So your readers can see the schooling you receieved on my site, I'll introduce them to the link regarding the sloppiness of "If not...":

http://www.cjr.org/tools/lc/ifnot.asp

Secondly, I referred to Noonan's mentality, not a specific quote. That reading comprehension thing again...work on it.

Thirdly, glad to see you're so snark-free. It doesn't bother me though, since your technique is still crap.

Fourthly, nobody spoke about reeducation camps, nor did McCarthy get that far before he was rejected. Still, interesting how you won't deny that the right is steadily trying to rehabilitate McCarthy and champion him as a national hero. Because it's true, I suppose. But you had to keep blathering...

Fifthly, Gone With The Wind was made in racist times, sure...but was also about the incredibly racist South. But let's not pretend the right was at the forefront of race relations.

And that's the joke. You can attribute D.W. Griffith's work to "Hollywood" (because apparently you don't have a clue about film history), the same Hollywood that Clooney belongs to (which has also given us numerous films teaching about the Holocaust, funny how the right gets silent about that) but you can't say that the nation itself was doing better than Hollywood. Yeah, gays have been prancing and preening in Hollywood, and they've been attacked, castigated and abused by good Bible-loving folks.

Anyway, I imagine I'll be blocked and this will be deleted soon. Just watch it before you try stepping on my turf again with broken arguments.

So your readers can see the schooling you receieved on my site, I'll introduce them to the link regarding the sloppiness of "If not...":

http://www.cjr.org/tools/lc/ifnot.asp

Secondly, I referred to Noonan's mentality, not a specific quote. That reading comprehension thing again...work on it.

Thirdly, glad to see you're so snark-free. It doesn't bother me though, since your technique is still crap.

Fourthly, nobody spoke about reeducation camps, nor did McCarthy get that far before he was rejected. Still, interesting how you won't deny that the right is steadily trying to rehabilitate McCarthy and champion him as a national hero. Because it's true, I suppose. But you had to keep blathering...

Fifthly, Gone With The Wind was made in racist times, sure...but was also about the incredibly racist South. But let's not pretend the right was at the forefront of race relations.

And that's the joke. You can attribute D.W. Griffith's work to "Hollywood" (because apparently you don't have a clue about film history), the same Hollywood that Clooney belongs to (which has also given us numerous films teaching about the Holocaust, funny how the right gets silent about that) but you can't say that the nation itself was doing better than Hollywood. Yeah, gays have been prancing and preening in Hollywood, and they've been attacked, castigated and abused by good Bible-loving folks.

Anyway, I imagine I'll be blocked and this will be deleted soon. Just watch it before you try stepping on my turf again with broken arguments.

I smell a martyr complex.

Al jolson in blackface. They also gave us Ted Danson in blackface at a roast of Whoopie Goldberg. Describing her genitalia. Such class.

Ooooohhh, Jeromy's angry that you're "stepping on his turf" Mitch. You better be careful. You don't want to get up in Jeromy's grill or he might skool you again. You got served. Is it on?

George Clooney pats himself on the back saying "courageous" Hollywood gave black actress Hattie McDaniel an Oscar. Did he mention that the Academy made her sit in the back of the theatre? Or that it took how many years before the establishment awarded another black woman Best Actress (Halle Berry)?

http://www.villagevoice.com/nyclife/0610,musto,72420,15.html

Pffft. They can stay out of touch. I'll support the independents.

Oh, great, more right wingers offended on behalf of black people.

Anyway, Hollywood is a huge conglomorate of various folks who have little in common beyond one absolute qualifier: They can put together the money to produce a film, and they can get people in the seats to watch them. You guys can have fun forever (and plan on it, apparently) picking and choosing particular anecdotes about something some actor, writer, director said or did, but face it: there is no secret Hollywood conspiracy. If Ted Danson is Hollywood, so is "24." If Barbara Streisand is Hollywood, so is Bruce Willis (who isn't a pleased conservative anymore...translation: he's a conservative with principles).

You can't have your "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan" and bitch about "Munich" too when attacking HOLLYWOOD as an entity.

Hey, liberals love comments and don't delete people who disagree.

Step on my turf anytime, folks. Just don't be full of shit. Don't call names then cry when you get called a name. And don't refuse to answer questions by pretending your ass is suddenly too precious to continue the conversation.

"You can't have your "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan" and bitch about "Munich" too when attacking HOLLYWOOD as an entity."

Wait, I'm confused. So, Clooney can take credit for all the "good" Hollywood has done as an entity, but it's unfair for people to criticize Clooney by citing examples where Hollywood has been wrong because those examples don't represent Hollywood as an entity?

My head. It hurts.

"Anyway, Hollywood is a huge conglomorate of various folks who have little in common..."

They are all members of an exclusive club, Jer. One with very strict rules and an incredible herd mentality.

First of all, Clooney is not wrong that Hollywood in general has been ahead of the curve. Yes, Hattie McDaniel did have to sit in the back, just like she had to sit in the back of the bus for decades afterwards. None of you have made the argument that Hollywood IN GENERAL has been behind the curve for social justice. You've just been bitching that Hollywood hasn't been perfect.

Second of all, I've simply noted how many films and stars you guys are ignoring when you've gone after "Hollywood." Films that do represent mainstream views and most values that conservatives hold highly. You won't find one that says "Fags are dirty" too often, sure.

The point is, does George Clooney need to be ashamed of Hollywood? Hell no. It's a multi-faceted community, and while on the whole it is about giving people what they want to see, when Hollywood's best speak their hearts through film they largely offer finely crafted stories that exemplify the best of the human spirit.

And still not a damn one of you can say two words about "Good Night and Good Luck."

"Step on my turf anytime, folks. Just don't be full of shit. Don't call names then cry when you get called a name. And don't refuse to answer questions by pretending your ass is suddenly too precious to continue the conversation."

To Jeromy: How dost thy wind beneith thy buttocks yonder blow?

Nancy: Let me know after you pucker up and kiss my ass, toots.

So on the one hand, "Jeromy" demands:

"Just watch it before you try stepping on my turf again with broken arguments."

Then pees in our collective oatmeal with:

"Nancy: Let me know after you pucker up and kiss my ass, toots."

You're a classy one, aren't you?

As to the rest of your "argument" - well...

Hang on. Meetings call. Some of us work for a living.

To paraphrase JerOmy:

Yeah, Hollywood has dozens of examples where it was on the wrong side of history, but I only want to cite examples where it's been right so I can say it's been right overall, even though I have only the shakiest base on which to make that claim. Jeez, people, can't you automatically see how air-tight and unassailable my laughable position is? If you can't, kiss my ass.

Somewhat unrelated, but since we're talking about Clooney movies. . .

From Dusk Till Dawn, in addition to being a most horribly stupid movie, singlehandedly set back vampire rights in this country for the next several decades. Way to go, Clooney's Hollywood.

Mitch: holy shit, that's all you can come up with?

You couldn't debate a single point so all you could pull off was the usual "I get to spout anything I want but as soon as you insult me I drop to the ground clutching my leg screaming foul!" rightwinger tactic?

Is this really a discussion of "classiness"? I recommend "Brokeback Mountain" then to you folks. It's a very classy movie, gracefully told, artfully constructed.

If you really want to address something I've said, let me know. If you want to showboat for your audience, that's not exactly classy. It's heartily and enthusiastically shameless, that's what it is.

It's just amazing that you people think you get to talk down about the lefty blogosphere.

"The point is, does George Clooney need to be ashamed of Hollywood? Hell no."

Self-satisfied, arrogant and smug elitists are generally incapable of shame. That and introspection.

"It's a multi-faceted community"

Are you serious? It's the most in-bred homogenous clique I've ever witnessed.

"and while on the whole it is about giving people what they want to see"

The five movies nominated for "Best Picture" combined earned less than Chronicles of Narnia. Yeah we all flocked to see Good Night and Good Luck. You can't buy a ticket for Syriana, it's so popular. We're all waiting breathlessly for Capote II.

"when Hollywood's best speak their hearts through film they largely offer finely crafted stories that exemplify the best of the human spirit."

Yeah two shepherds buggering each other, commiting adultery and destroying the lives of their wives and children is a truely uplifting message. "Love is a force of nature", indeed. So is lust.

"And still not a damn one of you can say two words about "Good Night and Good Luck."

I can say three words about it.
McCarthy was right.

kermit: hey, an honest one among you! you love McCarthy and hate gay people! and you think box office and quality align perfectly!

(btw, genius, brokeback mountain was PROFITABLE...oscar type flicks tend to be low-budget, thus don't require the big box office, which is often a smarter move than spending $150+ million on a movie that MUST be a blockbuster or cause incredible losses)

what's funny is all the folks around you dancing around trying to pretend they're something else. you're good, kermit. you're just an ass for all to see. that must be the "class" that mitch was talking about.

