You mean I can get these in triplicate now!?!

This week the Three Whisky Happy Hour tackles not only the “major questions” doctrine at the Supreme Court, but the major question about McDonald’s new (but unadvertised) triple-cheeseburger, whether the Democrats’ decision to hold their first primary of 2024 in South Carolina is a major or minor question, who is the All-Time Worst/ Most Evil Bureaucrat ever (it’s a close call), whether the FBI can be salvaged at all, why most of our current confusions on executive power trace back to Nixon, and finally, what’s up with “right-wing peaceniks”?

Oh, and Lucretia’s “Compleat Compendium of Morons” gets some new entries.

Subscribe to Power Line in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

There are 13 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Leslie Watkins Inactive
    Leslie Watkins
    @LeslieWatkins

    All questions, no definitive answers; that’s what the law has become. IOW, useless.

    • #1
  2. WilliamWarford Coolidge
    WilliamWarford
    @WilliamWarford

    Donna Brazile wrote a Bee-worthy piece in the NYT this week: “The Excellence of Kamala Harris is Hiding in Plain Sight.”

    Indeed, she has done a marvelous job — of hiding her excellence. 

    • #2
  3. Steven Hayward Member
    Steven Hayward
    @StevenHayward

    WilliamWarford (View Comment):

    Donna Brazile wrote a Bee-worthy piece in the NYT this week: “The Excellence of Kamala Harris is Hiding in Plain Sight.”

    Indeed, she has done a marvelous job — of hiding her excellence.

    Who knew that Donna Brazile was branching out into satire.

    • #3
  4. Rightfromthestart Coolidge
    Rightfromthestart
    @Rightfromthestart

    About that discussion of ‘Biden’s’ electoral strategy , I don’t think Biden has anything to go with anything especially strategy. All decisions are being made by his handlers. 

    • #4
  5. Richard Easton Coolidge
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

    Gruesome Newsom is acting like Biden will not be the candidate next year. Otherwise, why would he be attacking DeSantis. These attacks only make sense if he thinks that there is a good chance he will be the 2024 Democratic nominee versus Ron D.

    • #5
  6. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    For Steve and Lucretia, a member here has recently said that instead of listing the faults of the FBI, we should list what they’ve done right, fingerprint database and going after the Klan. Much easier list to remember. Alas, I forget who it is, to give him proper credit. 

    • #6
  7. MisterSirius Member
    MisterSirius
    @MisterSirius

    Outro music notes, please!

    Thanks in advance.

    • #7
  8. Steven Hayward Member
    Steven Hayward
    @StevenHayward

    MisterSirius (View Comment):

    Outro music notes, please!

    Thanks in advance.

    Totally forgot since it is on point: it is the Disco Biscuits, “World Is Spinning.”

    • #8
  9. Al Sparks Coolidge
    Al Sparks
    @AlSparks

    I was flattered that Lucretia referred to my comment on the last 3WHH episode even if she characterized it as the “stupidest argument I’ve ever heard.”

    She did concede that she hadn’t spelled out her own argument that I was commenting, at least not at the time.

    I’ll concede, given the subsequent discussion of the executive privilege history going back to Washington, that I might be over emphasizing the need for a court.

    (Starts at about 42:48 in the podcast)

    Over the last few episodes I have made some comments critical of Lucretia, and fundamentally it comes down to more of a difference in temperament than it does political outlook.  It’s not that I disagree with her in most cases, but that she makes arguments badly because she can’t get over her outrage.

    My temperament is to resist outrage.  I think it was William F Buckley who said that human beings come with finite amount of outrage in the tank, before they run out.  I am almost out.  Expounding on WFB’s comment, outrage is exhausting.  I choose not to exhaust myself, mostly.  I also think that in today’s culture we have too much outrage in general, and conservative outrage isn’t really matching Woke outrage.  Just as we can’t really outspend liberals and be successful, I don’t think we can out-outrage them either.

    I voted for Donald Trump twice, because he would fight.  But I was aware that he would not be a good advocate for my political positions.  At the time, we had no one else available.  Examples of people who could advocate for my often extreme political views were Rush Limbaugh, when he was still a happy warrior; Matt Walsh, who can sound outraged but remain in control; going back a bit, Phyllis Schlafly, as well as Kate O’Beirne.

    Now we have Ron DeSantis, who would not be the politician he is today without Trump, but is very disciplined in how he expresses outrage.

