GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/12/18/the-medias-gun-control-obsession/trackback/

  1. The pederast at Penn State was as representative of gay people as the shooter in Connecticut was of gun owners.

    Well, if you ignore the successful careers of Victor Salva and Jimmy Savlle, that’s probably true.

    Comment by V the K — December 18, 2012 @ 12:08 pm - December 18, 2012

  2. In fairness, my comment #1 speaks more to the sensibilities of the liberal left than to Teh Gheys. Yes, you can be an open and convicted pederast and still find a successful career in liberal-run institutions like Hollywood or the BBC.

    For that matter, you can be a self-avowed terrorist and the left will reward you with a tenured professorship at the University of Illinois, provided you are reliable left-wing.

    Also, you can declare your intentions to exterminate the Jews openly and repeatedly, and the UN and Columbia University will still fete you as an honored guest and speaker.

    Comment by V the K — December 18, 2012 @ 12:11 pm - December 18, 2012

  3. If the case were that the same 20 children and their six teachers were killed on a field-trip when a drunk driver hit their school-bus…would we be having this pornographic orgy of MSM wallowing, 24/7 pundit-pandering and public demonstration of sack-cloth and wailing?

    Just asking…

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 18, 2012 @ 12:41 pm - December 18, 2012

  4. Ted – Especially if you were to put a Democrat drunk driver into your question, like one of the Kennedys.

    The so-called “mainstream” media is an arm of the Left and the Obama-DNC administrations… period. They push the stories that suit the agenda and biases of the Left. And, even more importantly, they remain silent, or at least try to, about the stories that don’t. This is a fact of the world as it is.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2012 @ 1:09 pm - December 18, 2012

  5. First I saw that statement was a tweet from Mike Z Williamson (AKA Mad Mike) author over at Baen and a noted libertarian. He had a few others, but not as effective

    Comment by JP Kalishek — December 18, 2012 @ 1:09 pm - December 18, 2012

  6. As to Adam Lanza: Evidently he killed someone, just to get to her guns. Aside from the ridiculous faux question of whether the gun community is responsible for that, it may be a great example of why gun control doesn’t work; it could not have stopped such a determined killer; at most it could only have slightly affected his choice of rifle.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2012 @ 1:34 pm - December 18, 2012

  7. From my FB post

    Ever since Friday’s tragic massacre, I have felt compelled to weigh in with thoughts of my own, but I intentionally chose to wait at least a couple of days to contemplate those thoughts and shape them very carefully. This will be long, but I hope you find, well worth reading and possibly even sharing with others.

    In observing society’s reactions, it seems we can summarize them into several camps: those who want restrictions on guns, those who want better mental health care, those who want more guns and/or security in our schools, and those who believe prayer in schools is the answer.

    For those who want more restrictions, I can see your point. Had this shooter had a more difficult time obtaining weapons in the heat of the moment, perhaps it could have been avoided, but that’s presuming he acted in the heat of the moment. My guess is that, since he was wearing body armor, this was a deliberately and carefully premeditated act, and all the gun control in the world is not going to keep a gun out of the hands of a determined killer, especially considering the nearly 300 million guns in private ownership. Enact all the laws you want, and it won’t make those 300 million guns magically disappear. Outlaw those guns in existence and you’re looking at another civil war.

    For those who want better mental health care, I can see your point. Had someone recognized this man’s issues and sent him to a specialist to be treated accordingly, perhaps the entire tragedy would have been avoided. This also makes a presumption, though. This presumes someone close to him would have noticed and cared enough to send him to treatment. Create all the access to health care you want and it won’t magically change the stigma associated with psychiatric care, nor will it instantly create more mindful parents and family members.

    For those who want more guns and/or security, I can see your point. An armed society truly is a more polite society, but that also presumes a stable level of sanity and rationality. Human beings are unpredictable. This shooter obtained weapons from a legal gun owner, and I cannot see how arming a teacher and expecting that teacher to become Rambo at the first sign of gunfire is a realistic expectation. That only seems to work in the movies. In the Portland incident, people thought balloons were popping. Most people wouldn’t even be able to recognize gunfire when confronted with it. Also, more security? Do we want our schools to resemble maximum security prisons, because at what point do we stop, once we start adding more and more measures? Also, why are we adding this security? Children are already a collectively protected resource in any society, which is why this tragedy is made all the more heinous. Children are off-limits, whether in crime or in war, and when that unspoken truth is violated, we should not be questioning how to lock up our children, but why this truth has been violated to begin with.

