So that is what Baracky meant by all his blather! Planet Pepe could not have seen THAT coming....Oh well, Versailles shells out some lucre and gives its court consiglieres and other artificers of censorship a simple task: Find a way to silence the rubes.
Posts
21 comments:
But what's really significant here is the cone of silence the nation's major newspapers -- including The Times -- and the cable and broadcast networks dropped over this story when it first appeared in the tabloid during the presidential primary campaign.
As it should: this story is probably interesting to National Enquirer & People magazine readers, but what politicos (of both the left & the right) do with their private lives should be of no concern to anyone with a grade school education. Unless of course said politicos are making their bread and butter peddling family values, sanctity of marriage, and other nonsense.
It isn't about what they do, it's about how it contrasts with what they tell you to do, AI.
AI? I didn't post this. But OK, we've been around the bend with this double standard of yours many times before, and I can see how you may confuse me with AA at times. Unlike you, both of us, I think, have a moral compass which is not totally out of whack. You may as well be at the Magnetic Pole, Pepe.
I don't see where you think there is a double standard AI. What you do is none of my business, (unless you stick your neck out and tell me what to do - then you are fair game).
To use one of your favorite analogies, freedom of action is something the Orwellian crowd in everybody's bedroom is very uncomfortable with.
Utter Bullcrap. The Dems, and the Left in general, have an ancient and insistently practiced love of "the politics of personal destruction". As long as it is them doing the destroying, and those they would destroy are sufficiently censored and trammeled by the hostility or contempt of the propaganda organs...er, to honor the local lingo, the MSM.....to make futile any effort at a potent public response.
On Planet Pepe, the joys of Borking are intended to be purely unidirectional. And the greatest irritant is the Peasant who doesn't "get it".
Now, as Le Pew finally fesses to, any concern for doing the right thing, for seeking to be responsible for what you do and judiciously incorporating into your own thought and action the consequences of what you do, just doesn't have "cash value" on Planet Pepe.
In seeking to sastisfy its lusts, foremost the lust for power, Versailles has long ago cast aside any care for Good or Truth. After all, to care would be to have a governor over brute license, could lead you to question your inner libertine, might even compel you to awake to a world which demands far more from you than the simple calculi of hedonism and self aggrandizement. And that would really crush Versailles' bliss.
Now, as Le Pew finally fesses to, any concern for doing the right thing, for seeking to be responsible for what you do and judiciously incorporating into your own thought and action the consequences of what you do, just doesn't have "cash value" on Planet Pepe. Respect for family, for the integrity of your marriage, "an other nonsense" die quicktime once you have killed off respect for truth and for doing good.
And that confession, Le Pew, that I do believe.
Spare us the two-bit myopic pop-psychobabble you need to invoke to turn this into yet another of your tired ad hominems, aa.
This was not a statement to the effect that running around on your wife is acceptable behavior. The issue is whether it is any of our business.
I don't see how you can both espouse free society like you enjoy doing with your periodic perorations replete with tremolos and grandiloquent triteness and find the scrutiny over one's bedroom activities acceptable.
Apropos your two little Ministry of Truth fibs.
[1] "freedom of action is something the Orwellian crowd in everybody's bedroom is very uncomfortable with".
No, the Orwellian is concerned with keeping separate but unequal two worlds. The Leader, in his Versailles, and the peasant masses outside of Versailles. The Leader is to have absolute freedom of action [here is where truth and good are killed off quicktime] and the world outside Versailles none at all [not because of objective constraints, because of what is true or what is good, but because of the absolute dominance of the will of the leader and his "freedom to act"].
The "bedroom" line is a jest of beau proportion. Whatever the cock tail chatter at some art museum may claim, there is no wit in wallowing in non-sequiturs. Even if this discussion was purely about respect for family , marriage, "and other nonsense"--which is only a small part of this discussion-- to somehow cast it as a discussion on "freedom of action in the bedroom" is bizarre and is, genuinely, not just metaphorically, nonsense.
But of course you knew that. You were doing what comes naturally to a "Minister of Truth".
[2] " isn't about what they do, it's about how it contrasts with what they tell you to do"
Complete Bullshit.
First, the axiom "it isn't about what they do" is simply wrong. If Mac the Knife came for your throat today, you would not be paying much attention to the alignment between his name's frank admission and your murder. You would, I'd bet your life on it, be paying keen attention to just what Mac was doing with that Knife.
First and foremost it is about what people do. It is a man's actions, not his words, which in the end tell as to what he is.
Second, if I were to grant you your axiom, and assume that indeed "it isn't about what they do", it is only about how what they do accords with what they "tell you to do", it would still be complete bullshit.
