Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"If You Say, 'Global Warming is the Biggest Threat,' You Will Get Laid."
Greg Gutfeld, the host of Fox's Red Eye -- the Fox show that's featured Reasonoids Kerry Howley and Nick Gillespie among its acid array of pundits -- is profiled in the New York Observer.
While Mr. Gutfeld tries to keep the show from idling too long on partisan territory (“They get that 23 hours a day”), his own politics are fairly at home on Fox. He dismisses liberalism as “romantic notions that are false, based on the idea of making yourself look good to other people. That’s why most men—Bill Clinton is a good example—are liberal, because they need to get laid. If you look at most left-wing guys, they’ve made a deal with the devil. They don’t really believe that shit—they’re going against their own innate nature, because liberalism is anti-man. If you believe that peace and love work, you’re not a man, because this world works on war. The only people who respect you are people who are scared of you—and that’s why Reagan was a great President. And the idea that you can negotiate with people who want you dead is a complete lie. That’s why the left is the most self-absorbed, vanity-driven enterprise. These are people who would rather feel good about themselves at a cocktail party that actually protect people’s lives. If you’re at a party and you say, ‘The war on terror is the most important thing in the world’—you won’t get a nod. But if you say, ‘Global warming is the biggest threat,’ you will get laid.”
It's a long, sordid tale of getting ahead in journalism and worth a read.
|5.24.07 @ 8:23AM|#
"The only people who respect you are people who are scared of
you-and that's why Reagan was a great President."
Cuz when Reagan cut and run when we were hit in Lebanon and when he
caved to Iran and gave them all the goodies they wanted, he sure
scared the rest of the world straight! COnservatives are a
riot.
|5.24.07 @ 8:31AM|#
he sure scared the rest of the world straight
We just need to go back to the solution the Romans used. One of our
people gets hurt or killed, we ensure that the city it happened in
ceases to exist. Very simple, very effective, quite understandable
to Al Dickheads. Has the benefit of turning the local populace to
your aid if you occasionally only eliminate half a city.
|5.24.07 @ 8:31AM|#
That's why the left is the most self-absorbed, vanity-driven
enterprise. These are people who would rather feel good about
themselves at a cocktail party that actually protect people's
lives.
Hard to argue with that.
|5.24.07 @ 8:34AM|#
COnservatives are a riot.
Yep. Between them and Liberals I'm pretty much guaranteed to bust a
gut laughing any time I turn on the teevee.
Unless Saturday Night Live is on, that is.
|5.24.07 @ 8:36AM|#
And the idea that you can negotiate with people who want you
dead is a complete lie. . . . These are people who would rather
feel good about themselves at a cocktail party that actually
protect people's lives.
Are Greg Gutfield, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck all the same
person?
thoreau|5.24.07 @ 8:42AM|#
Um, I don't think the type of talking points you recite determine whether you get laid or not.
|5.24.07 @ 8:47AM|#
Obviously this guy is way off the mark, but he isn't 100%
wrong.
Saying that some leftist ideas are romantic notions (i.e. look
better on paper than in practice) does make sense to some
extent.
And I do have to admit that I have, in the past, come off a little
more liberal than I am, back when in College. It wasn't so much
about getting laid (although it didn't hurt) as it was about simply
enjoying a party without it turning into a political screaming
match.
However, saying that war is good because it is a natural state of
things is completely stupid. VD is naturally-occurring as
well.
And to say you're not a man if you don't like war is stereotypical
alpha-male bullshit. Kinda reminds me of those bumper stickers that
read "Real Men Love Jesus."
You have to give him one thing: I bet you'd never see Hannity or
O'Reilly saying the word "shit" in an interview.
Chucklehead|5.24.07 @ 8:51AM|#
If you believe that peace and love work, you're not a man,
because this world works on war.
I must've missed that part of Jesus' teachings.
mantooth|5.24.07 @ 8:55AM|#
Man, not another "I'm saying what everyone is thinking but is
too afraid too" personality. Yeah, the party of Jerry Falwell is
the party of steely eyed realists.
And Ken is spot on.
dhex|5.24.07 @ 9:00AM|#
so if i gave this dude an atomic wedgie, he'd respect me?
i think he misunderestimates what that word means.
Seitz|5.24.07 @ 9:03AM|#
If you believe that peace and love work, you're not a man,
because this world works on war.
Yeah, especially wars that people like Gutfield don't feel the need
to actually, ya know, sign up for and fight. There's no ass-kicking
quite like the ass-kicking that doesn't put your own ass in line
for the kicking.
Conservatives like Gurfield are all about "protecting peoples'
lives", or rather, other people protecting their lives.
Doing the actual protecting, they're not so big on.
|5.24.07 @ 9:10AM|#
This is what conservatives say when they can't get laid.
It's because I'm too much of a MAN, man! That's it.
Worth A Try|5.24.07 @ 9:10AM|#
"If You Say, 'Global Warming is the Biggest Threat,' You
Will Get Laid."