    For those who want prayer in schools, I can see why you might say such a thing, but I would challenge you to critically examine your belief systems. Do you really think God refuses to protect six year-old children because the government does not allow sanctioned (i.e., forced) prayer in its schools? How is this belief any different than those held by the wackos of Westboro, who contend that these acts are due to the fact that we, as a society, have angered God? Do you really believe that the gunman wouldn’t have committed this act if someone had just forced all those kids to pray every day? As food for thought, take a look at where prayer is most prevalent: churches. Nothing bad ever happens to children in churches, right? Personally, I can think of an atrocious number of heinous acts committed against children within the context of a prayer-rich environment. This argument is not about prayer or religion; it’s simply to state that efforts to reinstated prayer in schools are sadly misdirected energy that could better be spent elsewhere.

    Finally, weighing in with my thoughts…

    Gun control, security, prayer, health care – these are all policy changes. They involve legislation that would not necessarily be easy to enact, but could potentially be done. The problem is, none of them fix what created the problem to begin with, a problem conveniently ignored because we are too afraid to face it. That problem is us – each and every last one of us.

    We have created and bought into a culture that says it’s okay to push the limits for the sake of entertainment. Compare media violence from thirty years ago to media violence of today. The envelope has been pushed repeatedly for the sake of shock value to the point where we fail to experience shock anymore. We have become numb. We have bought into it as a society and have allowed it to continue unfettered. We have become so entertainment-driven that we drown ourselves in media from wake up to slumber.

    Also, in our relentless quest for individualism, we have forgotten that everything we do affects those around us. We have essentially forgotten that we belong to one another, not solely to ourselves. Yes, our children need us, but so do our neighbors, our coworkers, our bosses, our veterans, our homeless, our diseased, and yes, even our enemies. We, as a society, have become so self-absorbed, that we no longer see the intricate web of connections that exists and will continue to exist, regardless of our attitude about it. To borrow a quote from the 2004 movie, Crash, “It’s the sense of touch. In any real city, you walk, you know? You brush past people, people bump into you. In L.A., nobody touches you. We’re always behind this metal and glass. I think we miss that touch so much, that we crash into each other, just so we can feel something.”

    In 2006, when the Amish experienced a similar tragedy, they recognized the problem immediately, and reached out to those affected, including the gunman’s widow, and sought forgiveness as a vehicle for healing before their children were even buried. They used dialogue to repair damaged connections in this web and came together as a community. They didn’t stock up on guns, put bars on their windows, or seek someone to blame; they sought a way to heal, collectively.

    How can we prevent another tragedy like this from occurring? We need to change our culture, and that, unfortunately, is not easy. There is no legislation or policy that will do it. We have to do it, together, each and every one of us, and that is what nobody wants to admit. We all want an easy solution, for someone else to do it, and as Veruca Salt from Willy Wonka’s story would say, we want it now. That won’t happen. We need to begin healing, one person at a time. Start with your family. Ask your children what they did today and then stick around to listen as though it was the most important thing you’ve ever heard. Call your parents and remind them that you still love them just as much as you did when you were little. Invite your neighbor over for dinner and turn the TV off so that you all can talk and listen. Take your coworker or boss out to lunch or drinks without motive. Go find a stranger who looks like he or she could use some help and offer assistance without expectation. Find someone who disagrees with you on politics or religion and ask them to explain their position, but then, simply listen and do it without judgment. I have a feeling you will begin to see why they feel the way they do and that they are not as evil or misguided as you once judged them to be.

    The 16 six year-olds, 4 seven year-olds, and six adults who were gunned down on December 14th were not just victims; they were martyrs for a society gone awry. Let’s honor them by changing course deliberately, intentionally, and with raw determination.

    Comment by rusty — December 18, 2012 @ 1:47 pm - December 18, 2012

  8. Suppose further, those 20 children had died when their schoolbus was it by an illegal immigrant. Would the MFM be outraged?

    We already know the answer.

    Comment by V the K — December 18, 2012 @ 1:53 pm - December 18, 2012

  9. Beautifully said, Rusty.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 18, 2012 @ 2:27 pm - December 18, 2012

  10. “I can see why you might say such a thing”
    [Thoughtful post, thank you]

    Comment by Passing By — December 18, 2012 @ 3:10 pm - December 18, 2012

  11. For those who want prayer in schools, I can see why you might say such a thing, but I would challenge you to critically examine your belief systems. Do you really think God refuses to protect six year-old children because the government does not allow sanctioned (i.e., forced) prayer in its schools? How is this belief any different than those held by the wackos of Westboro, who contend that these acts are due to the fact that we, as a society, have angered God?

    Ah, the hilarity.

    From a theological standpoint, it is less that God refuses to protect than it is that you have refused His protection.