When once has the MSM, or other progaganda mediums of the Left, made anything of the profound lack of accord between what the leaders of the Left do and what they tell us to do? After all, the whole practical point of that modern construct, Versailles With a Socialist Face, is to have its aristos tell the masses what to do while famously indulging in their own"freedom of action".
Now go ululate at the passing Gore Tour as he SUVS his way across your carbon budget.
Pepe, there might be a problem here: Dems, as you and I understand them, often promote social values. This is symbolized by the idealistic notion of, say, Universal Healthcare -- Government doctors, one day, will want to know how many ribeyes you're grilling (medium-rare, please) and how many cigarettes you're smoking per month, Pepe, mark my word (mark them here, at least).
Now, I really don't give a shit who is humping who, in D.C. or otherwise. Political life at the U.S. Federal level is got to be a mind fuck from the get-go. Might as well take it to the pelvic level (see P.J. O'Rourke, "Parliament of Whores"). But to suggest that Edwards doesn't want to stick his neck into your house or mine is a bit like saying Pat Robertson doesn't care if I'm an infidel or not. They -- Edwards and Robertson -- both want to increase respective spheres of influence as much as possible, and this means entering households as well. Can we at least agree on this point, Pepe?
And the greatest irritant is the Peasant who doesn't "get it".
Obviously the statement in the other thread about the farm-bound mullethead swallowing Michael Savage's wisdom hit close to home. Don't fret: I assure you you were the furthest person from my mind.
mft - we don't - Edwards' to my knowledge isn't running on a family values ticket.
[1] "freedom of action is something the Orwellian crowd in everybody's bedroom is very uncomfortable with".
No.
Yes - reread 1984. His demise is brought about when he is caught in an "illegal" intimate relationship (remember "sex crime"?).
Family values is nonsense in the political discourse - not inherently. If you rely on your elected officials to guide you in this respect, you are more of a fool than even I have ever thought.
Your "Mac the Knife" analogy is a non-sequitur: killing people is a felony making you a menace to all of society, running around on your wife is a problem between the two of you, best let that way. But the apparachiks at the Stasi would no doubt agree with you.
Pepe, I don't even know what the fuck "family values" or "traditional" means these days. I know what is right for my flat, and that's that. Here's another angle, rather Libertarian in nature: think about the notion of Universal Healthcare beyond the ideal. I too enjoy the idealistic notion that everyone gets wonderful and quick healthcare. But taken to its logical extension, the Universal Healthcare Doctor is going to want to ban smoking (yes, happened already), but also -- and like I said -- keep an eye on (another word for regulate or restrict) your personal red meat and cigarette intake, in your home or otherwise. The last I heard, Edwards was pro-Universal Healthcare. And while I agree with this in theory....
I'm not saying this in an ideological vein, only extrapolating on what we've witnessed already.
With that said, take a look at the Man and Nature pic I posted above this for shit's sake. Gimme your impressions.
Pepe said: "making their bread and butter peddling family values, sanctity of marriage, and other nonsense."
Rare for Pepe to be so clear in his English [not that his French need be any clearer].
But it was too good to last.
For now he says: "not a statement to the effect that running around on your wife is acceptable behavior. The issue is whether it is any of our business. "
Funny, that. You clearly label as "nonsense" family values and the sanctity of marriage. In fact, you posit them as members of a larger set of "nonsense" you, apparently, have in mind.
Now you are claiming that, what, it is the caring for them that is nonsense? The "peddling" of them?
Please, Pepe, always feel free to accurately convey what you mean. Or does that "accuracy" get in the way of your "freedom of action"? Bummer, that.
As for the roccoco cocktailisms on your tremolos over bedroom activities, I've already addressed that merde.
aa -family values, issues relating to sanctity of marriage as well as religion are personal beliefs that are devalued when paraded in the political arena.
They are nonsense when they serve as political platforms as we know well they are abused more often than not and we should be weary of those that choose to use them for this purpose..
I am obviously not stating that not cheating on your wife is nonsense, but in your unending efforts at turning every statement into an idiotic ad-hominem, it does serve your childish purpose interpret it that way. As far as I am concerned, you can be as much of a dick as you please.
mft - I am not sure how we went from Edwards running on wifey to healthcare. But since we're here, what you refer to as being ideological is reality in all of western europe. and wile i agree with you on the issue of smoking, I don't think it's enough of a reason to throw away the baby with the bath water.
If I had to choose between decent healthcare access for everyone at the cost of having the smoke police place detectors on every street corner and having to listen to radio stations blurting hourly warnings about the dangers of second hand smoke, I do believe that would be a lesser evil than what we have now. Let me add that I find cigars to be one of the greatest pleasures in life.