So, "Jeromy",

"So your readers can see the schooling you receieved on my site,"

In my experience, whenever anyone (especially white boys) use terms like "schooling", what follows is...well, not schooling.

You've done nothing to change that observation.

" Secondly, I referred to Noonan's mentality, not a specific quote. That reading comprehension thing again...work on it."

Doesn't matter. You mentioned Noonan's "mentality", but there was nothing of the mentality in the piece whatsoever. You're drawing from your *prejudice* about Noonan's approach to things to draw an unwarranted conclusion, one that is easily dismissed.

Which is, of course, a motif for your entire blog. You get points for consistency...

"...since your technique is still crap."

...which you promply lose for over-promising and under-delivering.

"Fourthly, nobody spoke about reeducation camps, nor did McCarthy get that far before he was rejected."

Nor, indeed, have they ever been mentioned in conjunction with McCarthy, ever, by anyone!

" Still, interesting how you won't deny that the right is steadily trying to rehabilitate McCarthy and champion him as a national hero."

It's "interesting that I won't deny" it? Sure - in the same sense that it's "interesting" that you "won't deny" that you were anally probed by aliens, or that you molest little boys. Interesting, that lack of denial...

I'm going to be charitable, and assume you are an immigrant who learned English - and argumentation - by watching the "Jerry Springer Show", and answer your question politely; yes, I deny it.

In fact, I'll ask you to show me *any* credible right-wing pundit that is trying in any way to turn McCarthy into a "National Hero".

Please respond in this space. Extra points for not being a potty-mouth while you do it.

"Fifthly, Gone With The Wind was made in racist times, sure...but was also about the incredibly racist South. But let's not pretend the right was at the forefront of race relations."

Your disingenuity is apparent by its omissions; not only was the movie *about* a racist time, but it portrayed (in the book and movie) the times in approving terms. The Klan was depicted as a "necessity" in Margaret Mitchell's book. It didn't hold its nose at the racism of the times; it soaked in it, slathered it all over its body, and walked about town reeking of it with great pride.

"And that's the joke. You can attribute D.W. Griffith's work to "Hollywood" (because apparently you don't have a clue about film history),"

Alternate (and factual) explanation: It's a distinction without a difference.

" the same Hollywood that Clooney belongs to (which has also given us numerous films teaching about the Holocaust, funny how the right gets silent about that)"

I'm fairly sure "the right" opposed the Holocaust.

You're referring to the Holocaust that your guy FDR covered up during the war, right? That one?

" but you can't say that the nation itself was doing better than Hollywood."

Ah. So we've gone from "Hollywood leads the nation" to "Hollywood was no worse than the nation".

No. Hollywood did *incalculable damage* to race relations; start with half a century of corrosively racist depictions of Native Americans, and we'll work out from there.

Comment?

" Yeah, gays have been prancing and preening in Hollywood, and they've been attacked, castigated and abused by good Bible-loving folks."

And defended by others. Myself - at fist-point - included. Take your stereotypes and put them from whence the rest of your reasoning issues.

"Anyway, I imagine I'll be blocked and this will be deleted soon."

You give yourself too much credit. I've blocked exactly two people in four years. No, little fella, I'm happy to expose my readers to your little version of dementia.

" Just watch it before you try stepping on my turf again with broken arguments."

Just "watch it"...or what?

You're gonna come and *git* me?

Cruise up from Iowa and *throw down*?

Just watch it *or what*?

Give me a reason not to laugh pop out my nose.

"Just watch it". Criminy.

Oh, two words about movies (House rules: hyphenated words count as one):

"Syriana": Over-praised potboiler.

"Brokeback Mountain": Excellent, overhyped.

"Goodnight, Good Luck": Well-crafted orthodoxy.

"Crash": Fecking great.

"Transamerica": Didn't see.

"Hustle and Flow": Good, underrated.

Watch out, Richard Roper!

Oh, yeah:

"It's just amazing that you people think you get to talk down about the lefty blogosphere. "

No, no, silly lad. Not the whole lefty blogosphere.

Just you.

I read through some back posts. You're a legend in your own mind.

Go play with your little friends, now.

kermit: hey, an honest one among you! you love McCarthy and hate gay people! and you think box office and quality align perfectly!

No, dipshit. There WERE communists in the State Department. Your education is deficient. Google Venona Papers, asshat.
Hate gay people? Not at all. Project much?

Mitch, five will get you ten he starts getting REALLY angry, so you ban him, so he can rant to all his 'tard friends "See? The Big Bad Conservative banned me! They Cant' Handle The Truth!"

Any action on that bet?

Oh, Jeromy?

One more thing: since you broach "McCarthy" with such mao abandon, tell me: exactly who in Hollywood is having their speech curtailed?

Feel free to answer this and the other questions broached to you above.

Hey Mitch-
Maybe you should set your comment filter to block cuss words & references to sodomy -- then we wouldn't have to read all the way through the lefty posts before we realize that it's ALL cuss words and references to sodomy.
Isn't PB some kind of leader to these guys? Maybe he can talk to them.

"Maybe you should set your comment filter to block cuss words & references to sodomy -- then we wouldn't have to read all the way through the lefty posts before we realize that it's ALL cuss words and references to sodomy."

Yes please, it would certainly improve the quality of the comments and the level of civility.

mitch: A lot of hot air there, bro. Sure, i was going to kick your ass for steppin' on my turf...heh. *sigh*

Ever heard of metaphors? Us librul elites know all about them...

Anyway, as for the attempts at solid criticism you inserted in that tornado of inanity:

You didn't get schooled but you can't bring yourself to mention that you screwed up on the language of "If not..."? That's pride messing with you, buddy.

"In fact, I'll ask you to show me *any* credible right-wing pundit that is trying in any way to turn McCarthy into a "National Hero"."

I'll do you one better: Iowa Rep Republican Steve King:
"I think that if Barbara Lee would read the history of Jo McCarthy, she would realize that he was a hero for America."

Just one example (though you will note your buddy Kermit "McCarthy was right!" who you take no issue with), but you only asked for "ANY" so you must have been very sure of yourself.

Funny...you get to be wrong over and over again in pursuit of trying to catch me making one mistake. How does that work, Mitch? I wouldn't know how to respect myself with that style of argumentation. I suppose using it does bring you things, like the presidency...

You wrote:
"Nor, indeed, have (reeducation camps) ever been mentioned in conjunction with McCarthy, ever, by anyone!"

Earlier you wrote:
"a cowardly diversion into McCarthy talk (who exactly is stifling George Clooney's freedom to express his drivel? Does he take his millions-per-picture and drive home to a re-education camp? Hello?"

Try to keep your story straight, Mitch.

"I'm fairly sure "the right" opposed the Holocaust."

Holy smokes you do not have the right to talk to me about reading comprehension when you make gigantic error after gigantic error like this! You're silent about HOLLYWOOD when they speak on the Holocaust...which they do so REPEATEDLY. Not silent about the Holocaust.

You possess that unique rightwinger special quality...being flagrantly, objectively wrong, getting completely shown up, and...moving along!

Oh, Mitch...bless you! I wasn't sure that the right was aware about the Holocaust. You inform me!

"Take your stereotypes and put them from whence the rest of your reasoning issues."

Isn't that the basic problem we're having here? You want to take examples of Hollywood playing along with society's negative attitudes and ignore when Hollywood stands up against them, but you can't accept that it's Biblical non-acceptance of homosexuality that drives most of the animus towards them?

Just watch it, Mitch...or get proven to be foolishly wrong again, and again. Ramp up the theatrics, I'll play along, but I'll always get back to...THE POINT.

So you should probably give up at this point. If it is discourse you're after, that is. If you want to impress your groupies, I guess we'll hear more from you.

Oh, and hey, JerOmy:

"hey, an honest one among you! you love McCarthy and hate gay people!"

I was going to let this slide, but this kind of shit just annoys me to no end, so I thought I'd point something out to you. My girlfriend's dad is gay, and I generally like the guy, even though he's the most selfish human being I've ever met. I've even *gasp* had him over for Christmas dinner and I've gone *gasp* swimming with him in his pool. We've done a lot of things together, and I've even had *gasp* gay friends throughout my life, and I'll defend their right to go on being gay with my life if need be. So, you can take your little meme about conservatives hating gay people, crumple it up into a tight little ball, and shove it up your pee hole.

