House of Eratosthenes

For all his other faults, Ed’s a classy guy or at least, in certain specific ways, I can appreciate the honest effort he puts into trying to be one…and it’s giving me the giggle-snorts watching the identity crisis that ensues when he finds vulgar-vagina-monologue gutter-trash-talk “comedienne” Sarah Silverman echoing his talking points about voter ID. Lay down with dogs, wake up with fleas, that’s what’s going on here. Commentary in the video is extremely not-safe-for-work.

Comment thread explodes, as it tends to when I lower myself into participating in it…although I’m not the only one presenting my point of view, nor am I the first one. He’s getting spanked again. It’s all either silly, or redundant with my sensible comments that sum up the entire situation thusly:

It comes down to one question, Should things be proven? Is it good and necessary to prove things, when the integrity of the voting process is at stake?

Just a little consistency is all that is needed. If it is not necessary to prove things, then people can vote without presenting anything to prove they are who they say they are…until such time as laws are passed saying we don’t do things that way anymore. Because of fraud. Which, ya know, according to the rules, doesn’t have to be proven and your repeated demands for proof are what everyone already knows they are, just a bunch of distracting noise.

If things should be proven, on the other hand, then the Republicans need to prove there’s fraud before they can say there is fraud…until then, there is no fraud because they haven’t proven it. But just in case, to be consistent…people should prove they are who they say they are, when they vote. So pass the voter ID laws already. Without proving anything. And that’s alright. Again, your demands for proof are just so much noise.

If you wish to press the double standard, and say Republicans have to prove there’s fraud before they can do anything about the fraud, but the fraudulent voters don’t need to prove diddly-squat when they cast their fraudulent votes, well then…what that would show is what we’ve all known all along, you can’t make a democrat idea look like a good one without applying a double standard.

Those are the three options, with their logical consequences. There is no fourth one.

After that, all the rest of it is just repetition, partisanship and noise.

Crazy-Lady, indeed. I made 1:17 into the vid before I shut it down. What a foul-mouthed piece o’ work.
- bpenni | 09/25/2012 @ 09:46
Give our Texas friend some credit: One should expect a thinker who has some self-respect, to be given some pause finding himself in the same corner as Little Miss Vagina Discharge here. And he is clearly being given some.
- mkfreeberg | 09/25/2012 @ 09:51
So what’s his problem, exactly?

I have to admit, I lack the time and patience to read yet another 5,000 words of liberal self-flagellation (and I wouldn’t piss on Sarah Silverman if she were on fire), but this sounds pretty much like S.O.P. on that side of the aisle. The leftist dial is permanently stuck on 11. They spent 2000-2008 screaming about Chimpy McHitlerBurton, yet they’re somehow shocked, shocked that someone whose entire schtick is nothing but vulgarity says gutter-mouth things about policies they support?

Or is the problem the incoherence and the self-contradiction? Again: this Ed Darrell dude is shocked by that? I know you’ve talked about him before (hell, I think I’ve responded to his comments once or twice), and every single word he typed was typical leftoblather — only Republicans are to be held to standards, and if you disagree with him, you’re an eeeevil raaaacist who doesn’t care about children, veterans, or the homeless (why do you hate America? Have you no shame, sir?!). Aside from a pixie-ish face and a few four-letter words, the difference between him and Silverman is… what, exactly?

Some idiot says something idiotic on the right, and everyone calls for his head. Some idiot says something idiotic on the left, and they give him his own show on MSNBC. Hang in there, Ed — I’m sure Keith Olbermann will be along shortly to explain how any discomfort you’re feeling is really Mitt Romney’s fault anyway.
- Severian | 09/25/2012 @ 09:57
I’ve always hated Silverman, and until now I never really understood why. Maybe it was her acting, maybe it was the characters she plays. (Examples, that “I’m fucking Matt Damon” video she did….or the annoying, pushy little twat in “School of Rock,” where she goes out of her way to give grief to the Jack Black character, and she’s also mean to her live-in boyfriend.) For some reason I’ve always disliked her after seeing that movie…I never even tried to sit through her late-night comedy show.

Now I feel like I have some validation. Thanks, Morgan.

To the issue of voter ID, I have trouble articulating WHY it’s a good idea, because to me it just seems so self-evident: OF COURSE YOU SHOULD HAVE TO PROVE WHO YOU ARE TO CAST A BALLOT. Voting is a far more important activity than literally dozens of other activities for which ID is already required.

It’s like eating fruits and vegetables or quitting smoking – who could be opposed to this? Unless…you really do have some ulterior motive. This is one issue where I’m not willing to give the opposition the benefit of the doubt (like I would on say, domestic oil drilling). The “racism” angle is so absurd that I don’t think even they believe it…the only real reason you could oppose this, would be because you actually support voter fraud. I’m sorry if that comes off as like something the Left would say (“If you oppose our solution, then you oppose solving the problem at all”), but this time, I stand by it.

I keep hearing reports in the media of late that claims of voter fraud are overblown, but even one single incident of Joe Fraudulent Voter casting a bogus ballot for city council in Saginaw MI is one too many.
- cylarz | 09/26/2012 @ 12:11
Check out the conversation at Ed Darrell’s place.

I’ve reduced it to the simple dilemma in the paragraph above: “Is it good to prove things?”, demonstrating clearly how their argument fails either way. Ed’s so pissed off he’s resorted to name-calling, which is a bit unusual. You know, this is downright weird. It’s like, in their world, Republicans cannot be taken at their word, but voters can be. Voters always tell the truth but Republicans are not to be trusted. Like basic set-arithmetic is way past them, or else they don’t think Republicans are voters.
- mkfreeberg | 09/26/2012 @ 16:32
[…] and Destruction On the Five Fiat Industries “SNL v. the Facts” This Is Good CIII Ed Darrell Agrees with Crazy-Lady Sarah Silverman Distrust of the Media Kavita Channes’ Venice Beach Shoot Instructions, Not Requests […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 09/27/2012 @ 08:42

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Ed Darrell Agrees with Crazy-Lady Sarah SilvermanTuesday, September 25th, 2012

Ed Darrell Agrees with Crazy-Lady Sarah Silverman
Tuesday, September 25th, 2012