    Liberals tend to visualize God as they invariably do their parents; they abuse Him, spit on Him, treat Him like crap, and then demand that he pay all their bills, clean up after them, bail them out of prison, and keep them from hurting themselves.

    And then, if He doesn’t do so, they scream that he doesn’t “love” them.

    One must always remember that liberals equate “love” with enablement and “hate” with inconvenience. Theirs is the teenage worldview, in which being told to get a job rather than having one’s allowance raised means that your parents don’t care about you. There is never a thought that this might be because your parents want you to learn a valuable lesson, to get experience, etc.; it’s always that if your parents loved you, they would make everything convenient for you.

    Prayer is central to the Christian experience for two reasons: it is an affirmation of God, and it is an affirmation of one’s relationship with God. Thus, not praying is essentially stating that you wish nothing to do with God, and God gives us the capability to do so. It just seems to surprise people that God actually honors their wishes and leaves them alone.

    Where Huckabee and Westboro veer into outright error is their attempt to tie a single act to a single failure. Acts of evil are a symptom of the general evil that afflicts humanity, not of a specific cause and effect.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 18, 2012 @ 3:34 pm - December 18, 2012

  12. Such beautiful, thoughtful words, Rusty.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 18, 2012 @ 3:41 pm - December 18, 2012

  13. “Shall we make a new rule of life from tonight: always try to be a little kinder than is necessary?”― J.M. Barrie

    This quote is in a frame in my bathroom. I start my day with this quote, and end my day in reflection.

    http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l569/rusty98119/2012-12-11_21-41-34_583.jpg

    The photo has the crucifix and the St Camillus medallion that was given to me by Sister Nancy at the AIDS hospice, Our House of Portland. I volunteered at the hospice and worked with Sister Nancy for 6 years.

    http://www.stcam.com/order-of-st-camillus/

    . May this season and the New Year be filled with Peace, Joy and Wonder.

    Comment by rusty — December 18, 2012 @ 4:27 pm - December 18, 2012

  14. Did you ever wonder why it is only the borderline psychotic among us, the most violent of human beings, that advocate for the elimination of the 2nd Amendment and the death penalty?

    Comment by rjligier — December 18, 2012 @ 4:55 pm - December 18, 2012

  15. No, to answer your question, rjligier, I don’t wonder that, because it’s not the case. Do you ever ask yourself why you entertain such falsehoods as facts? Do you ever wonder if Timothy McVeigh hadn’t vehemently believed the 2nd amendment was under threat of being eliminated he would have killed 168 Oklahomans? Or was his irrational fear mutually exclusive of his psychotic actions? Do you ever wonder that? Seems like a more legitimate quandary than that ridiculous notion you’re presenting.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 18, 2012 @ 5:12 pm - December 18, 2012

  16. The WBC is known for spewing vile words at those while they publicly mourn the dead. In this thread, Rusty offered heartfelt, incredibly detailed and thoughtful words regarding the Newtown massacre and the debate that ensued, sparked in part by his mourning their loss. His kindness was met with mockery from ND30 in a manner some may describe as vile. ND30, please find it within your heart to reconsider your response.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 18, 2012 @ 6:02 pm - December 18, 2012

  17. @7 – Very eloquent words. The second to last paragraph is beautiful. Thanks for sharing Rusty

    Comment by Alan — December 18, 2012 @ 6:13 pm - December 18, 2012

  18. VtK – just a quibble but Jimmy Saville thanked heaven for little girls. And, like at Penn State, the so-called grown-ups looked the other way.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — December 18, 2012 @ 6:17 pm - December 18, 2012

  19. Penn State?!??!??!?!??!??!?!?

    NO a fair response would be “stop using false comparisons” Wanting to prey on children has nothing to do with being gay.

    Though it does not surprise me thats someone as intellectually dishonest as Reynolds would accept such a horrible logical fallacy with”fair response.”

    Comment by mike — December 18, 2012 @ 6:19 pm - December 18, 2012

  20. Well said, Rusty.

    I’d like to comment on the idea of prayer in school. When I was in elementary school (a government school), we said the Lord’s Prayer and recited the Pledge. At my age, I just repeated the words (the “give us our bread” part made me hungry) and I didn’t know what was meant by “forgive us our trespassesssesssess”).

    So, no, I don’t think prayer protected us from evil. What I think protected us was a culture that accepted prayer as OK.

    Our pursuit of individualism has passed the point where it’s healthy and into the realm of destroying a sense of community in a real sense (not the faux “community” of today – the “community” of collective grievance, gender, skin color, sexual orientation, and geography).