    These are examples of people who are able to advocate my positions using measured outrage.

    That being said, I enjoy the 3WHH including Lucretia, despite her annoying me, and I’m glad she’s a part of the podcast.

    • #9
  10. Steven Hayward Member
    Steven Hayward
    @StevenHayward

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    I was flattered that Lucretia referred to my comment on the last 3WHH episode even if she characterized it as the “stupidest argument I’ve ever heard.”

    She did concede that she hadn’t spelled out her own argument that I was commenting, at least not at the time.

    I’ll concede, given the subsequent discussion of the executive privilege history going back to Washington, that I might be over emphasizing the need for a court.

    (Starts at about 42:48 in the podcast)

    Over the last few episodes I have made some comments critical of Lucretia, and fundamentally it comes down to more of a difference in temperament than it does political outlook. It’s not that I disagree with her in most cases, but that she makes arguments badly because she can’t get over her outrage.

    My temperament is to resist outrage. I think it was William F Buckley who said that human beings come with finite amount of outrage in the tank, before they run out. I am almost out. Expounding on WFB’s comment, outrage is exhausting. I choose not to exhaust myself, mostly. I also think that in today’s culture we have too much outrage in general, and conservative outrage isn’t really matching Woke outrage. Just as we can’t really outspend liberals and be successful, I don’t think we can out-outrage them either.

    I voted for Donald Trump twice, because he would fight. But I was aware that he would not be a good advocate for my political positions. At the time, we had no one else available. Examples of people who could advocate for my often extreme political views were Rush Limbaugh, when he was still a happy warrior; Matt Walsh, who can sound outraged but remain in control; going back a bit, Phyllis Schlafly, as well as Kate O’Beirne.

    Now we have Ron DeSantis, who would not be the politician he is today without Trump, but is very disciplined in how he expresses outrage.

    These are examples of people who are able to advocate my positions using measured outrage.

    That being said, I enjoy the 3WHH including Lucretia, despite her annoying me, and I’m glad she’s a part of the podcast.

    Be flattered that she said your argument was “the stupidest argument I’ve heard.” That means she likes you.

    • #10
  11. Richard Easton Coolidge
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

    Steven Hayward (View Comment):

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    I was flattered that Lucretia referred to my comment on the last 3WHH episode even if she characterized it as the “stupidest argument I’ve ever heard.”

    She did concede that she hadn’t spelled out her own argument that I was commenting, at least not at the time.

    I’ll concede, given the subsequent discussion of the executive privilege history going back to Washington, that I might be over emphasizing the need for a court.

    (Starts at about 42:48 in the podcast)

    Over the last few episodes I have made some comments critical of Lucretia, and fundamentally it comes down to more of a difference in temperament than it does political outlook. It’s not that I disagree with her in most cases, but that she makes arguments badly because she can’t get over her outrage.

    My temperament is to resist outrage. I think it was William F Buckley who said that human beings come with finite amount of outrage in the tank, before they run out. I am almost out. Expounding on WFB’s comment, outrage is exhausting. I choose not to exhaust myself, mostly. I also think that in today’s culture we have too much outrage in general, and conservative outrage isn’t really matching Woke outrage. Just as we can’t really outspend liberals and be successful, I don’t think we can out-outrage them either.

    I voted for Donald Trump twice, because he would fight. But I was aware that he would not be a good advocate for my political positions. At the time, we had no one else available. Examples of people who could advocate for my often extreme political views were Rush Limbaugh, when he was still a happy warrior; Matt Walsh, who can sound outraged but remain in control; going back a bit, Phyllis Schlafly, as well as Kate O’Beirne.

    Now we have Ron DeSantis, who would not be the politician he is today without Trump, but is very disciplined in how he expresses outrage.

    These are examples of people who are able to advocate my positions using measured outrage.

    That being said, I enjoy the 3WHH including Lucretia, despite her annoying me, and I’m glad she’s a part of the podcast.

    Be flattered that she said your argument was “the stupidest argument I’ve heard.” That means she likes you.

    I liked your comment a while back that if you think disagreeing with Lucretia is hard, try agreeing with her (or perhaps you said that about someone else).

    • #11
  12. Lucretia Member
    Lucretia
    @Lucretia

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    I was flattered that Lucretia referred to my comment on the last 3WHH episode even if she characterized it as the “stupidest argument I’ve ever heard.”