That said, I will say go on to say something else, something that Kermit touched on perfectly but you went and bent his words to "you hate gays" in that cute little way you do. As I said, I enjoy the company of my girlfriend's dad, but that still doesn't excuse the fact that the man left his wife in a confused and depressed state for years when he left her for a man, to say nothing of the three children he basically broke ties with, except in the most cursory of terms, leaving them with all sorts of questions and no answers and, more importantly, leaving them without a dad. So, yeah, he destroyed a few lives in his own little Brokeback life, so while I'll defend his right to be gay to my last breath, and I otherwise like the guy, that doesn't mean I don't think he was monumentally selfish, a prick, and a horribly bad father. Of course, in your little mind, that translates into "I hate gays," which is about all I need to know about how your pathetic brain works.

"One more thing: since you broach "McCarthy" with such mao abandon, tell me: exactly who in Hollywood is having their speech curtailed?"

Nobody. Who claimed such?

Any other pointless questions that demonstrate your inability to understand the basic points presented to you?

"shove it up your pee hole."

Sorry, Ryan, I thought you were a liberal for a second, since you have a potty mouth. Only liberals swear!

Anyway, what the right seems to be unable to grasp about Brokeback is something quite plainly stated in the movie: They would have just shacked up together and never tried to pretend to be straight if they weren't afraid of violent repercussion.

That's something you fail to grasp too. Gay people today feel less pressure to be what they're not, so they never bother entering a fake marriage in the first place, unless they buy into the advice of the kind of people railing against Brokeback in the first place. You guys are criticizing them for not staying in the fake marriage.

What you need to get is that they shouldn't have felt they had to have a fake marriage in the first place. They should have ranched up together and been left alone.

I don't fail to grasp anything.
"You guys are criticizing them for not staying in the fake marriage. "

Bull. I'm criticizing them for disloyalty, (look it up), selfishness (hey they must be liberals too!), and harming children.
And they weren't in "fake" marriages. The only fake marriage is the kind you lefties want to force on society.

Jeromy-
"fake Marriage" it may have been, but fake fatherhood it was not. You'd think a liberal would be against the emotional abuse of children to fulfill a parent's sexual desires, but I guess not.
It's all society's fault in your view. Only a liberal can believe that we're all responsible for the emotional well being of others, and yet have no responsibility for the emotional well being of ourselves.

"What you need to get"

I don't NEED to get anything, and it's that kind of pompous, condescending tripe that will probably forever keep me from leaning liberal.

But let's keep the focus on your jackassery.

"Anyway, what the right seems to be unable to grasp about Brokeback is something quite plainly stated in the movie: They would have just shacked up together and never tried to pretend to be straight if they weren't afraid of violent repercussion."

I think "The Right" grasps that just fine. It's your projection that makes you think we can't grasp that.

What I can't help but notice is that, if you scrape away the gay underpinning of "Brokeback," you essentially have a story about infidelity. And what's more irritating, the movie makes excuses for it because. . . THEY'RE GAY. You'd never see an acclaimed movie about a guy who left his wife and family because the chick across the street has bigger tits.

Which reminds me. . . I have a movie to go make.

"mitch: A lot of hot air there, bro. Sure, i was going to kick your ass for steppin' on my turf...heh. *sigh* "

Yeah, I know. Just pointing out the extreme pointlessness of your empty aggression.

"Ever heard of metaphors? Us librul elites know all about them..."

In fact, you seem to live among them.

"Anyway, as for the attempts at solid criticism you inserted in that tornado of inanity:"

My, aren't we the drama queen!

"You didn't get schooled but you can't bring yourself to mention that you screwed up on the language of "If not..."? That's pride messing with you, buddy."

*groaaan*

OK. I'll meet you halfway; I'll admit it could have been clearer (should have written "...they are people of average intelligence who've accomplished a lot of things") if you admit you ran in a totally ludicrous direction with the miscue.

Deal?

"I'll do you one better: Iowa Rep Republican Steve King: "I think that if Barbara Lee would read the history of Jo McCarthy, she would realize that he was a hero for America."

Huh. A state rep from *Iowa* speaks for the party, now?

Yeah. Hard to argue with that.

"Just one example (though you will note your buddy Kermit "McCarthy was right!" who you take no issue with)"

Refer to my "anal probe" point a few comments back. That'll save me some time - and, since you didn't specifically deny that you are currently raping a girl scout, probably keep you out of jail, too.

" but you only asked for "ANY" so you must have been very sure of yourself."

There was a qualification there. Go back and see if can find it on the second (or first?) try.

"Funny...you get to be wrong over and over again in pursuit of trying to catch me making one mistake."

Where "wrong" = tripped up by a lucicrously picayune and pretty-much irrelevant example. Yeah. You got me there.

You haven't addressed any of my points yet, of course.

Now, Jeromy? This next bit here is kinda...well, just plain weird.

You wrote:
"Nor, indeed, have (reeducation camps) ever been mentioned in conjunction with McCarthy, ever, by anyone!"

Earlier you wrote:
"a cowardly diversion into McCarthy talk (who exactly is stifling George Clooney's freedom to express his drivel? Does he take his millions-per-picture and drive home to a re-education camp? Hello?"

Try to keep your story straight, Mitch."

Um, my story IS straight, but I think you're confused. I'm asking for signs of this supposed McCarthyism that you keep bleating about; did McCarthy propose camps?

And how is Clooney being opporessed?

Two questions, really; rhetorical ones, mostly.

"Holy smokes you do not have the right to talk to me about reading comprehension when you make gigantic error after gigantic error like this!
You're silent about HOLLYWOOD when they speak on the Holocaust...which they do so REPEATEDLY."

Jeez, another one of those "you didn't say it, so you must not know it!" things?

I feel like I'm either in third grade, or a probate deposition.

Perhaps I need to hold off on all future discussions with you, Jeromy, until I have written comprehensive position papers on every facet of every subject?

Because that seems to be both what you are looking for *and* perfectly absurd.

On the other hand, since you haven't denied that "alien anal probe" thing, maybe it's nothing you want to deal with rightnow...

"You possess that unique rightwinger special quality...being flagrantly, objectively wrong, getting completely shown up, and...moving along!"

Uh, yeah. The old "You're wrong!" gambit. Hard to argue with that.

"Oh, Mitch...bless you! I wasn't sure that the right was aware about the Holocaust. You inform me!"

Drama queen? I'm demonstrably better-read on the subject than you.

"Just watch it, Mitch...or get proven to be foolishly wrong again..."

Dude, you have only proven that you have the debate skills of a fourth-grader; picayune obtusion and jumping up and down like a poo-flinging monkey.

I have addressed your every point, and shut them all down. The only thing you have left is jumping up and down, chanting "I'm right and you're wrong", and rotely reciting cliches about "schooling".

You are a caricature. And I think your work here is, er, done.

Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

The comment about fatherhood is a valid point...which the movie also addresses. As far as we know, Jack never betrays his children and takes an active interest in the lessons they learn. Ennis is a failure as a father through most of the film, but in the end realizes this and stands up to fulfilling his duties.

Of course, gays do take parenting seriously, but the right is too busy trying to keep them from adopting or marrying and forming stable households.

Now we get to the disagreement over what is a "fake" marriage. Predictable, of course. These guys strapped on women because that's what society expected and told them to do.

If society told you, Ryan, that you had to marry a man, and you found yourself a woman and fell in love, how seriously would you take somebody lambasting you for infidelity? That's how it is for them. Period.

The ignorance on your part is clear. The right has to make up for homophobia and racism by belligerently and loudly declaring themselves to be absolutely not racist or homophobic first. Conclusions before premises.

Logic doesn't work that way. Ego-defense does.

Nor, Kermit, is allowing gays to marry forcing anything on you. It is your efforts to ban their marriage that imposes something on you. This is rather elementary. Of course, that doesn't play well, thus the deceitful language.

PB! Come Back! You are hereby NOT the most arrogant asswipe in the history of blog comments!

All is forgiven!

Posted by jeromy at March 10, 2006 01:57 PM

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries.

"A state rep from *Iowa* speaks for the party, now?"

Holy smokes! You asked for ANY pundit (a very low standard, though I suppose you'll exclude Coulter), I gave you an elected REPRESENTATIVE, and now that's not representative?

Wowee zowee! This is fun!

Not to mention your groupies are yelling "McCarthy was right!"

I can't hear you over them...

"did McCarthy propose camps?

And how is Clooney being opporessed?"

You're having a conversation with yourself here. These don't have anything to do with your original post or anything I've said. You've introduced the questions and attempted to suggest they follow logically from my implications. Wrong.

"I'm demonstrably better-read on the subject than you."

Ok, I guess you can brag if you can't make a point...

So you've addressed all my points and shut them down? By calling me a drama queen?

Project much?

Pretty pathetic. You are a caricature, indeed. When you ran out of ammo, you blathered up a storm and awarded yourself the blue ribbon.

Which goes back to my original thesis: You are a thought-deprived goon who specializes in rhetorical flatulence without the ability to really stand up and stick up for what you say.

