Recent Feed Comments
Recent Splice Original Comments
Recent Multimedia Comments
  • Go to comment.
    May 23, 2016, 06:52PM
    I skipped the rest of your comment. That's three in a row.
  • Go to comment.
    May 23, 2016, 06:50PM
    Richard, no. To say that one line of attack isn't warranted is not the same as saying that no attacks are warranted. This distinction shouldn't have I'm to be explained.
  • Go to comment.
    May 23, 2016, 06:26PM
    C'mon Beck. If you're going to use Mephistopheles, at least try to do so correctly. You're punching well above your weight class.
  • Go to comment.
    May 23, 2016, 06:22PM
    Sorry Frank, this is neither incisive nor up to your usual quality. Those of the internet generation have shown little regard for re litigating the past. They rarely question history prior to 2000 and assume a certain political accuracy/correctness prior to the internet (unless of course, it is civil rights related). No one will care or be persuaded by rumors of the early 90's regardless of the truth. Today is all about "how are you going to help me now" cloaked by "i care for others, not myself (even though I'll happen to benefit) society. That is what this election comes down to. Who persuades the voting public that their policies will personally enrich the actual voter. My bet (not necessarily preference) is on the Dem regardless of who it is.
  • Go to comment.
    May 23, 2016, 06:06PM
    C.T. Missed the point: Unless dismissing as pampered and indulged is not attacking, you missed the point. Next. I figured the article was aimed at the right ("us") and was wrong. It appears the author thinks, as you appear to, that the left hates us because we diss their favorite artists. My point is...unlikely... but you're free to find something empirical which will prove the left would not hate us (the right) as long as we didn't diss Dunham and similar others. WRT her hard work and commercial success, lots and lots of folks have done something similar without getting the same approval for their resume. I noted Mel Gibson and Tom Clancy. Not getting the love on the left, are they, despite their resumes? It's the double standard thing. Now, I suppose you can diss Dunham's work--even if you leave out the false rape charge--and still admire her effort and success. That standard is not going to win a lot of approval if applied universally. But to the left's artists in general: Anybody want to try to prove that if we on the right quit dissing them, people will stop hating us? It's the subhead. An assertion without conditions. Jump right in.
  • Go to comment.
    May 23, 2016, 10:28AM
  • Go to comment.
    May 23, 2016, 10:26AM
    Very incisive article. I would also add Clinton's appointment of Bob Rubin, the Mepistopheles of the Democratic party, to the list of Bill Clinton's econ negatives.Only thing separating him from the standard GOP approach to Wall St.was his willingness to pay taxes.
    Responses to this comment
  • Go to comment.
    May 23, 2016, 10:23AM
    Richard. Skipped your latest comment too. Reason: you are so confused you think I wrote the article to our left. I didn't. Not the article, not the headline. Look at the name under headline; it's not the same as the name on my comments. That's because Mark Judge wrote the article, while I, a different person, am offering my own views on the matter at hand. My views are similar to those of Mr Judge, but not the same.
  • Go to comment.
    May 23, 2016, 09:19AM
    If he does, it'll be news to a lot of folks. Wonder how the press will handle it.
  • Go to comment.
    May 23, 2016, 09:18AM
    Lumping self-proclaimed rationalists in with nazis and racists is what is not reasonable, and it makes you look very bad.
  • Go to comment.
    May 23, 2016, 08:04AM
    Dismissing as pampered and indulged is not attacking? Maybe somebody else did the headline. One can be pampered and indulged if various supporters and investors stand to gain. However, the point about why people hate us so we should stop attacking or dismissing is the point. There's no evidence that stopping dismissing such as Dunham will make any difference. She can be pampered and indulged and still be hard-working and a fabulist, lying butthead. You used the term "artists", which is plural, a number of times. So we're "attacking" artists. Try to read your own stuff. Williamson may appear to you to be over the top about Dunham, but you went from there to "us", a plural form to "artists" a plural form. You were not at all clear in what you think you said. You were quite clear in what you said. The problem is that hard-working and financially successful types must be liberal because, say, Tom Clancy......hmm. Hard-working. Successful. Conservative.... Clint Eastwood. As Michael Medved says, conservative and family-friendly films make the money and hip, edgy, liberal films' creators give awards to each other. "The Passion of The Christ" was wildly successful, both financially and in terms of public awareness. Fortunately, Gibson got drunk and gave a cop a hard time so everything he did can be dismissed. Whew! That was a close one.
  • Go to comment.
    May 23, 2016, 01:05AM
    Everybody blocks; but who do they block is the question? I appreciate that your response makes not even a passing attempt to be reasonable, though, Beck.