A chapter in BhTV ends, but how!

How do I lose a lot of credibility when I mention someone else's blog post as part of a roundup of blog commentary? I don't think Rubio is in the same category as Miller (unemployment insurance is unconstitutional), Buck (why elect Senators?), Angle (eliminate EPA, IRS, Ed dept., Energy Dept.) and Paul (I'm not so sure about the Civil Rights Act). But Rubio, like many of the Tea Party affiliated candidates, are on quite a political limb openly advocating Social Security benefit cuts and privatization.

Quoting Ocean:

A chapter in BhTV ends, but how!

I guess I have to watch to find out.

Quoting Whatfur: I guess I have to watch to find out.

Surely.

So that's how you call Conn a liar without getting sent to the dungeon.

Quoting graz: So that's how you call Conn a liar without getting sent to the dungeon.

Quoting Ocean:

The interesting part is that Conn would likely be unashamed to admit as much. And he is an effective advocate. It's the milquetoast bhtv censors brigade and it's goal of achieving High Broderism or some-such B.S. balancing act that has their feathers ruffled by telling it straight, without qualifiers. Bill and Matt, as always, were gentlemanly.

Quoting graz: The interesting part is that Conn would likely be unashamed to admit as much. And he is an effective advocate. It's the milquetoast bhtv censors brigade and it's goal of achieving High Broderism or some-such B.S. balancing act that has their feathers ruffled by telling it straight, without qualifiers.

Conn was using his tools to challenge the commentariat because we wouldn't buy his BS. And, as you noted, the censorship mode intervened in the least appropriate way. I'm hoping that they won't repeat that sort of mistake again. But, you never know...

Bill and Matt, as always, were gentlemanly.

They were indeed. Swept away.

Quoting Ocean: Surely.

Its just too bad its not a wholesale change. Good Riddance.

aw! sad. god speed, matt!

Quoting Ocean: Conn was using his tools to challenge the commentariat because we wouldn't buy his BS. And, as you noted, the censorship mode intervened in the least appropriate way. I'm hoping that they won't repeat that sort of mistake again. But, you never know...

They were indeed. Swept away.

First, I don't buy your BS either. You were wrong, but you all are safe in the land of Lilliput hundled amongst your own kind. The small kind. Bill Scher has provided just as many "head-scratching" comments as Conn ever did but you hit on exactly why Conn is a sub here and Matt lasted as long as he did. There was no challenge to the BS from Matt. Matt had his moments but they were few and far between and he always played the little brother. The clip above with the two of them snickering about Conn and the Heritage Foundation was classic. Classic elitism. Maybe there is a bit of jealosy because the Heritage Foundation if not just the Foundry probably gets as many hits in a day as CAF and Liberal Oasis get in a year.

Quoting Whatfur: First, I don't buy your BS either. You were wrong, but you all are safe in the land of Lilliput hundled amongst your own kind. The small kind.

I've got to say that I'm starting to like the small kind group. And my BS is not for sale!

Bill Scher has provided just as many "head-scratching" comments as Conn ever did but you hit on exactly why Conn is a sub here and Matt lasted as long as he did. There was no challenge to the BS from Matt. Matt had his moments but they were few and far between and he always played the little brother. The clip above with the two of them snickering about Conn and the Heritage Foundation was classic. Classic elitism. Maybe there is a bit of jealosy because the Heritage Foundation if not just the Foundry probably gets as many hits in a day as CAF and Liberal Oasis get in a year.

Yes, I told you, we disagree.

Quoting Whatfur: First, I don't buy your BS either. You were wrong, but you all are safe in the land of Lilliput hundled amongst your own kind. The small kind.

Bill Scher has provided just as many "head-scratching" comments as Conn ever did but you hit on exactly why Conn is a sub here and Matt lasted as long as he did. There was no challenge to the BS from Matt. Matt had his moments but they were few and far between and he always played the little brother. The clip above with the two of them snickering about Conn and the Heritage Foundation was classic. Classic elitism. Maybe there is a bit of jealosy because the Heritage Foundation if not just the Foundry probably gets as many hits in a day as CAF and Liberal Oasis get in a year.

How cute. Still pining away with your huge man-crush for Conn.

Quoting Ocean: ...And my BS is not for sale!

Which accounts for your large inventory.

Quoting Ocean: Yes, I told you, we disagree.

That's ok...the echo chamber suits you.

Quoting Whatfur: That's ok...the echo chamber suits you.

Who do you get to hundle with?

Quoting Bill Scher: How do I lose a lot of credibility when I mention someone else's blog post as part of a roundup of blog commentary?

Because the term "extreme" is rather loaded and not really applicable. "Extreme" is meant to conjure all sorts of images about people dressed in sheets or goose stepping, etc.

I don't think Rubio is in the same category as Miller (unemployment insurance is unconstitutional), Buck (why elect Senators?), Angle (eliminate EPA, IRS, Ed dept., Energy Dept.) and Paul (I'm not so sure about the Civil Rights Act).

But Rubio, like many of the Tea Party affiliated candidates, are on quite a political limb openly advocating Social Security benefit cuts and privatization.