Hey, Kerry Howley..."Global Warming is the Biggest Threat."
|5.24.07 @ 9:10AM|#
"If you believe that peace and love work, you're not a man,
because this world works on war."
I must've missed that part of Jesus' teachings.
Apparently, Gutfield believes that Jesus was not a man. He was just
trying to get laid.
|5.24.07 @ 9:15AM|#
If you believe that peace and love work, you're not a man,
because this world works on war.
Seriously, though. The world does not work on war. The world works
on competition. War is just the logical extreme. It's like the
asshole at a party who must chug beers until he vomits while the
rest of us are just trying to enjoy the party. He believes that he
is being a man when he's really just being an asshole.
|5.24.07 @ 9:22AM|#
Drop this moron in the middle of Iraq (without a large protective convoy) and see how big of a man he really is. I bet he'll piss his pants before he touches Iraqi soil.
|5.24.07 @ 9:24AM|#
The speaker's assertion is unblievable in my mind.
Maybe the increasing global temperture is the most threating fator
to us.
oh...
Edward|5.24.07 @ 9:25AM|#
Worth a read? This post is so stupid that you've lost a troll. Life is too short.
|5.24.07 @ 9:32AM|#
If you believe that peace and love work, you're not a man,
because this world works on war.
That's a cynical and depressing view of human nature. Even if this
were true, which I don't believe it is, Gutfeld is taking too much
on himself speaking for the entire world.
I doubt anyone who has actually fought in a war would make that
statement.
This post is full of fail.
Also, joe@9:10: I chuckled.
|5.24.07 @ 9:42AM|#
Greg Gutfield must have an extremely interesting sex
life.
What, like thinking about Milosevic during coitus?
"Oh, Sloby!"
Bhh|5.24.07 @ 9:47AM|#
So that's why my "nuke the gay whales in Mecca" line hasn't been getting me anywhere. The ladies can't handle my surging masculinity. Off to watch 300 again.
|5.24.07 @ 9:48AM|#
What, like thinking about Milosevic during coitus?
"Oh, Sloby!"
Would that make him a "Slobo Humpin' Hobo Babe"?
Oops. That may be too obscure a reference.
Jennifer|5.24.07 @ 9:50AM|#
like thinking about Milosevic during coitus?
Well, when you've got a guy who looks at his political opponents
and sneers "they're only saying that so they can get laid," it's
natural to wonder how often the guy in question gets laid
himself.
I wonder if his hand spits or swallows?
|5.24.07 @ 9:55AM|#
I have to agree with Mike E.
If you replace war with competition this is nothing to disagree
with in Gutfeld's observation.
Actually its pretty good to hear these insightful thoughts
expressed once in awhile.
As opposed to watching Saturday Night Live and making believe it
doesn't suck while the cast laughs at their own witty political
diatribes.
|5.24.07 @ 9:56AM|#
This post is so stupid that you've lost a troll.
I hereby call for more posts this stupid. Who's with me?
|5.24.07 @ 9:56AM|#
If you believe that peace and love work, you're not a man,
because this world works on war.
Wow! Have I been naive. I alway thought that the world ran on
commerce. I had no idea that all the things in life I enjoy are
really just the fruits of perpetual war.
SPD|5.24.07 @ 9:57AM|#
So, if I understand what Greg is saying, (modern) liberalism
springs from the need to have sex with lots of different women, and
this is anti-man?
Does Mr. Gutfield have something else he'd like to share with
us?
steveintheknow|5.24.07 @ 9:57AM|#
Global warming is the biggest threat.....EVER!!!!
Oh, BTW, my number is 555-6073. :)
steveintheknow|5.24.07 @ 9:59AM|#
BTW doesn't this "observation" remind you guys of the "frat boy" who is constantly going on and on about gay people? Don't you always come to the conclusion that he might be hiding something?
|5.24.07 @ 10:05AM|#
These are people who would rather feel good about themselves
at a cocktail party that actually protect people's
lives.
Of course, why would you care about protecting people's lives if
you're not interested in feeling good about yourself? First this
guy is all about war, then he switches into wuss mode and talks
about protecting people!
|5.24.07 @ 10:09AM|#
Yuck. What a ridiculous conception of masculinity. I for one find it impossible to respect someone who would attack me. The free market is incompatible with the idea that the world runs on war: this ideology is the ideology of barbarians, not of civilized men.
D.A. Ridgely|5.24.07 @ 10:09AM|#
Actually, narrowed to the likely cultural perspective from which
the rant springs, it makes some sense. Men who live in the big
coastal cities and male college students probably do find that
liberal chatter versus conservative chatter increases the
likelihood of sexual success given the likely political
demographics of the female population in both cases. On the other
hand, I have ample observational evidence that male soldiers,
police officers, etc. rarely have much difficulty attracting
women.
