Making Baby Jesus Cry - Page 321

sebastian_dangerfield · 09-13-2005, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
You know, we really could use some work on our ad hominems around here, as Christopher Hitchens demonstrates:

Galloway's preferred style is that of vulgar ad hominem insult, usually uttered while a rather gaunt crew of minders stands around him. I have a thick skin and a broad back and no bodyguards. He says that I am an ex-Trotskyist (true), a "popinjay" (true enough, since its original Webster's definition means a target for arrows and shots), and that I cannot hold a drink (here I must protest). In a recent interview he made opprobrious remarks about the state of my midriff, which I will confess has—as P.G. Wodehouse himself once phrased it—"slipped down to the mezzanine floor." In reply I do not wish to stoop. Those of us who revere the vagina are committed to defend it against the very idea that it is a mouth or has teeth. Study the photographs of Galloway from Syrian state television, however, and you will see how unwise and incautious it is for such a hideous person to resort to personal remarks. Unkind nature, which could have made a perfectly good butt out of his face, has spoiled the whole effect by taking an asshole and studding it with ill-brushed fangs.

http://www.slate.com/id/2126121/nav/tap2/

(Hitchens article on George Galloway)

Actually, not his best. Too muddy... too Maileresque. Thats the problem with Hitchens' complicated constructions. The flow is so frequently disrupted the punchline gets lost among the speedbump asides.

This is why I revered Thompson for so long. His language always knifes the reader right between the eyes. I love Hitchens' views and opinions. He's brilliant. But he doesn't come right out and drive the hammer into your skull. I've always been searching for that one book that approached the literary equivalent of Never Mind the Bollocks. HST came close, but nobody I've ever read has written a high octane piece which runs from the opening paragraph right through to the end at full bore exhaustive frenzied speed, grabbing your attention and pummeling you with point after joke after addictive aliterative phrase. Evry book has that flat, contemplative space where it slows down - sort of a drum solo in the middle of the show. Why can't some writer just relentlessly fire the engines from page one through page 200?

Gattigap · 09-13-2005, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
This is kind of fun, but have some of you really posted 10,000 times?

Oh, you have no idea.

Penske_Account · 09-13-2005, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Are Dems ready to take the blame they deserve?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/column.../?id=110007250

Never happen. There is no acceptance of any responsibility on the left. Its all morally relative.

Spanky · 09-13-2005, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain

So, Mr. Spanky, if you were a strict constructionist, what did you believe that to mean?

Mainly I never like the idea of the exclusionary rule. We are supposed to be more conservative than the British but they never came up with this crazy idea (punishing the victims because of a police screw up instead of the police). Clearly our founding fathers never even thought of the idea and it seemed crazy to me to all of a sudden to pretend it is in the constitution when no one noticed it before the twentieth century (and then let a bunch of guilty people go free).

It also seemed logical to me that the Supreme Court should only strike down laws if they violated the constitution. If they did not violate the constitution, then the Supreme Court striking it down, seemed beyond their powers.

Busing kids all over the city to go to schools way across town just so schools could be integrated also seemed crazy and in no way in the constitution.

When I read Roe and other cases in Law School they also seemed crazy. Trying to pretent that the right to privacy exists through a "penumbral inference" seemed pure B.S. to me.

However, I had never heard the argument that there are rights that predate the constitution, and such rights could be used to strike down federal legislation. It also never occured to me that the Supreme Court could just make up such rights under a common law tradition. It certainly doesn't say they can do it in the constitution.

Most of the arguments for these made up rights seemed to revolve around trying to pretend the rights they made up were really in the consitution, but hidden, or part of the founder intent. This always seemed like BS to me. However, I never saw a straightforward argument that said that, this right is not in the constituion, but we believe such a right should exist, and there is a tradition in this country and in the common law system of courts making up rights so that is what we are going to do.

Captain · 09-13-2005, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Actually, not his best. Too muddy... too Maileresque. Thats the problem with Hitchens' complicated constructions. The flow is so frequently disrupted the punchline gets lost among the speedbump asides.

