

  198. Snorghagen said,

    January 23, 2011 at 22:12

    Nothing could withstand the power of an alliance of hippies, Nazis, and space aliens.

  199. El Manquésito said,

    January 23, 2011 at 22:15

    Nothing could withstand the power of an alliance of hippies, Nazis, and space aliens.

    Somehow I bet there’s going to be imipolex G in this somewhere.

  200. smut clyde said,

    January 23, 2011 at 22:23

    Time for a sequel, Mr Pynchon!

  201. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 23, 2011 at 22:47

    yo vs, I don’t see nuffin odd ’bout dem ingredients. And you used parsnips, so you did almost everything right.

    Meanwhile, I’m sitting in the execrable far end of the C gates at Dulles. For a couple hours, sigh. BUT, not long enough to pop over to the Udvar-Hazy to see what they have in the way of Nazi flying saucers. IT’S NOT FAIR!

    Plus too, Juses! Its fucking cold in Pennyslavia.

  202. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 23, 2011 at 22:56

    Thread is officially dead. Long live the thread. Please let us meet the new thread, same as the old thread.

  203. N__B said,

    January 23, 2011 at 23:09

    Its fucking cold in Pennyslavia.

    You should have gone to Pennyczeck.

    A few years ago, some genius in the Philadelphia municipal government decided that the old motto – “The City of Brotherly Love” – needed to be updated to something more modern and, perhaps, more macho. For a while, all of the garbage cans in the city bore the legend “Philadelphia: The City That Loves You Right Back.” My suggestion for anyone looking to amuse them self is to try saying that out loud with emphasis on the last two words.

  204. Substance McGravitas said,

    January 23, 2011 at 23:13

    Some asshole:

    To paraphrase Martin Niemöller’s famous admonition about complacency with totalitarian fascists: “First they came for Rush Limbaugh and called his satire racist, and I didn’t speak out because Rush Limbaugh is a conservative. Then they came for Dr. Laura and called her commentary racist, and I didn’t speak out because Dr. Laura is a conservative…”

    The fate of Rush Limbaugh was terrible: he was to remain a millionaire radio host. The fate of Dr. Laura was even worse: she was to remain a millionaire radio host.

  205. N__B said,

    January 23, 2011 at 23:18

    Some enchanted asshole
    That that you hear, a stranger,
    You may hear a stranger coming from the tube
    And somehow you know, you know even then,
    That somewhere you’ll see her again and again!

  206. Snorghagen said,

    January 23, 2011 at 23:20

    A few years ago, some genius in the Philadelphia municipal government decided that the old motto – “The City of Brotherly Love” – needed to be updated to something more modern and, perhaps, more macho.

    They should have gone with ‘Philadelphia – Fuck Crap Shit Piss.’ You can’t get more modern than that.

  207. El Manquésito said,

    January 23, 2011 at 23:21

    Frightbart wants them to come for him so he can become a millionaire radio host.

  208. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 23, 2011 at 23:22

    “That Loves You Right Back.”

    In south Philly they call that a reach-around.

  209. N__B said,

    January 23, 2011 at 23:22

    Perhaps one of you gridiron fans can help me. Why did the ref just call traveling on the Bears?

  210. Chris said,

    January 23, 2011 at 23:23

    To paraphrase Martin Niemöller’s famous admonition about complacency with totalitarian fascists: “First they came for Rush Limbaugh and called his satire racist, and I didn’t speak out because Rush Limbaugh is a conservative. Then they came for Dr. Laura and called her commentary racist, and I didn’t speak out because Dr. Laura is a conservative…”

    The single most painful part of being famous and quotable must be knowing how many people will use your words to defend immoral, idiotic and otherwise fucked up notions after you’re dead and gone.

  211. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 23, 2011 at 23:25

    To paraphrase Martin Niemöller’s famous admonition…

    I just. I can’t I don’t even…

  212. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 23, 2011 at 23:27

    “Why did the ref just call traveling on the Bears?”

    You doan no nuffins about the footsballz. That was icing, not travelling.

  213. N__B said,

    January 23, 2011 at 23:31

    That was icing, not travelling.

    Icing, I know. Hockey and baseball are the two sports I understand. Perhaps it’s the general lack of mostly-naked and/or spandex-clad women dancing near the area of play in those two that has enabled me to focus on the technicalities.

