• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

The GOP is a fucking disgrace.

The revolution will be supervised.

Let us savor the impending downfall of lawless scoundrels who richly deserve the trouble barreling their way.

Balloon Juice has never been a refuge for the linguistically delicate.

Let’s delete this post and never speak of this again.

“Can i answer the question? No you can not!”

Wow, I can’t imagine what it was like to comment in morse code.

Schmidt just says fuck it, opens a tea shop.

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

Shallow, uninformed, and lacking identity

Give the craziest people you know everything they want and hope they don’t ask for more? Great plan.

If you’re pissed about Biden’s speech, he was talking about you.

Speaking of republicans, is there a way for a political party to declare intellectual bankruptcy?

They fucked up the fucking up of the fuckup!

I know this must be bad for Joe Biden, I just don’t know how.

He really is that stupid.

I didn’t have alien invasion on my 2023 BINGO card.

Take your GOP plan out of the witness protection program.

Tick tock motherfuckers!

I was promised a recession.

“Squeaker” McCarthy

Too often we hand the biggest microphones to the cynics and the critics who delight in declaring failure.

Fuck these fucking interesting times.

They’re not red states to be hated; they are voter suppression states to be fixed.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / The Daily Dump

The Daily Dump

by John Cole|  January 12, 20052:39 pm| 12 Comments

This post is in: General Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

Andrew Sullivan, 11:41 am today:

I’m particularly worried that the blogosphere has become far more knee-jerk, shrill and partisan since the days when I first started blogging. Some of that’s healthy and inevitable; but too much is damaging.

Several hours later, Coy Andy reads this quote from President:

President Bush said yesterday that he doesn’t “see how you can be president without a relationship with the Lord,” but that he is always mindful to protect the right of others to worship or not worship.

Mr. Bush told editors and reporters of The Washington Times yesterday in an interview in the Oval Office that many in the public misunderstand the role of faith in his life and his view of the proper relationship between religion and the government.

“I think people attack me because they are fearful that I will then say that you’re not equally as patriotic if you’re not a religious person,” Mr. Bush said. “I’ve never said that. I’ve never acted like that. I think that’s just the way it is.

“On the other hand, I think more and more people understand the importance of faith in their life,” he said. “America is a remarkable place when it comes to religion and faith. We had people come to our rallies who were there specifically to say, ‘I’m here to pray for you, let you know I’m praying for you.’ And I was very grateful about that.”

Andy’s response, 2:54 pm:

So, out of his beneficence, he won’t trample on others’ religious freedom. But the White House? That’s for Christians only. No Jews? Or atheists? Notice also the evangelical notion of a personal “relationship” with the Lord. That also indicates suspicion of those Christians with different approaches to the divine. I must say this is a new level of religio-political fusion in this administration. To restrict the presidency to a particular religious faith is anathema to this country’s traditions and to the task of toleration. The president surely needs to retract the statement.

What an asshole. Where did the President says no jews or atheists need apply? What suggests suspicion? Where is he restricting the office to those of a specific faith? All he said was that he does not understand how someone could be president without having a strong reliance on faith and concomitant belief in God.

I am pretty areligious (a helluva lot closer to atheist than Andy is), and I understood his damned remarks. Do anti-retro virals make you nuts, or has Andy been this big of an asshole all along and his true colors are finally showing? All he does anymore is willfully distort what other people say.

And what kills me is he makes 100k a year through tips and donations. Maybe I should go insane publicly- might sell some blogads or get me tips.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « The Torture Myth
Next Post: Something to Mock »

Reader Interactions

12Comments

  1. 1.

    Mason

    January 12, 2005 at 5:23 pm

    I don’t understand it, either. I was never an avid reader of his, and I am just dumbfounded that people keep giving him money after that platinum-plated-bandwidth scam.

  2. 2.

    RW

    January 12, 2005 at 8:34 pm

    Ah, he’s just mad, like so many others.
    Mad because they lost November 2nd.

  3. 3.

    Oliver

    January 12, 2005 at 9:52 pm

    “Where did the President says no jews or atheists need apply?”

    The part where he says he [doesn’t] “see how you can be president without a relationship with the Lord”. Only someone dumb on purpose can’t see that. Praise jeebus!

  4. 4.

    John cole

    January 12, 2005 at 10:02 pm

    That means he doesn’t understand how it could be done- probably because he relies pretty heavily on his religious faith and relationship with the Lord. I can respect that- it works ofor him, and all he was saying is that he doesn;t understand how others could be president without such a relationship. That doesn’t he thinks the white house is for christans only.

    Christ, you people will spin anything anyway you can to make this man sound mean or divisive.