More importantly, this sheds light on the abysmal sex lives of so
many libertarian males who no doubt reason that since women are not
approaching them with the prospect of bargained for sexual
exchange, they must not be interested. This reasoning is, moreover,
entirely sound.
|5.24.07 @ 10:11AM|#
Mike E. said:
""If you believe that peace and love work, you're not a man,
because this world works on war."
Seriously, though. The world does not work on war. The world works
on competition. War is just the logical extreme. It's like the
asshole at a party who must chug beers until he vomits while the
rest of us are just trying to enjoy the party. He believes that he
is being a man when he's really just being an asshole."
I agree with the latter half of that paragraph, but I don't think
that war is a logical extension of freedom of choice, i.e.
competition.
XaabaZu|5.24.07 @ 10:17AM|#
Why, why, why am I stuck with the mental image of a girl with
(dental) braces wearing silver hot pants? And the word 'Whale'
seems attached to this.
I must be going nuts.
|5.24.07 @ 10:17AM|#
I agree with the latter half of that paragraph, but I don't
think that war is a logical extension of freedom of choice, i.e.
competition.
I wasn't referring to the freedom of choice aspect of competition.
Rather, I was referring to the "I can do things better than you
can" aspect, which can become "I must defeat you", which isn't
necessarily a bad thing until you start talking about forceably
taking someone's life, limb, or property.
|5.24.07 @ 10:19AM|#
"male college students probably do find that liberal chatter
versus conservative chatter increases the likelihood of sexual
success given the likely political demographics of the female
population in both cases. "
I work for a college and I don't think there is a lot of political
chatter going on at parties period. Lot's of did you hear about
Paris, that girl is smoking and whoo! shots all around! are more
typical.
Better_Shot|5.24.07 @ 10:22AM|#
Worth A Try:
"If You Say, 'Global Warming is the Biggest Threat,' You Will Get
Laid."
Hey, Kerry Howley..."Global Warming is the Biggest
Threat."
That's not gonna work.
Hey, Kerry Howley, I just sold my mom's cadaver.
|5.24.07 @ 10:22AM|#
We have a terrible conception of manhood in this culture. Men are supposed to be either beer guzzling, UFC watching, poker playing morons who have never read a book beyond a copy of Moneyball in between drinking binges in college. Or men are supposed to be neutered beta male liberals who cry over the fate of the earth and feel guilty for all of their male privilege at the expense of their sisters. Frankly I would rather have my fingernails yanked out than have to spend 20 minutes with either type. Why can't people stay out of one ditch without driving into the other?
fyodor|5.24.07 @ 10:23AM|#
Um, describing any one thing the world "runs on" is preposterously reductive.
|5.24.07 @ 10:23AM|#
The ultimate sign of a narrow mind, assuming that your opponent
is disingenuous in his views, because he couldn't possibly
disagree with the obvious truth of your own.
It's an excellent way to avoid learning anything, convincing
yourself that opposing viewpoints aren't worth even listening to.
It's also called "dogmatism."
Chucklehead|5.24.07 @ 10:25AM|#
I find it odd that some folks are attempting to equate war with
competition with capitalism, so that Gutfield's rant isn't too far
off the deep end.
I always thought capitalism was a cooperative, beneficial exchange
of goods and/or services, which actually makes it a peaceful
endeavor. Sure, there's competition to offer 'better' stuff between
suppliers, but if no one is buying, the competition is
pointless.
fyodor|5.24.07 @ 10:27AM|#
I think the free market for manhood will ultimately best determine what manhood attributes our society most needs.
|5.24.07 @ 10:27AM|#
Sorry you're having so much trouble sorting out your manhood,
John.
joe, the beer-guzzling, Moneyball-reading, poker playing,
college-binge-drinking liberal.
|5.24.07 @ 10:28AM|#
Chucklehead,
Most people in general and about 90% of self described liberals
look at capitalism as a zero sum game where corporations and
nations get rich by stealing from others. They have no conception
of comparative advantage or the idea of created wealth. That whole
parable about the hill people and the valley people you hear in
first year economics went right over their heads. When you start
from such a radically wrong and misinformed assumption, you are
bound to make some very erroneous conclusions about the world.
Welcome to economic ignorance.
|5.24.07 @ 10:29AM|#
John,
I don't think very many of the latter type actually exist; at
least, I haven't met many, even living in NYC. As for the former
group, I think their reading trends more towards "Maxim" than
Moneyball; their reaction to Moneyball tends to be "Statistics
don't matter; it's what happens on the field that counts."
|5.24.07 @ 10:29AM|#
No Joe,
I have no problem at all. It is the rest of the world that has the
problem. I just wish I didn't have to suffer being around them.
|5.24.07 @ 10:30AM|#
Greg Gutfield is Homer Simpson-esque, at least when Homer watches the news with Lisa and Kent in the last episode.
|5.24.07 @ 10:31AM|#
Brian24,
Perhaps I forgot the third type, the geek. That guy reads moneyball
and takes it as Gospel. You are right the Maxim reader dismisses
moneyball most of the time, if he has even heard of it.
|5.24.07 @ 10:31AM|#
John is basically correct - has anybody noticed the sheer amount
of TV commercials where "average" men (sorry, "guys") are portrayed
as slow-witted slobs, obsessed with having the biggest SUV engine
or obtaining the final can of watery beer?