  214. El Manquésito said,

    January 23, 2011 at 23:38

    Perhaps it’s the general lack of mostly-naked and/or spandex-clad women dancing near the area of play in those two that has enabled me to focus on the technicalities.

    They have no effect on PeeJ, hence his ability to concentrate on the, er, technicalities.

    You’d like hurling which combines the best of hockey and baseball and has no cheerleaders.

  215. Snorghagen said,

    January 23, 2011 at 23:39

    More Big Hollywood goodness:

    They can’t defeat Rush on intellectual grounds.

    His intellectualationalism is far too powerful for the puny cultural muscles of the leftwussies.

  216. N__B said,

    January 23, 2011 at 23:41

    You’d like hurling which combines the best of hockey and baseball and has no cheerleaders.

    From what I saw of the Olympics, it has some fabulous pants.

  217. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 23, 2011 at 23:44

    To paraphrase Martin Niemöller’s famous admonition about complacency with totalitarian fascists:

    Being called a racist is just like being rounded up and grafted to your twin sister in an attempt to create conjoined twins and then dying of gangrene.

  218. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 23, 2011 at 23:48

    His intellectualationalism is far too powerful for the puny cultural muscles of the leftwussies.

    I’m terrified of his chops, but not his intellectual ones.

  219. M. Bouffant said,

    January 23, 2011 at 23:50

    grafted to your twin sister in an attempt to create conjoined twins and then dying of gangrene

    I laffed, but on reading it again I’m starting to worry about over-active imagination.

  220. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 23, 2011 at 23:50

    “You’d like hurling which combines the best of hockey and baseball and has no cheerleaders.”

    We had cheerleaders for my college hurling teamthou I’m pretty sure that was a different sport than what you are talking about. The sport in which i participated the shots were liquid.

  221. Chyron HR said,

    January 23, 2011 at 23:52

    They can’t defeat Rush on intellectual grounds.

    Nor on “composing songs that did not really need to be a whole album side long” grounds.

  222. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 23, 2011 at 23:54

    I laffed, but on reading it again I’m starting to worry about over-active imagination.

    Unfortunately, it actually happened. Mengele was a monster.

    And I am a terrible person for making a joke about it.

  223. El Manquésito said,

    January 23, 2011 at 23:57

    From what I saw of the Olympics, it has some fabulous pants.

    Not curling dude, hurling.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurling

  224. N__B said,

    January 23, 2011 at 23:58

    D’oh.

    I should stick to baseball and hockey.

  225. Matt T. said,

    January 24, 2011 at 0:02

    I’d love to hear how Rush’s bad Jay Hickman impersenation wasn’t racist. Seriously. Every time some jackass says something racist, the wingnut howler monkeys come out from under the refrigerator and screams that “It’s not racist and you’re a fascist for saying so!” or even better “You’re a race-baiter!” They rarely try to explain how it’s not racist.

    The only instance I can think of off the top of my head is when Don Imus tried to defend his “nappy-headed hos” comment with “Well, I call my wife the ‘Garden Ho’, so it’s okay”. Probably explains why we don’t hear more explanations for often.

  226. Chris said,

    January 24, 2011 at 0:11

    Every time some jackass says something racist, the wingnut howler monkeys come out from under the refrigerator and screams that “It’s not racist and you’re a fascist for saying so!”

    Yes. Because fascists are legendary for their tendency to portray their enemies as “racist.”

  227. M. Bouffant said,

    January 24, 2011 at 0:29

    Unfortunately, it actually happened. Mengele was a monster.

    I shoulda knowed. (Really, I should have, but that’s another story.)

    Don’t worry about how awful you are, I admitted to laughing.

  228. tigris said,

    January 24, 2011 at 0:29

    To paraphrase Martin Niemöller’s famous admonition about complacency with totalitarian fascists: “First they came for Rush Limbaugh and called his satire racist, and I didn’t speak out because Rush Limbaugh is a conservative. Then they came for Dr. Laura and called her commentary racist, and I didn’t speak out because Dr. Laura is a conservative…”

    I don’t think Niemöller was admonishing about complacency in the face of honest assessments that cause butthurt.