Bye bye, Mitch. Don't let the door hit you on the a** (edited for sensitive conservative ears that only hear dirty language from liberals) on the way out.

As I usually say to a fleeing conservative...any time you want to get back to the issue, let me know, buddy. Enjoy your victory celebration, in whatever secluded location you plan on having it.

"Perhaps I need to hold off on all future discussions with you, Jeromy, until I have written comprehensive position papers on every facet of every subject?

Because that seems to be both what you are looking for *and* perfectly absurd.

On the other hand, since you haven't denied that "alien anal probe" thing, maybe it's nothing you want to deal with rightnow..."

Mitch - you have often made arguments of the "deafening silence" form. Look in your archives. Perhaps you should re-evaluate that tactic since it clearly isn't valid.

Arrogant? Please, I don't get by proclaiming my accomplishments or on rhetoric.

Facts. Points. Premises. Conclusions. I didn't invent them, folks. I defer to them. You guys flaunt them, regarding them as obstacles in the way to what you want to achieve. That's arrogance.

Lots of taunting, but...again, any time you guys want to get to the issues, let me know. Just don't taunt when you know you'll scream foul the second you get taunted back.

Ah, the great artist known as JerOmy, splashing his paint on nice and thick with that all encompassing brush of his yet again.

"Of course, gays do take parenting seriously, but the right is too busy trying to keep them from adopting or marrying and forming stable households."

You'd be hard pressed to find any argument from me that gays shouldn't have the right to marry and adopt. I break from some of "The Right" in that regard, and yet I'm still fairly conservative. Go figure. But, by all means, splash that brush of yours. Gosh, some would even say you're kind of ignorant.

"The ignorance on your part is clear."

Really? How many girlfriends with gay dads do YOU have? How many boyfriends of said gay dad have you helped move? How many gay friends have you had in your lifetime? And yet I'M THE ONE WHO IS IGNORANT? Puh-lease. Oh, wait, that's right, by proclaiming all these gay connections throughout my life, I'm simply over-compensating for my obvious homophobia, aren't I, JerOmy?

"The right has to make up for homophobia and racism by belligerently and loudly declaring themselves to be absolutely not racist or homophobic first."

Uh, huh. Interesting that you can sit there and rail about racism and stereotypes, whilst at the same time firing out stereotypes about "The Right" with a straight face. Hypocrite, party of one, your table is ready.

Jeromy? I asked for credible pundits, not some guy from a hog farm whose credibility I have no idea about.

"Arrogant? Please, I don't get by proclaiming my accomplishments or on rhetoric."

Actually, cheap rhetorical tricks is ALL you have.

"Facts. Points. Premises. Conclusions. I didn't invent them, folks. I defer to them."

And mangle them!

"Lots of taunting"

Riiight, Mr. "Schooling" and "you guys are wrong" and...bla bla bla.

You have lost on every factual point so far. Gone with the wind? McCarthyism?

You have weaseled out of every direct attack on your "logic" and "argument" so far.

You are not worth the time.

"Mitch - you have often made arguments of the "deafening silence" form."

If you mean "ran out of time to respond to every comment in every thread?" Sure.

I've never evaded a direct question, like Mr. J has repeatedly.

"Really? How many girlfriends with gay dads do YOU have?"

All of them. Those chicks are the hottest.

"How many boyfriends of said gay dad have you helped move?"

Forty seven.

"How many gay friends have you had in your lifetime?"

Oh, numbers don't always match quality. My favorite was Adrian, a pretty French/Nicaraguan drag queen who introduced me to Tennessee Williams and considered my first screenplay literature. Flattery sure can work...

"And yet I'M THE ONE WHO IS IGNORANT?"

Hey, we're all ignorant, pal. You're wiser than the rest, certainly moreso than Kermit and others.

But here's your specific ignorance: in a world where gays can marry and adopt freely, where they do not fear being killed for being together, I'll gladly accept grievances about 'infidelity'. But when discussing Brokeback, where death was the price for being seen as homosexual, it's completely backwards to blame them. They would have been together and never given a thought to marrying women in a heartbeat.

I assume I still have room for improvement when it comes to how I regard homosexuals and other people from whom I differ. I don't claim a little street cred and then use that as proof that I can do no better.

jeromy is right all you righty tigthy bastards wtih your hatered of gays and your wars and killing should be killed yourelves jeromys blog is one of the best i have hever read and i am pround to call hima felow iowan and a felow democrat. we care for the poor even when it is not going to make us money all you reTHUGlican bastards are stupid and need to just shut uip jeromy make you all look like fools.

Anna wins the thread with the funniest shit I've read all week.

"I asked for credible pundits, not some guy from a hog farm whose credibility I have no idea about."

You have no right to talk about weaseling, Mitch. Or honest debate. Most of your bragging will be discounted...for that is ALL you have.

But let's address the last attempt you're making at sticking to an issue.

You asked for a PUNDIT. A pundit. A friggin' talking head, somebody who needs to pass no particular test, except that they get listened to. A LOW standard. You say "credible" so I assume you're still excluding Coulter...maybe? She gets front covers on Time, so what's the deal? You won't say. I give you an elected Republican, someone who does represent voters, and you say "no fair."

It's news that the category of "pundit" is more weighty than "elected representative" but...here we go.

You asked for ANY credible pundit. Of course, you and I are just pundits, but we then would have to introduce http://www.senatormccarthy.com/ or all the other rantings of the right blogosphere, echoed in your comments section.

So I've got Mark Levin who plays McCarthy down, calling Teddy Kennedy a greater menace than McCarthy ever was...

But you want someone who actually says it out loud, not just hinting at it. Just like all pro-lifers actually say what the penalty for mothers who have abortion should be.

Since you don't tell me who you find credible, let's look at somebody you've quoted directly: Jonah Goldberg.

Whoops!

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg022603.asp

"McCarthy...was also right."
"Well, I would dearly love to reclaim the word McCarthyism"
"McCarthy...was on the right side of history."

Sorry, it's not your day, Mitch.

So, another point, or more trash-talking followed by accusing me of ONLY having trash talking?

Which, now that I think of it, is an accusation you use only because you think it hits me below the belt. Because obviously I do care about making a point.

But then there is reality. Have fun with that ego-defense, Mitch!

Mitch, gotta call ya on this one:

Mitch said, "I've never evaded a direct question, like Mr. J has repeatedly."

However, yesterday I asked, and never received a response. Although you can be forgiven due to the dearth of posts about clooney and the relative success of past presidents.

I posted:

huh?

"and am myself a very red person... and remain ambivalent about his spending..."

How can you, as a self described Republican, be only ambivalent about the level of spending at the Federal level?

I thought fiscal responsiblity was a main pillar of the Republican Party, but apparently neither party is too interested in that anymore...

"How can you, as a self described Republican, be only ambivalent about the level of spending at the Federal level?"

I'm a master of understatement?

Anna wins the thread with the funniest shit I've read all week.

Posted by Ryan at March 10, 2006 02:53 PM

Simple minds are easily entertained, I guess.

Of course, I find it entertaining to see a conservative declare as victor somebody who comes in and contributes nothing but another recycled version of "Oh yes we conservatives are bloodthirsty vampires...and if you don't think so, then everything we said before is right."

So anyway, I've been blown away by all the back-patting and intellectual discourse going on. Thanks for the show, folks.

Where have you gone, Mr. Angryclown? A nation turns it'sa lonely eyes to you. Woo.

anna does win the prize for funniest post, by the way. She your 13 year old girlfriend jerOmy? That would explain the whole "pucker up and kiss my a** thing.

"Hey, we're all ignorant, pal. You're wiser than the rest, certainly moreso than Kermit and others."

At least you got the first part right. I need to converse with Ryan a bit to deteremine the second.
As for the rest, you are way out of your depth. Go back to the fever swamp.

And we, in turn, have been dazzled by your ability to face inconvenient facts and realize the sun doesn't shine out your ass.

Au revoir!

Amazing...the mountains of shit you guys are talking and you're still harping on about me telling one person to kiss my ass?

Boy, I wish I could hand out therapy vouchers.

Mitch, let me know when you have some advice that you actually follow yourself. What inconvenient fact have I been unable to face?

Please do enlighten.

"Simple minds are easily entertained, I guess."

You should see me with a slinky! Those things are, like, the most incredible things since. . . ooh, look! Something shiny!

You should see me with my 13 year old girlfriend, or whatever the hell Kermit was talking about...

You guys are definitely some emotionally sensitive wimps, I tell ya.

"You guys are definitely some emotionally sensitive wimps, I tell ya."

LOL! Yeah, Internet comment threads just leave me weeping uncontrollably. I'm not sure how I manage to get through my day after a comment thread like this.

Pfft. Internet insults and barbs have about as much punch at Stephen Hawking.