And these are commercials aimed at men!
fyodor|5.24.07 @ 10:32AM|#
John,
You make a good observation about the misunderstanding of
economics, but your application is rather weird. Chucklehead, I
believe, was talking people right here on this thread, who should
know better, not the great unwashed masses of liberals out
there.
Dru|5.24.07 @ 10:32AM|#
I think what he's really saying is that the world runs on sex.
Fucking hippie.
Go back to Berkley Greg.
|5.24.07 @ 10:33AM|#
Fyodor, I wish it wasn't just the liberals. A lot of people who should know better look at economics as a zero sum game. See for example, the panic that ensues everytime someone points out how China has a higher growth rate than the US, as if that growth is somehow at our expense.
|5.24.07 @ 10:34AM|#
Dan T.
I see those commercials and I hate them. Commercials insult the
entire human race on a daily basis but really manage to portray men
as complete morons.
|5.24.07 @ 10:35AM|#
If you believe that peace and love work, you're not a man,
because this world works on war.
I must've missed that part of Jesus' teachings.
"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child;
children will rebel against their parents and have them put to
death." (Matthew 10:21)
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did
not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)
|5.24.07 @ 10:37AM|#
Hard to argue with his point.
After all, if you're a man who digs on war, getting laid isn't so
very likely to happen when your deployed to some backwards,
4th-world crap hole.
|5.24.07 @ 10:38AM|#
Yes, the vast majority of people, who have never taken econ 101,
do see economics as a zero-sum game. As a "competition," if you
will.
Maybe we need better metaphors if we want people to understand.
highnumber|5.24.07 @ 10:39AM|#
No offense, Reason editors, but Gutfeld just ensured that I will never watch that show.
|5.24.07 @ 10:41AM|#
I know this is going to shock (and awe) some of the regulars around here but; I have a problem with my manhood. It's nothing I can't handle. I'm pretty sure fretting over climate change wouldn't make much of an improvement.
stephen the goldberger|5.24.07 @ 10:42AM|#
Any time someone shoots off the cuff like this he's going to
sound like a moron, but at least he's shooting off the cuff for an
opposing viewpoint that I don't hear all too often. There's
something interesting to be found in his gross oversimplification
of liberalism as being driven by females and men who want to bang
them, whereas conservatism seems to be driven by men and females
who want to be attached to them.
The split along gender lines for the parties is too significant to
ignore, so why not create imprecise stereotypes to work with.
dhex|5.24.07 @ 10:46AM|#
so is the rest of the show as riveting as his comments would suggest? (seeing as comedy is not generally a conservative strength)
thoreau|5.24.07 @ 10:47AM|#
Yes, the vast majority of people, who have never taken econ
101, do see economics as a zero-sum game. As a "competition," if
you will.
Actually, I would say that if you stick to the Econ 101 model of
competition (in Econ 101 textbooks it's all about price) then there
are plenty of losers.
Which is why businesses work to differentiate themselves on
service, quality, reliability, etc. Or at least they try to develop
an image of good service, quality, reliability, etc. They will
certainly keep costs low when they can, but if that's the only
thing you compete on then it is indeed a race to the bottom.
Think about yourselves as professionals: Most of us try to compete
on some basis other than "I'll take a lower salary than the other
guy." Most of us try to cultivate a reputation and find a niche, so
that we can offer more than just "I'll do it for less money."
fyodor|5.24.07 @ 10:47AM|#
Economics is not a zero-sum game but it does produce winners
and losers.
"Winners and losers", if you choose to look at things that way, are
inherent to life and to reality.
The revelant question is whether someone's economic gain can ever
inherently cause someone else's economic loss (other than when the
gain is accomplished coercively). Your vague and silly platitude
does not address that. And the correct answer is most likely
"no".
Urkobold®|5.24.07 @ 10:48AM|#
STUDY QUESTION: COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE MATING BEHAVIOR OF MEN BEFORE WOMEN GOT THE VOTE AND AFTER. CITE SOURCES!
stephen the goldberger|5.24.07 @ 10:53AM|#
"Economics is not a zero-sum game but it does produce winners
and losers"
True. And command economies create one winner (gov't) and several
losers (citizens). If your goal is a society in which there are no
losers, then you will fail.
however you will get laid.
|5.24.07 @ 10:54AM|#
Most people in general and about 90% of self described
liberals look at capitalism as a zero sum game where corporations
and nations get rich by stealing from others. They have no
conception of comparative advantage or the idea of created wealth.