    Comment by SoCalRobert — December 18, 2012 @ 6:26 pm - December 18, 2012

  21. Reynolds could have also said, “I dunno. What is the straight community going to do about [insert name of Man who abuses little girls or Woman who abuses little boys here]. But, he wanted to reinforce a social stigma against a minority who currently are still fighting for equal rights. Last time I checked, gun owners weren’t fighting for anything they’ve been deprived of. Please remind me of how gun owners have suffered. Thanks Glenn Reynolds. You’re a swell guy.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 18, 2012 @ 6:48 pm - December 18, 2012

  22. rusty, I agree with some aspects of your post, and disagree with others.

    I think you left out one of the possible answers (or ‘camps’ of people): Those who simply recognize Adam Lanza as a mass murderer, the determined and probably-malicious author of a horror that probably no one could have stopped**. (**Qualifiers: perhaps he could have been stopped by a policeman or an armed civilian who just happened to be in the right place at the right time. And if he were driven by inescapable and extreme delusions, that’s the one case where he might not have been of evil will.)

    “The answer”, in other words, MAY well be to do nothing. I don’t think we need to batten down the hatches. I don’t think that most people here face an ongoing threat, as we have with (say) al Qaeda terrorists. I don’t call for more security or guns in schools, although I do call for appropriate gun rights for the law-abiding to be able to ensure their safety if they so choose. I don’t call for more government-funded mental health care; although I do call upon those who do, to take actions themselves to start providing it (non-governmentally).

    As for prayer in schools, your comments feel to me like a bit of a straw man. I’m not aware of anyone who has said that ‘forced’ prayer in public schools is the answer here. Perhaps some extremist has; I don’t catch everything. But to the extent that normal people may be talking about prayer in schools, I highly doubt that they expect it to protect kids in the “dial-a-God” fashion which your comments seek to refute, or that they would force any kid to pray. In other words, perhaps they had a completely different point in mind, that respectfully you did not get?

    Part of your own answer seems to be that we have allowed video games and movies to become too violent. Perhaps. But I don’t know how public policy could change that without crossing the line into censorship, or if it should even try to change it. I also think it quietly maligns the millions of people who manage to enjoy “entertainment violence” (to be clear, I am usually NOT among them) without going ‘Adam Lanza’ on the rest of society. Adam Lanza was, on present information, the determined author of his horrific crimes. He started his spree by shooting his own mother in the face, in order to rob her of her property, which he then used in his further crimes.

    To echo the point in Dan’s post: I think that “society” (all of us) is just about as much to blame for Adam Lanza’s crimes, and no more, than the gay community is for Penn State. In other words: Really not much.

    I don’t agree that “we belong to one another”, *IF* the real meaning or endpoint of that line of thought is to be that we ought to sacrifice essential rights – such as rights to free speech and entertainment, rights to self-defense, and rights to property. No. Rights are right. Morally right. If someone – not you rusty, but some others I have debated with recently – wants to use the Sandy Hook tragedy to try to browbeat people into accepting a sacrifice of their essential rights, then, at that point, we stop belonging to one another. We are not the Amish.

    What’s in your last 2 paragraphs, I agree with 100%; but on the basis that that is what we should be doing anyway, tragedy or not.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2012 @ 7:00 pm - December 18, 2012

  23. As for NDT’s comments, I can only describe them as theologically accurate:

    Prayer is central to the Christian experience for two reasons: it is an affirmation of God, and it is an affirmation of one’s relationship with God. Thus, not praying is essentially stating that you wish nothing to do with God, and God gives us the capability to do so. It just seems to surprise people that God actually honors their wishes and leaves them alone.

    Correct.

    Prayer is central to the Christian experience for two reasons: it is an affirmation of God, and it is an affirmation of one’s relationship with God. Thus, not praying is essentially stating that you wish nothing to do with God, and God gives us the capability to do so. It just seems to surprise people that God actually honors their wishes and leaves them alone.

    Yes again.

    Last time I checked, gun owners weren’t fighting for anything they’ve been deprived of.

    Then, VS, you haven’t the slightest clue what you’re talking about. “Please remind me of how gun owners have suffered” – Should we bother? Can light penetrate you?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2012 @ 7:10 pm - December 18, 2012

  24. Last time I checked, gun owners weren’t fighting for anything they’ve been deprived of.

    Um, how many public schools have been declared “Gay Free Zones?”

    Comment by V the K — December 18, 2012 @ 7:12 pm - December 18, 2012

  25. Rusty,

    I, for one, appreciate the thought you have put into this whole conundrum of human evil.

    Hopefully we can all appreciate that all across America last Friday, little kids went to school and returned safely and are not scarred by any incredible and rare act of evil.

