WTF, Michale Steele!

[Scam of God]

Tucker Carlson remains one of the most grating shills in the media establishment. The man has never met a Republican cause he hasn't adopted wholesale as his own; his entire brand of infotainment is geared towards re-inforcing his own asinine conceptions.

I guess I'll refer you to my previous post which apparently you failed to read:

Right-wing hack how exactly? He opposed the war, hated the Bush administration, supports marijuana legalization, supports gay marriage, and this stuff was before it became popular to be anti-Bush. He was a Paul supporter who works for Cato. How does any of this make him a right wing hack? When he was on Crossfire he was basically forced into being kneejerk conservative due to the format of the show. His show on MSNBC was lightyears ahead of most of the garbage on cable news.

I'll admit back in his Weekly Standard days he was definitely a Reaganite/Contract with America child of 1994. But we should look longingly back at those Republicans...

I understand that subtlety is hardly your strong suit, so let me say in as un-subtle a fashion as I can: that's the point. Carlson knew and knows how utterly hideous the conservative governing philosophy has become, but shies away from saying such with any tangible force, much like our friend paul718, because it might be tantamount to Party disloyalty, which in his hobbled mind might well be equated to treason.

A significant number of my votes have been for Democrats.  I often voice my displeasure with the GOP in this forum.  Carlson similarly voiced his displeasure on his TV program.  How much force does he need to exhibit for it to be tangible?  How is he a "shill"?  

It is shillery, my dear friend, because the underlying reasons for the New Right's existence and the horrors of the Bush years go unquestioned by him; he assumes that Bush fils was merely a bad apple, and that fusionism can resume its happy homesteading, re-united (and it feels so good!) in opposition to Obama - it is either shillery, or he's too intellectually shallow to see the obvious.

[paul718]

At the same time, what right does the pretentiously-named "Concerned Women" for America, and Mdml. Nance in particular, have to dictate the doings of private individuals, even if they be ecclesiarchs in the Republican priesthood? Are our moral systems so thoroughly socialized that someone with no relation whatsoever to the event has the right to "demand" anything of Steele and his cronies about their own affairs?

Didn't it involve donated money?

After money has been donated, donors have no control whatsoever over what it is spent on or where it goes unless a pre-existing agreement has been reached that it will go towards a select cause. If Mdml. Nance dislikes Mr. Steele's habits, and the "Concerned Women" agree with her, let them spend their money in the police auctions and thrift sales like good senior citizens rather than donate it.

When you donate money to a political committee, I think it's fair to expect that it won't be frivolously spent.

I think it's fair for the old scolds to mind their own business, which, judging from the nature of their organization, is obviously something they do not excel at.

But it is their business, if they donated money.

As I've said above, once the money is given, it is the property of the receiving organization as surely as if a more physical gift had been bequeathed them. The moralists will have to be satisfied that their money paid for an important meeting of the Republican National Convention.

The "Concerned Women of America" aren't suing for replevin of any donated funds, so I don't understand your argument here. 

My argument is that they would have no legal grounding to do so even if they were of a mind to sue, and ought to keep their gumless mouths shut when not talked to.

I don't see why they should keep their mouths shut.  

Because they are nags, and hags, though I doubt they're scags (or have, or even had, much of a sexual life at all), and hearing from them is lying paying rapt attention to one's doddering grandmother. I am subjectively against them, and hence smile on their ill-fortune.

So then why didn't you just say that?  Rather than the tangential, high-brow, "What right do they have?" comment.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Steele must have pictures of every bigwig Republican with a little boy in order to keep his job with all of these phuckups.

[Scam of God]

At the same time, what right does the pretentiously-named "Concerned Women" for America, and Mdml. Nance in particular, have to dictate the doings of private individuals, even if they be ecclesiarchs in the Republican priesthood? Are our moral systems so thoroughly socialized that someone with no relation whatsoever to the event has the right to "demand" anything of Steele and his cronies about their own affairs?

Didn't it involve donated money?

After money has been donated, donors have no control whatsoever over what it is spent on or where it goes unless a pre-existing agreement has been reached that it will go towards a select cause. If Mdml. Nance dislikes Mr. Steele's habits, and the "Concerned Women" agree with her, let them spend their money in the police auctions and thrift sales like good senior citizens rather than donate it.

When you donate money to a political committee, I think it's fair to expect that it won't be frivolously spent.

I think it's fair for the old scolds to mind their own business, which, judging from the nature of their organization, is obviously something they do not excel at.

But it is their business, if they donated money.

As I've said above, once the money is given, it is the property of the receiving organization as surely as if a more physical gift had been bequeathed them. The moralists will have to be satisfied that their money paid for an important meeting of the Republican National Convention.

The "Concerned Women of America" aren't suing for replevin of any donated funds, so I don't understand your argument here. 

My argument is that they would have no legal grounding to do so even if they were of a mind to sue, and ought to keep their gumless mouths shut when not talked to.

I don't see why they should keep their mouths shut.  