That whole parable about the hill people and the valley people you
hear in first year economics went right over their heads. When you
start from such a radically wrong and misinformed assumption, you
are bound to make some very erroneous conclusions about the world.
Welcome to economic ignorance.
This is very true, but some conservatives come to erroneous
conclusions, as well, which often leads to protectionist laws and,
at it's worst, corruption. Politicians, in general, rarely see that
it is often protectionism that creates economic inequities. As
such, liberals blame capitalism.
|5.24.07 @ 10:58AM|#
Daze,
Append this language: "I think I'm contributing to global warming,
baby, because of the heat of my passion for you. Help me turn down
the heat!"
|5.24.07 @ 10:59AM|#
"Winners and losers", if you choose to look at things that
way, are inherent to life and to reality.
Not necessarily.
The revelant question is whether someone's economic gain can ever
inherently cause someone else's economic loss (other than when the
gain is accomplished coercively).
That's quite an "other than", isn't it? All capitalism is based on
coersion, we just call it "property rights".
thoreau|5.24.07 @ 11:00AM|#
Remember, people: When somebody consistently provokes the "OMG!
Did he really just say that?" response, the best thing to do is
ignore.
Unless it's something really funny like "But if you say, 'Global
warming is the biggest threat,' you will get laid."
Then you should respond with mockery, as we've done here.
Chucklehead|5.24.07 @ 11:01AM|#
fyodor,
You are correct, I was chiding the some of the folks posting here.
As to John's point... well, I didn't even know what the hell he was
talking about until he clarified a bit later on.
jp,
Quote verse at me all you like, I have no response since I've
hardly read the bible, and I'm agnostic anyway. But almost all
pro-war neocons also identify themselves as Christians. And as
Bertrand Russell supposedly said, "Chritianity is a nice idea. Too
bad no one's ever tried it."
Timothy|5.24.07 @ 11:04AM|#
The revelant question is whether someone's economic gain can
ever inherently cause someone else's economic loss (other than when
the gain is accomplished coercively). Your vague and silly
platitude does not address that. And the correct answer is most
likely "no".
In an open and dynamic economy where wealth can be generated it's
certainly highly unlikely. Even with pricing power and product
(labor, whatever) differentiation. There are things like structural
changes over time, though, which can generate gains for one
industry with a cost to another (cars vs buggywhips, etc). My
success as a business could hurt my competitors, but will probably
raise total welfare...that's where people get confused, it's a
forest/trees sort of issue.
Brian Sorgatz|5.24.07 @ 11:05AM|#
Mike E,
Get off, get off, get off my blog.
She humps hoboes (at least, the ones who say, "GWITBT")? I'd better
wear two condoms with her.
I'm frustrated that I can't Google the meaning of "Slobo." Does
anyone know?
|5.24.07 @ 11:09AM|#
"Most of us were doing this largely to get laid. The girls would be terribly impressed by how we almost threatened the police and maybe broke a window. Then we'd all get tear-gassed, run back to the crash pad, and say to the girls, "We must preserve resources, Sunshine. We're going to have to double up in the shower." - P.J. O'Rourke.
stephen the goldberger|5.24.07 @ 11:10AM|#
Also remember just because economics is a nonzero sum game doesn't mean that there aren't zero sum games to be played within it. That is why it's so hard for most people to see how things work, in fact i'd argue that no one understands how the economy really works, since it involves millions of people each making individual decisions every millisecond.
|5.24.07 @ 11:14AM|#
"My success as a business could hurt my competitors, but will
probably raise total welfare...that's where people get confused,
it's a forest/trees sort of issue."
In other words, yes, there are winners and losers.
That Group A is larger than Group B does not mean Group B doesn't
exist.
|5.24.07 @ 11:17AM|#
Men are supposed to be either beer guzzling, UFC watching,
poker playing...
Well, that does accurately describe me on at least 1 weekend per
month!!
GILMORE|5.24.07 @ 11:23AM|#
I went to this debate thing sponsored by the Donald & Paula
Smith Family Foundation last year (Reason writers have appeared at
events they host in NYC)... it was the following two people on the
topic of "Should We Stay Or Should We Go? (Iraq Remix)"
General William E. Odom
Professor Yale University
Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Co-Author: America's Inadvertent Empire
VS.
Peter Brookes
Senior Fellow for National Security Affairs, Heritage
Foundation
Author: A Devil's Triangle: Terrorism, WMD and Rogue States
Basically the general took a very long-term view, and said, we have
caused more problems in Iraq than we've solved, and that we do not
have any actionable capability if we tie up our resources there
indefinately... he took a very strategic view of the whole
deployment of force around the world, and the likely need to
redeploy again...and wasnt at all idealistic about political
realities - very sober and rational. He didnt see regimes in the
middle east collapsing in favor of liberal democracy. He took a
very cold blooded view of US interests in the region and summed
that we're probably doing more bad than good. He was the kind of
thinker that you'd EXPECT to become a general, coldly rational and
dispassionate.