Ryan: sounds good, so why did YOU also drop the discussion and resort to rhetoric?

Quit your whining.

I learned a lot from this thread.

Like how to argue like "jeromy":

You guys are all dumb. Brain-free! You are all wrong, I'm right.

You are all pathetic.

Wow. You're pathetic, so I'll leave you pathetic pathetics here.

Bye, all you wrong people.

How'd I do?

"sounds good, so why did YOU also drop the discussion and resort to rhetoric?"

Uhhh, gee, because I pretty much wrote you off as a crank back when this thread was in the 20s or so?

That, and comment threads usually have to end sometime, although in places like Fark, I've seen them go into the 1000s before people lost interest.

Finally, I've been blogging for too many years now to take comment threads all that seriously. I see you're still in the inflated-sense-of-self-importance phase of blogging. That's cute. It passes though. Give it time.

mark anthony: rotten. tip: stop lying.

this thread has been going on for awhile now, and I've attempted to thoroughly and comprehensively respond to every POINT that has been raised.

I've been largely met by all manner of hooting and snorting, with very few coherent rebuttals. Every rebuttal I've received, I've tried to honestly respond to.

What I've finally gotten is a complete abandonment of the issues from everybody and a constant stream of lying horseshit. You guys aren't trying to debate Hollywood, elitism, or McCarthyism, or homosexuality anymore. It's just "I'm Jeromy I argue with just insults!" not because you actually think it's true, but because you think that's how you deal with a liberal.

If you get three paragraphs from a liberal, look for any line of snark in it. If he signs it off with "Kiss my ass," spend fifty posts complaining about how ALL YOU LIBERALS DO IS SWEAR AND SAY KISS MY ASS AND I WIN YOU CONSERVATIVES ARE STUPID DUH DUH DUH...

Again, folks, George Clooney, Peggy Noonan, elitism, Hollywood...the ORIGINAL DISCUSSION!!!

I KNOW ALREADY that you can keep hooting and making noise!

And I know already that none of you will fess up that you blew it today. One liberal came in here and kicked all your asses upside down. You couldn't address the points, so you want to drown me out with noise. Not to change my mind, but to convince each other that you're really all OK and I didn't threaten your view of the world in any way.

And thus again I feel pretty justified in my original blog post "Thought-deprived goon of the day" regarding Mitch. I've been quite open to anybody in here who wanted to inject something thoughtful, and I've received useless muck.

You guys have something else MEANINGFUL to add? You've got my email, you know my blog. I may return to partake in more shit-talking since I enjoy it almost as much as you guys do, but unless there's some serious content to explore, I might have to forsake the fun.

Anyway, continue in your circle of self-reinforcing parrot-screeching. Flail about all offended and weak in the knees. Just don't pretend you've offered me a single nugget of info to think about or ponder.

Wow! Today this looks like a great place to set up concession stand...

Hats! Get your tinfoil hat's here! Get 'em while they last!

"Anyway, continue in your circle of self-reinforcing parrot-screeching."

And you yours'.

"Internet insults and barbs have about as much punch at Stephen Hawking."

Dude. He's got some sneaky moves. Don't get all cocky and think he's nothing, because you'll turn your back and WHAM!! Try explaining how you got your *ss kicked by Stephen Hawking to your buddies the next day. It's not fun! So I'm told.

"Just don't pretend you've offered me a single nugget of info to think about or ponder"

Silly lad. I never thought for a moment that was even possible.

Wow, you guys whine and make excuses!

These can't be real conservatives. Conservatives are tough and believe in accountability!

Who exactly are conservatives supposed to be accountable to, Jeromy -- you? And it's doubtful that any conservative cares at all whether or not you think they are "tough". Go back to grave digging or selling amway or whatever it is you do for a living. You've got no future as a polemicist. Your skin is too thin.

Well I expect that when you can't win an argument you just give up instead of saying "Well I never offered you food for thought because you can't think!" or "Well, I know I've been battling back and forth with you for twenty or thirty posts, but arguing online is so old for me, I can't believe you're still doing it..."

Anyway, both Ryan and Mitch received comprehensive responses to the last attempts they made at serious points.

Since then, it's been an avalanche of horse manure, but no targeted response.

Please, if I'm wrong, enlighten me. Tell me how Ryan or Mitch offered a rebuttal and I missed it.

Otherwise, continue squirming on the pole...

You guys are really full of anger. My skin is thin? Please, I've been holding back on you guys lest you fall to the ground crying and blubbering again over any "insult."

Now, continue with your constant stream of insults, folks! I'm laughing the whole way...

Somewhere I'll find a conservative who actually sticks to the subject.

Oh and don't knock gravediggers, you insolent wretches! Nice way to talk about those who prepare the ground for your dead!

The lack of respect in today's society...

Never said there was anything wrong with being a grave digger. Seems like you read into people's comments things they don't say. Helps when you want to set strawmen up & then knock them down.

"Seems like you read into people's comments things they don't say. Helps when you want to set strawmen up & then knock them down."

My sentiments exactly - going back to the very first comment.

Helps avoid actually engaging anything.

Jeromy, you are facile to a fault.

OK, I'm late to the party, but here's how I think this scored.

Jeromy scored one glancing blow by actually presenting the name of a Republican Iowa congressman who allegedly claimed that McCarthy “was a great American hero.” I tend to agree with Mitch that Congressman Steve King falls short in the “credible pundit” category, but Mitch loses points by not conceding that there is in fact one person on the Right who holds this opinion who has appeared in the press, and therefor could conceivably be called a "pundit"

Ergo, Mitch must be a big poo-poo head. Oh, sorry. Doesn't that follow logically? My bad.

Jeromy loses points by not conceding that he misread Mitch’s statement re: accomplishment and by showing a general arrogant superiority in his relations with the commenter on this blog. Nobody likes a smarty pants.

Jeromy also loses points by saying “goodbye” in, like, a dozen comments and then NOT GOING AWAY!

Most drama queens know how to make an exit!

New funniest comment on this thread:

"this thread has been going on for awhile now, and I've attempted to thoroughly and comprehensively respond to every POINT that has been raised."

When I made the completely accurate statement that McCarthy was right, juvenile jerOmy was so quick to shout "An honest conservative! He loves McCarthy and hates gays" which was a of course a distortion. No surprise. What Juvenile jerOmy conveniently avoided was my question "Ever hear of the Venona papers?" Looking into this little detail would have derailed Juvenile jerOmy's masturbatory tirades in the following 30 or so posts. Too bad. As Angryclown once quite correctly pointed out "The Internet is good for more than just surfing porn" jerOmy.
Educate your arrogant, dumb ass. Then try debate. Like I said before, you are out of your depth. Punk.

Pious Adnostic> arrogance aside, let's not forget the Jonah Goldberg mention.

richard --

Oh yes. Goldberg wrote in the article sited (among other things):

"McCarthy behaved like a jerk"
"Senator Joe McCarthy was a lout"
"The McCarythites — defined as almost anyone who was meaningfully anti-Communist — were still venal and unjustified in their assaults on 'civil libertarians.'"

Did you read the article? It seems to me that Goldberg is saying , while McCarthy was an ass, there really were Commies in the US Government working against the interests of the American people; and regardless of his personal bullying, he was correct to say so.

Just because the Firechief is a racist son-of-a-bitch doesn't mean that houses don't burn down.

Whaddaya want? I already deducted the points from Mitch's score for this.

But I actually agree with Goldberg on this point. And, as for that, with Congressman King.

Kermit-
The Venona List draws a blank from most lefties -- they've got a blind spot there, similar to the blind spot they have concerning human rights abuses in Vietnam post 1975.

Thank you, Jeromy. You have done an excellent job of exposing these yellow running dogs with your keen intellect, supreme erudition, and masterful debating skills. We need more people like you who are just as willing and dedicated to our cause as you are. Your commitment to hard work, long hours, and constant attention to detail is an inspiration to us all. Thanks for sharing your skills and insights. We are all the better for it.

You are why there is still hope for this country because you so ably define and illustrate the core principles and the immutable, transcendant values of our Democratic Party and our liberal cause. Have you ever worked on a campaign staff, Jeromy? We could use a guy like you. If you are not yet a professional, maybe you should become one. In any case, keep up the good work.

My fellow comrades, (you know who you are) all of you pay attention. THIS is how it's done. THIS is how truth is spoken to power. THIS is our way to victory this year, in 2008, and beyond.

We will discuss this more thoroughly at the next meeting. Don't be late! And Jeromy -- thanks again. Great job!

Eracus: Ha!

Jeromy: Sources tell me you're a student at Drake? Well, there's one place I won't be sending my kids...

