Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 1:45 AM
Sun Nov 29
9 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
05/06/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
My. God. What a truly shitty reason to be a libertarian (not that I am one myself, mind). Politics is way too intense? Well, guess what you poor widdle baby, tough fucking shit--and welcome to 21st Century, asshole, every aspect of human existence is also way too intense, not least because of the assholic forms of capitalism you're an apologist for. Deal with the horrible stomach-knotting complexity of life like an adult, not a narcissistic manchild with a magic pouch of libertarian fairy dust.
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
Repugnants = Republicans
Meghan McGoon = Meghan McCain
Faux Noise = Fox News
Bozo the Clown = George Bush? I'm just guessing here.
The only reason I know these is because I used to frequent HuffPo, and this is pretty much the standard operating lexicon of its commentators. Took me awhile to decrypt as well.
05/05/09
Right on the glossary, but quite wrong that it's standard issue. Although I'm glad to see evidence the terminology makes sense sufficient to seem standard.
05/05/09
05/06/09
Are you actually Al Gore...?
05/06/09
05/06/09
And, as practically everybody knows by now, Al Gore didn't actually say what you suggest.
05/06/09
Although I'd like to see other occurances of Faux Noise and Repugnant, to name but two. I'll bet I can show you earlier versions from my various leavings.
That said, your explication is reasonable, especially as we consider the millions writing online today. I sometimes wonder if anybody else is having gruten berry with flax for breakfast...
05/06/09
11/12/09
11/12/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/01/09
04/29/09
04/29/09
04/29/09
04/29/09
I am neither Republican or Democrat and I would never follow in my father's footsteps of worshipping Fox News.
And I didn't realize that "parents" equalled "father." Thanks for clearing that up. I'll be sure to tell my mom that.
04/28/09
04/28/09
This guy is some pretentious douche. Just like celebs deal in politics, rich guys do too.
I suppose they do have a bit of power. Especially since they are IWM (Idiots wielding money).
Facebook is gonna be a ghost town kids. Move out.
04/28/09
I say we give him a billion dollars!
04/28/09
Jeff
04/28/09
That's easy. If you assume that the distribution of intelligence is the same across both the old voter population (male) and the new voter population (female), then there's no reason to believe voter "quality" should go down when expanding voting rights.
04/28/09
04/28/09
Voting and governance are more about self-control and obligation to greater truth than about IQ. When voting was reserved for land-owning white males, rules and expectations could be developed and followed to some limited extent.
Rules for political debate could be better followed and adhered. As the pool of voters increased, the ability to enforce in-group norming naturally decreased. The greater the voting population, the greater the anonymity and the lower the sense of mission and obligation. Moreover, when anyone is able to vote, politicians are better able to exploit individual weakness by appealing to financial or emotional means. Women undoubtedly have played a large role in the backhandedness and emotionality that now permeates politics.
A lot of people want to believe. Too bad the dream is bull.
04/29/09