Some of those aren't fair. Paul has since clarified his view on the Civil Rights act, and Angle does not currently call for many of those things. I'm not as familiar with Buck, but my issues with him are more his style over his substance. What makes libertarian conservative positions "extreme"? I don't consider myself an extremist, but I'd love to dramatically scale back the Ed dept, eliminate public housing, the national endowment for the arts, etc. Would you use "extreme" to describe those Democrats who favor national

Quoting Whatfur: The clip above with the two of them snickering about Conn and the Heritage Foundation was classic. Classic elitism. Maybe there is a bit of jealosy because the Heritage Foundation if not just the Foundry probably gets as many hits in a day as CAF and Liberal Oasis get in a year.

1. In what world is the Heritage Foundation not part of the elite? Furthermore, its budget is about 8 times the size of CAF's. And about 1 zillion times the budget of LiberalOasis. 2. I don't take Matt's politeness as an endorsement of my views. I would think you've watched us enough to figure that out. (Though why you keep watching us snickering elitists is beyond me.)

Quoting Bill Scher: 1. In what world is the Heritage Foundation not part of the elite? Furthermore, its budget is about 8 times the size of CAF's. And about 1 zillion times the budget of LiberalOasis.

I made no comment about the Heritage Foundation being in or not being in the elite. My comment only referred to the snicker fest at their and Conn's disadvantage. As far as the budget numbers, well that also was not the concern of my comment but you providing them adds credence to the point I did make, eh?

Quoting Bill Scher: 2. I don't take Matt's politeness as an endorsement of my views. I would think you've watched us enough to figure that out. (Though why you keep watching us snickering elitists is beyond me.)

Again your comprehension of my statement is weak. I also don't take Matt's politeness as an endorsement of your views, but that is not what I said, is it? Yes, I have watched enough to figure it out and No, I seldom saw you two as snickering elitists...but certainly in that clip I did.

Quoting operative: Paul has since clarified his view on the Civil Rights act

I believe my characterization of Rand's position -- "I'm not so sure..." -- is quite charitable on my part, and encompasses his "clarifications"

Angle does not currently call for many of those things.

I do not equate "scrubbing one's website of positions immediately after winning primary" with "not currently calling for" those positions. Further, she explicitly listed all the federal departments and agencies she considered unconstitutional a mere six months ago in an interview with a conservative website -- http://nevadanewsandviews.com/2010/0...sharron-angle/ . I am not aware of expressing a sudden change of heart since then.

What makes libertarian conservative positions "extreme"? I don't consider myself an extremist, but I'd love to dramatically scale back the Ed dept, eliminate public housing, the national endowment for the arts, etc.

Would you use "extreme" to describe those Democrats who favor national health care, a view absolutely outside of the American mainstream?

"Extreme" is obviously a subjective term. But I think it is fair to use when characterizing positions rejected by a vast majority of Americans. I am quite sure any conservative would characterize a candidate supporting a single-payer health care system (I assume that is what you

Quoting Whatfur: Again your comprehension of my statement is weak.

Perhaps my comprehension would improve if you actually made an argument how my comment and Matt's reaction is in any way elitist. Maybe this will help. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elitist

Definition of ELITISM

1: leadership or rule by an elite
2: the selectivity of the elite; especially : snobbery
3: consciousness of being or belonging to an elite

Criticism does not equal elitism, just like "I don't like something" does not equal "unconstitutional".

I've really enjoyed listening to your take on the issues. I know others have said it, but it's worth reiterating that you and Bill provide a great model of civil conversation -- mutual respect, no hogging the mic, nothing shrill, no low blows and lots of humor and camaraderie. Well done!

Cute. This time you nailed it though.

I'll go with:

snobbery

as a pretty apt clip title. Thanks for validating.

Did you read the Broder piece today? Lets me apply something similar for you here.

"You know Fur, I watched myself in that clip and now wish I could take it back. Conn and I have had some pretty great discussions here and we both are many times flying by the seat of our pants and we don't always get things as right as we wished with the information at hand. I said misrepresent, but mispeak or mistake may be words better applied to what we do sometimes. It goes with the territory. Thanks for giving me this opportunity to better explain myself."

Quoting Bill Scher: I believe my characterization of Rand's position -- "I'm not so sure..." -- is quite charitable on my part, and encompasses his "clarifications"

"I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws." That hardly sounds like "I'm not so sure."

I do not equate "scrubbing one's website of positions immediately after winning primary" with "not currently calling for" those positions.

Moving to the center is the norm, something that you're well aware of. Considering Barack Obama's past views, I really think you ought not criticize Angle. Heck, we could look at Harry Reid's past calls for the overturning of birthright citizenship if we want to get into formerly held positions.

Further, she explicitly listed all the federal departments and agencies she considered unconstitutional a mere six months ago in an interview with a conservative website -- http://nevadanewsandviews.com/2010/0...sharron-angle/ . I am not aware of expressing a sudden change of heart since then.

I don't view that as particularly extreme myself.

"Extreme" is obviously a subjective term. But I think it is fair to use when characterizing positions

Jeez Bill, stop wasting your time engaging these guys.

pfft we don't need to stinkin' political engagement 'round these parts.

I will miss these two paired together. Maybe Matt will reconsider down the road, when bhtv is more influential than twitter!