  229. Xecky Gilchrist said,

    January 24, 2011 at 0:49

    “First they came for Rush Limbaugh and called his satire racist, and I didn’t speak out because I’m a spite-driven fuckknuckle who gets a big schadenfreude woody whenever anybody other than me gets even mildly inconvenienced.”

    Fixt.

    Or is his paraphrase supposed to be from the POV of a liberal and not himself?

  230. tigris said,

    January 24, 2011 at 1:34

    Or is his paraphrase supposed to be from the POV of a liberal and not himself?

    That was my take: “Oh noez, liberals don’t complain when a conservative gets called racist after saying something racist!!” God knows he can’t complain that he and all his loudmouth compatriots stay quiet, they start bitching about being attacked the moment anyone raises an eyebrow in their general vicinity.

  231. St. Trotsky, Pope-in-Avignon said,

    January 24, 2011 at 1:43

    And I’m sure a man like Brietbert would be at the front line of civil defense if someone were to say, start rounding up the communists and trade unionists like in that fucking quote he decided to paraphrase. And not, say cheering on the dudes doing the rounding up.

  232. Bitter Scribe said,

    January 24, 2011 at 1:46

    I don’t believe it. This assclown comes up with a convoluted version of “they can’t have children” and considers it this brilliant insight? What a fucking tool.

  233. kate said,

    January 24, 2011 at 2:00

    I had to scroll down and add immediately that Mr. Mclaughlin reminds me of the boys I’d always wonder about in high school.

    While I was busy thinking of 1) when I’d score another bag of weed, get the hell out of the house and convince the cutie next to me to meet me, guys like McLaughlin would be sitting in the back of the study hall, huddled together, talking of bomb making, various military facts and giggling over their fart release with that very impish grin McLaughlin wears in that picture.

    I’d oft look upon them with their military surplus store combat boots, parachute pants and over-worn polo shirts, did they have dicks or not? I mean really. I never thought of them as gay, I wondered actually if they were just sexually incapacitated.

    Don’t fear butt-sex McLaughlin, embrace it. You yearn for it, try it, don’t push it away. When you want it, dive into it head first and then find your way out. Loving someone, no matter who they are will heal you.

    Best he find a lover to provide for him as his inability to express a coherent argument is questionable.

  234. kate said,

    January 24, 2011 at 2:02

    …and my ability to express the coherence that actually exists in my head is questionable.

  235. Lesley said,

    January 24, 2011 at 2:49

    My guess is there was very little love or pleasure involved in the conception of Dan McLaughlin.

  236. Chris said,

    January 24, 2011 at 3:08

    …and my ability to express the coherence that actually exists in my head is questionable.

    I got most of it. One of the things about growing up in the French educational system was never experiencing the precocious NRA-militia-Wolverines! subculture that various friends of mine (and now you) have described in their high schools. I suppose the closest thing we had was the radical-chic types with their Che Guevara shirts. But at least I knew they’d never have a real impact on the way the country was run.

  237. McJohn said,

    January 24, 2011 at 3:10

    W. Kiernan said:

    “I hope you understand the reason why I am so strictly limiting the topic. It’s because I don’t want to have to chase his anti-homonups argument hither and thither like a lepidopterist with a net…”

    The Missus (also an attorney) commented, “So beautiful… so elusive.”

  238. g said,

    January 24, 2011 at 4:31

    To paraphrase Martin Niemöller’s famous admonition about complacency with totalitarian fascists: “First they came for Rush Limbaugh and called his satire racist, and I didn’t speak out because Rush Limbaugh is a conservative. Then they came for Dr. Laura and called her commentary racist, and I didn’t speak out because Dr. Laura is a conservative…”

    Of course, the key point that he’s missing is that Rush Limbaugh is still talking and so is Dr. Laura. Nobody “came for” them, they’re still here and doing fine.

    Ratcheting up criticism of someone to the level of genocide. Nice!

  239. Substance McGravitas said,

    January 24, 2011 at 4:52

    It’s worth mentioning that Larry O’Connor was the guy who freaked out over Sesame Street not giving Fox a fair trashing.

  240. tigris said,

    January 24, 2011 at 4:57

    First they came for Oscar,
    and I didn’t speak out because he’s such a Grouch…

  241. Substance McGravitas said,

    January 24, 2011 at 5:07

    First they came for the seven-headed hydras, and I did not speak out because I was not a seven-headed hydra;
    Then they came for the mourning ghosts, and I did not speak out because I was not a mourning ghost;
    Then they came for the giant jellyfishes, and I did not speak out because I was not a giant jellyfish;
    Then they came for the swarmtongue worms, and I did not speak out because I was not a swarmtongue worm;
    Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak out for me.