This is why I revered Thompson for so long. His language always knifes the reader right between the eyes. I love Hitchens' views and opinions. He's brilliant. But he doesn't come right out and drive the hammer into your skull. I've always been searching for that one book that approached the literary equivalent of Never Mind the Bollocks. HST came close, but nobody I've ever read has written a high octane piece which runs from the opening paragraph right through to the end at full bore exhaustive frenzied speed, grabbing your attention and pummeling you with point after joke after addictive aliterative phrase. Evry book has that flat, contemplative space where it slows down - sort of a drum solo in the middle of the show. Why can't some writer just relentlessly fire the engines from page one through page 200?

Aren't the real classics Swift ("Fine words! Where did you get them?"), GB Shaw ("She lacks the power of conversation but not of speech") and Dorothy Parker ("If all the girls who attended the Harvard-Yale game were laid end to end, I wouldn't be surprised").

Shape Shifter · 09-13-2005, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Ummmm, not so much.

Wodehouse quotes are beyond our collective ken. SS would be disappointed by their absence.

Whorehouse quotes are well within them. They may well be too rich for SS's blood, yet the lizard seeks them still.

Ah, nice one, gatti. But I will be sober in the morning when I drink the poison . . . er . . . You have plunged into a sea of platitudes with the obvious breast stroke of . . . um . . .

You have an ass for a face, you speciesist fuck.

Secret_Agent_Man · 09-13-2005, 06:58 PM

I hesitate to risk drawing the Board back into the Katrina debate -- but I got a laugh out of this (and a little photoshop from the left seems only fair).

[OK -- I need help -- how do I upload a picture and put it in a message.]

S_A_M

Shape Shifter · 09-13-2005, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I hesitate to risk drawing the Board back into the Katrina debate -- but I got a laugh out of this (and a little photoshop from the left seems only fair).

[OK -- I need help -- how do I upload a picture and put it in a message.]

S_A_M

You have to start an Insurgency first.

Penske_Account · 09-13-2005, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Sure, he sounds all smooth and shit on the radio, but if you had to go solely on this pic, it would appear his nomination isn't going too well.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 09-13-2005, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I hesitate to risk drawing the Board back into the Katrina debate -- but I got a laugh out of this (and a little photoshop from the left seems only fair).

[OK -- I need help -- how do I upload a picture and put it in a message.]

S_A_M

Or, just copy the link and use the "IMG" button to insert it.

nononono · 09-13-2005, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
Aren't the real classics Swift ("Fine words! Where did you get them?"), GB Shaw ("She lacks the power of conversation but not of speech") and Dorothy Parker ("If all the girls who attended the Harvard-Yale game were laid end to end, I wouldn't be surprised").

Ah, if we're talking wits, you can't omit Oscar Wilde. He and Dorothy Parker are 2 of the most important attendees at my fantasy dinner party.

Shape Shifter · 09-13-2005, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nononono
Ah, if we're talking wits, you can't omit Oscar Wilde. He and Dorothy Parker are 2 of the most important attendees at my fantasy dinner party.

What is the likelihood of getting both in the fantasy draft?

Replaced_Texan · 09-13-2005, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Or, just copy the link and use the "IMG" button to insert it.

Or if you need an upload, e-mail it to me and I'll put it on our server.

Penske_Account · 09-13-2005, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Yeah, but Lee Atwater and GHWB started it on a national level in the 1988 campaign. They had an easy target, but geez.

S_A_M

I agree that they lowered the bar. And for no real reason, Bush should have been able to win hands down without the bullshit they pulled. Although, unlike Carville and Begala, at least Atwater had the decency to apologise.

Gattigap · 09-13-2005, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Ah, nice one, gatti. But I will be sober in the morning when I drink the poison . . . er . . . You have plunged into a sea of platitudes with the obvious breast stroke of . . . um . . .

You have an ass for a face, you speciesist fuck.

To this I will not stoop, except to observe, as Tiffany once so memorably said, "Stiff me on the tip? Get outta here, ya freak! I've picked my teeth with bigger things than that!"