Shorter John Hinderaker
Michael Barone has long been known as a moderate, nuts-and-bolts observer of the political scene. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to me that only over the last few years, as Michael has observed the impotence–at best–of the Democratic Party in the face of existential threats to our civilization, has he come out as a conservative.
Our Covert Enemies
Michael Barone has long been known as a moderate, nuts-and-bolts observer of the political scene. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to me that only over the last few years, as Michael has observed the impotence–at best–of the Democratic Party in the face of existential threats to our civilization, has he come out as a conservative.
The End.
BTW: Here’s the notorious new Barone column that Hindy is praising. Yes, it’s for real. No, we don’t know what’s wrong with him either.
We knew a kid once who used to get bonked out of his head on paint-stripper fumes — only instead of waking up as a senior writer for US News and World Report, he generally woke up naked on the floor covered in his own feces. So the comparison breaks down, pretty much.
Good lord. I am not sure Barone could have stuffed that column with any more straw.
Man, I love getting lectured by conservatives about moral relativism.
Could they remind me again why it’s suddenly alright to torture? I keep forgetting that one.
it’s true dan, no crows will land within a thousand feet of any US News and World Reoort!
and that’s a good thing.
can i add (who will stop me?) that i really do take all this “you liberals want al qaeda to take over and you hate america and you are evil scum” personally. i really do. i want to fucking punch someone in the teeth. it was all i could do at my daughter’s ballet class on sunday not to kneecap the guy next to me, all because he was reading dennis prager’s book. i didn’t use to feel this way, but you know what? you accuse people of hateful shit for long enough and even a goddamn liberal is ready to knock your fucking head off.
just sayin’.
Commenters in a previous thread called for an embargo on the use of certain words, since many using them clearly don’t understand their meaning.
I’m with Otto Man here – can we now proscribe the use of the phrase “moral relativism”?
Last time I looked, that phrase could just as easily be applied to condoning torture of prisoners and massive bombings of civilian areas as it could to opposing imperialism.
Wingnut dictionary: Moral Relativism – Implying that it is wrong to kill innocent people, even when our guys do it
Our covert enemies are harder to identify, for they live in large numbers within our midst. And in terms of intentions, they are not enemies in the sense that they consciously wish to destroy our society. On the contrary, they enjoy our freedoms and often call for their expansion. But they have also been working, over many years, to undermine faith in our society and confidence in its goodness. These covert enemies are those among our elites who have promoted the ideas labeled as multiculturalism, moral relativism and (the term is Professor Samuel Huntington’s) transnationalism.
========================================
Give it up Big Bar. Rush has been trying for 20 years to get the zipperheads to rise up. They aren’t gonna do it.
I’m sorry, Gav – couldn’t read the post. I’m busy trying to figure whether Hitler’s way trumps Gandhi’s, or vice-versa. Oh, screw it! Who’s to say who is right?
Barone’s captures the mindset of a Bush dead-ender to a tee. It’s a useful column in a way, because it is a window into what the truly stupidest people in America believe.
In our war against Islamo-fascist terrorism, we face enemies both overt and covert. The overt enemies are, of course, the terrorists themselves. Their motives are clear: They hate our society because of its freedoms and liberties, and want to make us all submit…
Forget weights, forget cardio. Master your own bodyweight.
The slave trade was ended not by Africans, but by the Royal Navy, with aid from the U.S. Navy even before the Civil War.
Fuckin macaques never could do anything right.
In World War II, our elites understood that we were the forces of good and that victory was essential. Today, many of our elites subject our military and intelligence actions to fine-tooth-comb analysis and find that they are morally repugnant.
Fuckin modern day elites, cant do anything right.
But then the elite young men who declined to serve in the military during the Vietnam War set out to write a narrative in which they, rather than those who obeyed the call to duty, were the heroes. They have propagated their ideas through the universities, the schools and mainstream media to the point that they are the default assumptions of millions. Our covert enemies don’t want the Islamo-fascists to win. But in some corner of their hearts, they would like us to lose.
Hey wait, who we crackin’ on now?
That is a very measured critique of a segment of our society that wields great power and wishes its own country great ill. I would only add that these liberals want us to lose, not just in some small corner, but with their whole hearts; in fact, our defeat is the only thing they whole-heartedly work for.
I’m fairly certain that i am not the only one fed up with you liberal elites wielding great power and wishing great ill in not some small covert corner.
Cut it out gaddam it, you’re making us townhallers look silly.
Robert’s response strikes close to what I fear has happened to any chance of political discourse among varying views in this country anymore.
It just doesn’t seem to be possible to conduct.