  242. N__B said,

    January 24, 2011 at 5:08

    First they came for Oscar,
    but they couldn’t find him in all the mess.

  243. Ice Nine said,

    January 24, 2011 at 5:26

    The Sadlies had no pop at all in the first half: Listless, sloppy execution, unimaginative plays.

    But the team came out of the lockeroom fired up for the second half, ready to play, and looking like the beats-the-world Sadlies again.

    Can they overcome the halftime deficit? Let’s ask Paul Ryan, Republican from Wisconsin and sidelines reporter. Paul, what’s your take?

  244. Lurking Canadian said,

    January 24, 2011 at 5:41

    They can’t defeat Rush on intellectual grounds.

    I’m pretty sure my three-year-old son could defeat Limbaugh on intellectual grounds, but I would never let him do it, because I wouldn’t want Breitbart accusing my boy of being a fascist or something.

  245. Spengler Dampniche's Auto-Post Apparatus, Still In Beta said,

    January 24, 2011 at 6:00

    Am I the only one reading this thread while binding his nipples with fine copper wire? Am I the only one with a truck battery on his desk? Am I the only one man enough to affix jumper cables to his torso?

    Rhetorical question, don’t bother.

  246. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 24, 2011 at 6:05

    Home again home again jiggity jig.

    I AM NOT A RACIST! That word doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    Let the martinis flow… Soon as The Ho picks me up, that is.

  247. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 24, 2011 at 6:06

    And don’t be niggardly wif da gins, neever.

  248. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 24, 2011 at 6:07

    And how come Faulkner isn’t being rewritten to remove the offensive characterizations, hu?. ANSWER ME THAT!

  249. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 24, 2011 at 6:52

    BTW Mr. Moistcrack, just finished Risen and Reraised on the plane. Tsk tsk tsk, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for a couple of those insidious digs. Well done. A++++ would buy again, if you know what I mean.

  250. paperbagmarlys said,

    January 24, 2011 at 7:11

    Oh, lookie, lots of comments on the ABA post about Paul Mirengoff:

    …As an American Indian person who has consulted with offices of AKIN, GUMP, (who have sought out our Indian legal business in the past), I am totally appalled and disgusted…

    …This idiot, Gump’s brightest child Mirengoff has just handed a gold plated hammer to the opposition of any tribe now doing business with Akin, Gump….kiss your Indian business goodbye at this point…

    … The firm is about as politically correct as a Jack Abramoff e-mail. They’re letting Paul hang out to dry because they value cash over firm loyalty…All true Republicans should withdraw their business from Akin and Gump until the firm apologizes to Morengoff [sic]“…

    http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/akin_gump_chair_hits_partners_personal_blog_post_on_ugly_indian_prayer/

    This story certainly deserves attention well beyond the ABA blog. What is Akin Gump going to do to make peace with their native American clients? Is firing Mirengoff enough? Is firing his boss enough? Is there more to the story? Akin Gump has an office in China. I wonder if the Beijing office is aware of Powerline’s views on China? Is the Chinese government embarrassed by Akin Gump’s associations with Powerline? Has Akin Gump banned Mirengoff from Powerline? Will Michelle Malkin stand up for her fellow blogger? Can Akin Gump’s reputation ever recover from being associated Mirengoff? Please, more coverage of this very important breaking scandal!

  251. Ice Nine & Snidely Whiplash & The Variants Thereof said,

    January 24, 2011 at 10:11

    The band is going to change its name. Still working on it.

  252. N__B said,

    January 24, 2011 at 11:34

    And how come Faulkner isn’t being rewritten to remove the offensive characterizations, hu?

    Because the wingnuts can’t understand his writing.

  253. Major Kong said,

    January 24, 2011 at 14:06

    They can’t defeat Rush on intellectual grounds.

    My cat could defeat Rush on intellectual grounds and I have a couple houseplants that might be willing to give it a shot.

  254. vs said,

    January 24, 2011 at 14:45

    Good morning. I’m starting to grow concerned about the amount of erotic dreams I have about Stephen Colbert.