Seriously, J-dog - it shows. Believe me, I remember what it's like. There's a saying; "the greatest experts in human behavior are freshman psych majors"; likewise, I suppose, with undergrads who've taken just enough rhetoric and poli sci to enflame their juvenile beliefs, but not enough to give them any perspective.

Your style of argumentation is simply infantile:

* Set up a strawman, and then flail it around (for example, the "if only" that you harped on)
* Rely on gross, insulting generalizations (are "republicans" really "trying to revive Joe McCarthy?" Uh uh. In fact, the most McCarthyite institution in America today is the campus speech code; that's your people in action...)
* Pass insults around freely, and then act like a victorian matron with the vapors when you get insulted back.

You and your little hacky-sack playing, lice-ridden fratboy friends are perfectly welcome here, of course - you're fun to beat up on. But just be advised that someday when you leave the ivy halls of Drake, you're going to have to modify your style a bit.

(Unless you get a job with Howard Dean).

Curse you, Eracus! you have exposed the weakness in our evil conspiracies! Never again will we be able to use fact and logic to befuddle bright young minds like jeromy's.
Those of us in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy will just have to hope that they continue smoking dope. It's our only hope of maintaining world domination.

Mtich -Was this intentionally supposed to be funny? Since you didn't put in a straw-man under the first point, I'm not sure.

You wrote:

Your style of argumentation is simply infantile:

Set up a strawman, and then flail it around (for example, the "if only" that you harped on

Rely on gross, insulting generalizations (are "republicans" really "trying to revive Joe McCarthy?"

You then continue with an insulting generalization like, "In fact, the most McCarthyite institution in America today is the campus speech code; that's your people in action...) (the generalization being the "your people" aspect of the argument.

Pass insults around freely, and then act like a victorian matron with the vapors when you get insulted back.

Which you immediately follow with the insult, "You and your little hacky-sack playing, lice-ridden fratboy friends" and some condecension, "But just be advised that someday when you leave the ivy halls of Drake, you're going to have to modify your style a bit." All of which was in response to Jeromy's inults.

So was that supposed to be read for laughs or not?

Nick, I'm sure you and your buddies have been thoroughly deloused, however the statement "In fact, the most McCarthyite institution in America today is the campus speech code; that's your people in action...) is quite accurate. I doubt you attend Harvard, but try Googling Larry Summers. You will find a wealth of evidence pertaining to the McCarthyite tendencies festering in liberal academia.

Who are my alleged buddies?

"You then continue with an insulting generalization like, "In fact, the most McCarthyite institution in America today is the campus speech code; that's your people in action...) (the generalization being the "your people" aspect of the argument."

Where have conservatives advanced a campus speech code?

There's nothing general about it; it's a specific, documentable, TRUE statement.

Quite unlike anything our friend Jeromy said.

Nick queried "Who are my alleged buddies?"
To which the only logical response would be those guys scratching themselves in between kicks.
Silly.
Google Larry Summers yet? Remember, Harvard. And next time capitalize Victorian. It will make you look so much smarterer.

So I assume that it wasn't done as a joke.

I'll state it again for clarity.

"In fact, the most McCarthyite institution in America today is the campus speech code; that's your people in action...) (the generalization being the "your people" aspect of the argument.

The addition of the words "your people" implies that McCartyite policies have the monolithic support of liberals. This is a sort of "guilt by association" argument that would be similar to Jeromy stating that "Republicans hate gays" since he can identify some/many that do. Both contentions are obviously false.

Kermit - Why am I getting such agression from you? Honestly? The only things I've written about are argument style. What is it you think I believe? I'd be better equiped to respond if you would explain it.

Kermit - Why am I getting such agression from you? Honestly? The only things I've written about are argument style. What is it you think I believe? I'd be better equiped to respond if you would explain it.

Boy I love a good circle jerk. Memorable moment: taking seriously my gravedigger joking! And then Mitch jumps in and says "Yeah, Jeromy reads too much into other people's comments!"

Sorry to interrupt your harmony again.

Anyway, I get no vapors from insults. I always brush them off and go straight for the substance, if any exists. And once I've made my point, I like to toss some back.

Then you ninnies freak out about how "classy" I am and whine for dozens of posts when I mutter something like "kiss my ass." "All liberals can do is swear!" "Edit out the CUSS WORDS and Jeromy wouldn't have anything to say!" And so on.

I see that among the continuing verbal flatulence going on in here (the suggestion that I go to Drake, or am even still in college, was very, very funny), the one "HEY I HAD A POINT HE DIDN'T ADDRESS, HOORAY!" moment came from the gloating over the Venona papers.

Yeah, well find me one moron who didn't think there were Communist spies in the US. Fer fuck's sake, folks, not everybody is as factually challenged as yourselves.

It was the attempt to spread the dragnet and go after anybody who'd brushed shoulders with a group that believed in Communism (not necessarily consorting with the USSR) which obviously earned McCarthy his infamy. Hunting Communist spies is one thing. Having people sign loyalty oaths and waving empty envelopes is quite another.

The Venona papers hardly merit justification or rehabilitation of McCarthy's image as somebody on the right side of history. Such vague claims could still be applied by the sufficiently zealous had McCarthy been able to jail everybody who picked up a Communist flyer.

You guys ARE trying to revive McCarthy and can barely contain it. You know it isn't cool yet, which is why you instinctively come down on top of somebody who points out the obvious. It's one of those things that only the right is supposed to talk about amongst themselves. You can't stand the sunshine.

And actually I conceded willingness, Mitch, to accept that you didn't intend to besmirch the accomplishments of the celebs mentioned...in my first response to your comment on my blog.

"If you want to say you didn’t mean it, fine."

Of course, you didn't retract your claims that I was the one who didn't understand English.

All expected, of course.

Oh, and I'm waiting for those inconvenient facts.

Or for you to answer one of my very first questions: How was George Clooney being elitist in making a film reminding America what...AMERICA realized half a century ago?

I've definitely got to continue this "Thought-deprived goon of the day" gig. It's been very entertaining, fellas.

Oh, and I'm relatively new to blogging, but quite an old hand at Internet bickering. Unfortunately the BBS is just about dead, and I got tired of arguing with the same five conservatives every day. So I'm well prepared for you fellas...it's not too tough when you all get your talking points from Rove, Limbaugh, and Faux News.

And yes, I know that people really hate me when I stick to the point and don't let go. I've heard every epithet there is...but again...

I'll repeat...

Get back to the issues, folks, and I'll be right there waiting for you. If you have a serious point and you don't hear back from me, go ahead and email me at nitrate21@msn.com.

It's been a pleasure...

JB

p.s. sorry for those who hate to read, I'm a writer by trade and the words just naturally flow...

"sorry for those who hate to read, I'm a writer by trade and the words just naturally flow"

So does diarrhea.

Oh boy, Ryan: Score!

Jeromy (the spelling is a tip-off) has turned into the latest PB...I just sigh and scroll by.

Nick,
"The addition of the words "your people" implies that McCartyite policies have the monolithic support of liberals."
I don't believe I used the appelation "your people" it was "alleged buddies" which gives you full and clear exemption from association, should you so choose.
The point of contention, which you chose to pick up, was the McCarthyite tendendicies of liberal university establishments which have been proven time and again to anyone with a brain and the ability to observe. Look up Larry Summers. Please. As to jeromy, this poor idiot makes the most unfortunate conclusion "The Venona papers hardly merit justification or rehabilitation of McCarthy's image as somebody on the right side of history." which merely proves his judgement is not only weak, it is biased and untrustworthy. Unless jerOmy is a communist. In truth, I wonder if the idiot jerOmy even read them. Hard to refute McCarthy if you have, jer.

Again, Jeromy, EXCELLENT. Please save some of that righteous heroic patriotic inspiration for our next meeting, which you must address in uniform, if at all possible. Please? Even better if you can recommend some gesture, some patriotic salute. Even a secret handshake will serve well to increase our number, for your leadership above all else is what we need, indeed, crave for. Finally, a voice!!

p.s. And can you get us all a bag of some of that shit? C'mon, dude. Share the wealth. Man does not live on bread alone, y'know. Any poppers? Just wonderin'. Do you know Ned?

kermit: that's argumentation? "well, you didn't come to the same conclusion as me, so you must be an idiot!"

rather farcical. again, i have never heard of anybody who didn't think the USSR spied on the US.

What is also curious is that the US government didn't immediately buckle to Communist takeover as soon as the most noble warrior against them was taken down...

McCarthy did little to actually stop any spy. Our best and brightest did so quietly and competently...without the showboating and witch hunting.

But that seems to be the GOP's flavor...a big shit-talking incompetent who's "on the right side" but completely bungles the actual mission and doesn't get us anywhere. Sound familiar? Somebody who's getting approval ratings in the 30's nowadays?