Because they are nags, and hags, though I doubt they're scags (or have, or even had, much of a sexual life at all), and hearing from them is lying paying rapt attention to one's doddering grandmother. I am subjectively against them, and hence smile on their ill-fortune.

So then why didn't you just say that?  Rather than the tangential, high-brow, "What right do they have?" comment.

Because it's always preferable to be high-browed, though sometimes, present company includedm, it can be confusing for an audience of shaved-brows.

[paul718]

Tucker Carlson remains one of the most grating shills in the media establishment. The man has never met a Republican cause he hasn't adopted wholesale as his own; his entire brand of infotainment is geared towards re-inforcing his own asinine conceptions.

I guess I'll refer you to my previous post which apparently you failed to read:

Right-wing hack how exactly? He opposed the war, hated the Bush administration, supports marijuana legalization, supports gay marriage, and this stuff was before it became popular to be anti-Bush. He was a Paul supporter who works for Cato. How does any of this make him a right wing hack? When he was on Crossfire he was basically forced into being kneejerk conservative due to the format of the show. His show on MSNBC was lightyears ahead of most of the garbage on cable news.

I'll admit back in his Weekly Standard days he was definitely a Reaganite/Contract with America child of 1994. But we should look longingly back at those Republicans...

I understand that subtlety is hardly your strong suit, so let me say in as un-subtle a fashion as I can: that's the point. Carlson knew and knows how utterly hideous the conservative governing philosophy has become, but shies away from saying such with any tangible force, much like our friend paul718, because it might be tantamount to Party disloyalty, which in his hobbled mind might well be equated to treason.

A significant number of my votes have been for Democrats.  I often voice my displeasure with the GOP in this forum.  Carlson similarly voiced his displeasure on his TV program.  How much force does he need to exhibit for it to be tangible?  How is he a "shill"?  

It is shillery, my dear friend, because the underlying reasons for the New Right's existence and the horrors of the Bush years go unquestioned by him; he assumes that Bush fils was merely a bad apple, and that fusionism can resume its happy homesteading, re-united (and it feels so good!) in opposition to Obama - it is either shillery, or he's too intellectually shallow to see the obvious.

But he did question the Bush-era GOP.  And is his "shillery" not unlike your own shillery, in that you identify yourself as a Democrat/Libertarian, despite disagreeing with certain positions at their core?

[Scam of God]

Tucker Carlson remains one of the most grating shills in the media establishment. The man has never met a Republican cause he hasn't adopted wholesale as his own; his entire brand of infotainment is geared towards re-inforcing his own asinine conceptions.

I guess I'll refer you to my previous post which apparently you failed to read:

Right-wing hack how exactly? He opposed the war, hated the Bush administration, supports marijuana legalization, supports gay marriage, and this stuff was before it became popular to be anti-Bush. He was a Paul supporter who works for Cato. How does any of this make him a right wing hack? When he was on Crossfire he was basically forced into being kneejerk conservative due to the format of the show. His show on MSNBC was lightyears ahead of most of the garbage on cable news.

I'll admit back in his Weekly Standard days he was definitely a Reaganite/Contract with America child of 1994. But we should look longingly back at those Republicans...

I understand that subtlety is hardly your strong suit, so let me say in as un-subtle a fashion as I can: that's the point. Carlson knew and knows how utterly hideous the conservative governing philosophy has become, but shies away from saying such with any tangible force, much like our friend paul718, because it might be tantamount to Party disloyalty, which in his hobbled mind might well be equated to treason.

A significant number of my votes have been for Democrats.  I often voice my displeasure with the GOP in this forum.  Carlson similarly voiced his displeasure on his TV program.  How much force does he need to exhibit for it to be tangible?  How is he a "shill"?  

It is shillery, my dear friend, because the underlying reasons for the New Right's existence and the horrors of the Bush years go unquestioned by him; he assumes that Bush fils was merely a bad apple, and that fusionism can resume its happy homesteading, re-united (and it feels so good!) in opposition to Obama - it is either shillery, or he's too intellectually shallow to see the obvious.

But he did question the Bush-era GOP.

The Bush-era GOP is not the pertinent issue. It is the failure of any political philosophy that combines or attempts to marry a minarchist rhetorical framework to a socially authoritarian policy position.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Shillery" isn't the word you're looking for with me; it's "intellectual courage", a concept I'm sure is incomprehensible to a Party animal like yourself.

[paul718]

At the same time, what right does the pretentiously-named "Concerned Women" for America, and Mdml. Nance in particular, have to dictate the doings of private individuals, even if they be ecclesiarchs in the Republican priesthood? Are our moral systems so thoroughly socialized that someone with no relation whatsoever to the event has the right to "demand" anything of Steele and his cronies about their own affairs?

Didn't it involve donated money?

After money has been donated, donors have no control whatsoever over what it is spent on or where it goes unless a pre-existing agreement has been reached that it will go towards a select cause. If Mdml. Nance dislikes Mr. Steele's habits, and the "Concerned Women" agree with her, let them spend their money in the police auctions and thrift sales like good senior citizens rather than donate it.

When you donate money to a political committee, I think it's fair to expect that it won't be frivolously spent.