  255. Chris said,

    January 24, 2011 at 15:29

    So, I’m at work. Never mind where; the point is I just came across an old file that makes reference to the “80s Debt Crisis.”

    There was a debt crisis in the eighties? My God, man, but that would mean… Reagan… waaat? But he was a True Conservative! And True Conservatives hate the national debt! Have I actually been lied to all this time?

    Oy. Yeah, I’m easily amused. I need more coffee. And possibly a new thread.

  256. vs said,

    January 24, 2011 at 15:29

    From Sub’s link:

    Irony is a wonderful thing. Just as the Left elected the perfect Propagandist-in-Chief, their opposition (you and me) got wise, agile and pretty entertaining. With every lame attempt to turn our kids against us, we now call them on it and point out how ham-fisted, clumsy and square they are. The Left’s worst nightmare came true: The conservatives are the hip ones.

    Tee hee!

  257. Chris said,

    January 24, 2011 at 15:49

    The Left’s worst nightmare came true: The conservatives are the hip ones.

    I hugely enjoy their relationship with pop culture and the way it goes back and forth like a ping pong ball.

    On the one hand, pop culture gets decried as vulgar, crude, inappropriately sexual, immoral, unpatriotic and exposing our children to things they should never have to see, oh dear God, why can’t we just go back to the good old days when kids watched Andy Griffith?

    On the other hand, the minute they think they’ve got a foothold in pop culture, they go fucking wild screaming “YAAAAY! We’re hip!” South Park drove them that wild for a bit, until they picked on Republicans a few times, and the conservatives went right back to being sullen and bitter about how mean pop culture is to them.

  258. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 24, 2011 at 16:04

    With every lame attempt to turn our kids against us, we now call them on it and point out how ham-fisted, clumsy and square they are. The Left’s worst nightmare came true: The conservatives are the hip ones.

    Anyone who uses the dichotomy of hip vs. square to describe people’s levels of coolness is totes unhip.

    “Square”? Really. I’m not that young and people stopped using that term before I was born.

  259. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 24, 2011 at 16:09

    I mean, in reference to people, of course. As far as I know, our liberal commie schools are still teaching about shapes with four equal sides and four right angles. When the kids aren’t learning about guided meditation and fisting, that is.

  260. Fonzie said,

    January 24, 2011 at 16:23

    Calling Squares “squares” is always hip.

  261. DAS said,

    January 24, 2011 at 16:45

    When a law is attacked on equal protection grounds, the burden is not on the aggrieved citizens to establish the complete absence of a rational basis; it is on the government to identify the rational basis that must exist for a law to be valid. – Open Cahoots

    I suspect there are other ways to defend such a law such as the “neener-neener” approach of “you don’t have standing to sue” or the “no harm, no foul” argument of “how much of a burden is this law really?” or the “everyone is protected equally under the law about which you are complaining — it just requires some people to do more to comply with the law than others” argument.

    I dunno if it’s changed, but when I turned 18, us mensfolk had to register with the selective service or else not get loans for college, etc. Womensfolk didn’t have to turn in that post-card or anything.

    Now this obviously violates some form of equal protection or something, but as far as I know, there hasn’t been any ruling that requiring mensfolk to register with selective service and not womensfolk is, well, wrong.

  262. Open Cahoots said,

    January 24, 2011 at 16:58

    From way upthread, St. Trotsky has the best idea ever:

    Or perhaps just reply to every supposition by a wingnut with the “Professor Layton gets an answer wrong” sequence.

    How to make this happen?

  263. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 24, 2011 at 16:59

    Wait. So the Left is no longer hip, and it is the Right that is hip? It’s a hip replacement! LOL. I’ll be here all week, don;t forget to tip your server.

    This guy really does have us figured out. Like OVAR 9000% figured out. Random wars across the Middle East, installation of an authoritarian torture-state, warrantless wiretapping, whistleblowers being held in solitary confinement for over seven months without charge, random crazed gun nuts shooting folks, relegation of large swaths of the public to second-class citizen status, dismantlement of the world’s biggest economy by robber-baron banksters with an extra dosing of mortgage fraud powered insta-homelessness, relentless drive towards more and more ecologically unsound and dangerous drilling/mining practices in order to accelerate climate change? Nothing compared to the idea that conservatives might actually be seen as “cool”. Worst nightmare. Even worse than the one where I’m doing your mom and suddenly she turns into Lucianne.