Peter Brookes, on the other hand, basically argued (paraphrasing),
=
"You're a pussy. I used to fly fighter jets. That takes balls. What
kind of balls do you have, old man? Yale is for Elites. I write for
the Post. What do you know about America? It's unamerican to not
run headlong into a brick wall until you've given yourself brain
damage. These Terrrorists are everywhere and if we show a split
second's weakness they will all swim across the ocean and blow up
our children"
More or less.
The point being, the general just made sound, rational arguments,
and the Heritage Foundation guy made constant pathic appeals to
Nationalism, Pride, Overblown Fears of Lone Jihadis with Suitcase
Nukes, Blaming Defeatocrats etc. It was really just 2 people alone
in the room together, talking totally across each other. Speaking
totally different languages.
Both were republicans if I remember.
Anyway, I think the main dividing line between people is not
willingness to grasp one's manhood in hand and refuse to bow to the
liberalising influence of sweet, sweet poon... but rather people
who actually can tell the difference between rhetorical arguments
and rational arguments - their own and others. As far as I can
tell, this dude on Fox is just tossing out pop psyche rhetorical
BS, and it doesnt have any real application in reality. Does he
really believe his own BS? Probably. But i see the same nonsense
coming from all political stripes, Reasonites included.
thoreau|5.24.07 @ 11:27AM|#
but rather people who actually can tell the difference
between rhetorical arguments and rational arguments - their own and
others
I find that those people tend to have the best ideas, no matter
what their alleged labels might be.
|5.24.07 @ 11:35AM|#
But i see the same nonsense coming from all political
stripes, Reasonites included.
Hell, I'll own up to my own rhetorical BS. I don't always see it,
but I'll own up to it.
Unfortunately, this is the only language many people understand. I
miss rational arguments. All this "you hate America"/"we're the
real terrorists" crap is getting old.
|5.24.07 @ 11:37AM|#
Slobo=Nickname for Slobodan Milosovec.
D.A. Ridgely-What you haven't observed is police
officers/soldiers/firefighters using conservative rhetoric to land
chicks. Without that, you don't really have any reasonable basis
for comparison, do you? Assuming you accept Gutfeld's moronic
premise, of course.
jp-
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a
tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.
If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other
also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him
have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go
with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn
away from the one who wants to borrow from you." Matt.
5:38-42
47 And while He was still speaking, behold, a multitude; and he
who was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them and drew
near to Jesus to kiss Him. 48 But Jesus said to him, "Judas, are
you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?"49 When those around Him
saw what was going to happen, they said to Him, "Lord, shall we
strike with the sword?" 50 And one of them struck the servant of
the high priest and cut off his right ear.51 But Jesus answered and
said, "Permit even this." And He touched his ear and healed him. "
Luke 24:47-51
Making Jesus say things is FUN! Not as much fun as taking metaphors
out of context, but still pretty cool!
Brian|5.24.07 @ 11:41AM|#
The show this guy hosts is the worst show I've ever seen. If Kerry Howley wasn't on it I'd never watch it on youtube.
GILMORE|5.24.07 @ 11:44AM|#
joe =
Brookes was from Heritage Foundation, not AEI
And he wasnt a pure talking head; he'd worked for NSA, CIA, and was
a credible miltary and strategic analyst... just that his current
job is to be a conservative media pundit, more or less. His M.O.
was to speak to blue-collar type thinkers, so he wasnt about to
drop that kind of reference.
The people who bring Chomsky into discussions are idiots,
regardless whether they're pro or con. I find one big problem with
liberals is that they read chomsky and never read anything else
ever again, and consider themselves 'informed'. Some for Howard
Zinn & History. Once you're read "A Peoples History..." you are
an enlightened being and dont need other POVs.
Seriously... on that other thread, whoever brought chomsky up in
the first place should have gotten a swift kick in the nuts.
I was talking about a recent Foreign Affairs article with my dad,
which advocated withdrawal, and he goes, "what the hell does THAT
guy know...he's probably some acedemic lightweight"... and i looked
at the author bio, and it turned out to be a senior guy who my dad
knew from Vietnam days in the Pentagon... it gave him some minor
cognative dissonance to realize people VERY MUCH LIKE HIM actually
shared the 'get out now' view. He had a hard time separating that
view from the caricature of stupid hippies with No Blood for Oil
signs. Point being, people tend to personify points of view as
being 'manly' or not, which tends to prevent people from being able
to consider the argument on merits rather than it's ability to
coexist with your own self-perception. Vanity is not exclusive to
one side of the political spectrum.
|5.24.07 @ 11:47AM|#
Assuming you accept Gutfeld's moronic premise, of
course.
You being the indeterminate you, also.
|5.24.07 @ 11:51AM|#
Here's some rhetoric for ya:
"The guys who watch John Wayne movies are currently in charge of
our foreign policy while the guys who are living John Wayne movies
are being ignored."