I think it's fair for the old scolds to mind their own business, which, judging from the nature of their organization, is obviously something they do not excel at.

But it is their business, if they donated money.

As I've said above, once the money is given, it is the property of the receiving organization as surely as if a more physical gift had been bequeathed them. The moralists will have to be satisfied that their money paid for an important meeting of the Republican National Convention.

The "Concerned Women of America" aren't suing for replevin of any donated funds, so I don't understand your argument here. 

My argument is that they would have no legal grounding to do so even if they were of a mind to sue, and ought to keep their gumless mouths shut when not talked to.

I don't see why they should keep their mouths shut.  

Because they are nags, and hags, though I doubt they're scags (or have, or even had, much of a sexual life at all), and hearing from them is lying paying rapt attention to one's doddering grandmother. I am subjectively against them, and hence smile on their ill-fortune.

So then why didn't you just say that?  Rather than the tangential, high-brow, "What right do they have?" comment.

Because it's always preferable to be high-browed, though sometimes, present company includedm, it can be confusing for an audience of shaved-brows.

No, I think it's fair to say that you utilized a ridiculous meandering method to get to your point.  You exhibited faux-outrage at the fact that a conservative group wanted questions answered about how donated funds might've been used at a strip club.  It took roughly four posts for you to explain how the only reason you said that was because you are "subjectively against them".  In other words, you really didn't care that they sought further disclosure, you just wanted a high-brow way to show that you hate social conservatives.  Let alone the fact that we don't even know if the "Concerned Women" are social conservatives.  

This is why people here don't like you.

[Scam of God]

I know they're social conservatives. I knew they were social conservatives from the first. You know how I knew it?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=KJN&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&ei=C1WyS6OHAo-6NayZ2KYE&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAUQBSgA&q=Concerned+Women+of+America&spell=1

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How esoteric! A Google search! And the first result, no less!

And piss off. I can't suck enough cock around here to make everyone like me, so I'm not about to get my lips chapped to make the effort.

[paul718]

A significant number of my votes have been for Democrats.  I often voice my displeasure with the GOP in this forum.  Carlson similarly voiced his displeasure on his TV program.  How much force does he need to exhibit for it to be tangible?  How is he a "shill"?  

It is shillery, my dear friend, because the underlying reasons for the New Right's existence and the horrors of the Bush years go unquestioned by him; he assumes that Bush fils was merely a bad apple, and that fusionism can resume its happy homesteading, re-united (and it feels so good!) in opposition to Obama - it is either shillery, or he's too intellectually shallow to see the obvious.

But he did question the Bush-era GOP.

The Bush-era GOP is not the pertinent issue. It is the failure of any political philosophy that combines or attempts to marry a minarchist rhetorical framework to a socially authoritarian policy position.

So your saying Tucker Carlson is a social authoritarian?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Shillery" isn't the word you're looking for with me; it's "intellectual courage", a concept I'm sure is incomprehensible to a Party animal like yourself.
[/quote]

So what makes Carlson a "shill" and not "intellectually courageous"?

[Scam of God]

So your saying Tucker Carlson is a social authoritarian?

I'm saying he's an enabler of social authoritarians through his cowardice. I'm saying his cowardice is a slap in the face of the classical liberal values he professes and other, better commentators (like, say, H.L. Mencken) really held.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fact that, in as tremendous a soap-box as he has, he shies from using it to purge elements antithetical to his supposed philosophy from the one political organ capable of realizing that philosophy.

[Brittain33]

Some pretty damning graphs here.

http://kombiz.tumblr.com/post/482478966/will-the-rnc-be-broke-before-november

Although perhaps the congressional campaign committees are picking up the slack?

[memphis]

The GOP certainly has interesting sexual inclinations. I'm not really sure how you dump 2 grand at a strip club. Did they buy a lifetime membership?

[Lunar]

The GOP certainly has interesting sexual inclinations. I'm not really sure how you dump 2 grand at a strip club. Did they buy a lifetime membership?

Really?   Look, that $2k isn't the bills they are throwing on the table (those you wouldn't have a receipt for to reimburse yourself later), it's probably for table service and drinks.  It's not hard at all to spend $2k or even $5k at an exclusive club if you have table service.

This particular place, unless you're a celebrity or a group of girls, you're REQUIRED to pay at least $1.1k to even get in, and that gets you two bottles of alcohol.  One more bottle and tip, and you're at the $1.8k or whatever.

[memphis]

Wow. Even the strip clubs are expensive in CA. If you're paying that kind of money you may as well go the opebo route.

[paul718]

Some high-end strip clubs have steakhouses or other expensive restaurants within them. 

[Lunar]

Wow. Even the strip clubs are expensive in CA. If you're paying that kind of money you may as well go the opebo route.

It has nothing or little to do with CA.  Again, ultra-exclusive bars costs many thousands of dollars.
 

What, you think celebrities go into exclusive bars, order the best drinks , and pay $150? 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I love how Tim Kaine wouldn't flat out deny the DNC ever did anything like this......lol.