    She did concede that she hadn’t spelled out her own argument that I was commenting, at least not at the time.

    I’ll concede, given the subsequent discussion of the executive privilege history going back to Washington, that I might be over emphasizing the need for a court.

    (Starts at about 42:48 in the podcast)

    Over the last few episodes I have made some comments critical of Lucretia, and fundamentally it comes down to more of a difference in temperament than it does political outlook. It’s not that I disagree with her in most cases, but that she makes arguments badly because she can’t get over her outrage.

    My temperament is to resist outrage. I think it was William F Buckley who said that human beings come with finite amount of outrage in the tank, before they run out. I am almost out. Expounding on WFB’s comment, outrage is exhausting. I choose not to exhaust myself, mostly. I also think that in today’s culture we have too much outrage in general, and conservative outrage isn’t really matching Woke outrage. Just as we can’t really outspend liberals and be successful, I don’t think we can out-outrage them either.

    I voted for Donald Trump twice, because he would fight. But I was aware that he would not be a good advocate for my political positions. At the time, we had no one else available. Examples of people who could advocate for my often extreme political views were Rush Limbaugh, when he was still a happy warrior; Matt Walsh, who can sound outraged but remain in control; going back a bit, Phyllis Schlafly, as well as Kate O’Beirne.

    Now we have Ron DeSantis, who would not be the politician he is today without Trump, but is very disciplined in how he expresses outrage.

    These are examples of people who are able to advocate my positions using measured outrage.

    That being said, I enjoy the 3WHH including Lucretia, despite her annoying me, and I’m glad she’s a part of the podcast.

    Thanks for the kind words (I think?).  If it makes it you feel any better, I reserve my outrage to the realm of politics (and old people who drive below the speed limit in the fast lane).  When one works in a university environment and must deal all the time with idiots who, without reflection, are convinced of their monopoly on the truth, sometimes outrage is the only appropriate response. Fortunately, that allows me to treat the idiots kindly and compassionately in my dealings with them otherwise.

    However, I reserve most of my outrage for those ostensibly on our side who, in the name of moderation, have given over the store to the left.

    Just ask me what I think of Mitch McConnell after his comments re: Tucker Carlson and the Jan 6 footage.

    • #12
  13. Lucretia Member
    Lucretia
    @Lucretia

    Steven Hayward (View Comment):

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    I was flattered that Lucretia referred to my comment on the last 3WHH episode even if she characterized it as the “stupidest argument I’ve ever heard.”

    She did concede that she hadn’t spelled out her own argument that I was commenting, at least not at the time.

    I’ll concede, given the subsequent discussion of the executive privilege history going back to Washington, that I might be over emphasizing the need for a court.

    (Starts at about 42:48 in the podcast)

    Over the last few episodes I have made some comments critical of Lucretia, and fundamentally it comes down to more of a difference in temperament than it does political outlook. It’s not that I disagree with her in most cases, but that she makes arguments badly because she can’t get over her outrage.

    My temperament is to resist outrage. I think it was William F Buckley who said that human beings come with finite amount of outrage in the tank, before they run out. I am almost out. Expounding on WFB’s comment, outrage is exhausting. I choose not to exhaust myself, mostly. I also think that in today’s culture we have too much outrage in general, and conservative outrage isn’t really matching Woke outrage. Just as we can’t really outspend liberals and be successful, I don’t think we can out-outrage them either.

    I voted for Donald Trump twice, because he would fight. But I was aware that he would not be a good advocate for my political positions. At the time, we had no one else available. Examples of people who could advocate for my often extreme political views were Rush Limbaugh, when he was still a happy warrior; Matt Walsh, who can sound outraged but remain in control; going back a bit, Phyllis Schlafly, as well as Kate O’Beirne.

    Now we have Ron DeSantis, who would not be the politician he is today without Trump, but is very disciplined in how he expresses outrage.

    These are examples of people who are able to advocate my positions using measured outrage.

    That being said, I enjoy the 3WHH including Lucretia, despite her annoying me, and I’m glad she’s a part of the podcast.

    Be flattered that she said your argument was “the stupidest argument I’ve heard.” That means she likes you.

    Steve’s right!  I always read the comments but am just simply too swamped sometimes with that job thing I have to reply.  Yours deserved an extended discussion (and did not deserve to be called the stupidest ever—chalk that up to hyperbole!)

    • #13
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.