  5. 5.

    Rick Lee

    January 12, 2005 at 10:06 pm

    Dude… what’s up with your spelling these days? Are you on pain killers or something?

  6. 6.

    Aaron

    January 12, 2005 at 10:58 pm

    Jews don’t pray to their Lord?

    Oh, I guess they are atheists in Andy’s book.

    Signed,

    Another non-religious person who thinks people get too worked up over this stuff.

  7. 7.

    ray

    January 12, 2005 at 11:14 pm

    He’s been that big of an asshole all along. He just kept it hidden for a while.

  8. 8.

    RW

    January 12, 2005 at 11:48 pm

    John, “spin” is too kind a word.

  9. 9.

    Gary Farber

    January 14, 2005 at 12:40 am

    “Where is he restricting the office to those of a specific faith? All he said was that he does not understand how someone could be president without having a strong reliance on faith and concomitant belief in God.”

    I have no trouble believing the the President was honestly stating that couldn’t understand how such a person could be President, but is it really terrible difficult to understand that this implies that he doesn’t understand how, for instance, an American Hindu could be President, how a Japanese-American who believes in Shinto could be President, or that he doesn’t understand how an atheist could be President, and thus some people might be disturbed by the implication from the President of the United States, speaking publically and for the record, that such people couldn’t, in his understanding, become President? Do you find it, yourself, impossible that anyone could see such an implication in this statement, without simply being a crazed partisan, John?

  10. 10.

    John cole

    January 14, 2005 at 6:12 am

    Do you find it, yourself, impossible that anyone could see such an implication in this statement, without simply being a crazed partisan, John?

    Sure, there are several possible reasons for completely misinterpreting the President’s quote and viewing it in the most negative way possible, to include an interpretation that defies the actual words used in the statement.

    One reason is being a crazed partisan. The other is being a total idiot.

  11. 11.

    Gary Farber

    January 14, 2005 at 6:05 pm

    “One reason is being a crazed partisan. The other is being a total idiot.”

    We’ll likely have to disagree those are the only two reasons possible, and that no reasonable, non-idiot, person might conceivably interpet the formulation “I don’t see how you can be X without Y” as suggesting the possibility that one can’t be X without being Y.

    Let’s try some substitutes. We start with: “”On the other hand, I don’t see how you can be president at least from my perspective, how you can be president, without a relationship with the Lord….”

    If someone posted “I don’t see how one can be a sane political commentator without being a Democrat,” (a statement I would utterly disagree with, in case that is not clear), you would be upset, then, with anyone who questioned that?

    “On the other hand, I don’t see how you can be president at least from my perspective, how you can be president, without being a member of the white race” No problem?

    “On the other hand, I don’t see how you can be president at least from my perspective, how you can be president, without being a Methodist.”

    “On the other hand, I don’t see how you can be president at least from my perspective, how you can be president, without eating ice cream every day.”

    As I said, I don’t doubt that the President was speaking truthfully of his subjective feelings. I’m simply not persuaded that only someone who rabidly hates the President could feel any unease or question in regard to his statement that — “on the other hand” — he can’t understand how someone who doesn’t specifically worship the Lord in the way he understands how to could be President. Is this truly the message the President of the U.S. should give to the nation and the world? Is it really impossible to understand how a Hindu, a Muslim, a Jew, an atheist, a Deist, could be President? (Did Thomas Jefferson have a personal relationship with the Lord? This is not well-supported by his writings, is it? Is it impossible to understand how Jefferson managed to be President?)

    But if we must agree to disagree, it will, of course, be for the very first time.

  12. 12.

    John cole

    January 14, 2005 at 7:26 pm

    Gary- You are not arguing what Andrew is arguing.

    Andrew is arguing that the President said that you shouldn’t be allowed to President if you do not have that personal relationship, and thatthe PResidency should be reserved for those who do.

    The President clearly did not say that, he merely stated that in his opinion, he doesn’t see how someone can be President without such a relationship. Not that they shouldn;t be allowed, but that he doesn’t understand how they could do it.

    I am not sure why this is confusing you, but it sure as hell confused Andy, who immediately launched charges of bigotry.

Comments are closed.

The Daily Dump

by John Cole|  January 12, 200512:51 am| 6 Comments

This post is in: General Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

Two new forays into stupid from Adnrew today. Here they are in order.

#1.) THE FACE OF REPRESSION: Here’s a photo of an Iranian blogger, one of more than 20 detained by the theo-fascists for freedom of expression. Money quote: “My interrogator punched me in the head and stomach and kicked me in the back many times to force me confess to having illegal sex and endangered national security through my writings, Mazrouei said.” He was blindfolded for 66 days in solitary confinement. And yes, it pains me that now every defender of the Islamists can say that U.S. custody is just as bad as the Iranians – and, in many cases, far worse. We have squandered a part of the critical moral difference that justifies our fight.