Let me try another tack. How come Edwards paid that woman over $100K to make some videos, supposedly for his website, and then pulled them off when things got hot? Forget about the bedroom -- cherchez le cash. I smell a rat here. But surely Pepe will say paying broads out of campaign contributions is fine and dandy, as long as the candidate is a certified pinko. Yes?
You can't even bring the Versaillian horse to water. He'd rather die in the desert dreaming of a world where, everywhere, it's champagne all the way down.
[1] "Yes - reread 1984. His demise is brought about when he is caught in an "illegal" intimate relationship (remember "sex crime"?)."
When you reread 1984, which you probably won't, you will observe that his demise is NOT "brought about" because of "sex crime". His demise is foredoomed. As the interrogation with O'Brien reveals, they were "on to him" from the start, and his affair bore the same relation to his being an "enemy of the state" as Al Capone's tax evasion bore to his being "public enemy number one".
By the way, the key thing about his relationship was not "the bed", but "the room". The Party doesn't give a rat's ass with who or what you copulate, even if it is a rat's ass. It cares deeply, though, about the existence of a part of life where the State cannot intrude and impose its will on the peasant rubes.
[2] "Family values is nonsense in the political discourse - not inherently".
Uh, why? Before you just had it as nonsense. Simple and unadulterated nonsense. But that hasn't served you well today, so now you say: "Ok, maybe it's not comletely nonsense. But it is nonsense if these values become part of the public Chautaqua"...
So, why? Go ahead, tell me what is distinct about the nature of the Good in the happiness and wellbeing of families that makes this Good "nonsense" if the world of men pays public attention to it.
[2]" If you rely on your elected officials to guide you in this respect, you are more of a fool than even I have ever thought. "
This is grandly tiresome. Look, Le Pew, I questioned your claim that family values/marriage is nonsense [which you have been gamely, if incoherently, trying to clarify since you were called on it]. And I related that small issue--which you seem to care so much about-- to the issue of this post, namely the increasing failure of the MSM to carry out successfully its censoring and propagandistic role in its long alliance with the Left.
From that you, by the miracle of Versaillean wit, get "you rely on your elected officials to guide you in this respect". Remarkable.
[ah, yes, you do adorn it with that "if". Gives you wiggle room to live in the hypothetical, fo sho. Lots of "freedom of action". Why, with that "if" I could get hypothetical in all sorts of ways:
The Gimpy: "If you must rely on a rat's ass for your bedroom pleasures then your lower head is still larger than the upper"
The PP Confounding "If I am more a fool than even Le Pew has ever thought, then Le Pew is more a fool than ever as I could have thought"
The Non-sequiturian: "If the MSM no longer can control the game in town, then 1984 is a novel about sex crime"
and endlessly on to whatever tremolo excites Planet Pepeteers.]
"But surely Pepe will say paying broads out of campaign contributions is fine and dandy, as long as the candidate is a certified pinko. Yes?"
Well, Pepe can speak for himself on that issue. But replace "Pepe" with "MSM" and the answer is: Yes!!
Let me try another tack. How come Edwards paid that woman over $100K to make some videos, supposedly for his website, and then pulled them off when things got hot?
I don't know what his freedom of action with campaign funds are. I would imagine that, at the very least, his contributors would find this questionable.
you can take my statement out of context if it serves your obsessive purpose, but it would be rather absurd for anyone to state that say, fidelity in general is nonsensical.
Now if you were, say, an intellectually honest debater, you would say "hey, what did you mean by that?", and I would respond "Read the sentence: it starts with "Unless said politicos are making ...", which anyone would understand sets the context of the statement.
Grow up, boy.
"But surely Pepe will say paying broads out of campaign contributions is fine and dandy, as long as the candidate is a certified pinko. Yes?"
Duh - of course not. That would amount to defrauding the contributors.
"but it would be rather absurd for anyone to state that say, fidelity in general is nonsensical".
Yes it would. As an honest debater, I'll point out you never used the word "fidelity", just the phrases "family values" and "sanctity of marriage", in your sentences. And, as the honest debater no doubt you wish you were, you'll recognize that what is meant by such has a relation to fidelity which is ripe for discussion. Particularly when those phrases are described as nonsense; for that is exactly the written meaning of the sentence that begins as "Unless said politicos.."
You had a career in MSM, boy, fo sho, if only its Versaillean freedom of action was not now under such challenge from the peasant rubes. It will be painful for the Aristo Boy to let endless childhood behind, but cheer up- for where there is no will there is probably no way.
Post a Comment