And that was off the top of my head. Can I get a show on MSNBC
now?
|5.24.07 @ 11:56AM|#
Knee-jerk/overly emotional reactions are what ruin our reasoning capacity, nine times out of ten. Using the example of Iraq, I've had discussions with doves and warhawks where we eventually get to similar conclusions, once everyone acknowledges that things are more complex than "war good" or "war bad". Or that putting partisan interests ahead of our national interests may be a bit wrongheaded.
|5.24.07 @ 11:59AM|#
Does anyone else remember the National Review article about
Donald Rumsfeld being more manly than the "pear-shaped men" from
the Clinton administration?
Holy Mancrush, Batman!
GILMORE|5.24.07 @ 12:05PM|#
"Living John Wayne movies?"
I was with you for the first half of the sentence, but dont really
get the second bit.
You mean like, "Green Berets"/"Sands of Iwo Jima"/"The Longest
Day"?
The whole "support the troops" angle is insane. Nothing supports
troops like effective leadership, not dogged willingness to waste
massive resources for a pyrric 'victory'.
as a side note, I was on a plane flying back from jacksonville on
monday, and was seated next to an off-duty flight attendant from a
diff airline...really cute young Dominican girl. While we talked on
the runway she asked me to use my BBery to check up on news of the
'three missing troops' in Iraq. I made some comment like, "I
wouldnt hold your breath..." which gladly, she missed (or
mistranslated)...because 2 seconds later, she goes, 'yeah, one of
them is my cousin"... Alex Jimenez. My heart didnt exactly break,
but it was something close.
D.A. Ridgely|5.24.07 @ 12:05PM|#
Shem, sure I have. I just didn't mention it. Particularly in the case of soldiers, young enlisted men hanging out in local bars or the NCO club, I've heard plenty of (comparatively) conservative talk, macho posturing, etc. Of course, given that the young men in question were in good physical shape by comparison to, say, the average college guy of the same age, it may just be that women are attracted to virile, macho type guys regardless of what sort of happy horsesh*t they blather; but I can guarantee you that the typical bar pick-up line from, say, your average Army Airborne Ranger isn't "Give peace a chance."
|5.24.07 @ 12:09PM|#
joe,
Rumsfeld's mesomorphic physique and aggressive demeanor make him a
shoe-in as a Kshatriya/warrior-king. I didn't realize NR had so
much respect for the Hindu caste system.
|5.24.07 @ 12:11PM|#
"Living John Wayne movies?"
I was with you for the first half of the sentence, but dont really
get the second bit.
You mean like, "Green Berets"/"Sands of Iwo Jima"/"The Longest
Day"?
Yeah, kinda. Then again, I must confess that I don't really watch
John Wayne movies.
The whole "support the troops" angle is insane. Nothing
supports troops like effective leadership, not dogged willingness
to waste massive resources for a pyrric 'victory'.
Why is it that so many people don't get this?
as a side note, I was on a plane flying back from jacksonville
on monday, and was seated next to an off-duty flight attendant from
a diff airline...really cute young Dominican girl. While we talked
on the runway she asked me to use my BBery to check up on news of
the 'three missing troops' in Iraq. I made some comment like, "I
wouldnt hold your breath..." which gladly, she missed (or
mistranslated)...because 2 seconds later, she goes, 'yeah, one of
them is my cousin"... Alex Jimenez. My heart didnt exactly break,
but it was something close.
That's rough.
|5.24.07 @ 12:12PM|#
I used to drink with these marines from the White House detail
when I was in college in DC.
19-22 year old marines, chosen to guard the White House because of
their striking height and physical appearance? Drinking in a bar
with college women who chose to go to school in DC?
Those dudes didn't have to talk about global warming, I can tell
you that.
D.A. Ridgely|5.24.07 @ 12:18PM|#
Wow, I just managed to call myself a woman, didn't
I?
That depends on which D.C. bars you were talking about.
Mike Laursen|5.24.07 @ 12:43PM|#
I think I'm really on this guy's list. The last social get-together I attended was hosted by a Muslim.
|5.24.07 @ 12:54PM|#
"If you're at a party and you say, 'The war on terror is the
most important thing in the world'-you won't get a nod. But if you
say, 'Global warming is the biggest threat,' you will get
laid."
Because Republicans are too drunk to fuck?
Republican|5.24.07 @ 1:08PM|#
Because Republicans are too drunk to fuck?
You give me head
It makes it worse
Take out your fuckin' retainer
Put it in your purse
VM|5.24.07 @ 1:16PM|#
Republican - you need a HOLIDAY IN URKOBOLDIA WHERE YOU'LL DO
WHAT YOU'RE TOLD!!!!!!!
(which should the URKOBOLD's theme song)
|5.24.07 @ 1:51PM|#
If you believe that peace and love work, you're not a man,
because this world works on war.
