3 Comments

The god father called and gave her an offer she simply “Could Not Refuse”!

So she threw herself onto the sword in the left hand as to not alarm those to her right! (nobody could be as far left as AM is)!

Edwards is already finished as a serious contender, he is just hoping for a fling with Hillary for a second VP invite. Neither will happen, Edwards is finished I’d bet he could not even make a proper for Nifong’s vacancy.

As a Catholic I was very disturbed with Amanda Marcotte for her digusting vile attack on my religion. I am happy she resigned but I think Edwards make a huge mistake. Edwards can no longer claim he fired her. He will be connected to her Anti Christian rants forever. Enough is enough. Stop attacking Catholics.

Sir

The comments of Hon. Edwards’ erstwhile blog mistress are vicious &, it might be said, re the Holy Spirit viscous.

I find it annoying that when I criticize X for some slander or splenetic, dyspeptic rant, some people who should know better assert that I’m saying that such person can’t say whatever he/she pleases anywhere, anytime, or for any reason. (Channeling Norman Rockwell four paintings of the Four Freedoms.) Actually, I’m simply noting the obvious: there are consequences to such conduct, and that’s what so many suppurating commentators posing under the rubric of “free speech” are afraid of: being held accountable.

Look, put me down for free speech. Let X say whatever he/she thinks or feels (feelings, oh, oh, feelings)on anything & everything. And let X fulminate; let him/her say it viciously, intemperately, off the top of his/her head, with as much irrationality & deep hatred as he/she can muster, complimented by all the foul words he/she needs if he/she has an advanced case of dysphasia, a limited education, or is too cheap to buy a Thesaurus. But X shouldn’t be surprised, apply for victimhood status, & whine thereafter “I don’t get no respect”.

And, for some, free speech is sacrosanct, but only for them & theirs. It applies only to speech (which they would ordinarily describe as “hate speech”) against Catholics. Selective indignation is inappropriate in adults.

And I do not understand how any reasonable, meliorative, or malleable person can attack my criticism of such far-out person’s selective vitriol as hypocritical, thoughtless, or as an attempt to “denude the world of ideas”. Here, my criticism is an expression of my rather normal reaction to an emotional, immature attack on my beliefs. I would also note that such person’s vitriol does not amount to an “idea.” And I would suggest that it’s easier for trimmers to get away with describing such people’s raffish anti-intellectualism in mild, palliative, detached terms when they studiously avoid quoting X’s actual words.