No, petunia, ‘every defender of the Islamists’ CAN NOT ‘say that U.S. custody is just as bad as the Iranians – and, in many cases, far worse.’ Well- they can say it, but they are either lying or as stupid as you are choosing to be on this issue. I mean, you seriously are not going to compare years of unrepentant torture, to include stonings, mass executions, etc., with regrettable but seemingly isolated incidents of degradation and low-scale torture.

This is not condoning or white-washing the evil that was committed at Abu Ghraib, but how about some perspective. The last I checked, our entire nation was outraged, we were investigating the charges, and people were on trial. That would tend to point to some difference between us and the Islamists.

#2.)

“WHERE HE PUT HIS WING-WANG”: This, apparently, is Glenn Reynold’s view of what being gay is. And Glenn is on the side of the angels in this. It’s enough to make you despair.

Apparently anything is enough to make America’s #1 gay advocate despair, because here is Glenn’s post:

WAS LINCOLN GAY? Andrew Sullivan cares, and so do the folks at The Weekly Standard. I can’t seem to, though. The guy saved the nation, and I’m supposed to care about where he put his wing-wang?

Pretty clearly, Glenn was stating that he doesn’t give a shit if Lincoln was gay or not, and given Glenn’s track record in favor of gay equality, it takes some work to find reason for despair.

Curiously, Andrew’s ‘despair’ seems to be centered around Glenn’s statement regarding Lincoln’s wing-wang. Glenn’s p[osition, from my standpoint is the only logical position to take. Andrew is consistently (and correctly) railing for equal treatemnt and equal rights, and the thrust (no pun intended) of his argument is that homosexuals are human beings, and therefore no different heterosexuals. Except for that little issue of where they (as the Instaprof so delicately stated) stick their ‘wing-wang.’

Unless there is something else that systematically makes homosexuals different from heterosexuals, I think Glenn’s position (ignore punb possibilities, please) is the enlightened one here- the only difference between the two collective groups is the placement of the ‘wing-wang’ during sexual activities.

Well- one group may have more fashion sense and a love of show tunes, but I learned that from Bravo!

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « The ‘Moon’nesota Vikings
Next Post: Winning Hearts and Minds »

Reader Interactions

6Comments

  1. 13.

    Kimmitt

    January 12, 2005 at 11:35 am

    regrettable but seemingly isolated

    I’m pretty sure this isn’t the case.

  2. 14.

    AndrewBB

    January 12, 2005 at 4:19 pm

    its’ more than sex. That’s the point. That it went right over your head is not surprising.

    Though reading over your posts – though I know i’ll regret saying so – you do seem to have some functioning brain cells left that allow you to look critically at both sides.

    Still …

  3. 15.

    John A. Kalb

    January 13, 2005 at 12:20 am

    AndrewBB,

    Of course that’s what he means.

    But that makes absolutely no sense, given how the whole crux of most of his gay marriage whines is that there’s no difference between him and me except that we want to put our wing-wangs in different places (or in his case, that he might want to receive someone else’s wing-wang, while I certainly do not).

  4. 16.

    Max

    January 13, 2005 at 10:41 pm

    Would misuse of the wing-wang be classified as a wang chung?

    Dr Kinsey

  5. 17.

    Max

    January 13, 2005 at 10:42 pm

    And let’s not even go near balloon juice.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Unqualified Offerings says:
    January 12, 2005 at 11:09 pm

    Deep Breaths

    Deep Breaths – I thought one of the smaller but nevertheless regrettable casualties of the atrocities of September 11, 2001…

Primary Sidebar

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Recent Comments

  • ColoradoGuy on War for Ukraine Day 392: Zelenskyy Goes to Bakhmut! (Mar 23, 2023 @ 3:50am)
  • Anne Laurie on Late Night Open Thread: ‘Leader’ McConnell’s Troops Are Restless (Mar 23, 2023 @ 3:33am)
  • opiejeanne on Late Night Open Thread: ‘Leader’ McConnell’s Troops Are Restless (Mar 23, 2023 @ 3:31am)
  • opiejeanne on Late Night Open Thread: ‘Leader’ McConnell’s Troops Are Restless (Mar 23, 2023 @ 3:30am)
  • Lacuna Synecdoche on Late Night Open Thread: ‘Leader’ McConnell’s Troops Are Restless (Mar 23, 2023 @ 3:26am)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!