After repeated readings I'm not even sure what the hell this is
supposed to mean.
|5.24.07 @ 2:30PM|#
"That depends on which D.C. bars you were talking about."
Don't ask, D.A., and I won't tell. ;-)
|5.24.07 @ 2:35PM|#
Someone who couldn't discern Paul Lynde's orientation is
commenting on manhood (or the converse)? Give me a break.
It reminds me of Rush Bimbo's discussion of the "arousal gap" as
explaining women's voting behavior. Since fat guys like Bill
Clinton and Ted Kennedy could get laid without much trouble, Rush
had to attribute his own lack of success with the female half of
the population to something, non-weight related, other than his
personality.
|5.24.07 @ 2:38PM|#
"Wow, I just managed to call myself a woman, didn't I?"
No, Joe, and due to my convoluted thought processes, I thought of
this little ditty by Col. Lang. One section of his site, Sic Semper
Tyrannis, has movie reviews by some guy named Farrell. The colonel
wrote this with regard to Brokeback Mountain. Now that's a real
man.
"I haven't seen this movie yet, but now I am sure I will make the
effort. A lot of women don't understand men any better than men
understand women. Over the decades I have heard women say the most
amazing things about men. I had a secretary once who thought that
any indication of affection between men must mean that they were
gay. Another woman colleague thought that the lack of physical
modesty in American soldiers meant that they were participants in a
"homosexualizing" culture.
The man in the foreground in the picture is an American. The one in
the back is a Montagnard of the Malayo-Polynesian group. I was
introduced to one such who looked me in the eye and said, "You die,
me die." I never felt like I wanted to kiss him, but.....
This might be a better movie without the "three minutes" of
thrashing about. It might then actually say something real about
men and their feelings for each other. I'll let you know after I
see it.
Pat Lang"
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2006/01/brokeback_mount.html
|5.24.07 @ 3:32PM|#
DA-In my experience growing up in a Navy town with those sorts
of guys running around bars, they don't usually use politics at all
to pick up women. Mostly they used the same lame pickup lines to
pick up chicks that the college students used, with moderately
higher degrees of success. Maybe it's different where you
are.
jp-I still don't really see the joke.
|5.24.07 @ 3:58PM|#
wow never do I cease being amazed at how people are willing to extend their contrived political ideologies to explain every facet of existence. give someone an easily comprehendable ideology and they will forever be content with the assumption that they have the explanation for every social phenomena they stumble over.
Jim Treacher|5.24.07 @ 5:43PM|#
"There's no ass-kicking quite like the ass-kicking that doesn't
put your own ass in line for the kicking."
Are you a policeman? If not, do you still believe in the concept of
law enforcement? If you do, why?
Jim Treacher|5.24.07 @ 5:47PM|#
"Someone who couldn't discern Paul Lynde's orientation is
commenting on manhood (or the converse)?"
Well, Gutfeld was like 8 years old at the time. (This was before
8-year-olds knew everything about the gays, like they do
today.)
MORE AMERICAN THAN A DAMN SWED|5.24.07 @ 5:47PM|#
Leif | May 24, 2007, 3:58pm | #
wow never do I cease being amazed at how people are willing to
extend their contrived political ideologies to explain every facet
of existence.
THATS BECAUSE YOURE SWEDISH AND YOUR GOOD ALMOST-AMERICAN VIKING
GENES HAVE BEEN TURNED TO MUSH BY RELATIVISM NONINTERVENTIONISM AND
MULTILATERALISM AND NOW YOURE PART OF THE ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT
NINCOMPOOPS WHO ARE PUPPETS OF THE SECULARIST CONSPIRACY THAT AND
YOU ARE PROBABLY A VEGETARIAN AMERICA FOR THE AMERICANS FOREVER
|5.25.07 @ 12:53PM|#
And to say you're not a man if you don't like war is
stereotypical alpha-male bullshit.
Actually war is cool....but that is my 12 year old side
talking...not really my alpha-male side.
My alpha male side says this "You will do what I want you to do
because I am smarter, better looking, stronger, and more wealthy
then you are."
The two really are not the same thing at all.
|5.25.07 @ 12:57PM|#
In other words, yes, there are winners and losers.
That Group A is larger than Group B does not mean Group B doesn't
exist.
Soooo.....
Which group has to eat URKOBOLD's semen?
|5.25.07 @ 1:04PM|#
I think I'm really on this guy's list. The last social
get-together I attended was hosted by a Muslim.
You went to a party hosted by a Muslim and you talked about global
warming rather then the war on terror?!?!
That doesn't make you a wimpy man leftist...that makes you a
fucking freak show.
|5.26.07 @ 10:33AM|#
Al Gore was on THE HISORY CHANNEL a few months back calling GLOBAL WARMING THE NUMBER 1 THREAT TO THE EARTH and still maneging to hold a streight face while lying through his teeth about this whole idea of global warming and despite his oscar his film is still a fruadulent documentry i mean AL GORE is a BIG FAT LAIR
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245