  264. smedley said,

    January 24, 2011 at 17:00

    When my son turned 18 three years ago, he had to turn in that post card.

  265. Open Cahoots said,

    January 24, 2011 at 17:09

    Now this obviously violates some form of equal protection or something, but as far as I know, there hasn’t been any ruling that requiring mensfolk to register with selective service and not womensfolk is, well, wrong.

    That’s because there is, or was, a “rational basis” for the distinction: womenfolk ain’t combat material, hippie.

  266. moderately good looking not so hunchback said,

    January 24, 2011 at 17:09

    Plant you now.
    Dig you later.

  267. Newt Gingrich said,

    January 24, 2011 at 17:23

    And this is as God intended, because women get infections and they have cooties and they don’t like me when I divorce them when they are sick.

  268. Chris said,

    January 24, 2011 at 17:24

    OT;

    Democracies around the world are ignoring abuses by repressive regimes and opting for improved relations rather than condemning rights violations and curtailing aid, Human Rights Watch said Monday.

    Old news, but I’m not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, it’s obviously true. On the other hand, I’m not sure what would constitute “doing something.”

    Except in a few cases, there’s never enough international support for an effective embargo, and as Iraq proved, that can do more bad than good from a humanitarian point of view. There’s often very little support for humanitarian interventions, and those interventions easily degenerate into wars (Somalia) and get nothing done in the process. Plus, if you legitimize the notion of military intervention for the sake of humanitarianism, any government can cover its imperial ventures behind the name “humanitarian intervention.” (The U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and even the Chinese invasion of Tibet were all justified with this kind of language).

    Sad, but true; no one has ever come up with a good solution to humanitarian crises. Not that people have really made much effort in good faith to solve the problem…

  269. N__B said,

    January 24, 2011 at 17:25

    women get infections and they have cooties

    Fun project: find a woman not born in the U.S., but who speaks English well. Try to explain the concept of “cooties” to her without her backing away wide-eyed. I experimented with Mrs. __B and much hilarity ensued.

  270. Chris said,

    January 24, 2011 at 17:25

    And this is as God intended, because women get infections and they have cooties and they don’t like me when I divorce them when they are sick.

    Ouch.

    I love how “I did not have sexual relations…” became the shorter for the entire Clinton administration, but no one even seems aware that Gingrich was having an affair of his own even while attacking the President for his bad family values.

  271. Snort said,

    January 24, 2011 at 17:27

    Slow to ketchup here as usual (waves at T&U) , but why on earth does any take the opinion of a corporate lawyer seriously when it comes to marriage and civil rights? I wonder how divorce lawyers feel about Little Mac trying to cut off their possible new bidness territory?

  272. tigris said,

    January 24, 2011 at 17:57

    Just as the Left elected the perfect Propagandist-in-Chief, their opposition (you and me) got wise, agile and pretty entertaining.

    First they came for the wise, agile and pretty entertaining conservatives and I didn’t speak out because they couldn’t find any.

    The Left’s worst nightmare came true: The conservatives are the hip ones.

    Jazz hands!

  273. DAS said,

    January 24, 2011 at 19:00

    That’s because there is, or was, a “rational basis” for the distinction: womenfolk ain’t combat material, hippie. – Open Cahoots

    Womenfolk sure is combat material. It’s right there in the Bobble. I’m sure Deborah, Jael or Judith would make mincemeat out of any of your typical Keyboard Kommandos.

  274. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 24, 2011 at 19:51

    “Square”? Really. I’m not that young and people stopped using that term before I was born.

    Surely you lived through Huey Lewis and the News?

  275. St. Trotsky, Pope-in-Avignon said,

    January 25, 2011 at 3:16

    How to make this happen?

    In many ways, hearing about what you people go through when you get off the boat and see what the conservative commentators are saying, I am hard-pressed not to hear “i hav twelv matchsteeks.”

  276. SqueakyRat said,

    March 21, 2012 at 10:49

    Teh geys can have sex widout getting pregnit. That’s no fair.

Leave a Comment

  • Things of Interest

  • Meta Goodness

  • Clunkers

  • httpbl_stats()