The funniest thing is that Mitch is arguing "We are not trying to revive Joe McCarthy!!!" at the very same time I'm in an argument with you "supporters" who are doing exactly that thing.

SO you can't get your story straight, but you guys sure can make poopy jokes!

Too bad I thought to bring a shit umbrella before I ever entered Mitch's territory...

Zzzzzzz. Huh? Wha? JerOmy's still here? Pity.

ryan: you are aware that you're still here, aren't you?

is every person in here required to insert chutzpah?

i would advise against it. it makes you look like an incredibly stupid ninny who gave up his argument forty posts ago and resorted to infantile mocking in order to boost his ego.

Straight out of the mouth of babes.

Truth to Power!!

eracus: here is the attention you have been begging for. your "satire" was grasped within the first poorly written line.

you're no general jc christian. that's a patriot!

http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/

if you need more attention, four or five more posts from you will let me know.

Actually, little JerOmy, I'm still here because I've met Mitch personally on a couple of occasions and I like the guy, so I kind of consider this to be a friend's blog. And, although Mitch certainly doesn't require my help when responding to human stains such as yourself, I still enjoy doing my part.

Incidently, I find it ironic that you think I'm mocking you in an attempt to boost my ego, when I think it's pretty obvious to pretty much everyone commenting here that you're mostly stirring the pot here at Mitch's blog in a pretty blatant attempt to drive traffic to your blog. Which is fine. Whatever. You're certainly not here because you're making a good argument about anything, which is why I started mocking you about 40 posts ago.

ryan: you can make excuses as to why you had to stop offering substantive commentary to please yourself, but i see them exactly for what they are: excuses.

i've heard every reason in the book why i somehow just don't deserve a rebuttal. why? i know damn well why. because nobody ever says "okay you got me, i'm wrong!"

but you ain't my wife, so i ain't interested in romancing you and making you feel like you've got a big dong. and if you don't want to read the blog, whoopty ding dong. but i will be the last person to post something substantive that addresses the point.

you have made it clear you'll be the whiny shit-talker. the one thing we agree on is that you gave up long ago. just don't pretend you didn't try.

Jeromy, you are hurting our feelings. :-( We admire you all the more though for your equality and justice. :-) Your superior intellect and communication skills are surpassed only by your psychological achievements. Please don't turn on us now! We need your leadership to turn back the tide of yellow running dogs so our Party can save the Earth for the children who need a higher minimum wage, universal healthcare, and free college tuition. Only then can we ban the guns, impose the speech codes, and declare God is dead, remember?

Peace be upon you for leading us all to victory! All your posts here, which are EXCELLENT, are a great way for you to get the attention you so deserve and helps keep our message fresh!!

p.s. Have you considered that career move yet? We really need you! Any ideas for our uniforms? We think yours should have alot of stars and stripes with a real fancy hat that has ribbons and bows and maybe a little tassle, you know, like a fez. That old beret is overrated, don't you think? Any word on the t-shirts? Everyone wants you to see their new signs too. See you at the next meeting!!

There is something special about being writing the comment number 100 in someones blog. (besides the Happy Meal Mitch is going to buy me the next time I'm in town.

And so I will take advantage of it.

January 1st of this year I decided to pursue “excellence” in every aspect of my life, and finding myself at the blog site of a high school friend became a small part of it.

The excellence in this particular blog is that my friend is pursuing his hobby with a passion that moves his behavior to excellence.

Jeromy, fill your coffee cup and go back and read between all the lines of this thread. It is not everyday you will have a conservative spend this much time debating you. Have you paused to ask yourself why? Between Mitch’s rhetoric and emotion are the thoughts of a conservative…but you are not seeing them. Most conservatives would have dismissed you by now as foolish because they cannot get past how you are speaking. Excessive metaphors to conservatives tell them that you can’t make your point plainly with logic. (It is not an issue of intelligence, but of thought process).

Make your point without the emotion, and you will get an opportunity to really challenge a conservative mind. It is hard to do, but well worth the effort.(again, not an issue of intelligence, but one of thought process)

Your slugfest is amusing, but as a conservative I would rather try to understand your thoughts on any given position. There are those of us who never comment, but read and listen, looking to access reason and intelligence to those we disagree with. We do this because we pursue excellence rather than liberalism or conservatism.

Believe it or not, many people listen to opposing thoughts and views to make themselves better.

When I sit with my cup of coffee, I ask myself; ‘ What is Jeromy trying to tell me? What is it that is important enough for him to keep going on?’

You’re on center stage my friend, and I really am listening.

Jeromy,

Take it easy on ole' Mitch. No one who knows him ever thought he was especially clever. He's a decent writer (after 20 years of working at it, I'd hope he finally have learned some ability to put two words together), but logic is not high on his list.

As for Hollywood, he hates it because it often points out the immorality of his chosen faith err. party. You are, of course, right that it has produced MANY good things - and Mitch is obvious when he points out it's also produced many bad - Mitch, a much easier argument would have been the exploitation of women from Hollywood, but I'm not certain you object to that.

Hey Mitch, two questions, do you watch films from Hollywood?, and second, do your kids attend public or private schools?

I just want to see what kind of hypocrite you really are, I mean I know you criticize liberal protesters for not working when you do the same crap during your off time, but let's cut to brass tacks here. Do you put your money (or not put it) where your mouth is?

PB

"Hey Mitch, two questions, do you watch films from Hollywood?"

Strawman, and a dumb one at that. There's nothing about criticizing Hollywood that says I can't go to movies. And if I didn't, and still criticized Hollywood, you would bleat that I was a hypocrite THEN, too.

"and second, do your kids attend public or private schools?"

Neither, and it's none of your business. Seriously, PB, my kids are totally off limits to you or anyone else. There is no negotiation on this.

Eracus, I vote for the little Mao hats with the red star in front.

PB's a stalker!

Look out!

eracus: for a joke to be funny the tenth time, it has to be funny the first time. for example:

i walked into the bar the other day and told the bartender "surprise me." he showed me a picture of my wife naked...i said "who told you you could sleep with my wife?" the bartender said, "everybody!"

RIP rodney dangerfield

Chris: Thanks for the serious approach. You're the first one here to attempt it.

On that note, I care not one whit for the quantity of a conservative's time I am blessed with, but rather the quality. I feel neither lucky nor thankful for the meager effort Mitch has provided, all of which has been put into substandard logic and rhetoric. In the manner of the conservative "logic" I'm used to facing, the conclusion is placed before the premise, and Mitch has been just as quick to declare himself the winner without actually doing anything as President Bush was when he declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq.

This absence of thought is exactly what drew me to Mitch's comments while reading the Daou Report. Grand conclusions drawn from poor and selective evidence, coupled with slippery language led me to initiate a critical post.

Mitch initiated a debate by posting in my blog comments, then set up his own challenge on this blog. I answered him in both places.

Questions of larger philosophy are something I'd rather set aside. The discourse itself is my highest priority. I can respect a conservative thinker, when I encounter one. Most conservative platitudes seem essentially harmless on the surface. But when I see error in reasoning, I go after it, just like I expect any conservative to do to liberals.

That said, I have no problems with whatever venomous rhetoric is thrown my way. What tires me are the endless excuses that people make to justify why they couldn't answer the questions I posed. Couple rhetoric with your logic, sure...but pure rhetoric without logic? That's when somebody's covering up, and that's when I'm going to latch on and insist that either the person return to the initial questions being weighed, or they relent.

Of course, nobody relents. Openly, anyway. And while they may hurl every ounce of spite my way that they can out of defensiveness, I do not consider myself the guardian of their self-esteem. Nor do I look to have anybody "follow" me or any such self-serving notion.

I expect each person's sense of pride to also include, when nobody is looking, struggling to improve where they are deficient...to be excellent, as you have desired to be.

How you've found excellence in Mitch's blog is up to you. But if you've seen any in his responses regarding this individual debate and subsequent thread, I would marvel to be let in on the secret. Do, do tell.

My position is that the mud is being flung both ways. In the midst, being correct is the thing that may not win today, but is essential to the future. Not one single person in this comment thread may like me, but they'll think twice before they foist sloppiness and irrelevance on me again.

Fair enough?

Now I figure that Mitch and others have long run with their tails between their legs regarding every one of the initial questions that sparked this debate. And I may yet come back to have a go at whatever foolishness pops up. But it will not be doubted that I posed the last serious rebuttals in this thread and that I have remained unanswered. Many excuses have followed, but that truth will not cease to exist.

And should I be stunned into silence and making excuses by somebody's on-topic point, I shall have some thinking to do in the future.

Take THAT, Chris!! Right in the kisser, Bushboy.