They’ve called us traitors for so long now they actually believe it in a literal sense. And they’ve also called us traitors for so long now that we’re all about *this* close to having a classic Samuel L. Jackson moment on anybody who even looks like they might read Hugh Hewitt.
Our national discourse is completely broken, and I don’t think it’s fixable.
Fear leads to anger.
Anger leads to hate.
Hate leads to suffering.
“We have always had our covert enemies, but their numbers were few until the 1960s. But then the elite young men who declined to serve in the military during the Vietnam War set out to write a narrative in which they, rather than those who obeyed the call to duty, were the heroes.”
He’s right you know. The Republican leadership really are a bunch of cunts.
Republican leadership, you say?
In our war against Islamo-fascist terrorism
Oh good, he makes it clear right in the first sentence that he has no idea what he is talking about. Nice to get that right out of the way.
Fascism is, by definition, anti-liberal. So I’m still waiting to hear why liberals would ally with any form of fascism.
Fascism is, by definition, anti-liberal. So I’m still waiting to hear why liberals would ally with any form of fascism
Well, you see, the Naziz were national socialists, and liberals are really just socialists, so the liberals, who are really nazis, even though they don’t know it, are really fellow-travelers of the islamofascists transnational dhimmi hollywood elites, even if they won’t admit it.
I think.
Barone et al. are trying to put together some sort of unified theory of liberal evil that will allow them to wriggle out this mess. Good luck. At the point they suggest the FDR was really on the side of the Nazis, they ought to admit that they have made fools of themselves.
Fascism is, by definition, anti-liberal. So I’m still waiting to hear why liberals would ally with any form of fascism.
Wait your turn, wouldja? I’m still waiting to hear why an atheist like myself is in love with the idea of an Islamic theocracy.
Gav, what you mean to say is, “Still, my comparison stands.”
…we’re all about *this* close to having a classic Samuel L. Jackson moment on anybody who even looks like they might read Hugh Hewitt.
I want these motherfucking wingnuts out of my motherfucking country!
What I’ve learned today:
I have to see motherfucking Snakes on a Plane if I want to have any motherfucking cred up in this place.
Not really, DA. I think you’ve pretty much motherfuckin’ figured it out.
“Our covert enemies don’t want the Islamo-fascists to win. But in some corner of their hearts, they would like us to lose. ”
If by ‘covert enemies’ he means all liberals, and by ‘us’ he means neo-con dickwads grasping at the last straws of their failed administration, then yes, I think its safe to say we definitely want them to lose.
Wait a minute…
“Existential threats” to our civilization?
What, Albert Camus scares Hinderaker or something? He is French…
What, Albert Camus scares Hinderaker or something? He is French…
Isn’t Camus, like, totally W’s second favorite philosopher?
Camus can do… but nobody fucks with the Jesus.
Fascism is, by definition, anti-liberal. So I’m still waiting to hear why liberals would ally with any form of fascism.
Wait your turn, wouldja? I’m still waiting to hear why an atheist like myself is in love with the idea of an Islamic theocracy.
C’mon, I’m still waiting to hear why a free – thinking humanist like myself should NOT be opposed to an authoritarian regime limiting my rights and liberties…
mikey
oh my, oh my.
————————————-
Gav, what you mean to say is, “Still, my comparison stands.�
🙂
C’mon, I’m still waiting to hear why a free – thinking humanist like myself should NOT be opposed to an authoritarian regime limiting my rights and liberties…
You all have to wait till I get an answer to why a pagan, pro-choice queer in an interracial relationship with an atheist would support an Islamic takeover.
I’m pretty sure if they can answer that one, we’ll all have our responses. Although I fear the answer is something like “You all just hate Bush so you don’t realize what you’re trying to bring about will destroy you”.
Which, to be fair, is kind of what I was saying to anyone without a trust fund who voted Bush in 2000.
I’ve given up on asking them what would constitute a “win” (what are the victory conditions in this game of Command & Conquer?) — but what do they mean by “lose”? This loss being what all the islamofascit-loving liberals so desire.
Really, I want them to codify this term, have them on record as being afraid of literally a bombed-to-ruins continental U.S., with Usama bin Laden on a throne, sharia (the Islamic kind) the law of the land, illegal immigrants everywhere, gated communities turned into mosques, and so on. Let them spin the most unlikely fantasy of what a “loss” would be.
Personally, I suspect they just mean “lose an election”.
“But every society in history has had slavery. Only one society set out to and did abolish it”
Yup, that’s why every society has slavery today, except for that one society which abolished it. Man, are we good, or what?
Few argued for the Taliban after Sept. 11
I don’t remember too many people arguing for the Taliban *before* Sept. 11, either.