AWESOME response, Jeromy, just AWESOME!! Not even I can figure out what in the world you are talking about. That part about setting aside larger questions of philosophy in pursuit of logic without rhetoric and how being correct doesn't matter now but will in the future is just plain REVOLUTIONARY, especially in the context of your having been drawn into all this in the first place by the absence of thought. Ain't that the truth!! You sure know how to fill a vacuum, Jeromy. That solemn declaration of how your serious rebuttals as yet remain unanswered and how that simple truth will not cease to exist was a nice touch too. Brilliant!!

PB, meet The Master. Take some notes, will ya?

p.s. Jeromy, one more thing. We need a ruling on the color scheme for our uniforms. All black or all brown? And Ned thinks you should just wear a nice white linen robe, you know, like all the rest of the believers. It could do alot for world peace!! Think about it, okay? Just let us know when you come back for our next lesson on the absence of thought. We can hardly wait!!

Jeromy,

Well said. It will be a pleasure to rattle sabers with you in the future.

I thought that perhaps there was some logic between the lines.

Here is a thought...as iron sharpens iron(perhaps you know the rest!)

And Eracus, you are not reading between the lines. Jeromy has indicated the rules of engagement that he will follow in the course of further verbal conflict(a fight if you will). Because of this definition, the fight produces clarity of purpose and understanding. And to those watching the fight an idea of what each of us are trying to say.
I have not taken it in the kisser, but rather invited to spar.

Jeromy, the excellence is not in Mitch's blog, it is Mitch's blog. Excellence is a conscious effort to rise above mediocrity. It requires thought and effort. The content of the blog does not define the excellence, the determination of the blogger to become better at what he does defines the excellence. I don’t have to agree with the content to accept excellence.

Everything that comes from ones mouth is a spillover from what is in their heart. There is no exception to this. This blog stirs peoples hearts, and I find it interesting the words that end up coming from their mouths.

Oh, dear Chris, withdraw thy sword else thee impale thyself upon it. Check your premises. I read between the lines quite well and have been writing quite well between the lines to reach a distant sailor so lost upon the turgid sea of liberal dogma that he cannot tell the flotsam from the lifeboats.

No doubt in vain.

This comment thread, to generalize a synopsis, was initiated by Jeromy in defense of modern Hollywood, specifically George Clooney and his televised diatribe on the supposed virtues of Hollywood's being out of touch with the rest of America. The thread quickly then became Jeromy's own self-parody, driven by his ascorbic asides and personal insults in a manner more vulgar than is usually found on Mitch's blog. And this was his challenge to formative debate, his appeal to logic, all the while offering nothing more than his obviously uninformed opinion while lecturing the rest of us on ours assuming we are none as erudite as he. This is farce and I have illustrated it, as anyone familiar with my usual postings here would surely recognize.

I love Hollywood. I love the movies, but I don't go anymore. It's not the Hollywood I respect at all; they don't make movies like they used to. It's mostly just more propaganda now or formulaic theatrical equations with a message some knucklehead director or half-baked movie star insists I need to learn for my own good, as if I need some college drop-out or trust fund cokehead to explain the facts of life to me. Let them tell it to the Marines.

It wasn't that long ago when the screens were filled with real people, who wrote, performed, and directed the movies other real people produced and watched. They knew who they were and what they stood for and they respected their audience as much as themselves, because they never forgot the fact they were all the same people. They remembered somehow they were all in it together, because they were. That's why they never made movies that gratuitously degraded their country or countrymen, and if they did have a particular message, they had the integrity to back it up. What makes "Dr. Strangelove" art and not unmitigated crap is the fact Peter Sellers and George C. Scott both fought in World War II.

What George Clooney (and Jeromy) doesn't understand is that far greater men than he once were the image of Hollywood. Indeed, they made Hollywood the fabulous industry it is in the world today. They had integrity. They had guts. When our country faced an enemy no less evil than the enemy we face today, they didn't attack the president, they didn't undermine the war effort, and they didn't lecture their audience. They enlisted. They fought in combat. Lee Marvin got shot in the ass on Saipan. Jimmy Stewart entered the Air Force as a private, became a Colonel as a bomber pilot, and made Brigadier General as a reservist long after the war had ended. And if they couldn't fight, they volunteered their services in whatever capacity was available. Charlie Chapman made "The Great Dictator" in 1940 and sent it to Hitler.

It wasn't that they were necessarily especially patriotic; it was just the right thing to do. And they did it even at a time when the prevailing popular opinion in this country was anti-war and isolationist. The socialist utopia promised by the Soviet Union was all the rage. Unions were organizing, pacifist speeches were being broadcast on radio and printed in newspapers, and FDR was despised by half the country -- and all this while the Nazis had Europe's neck under the jackboot of the Third Reich slaughtering Jews by the millions. Sound familiar??

And yet what do we get from Hollywood today? Four years after downtown New York was bombed leaving 3,000 innocent dead, and with our sons and daughters fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hollywood celebrates two gay cowboys, a gay drunk who wrote well, a transsexual in quite a quandary, the surprise of racism in L.A., a pimp turned rapper who gets rich by murdering another rapper, a tribute to Alger Hiss, yet another smear on pharmaceutical companies and..........George Clooney, standing butt-naked in America's barnyard, proclaiming the magnificence of modern Hollywood manure because the old sow once gave Aunt Jemima an Oscar 67 years ago.

By any moral standard, it's indefensible. It is the ultimate self-parody of our time. And if one can't discern that, the more the pity. Send in the clowns. Turn out the lights.

Good night and good luck.

....ahhhhh....another rum, sodomy and the lash thread......

Hollywood is dead and most everyone knows it....our last export of any mention

Eracus: now I see why you were hiding behind attempts at humor. And I'm really amazed how extensively you pat yourself on the back. Do you congratulate yourself after brushing your teeth?

Thanks for wasting my time with that "synopsis." Again, insults flew both ways, it's just that you folks are the ones that do all the crying about it. Your answer? More whining. Thanks! Oh, you didn't forget to include the standard hysterical lie, that since I insulted that ALL I OFFERED WAS INSULTS.

It's curious that you've been offering nothing but sarcasm and veiled insults up until this one meager attempt at forming a rebuttal to the actual premises being debated here. "...obviously uninformed opinion..."???

Again, I've asked before, what information do you or any other person in here claim that I am overlooking or lacking?

Answer: you don't know, but you plan on continuing to talk anyway.

So let's look at what you tried to offer us: the suggestion that folks in show business back then were "real" people, and today they're not. Your support? They didn't criticize WWII and some signed up to fight (not righty hero John Wayne, of course, the most famous example being populist liberal Jimmy Stewart). Of course, most of Hollywood was a bunch of fancypants and queers just like they are now, it's just out in the open. Your disgust is obvious, and disgraceful, and it's easy to know that I am a more enlightened and wise individual than yourself. You can declare this to be an impossibility before actually proving it (rightwing tactic #49: Loudly declare that you are not racist or homophobic, then proceed with racist or homophobic statements).

And your brethren are the pimps who exploited our nation's courage in WWII to pretend that Saddam Hussein was the next Hitler and got us bogged down in a sectarian war. Tip: WWII was over sixty years ago. Iraq is not Europe. Hussein is not Hitler. And loudmouth faux-macho yellow elephant Republicans far outnumber those that actually sign up to fight.

Your pretentious hypocrisy apparently knows no bounds. I'm sure you'll gladly tear down any soldier who actually sees action and comes back to tell the public what's going wrong. Soldiers understand that and it's no mistake that fifty Iraq veterans are running for office as Democrats. Your balloon of presumption has been exploded.

"It wasn't that they were necessarily especially patriotic; it was just the right thing to do."

Yes, WWII was the right thing to do. Rushing into Iraq, or staying quiet about your incompetent fuck-up Bush isn't the right thing to do.

There are so many assumptions and begged questions in your post that it is a marvel that you believe you can speak to anybody about logic. You're one of the endless lot of fools who just thinks that whatever way they think is the most logical. But you can't make it through a paragraph without making multiple technical mistakes.

I figured you for a poseur the second you started off with your lame attempt at sarcasm, Eracus, and now that you've finally been prodded to offer some substance, you've revealed just how full of it you are.

Hollywood is ahead of the curve, and people who go see "Brokeback Mountain" see something you can't stand: the humanity, and the love. LOVE. That which you and your lot are actively trying to push back out of your sight so you can pretend it doesn't exist. But it does, and you are failing. This is the last thrash before you realize you've lost the chance to legislate bigotry and the tide of history has washed you over.

I can imagine that it would be very painful to continue resisting. But you have a choice, unlike homosexuals. They can't stop loving, but you can stop hating.

My guess is that you'll continue being a self-congratulating bloviating ass who knows he'll lose a fair fight.

Hehe! Good work! -ipod nano
ipod nano

Who do you think has the perfect tits? I think Angelina Jolie has the best super tits