    Obviously, such a tragedy as the one at Newtown is never morally negotiable and all the safe children on that day do not lessen the pain of the loss by one iota. Nonetheless, we must keep our perspective.

    The man in China who cut 22 children in a school in China on the same day did not kill any of them, but his intent was no less evil. In fact, I would offer that stabbing and slashing children and adults takes a huge dose of evil because it is so intensively personal.

    We can not ever be such a helicopter parent of a society that all risk can be avoided and contained.

    Years ago, I had an awful experience. A student who had been carefully mentored and weaned from the ‘hood was a real, recognized contender for the Olympics in boxing. He progressed from shiftless and unreliable to a role model and became not only a super athlete in his own right but a gentleman and darned good scholar as well.

    Another student who resented the young man’s success took it upon himself to stab the athlete in the heart in front of all the students in my room as I stood stunned and frozen. The assault had to be with a knife or gun, because the victim was too quick and too lethal to have been the underdog in a man to man confrontation.

    As the victim lay dying, the perp ran away and another student came forth and used his EMT skills which ultimately saved the life of the victim. Meanwhile, every person in the area was in stunned shock. A lot of blood sprayed the area before the flow was stemmed by the knowledgeable and competent aid giver.

    The victim survived the assault, but never recovered his full health and confidence. He later died from the “complications” of life and alcoholism. The student who performed the essential EMT service was given very short thanks while the nurse who arrived much later and at her own pace was lauded for her service. The perp who stabbed the victim was hustled off for special counseling and treatment and eventually became the postmaster of a small community in a neighboring state.

    What I have just described is how the “social justice” system works when minorities are involved. The EMT provider was white and from a family with a father who was an MD and a mother who was a NASA astronaut. The victim and the perp were project blacks and the nurse was a former city council member and a black nurse who had retired behind a desk in a relatively cushy job. She was also a cousin of the first black governor of the state.

    This whole tale is told with only one point in mind. Horrible things happen, but ideology, political opportunism, and ugly distortion are sure to follow.

    Right now, Newtown is getting “prank” calls from sickos who are feeling some sort of empowerment by threatening further violence.

    Is there something so “evil” about Newtown that it warrants this level of Hell storm? Surely not. Yet there it is. What type of person “enjoys” making horrible misery more miserable?

    Yes, it is the culture. I would submit that it is the culture of permissiveness. I would suggest that sometimes little sh*ts really need to have sh*t scared out of them. Every “Outward Bound” and military “basic training” program and prison “scared straight” program is based on taking the smug, pampered person fed a steady diet of psychobabble and putting him at the risk of surviving on his own.

    My own life has been spent “pushing” people into the corners of their own masquerade of intellect and “forcing” them to support their “deeply held beliefs.” It is confrontation and not a happy place for many. But who do you want piloting your plane or performing your surgery?

    All of this is to say that when we as a society keep writing free passes for people who can not pass simple muster, we reap what we sow.

    Now, pay attention. The young boxer was indeed singled out for preferential treatment which he got. I would submit that he was “subjectively” assessed for success which grew exponentially as he met and exceeded the expectations.

    The weakness in our culture, as I see it, is that we practice the soft belly habits of low expectations for those who most need to learn how to succeed. There is no worse discrimination that the discriminations of low expectations.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 18, 2012 @ 7:17 pm - December 18, 2012

  26. Typo, sorry – I had meant to say “Yes again” to SCR’s fine comment:

    I don’t think prayer protected us from evil. What I think protected us was a culture that accepted prayer as OK.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2012 @ 7:21 pm - December 18, 2012

  27. V – By definition, a gun owner would be somebody that gun control has not managed to deprive of guns. But gun control may have deprived them of appropriate carry/use of their guns – in which case, they may be unable to tell us anything about their suffering, being dead. An honest inquiry would also consider the crime victims who are *not* gun owners; having been either deprived, or at least discouraged, of gun ownership by excessive or unconstitutional levels of gun control.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2012 @ 7:27 pm - December 18, 2012

  28. heliotrope – Awful story. I mean what happened (not your telling of it, nor that you told it.) So sad.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2012 @ 7:47 pm - December 18, 2012

  29. ILC,

    Yep. Lousy story. But we all survive such things according to the strength of our belief systems. My uncle was a Battle of the Bulge survivor. He talked of walking into Germany and meeting people salvaging bricks from the rubble in order to rebuild their destroyed property. He thought about their Weimar Republic days and their subservience to the Third Reich which likely cost the price of male family members and shows of “loyalty.”

    Then he reflected on his time in France where he was bribed, cajoled and pressured to offer favors which were not his to give. His strongest condemnation was that the French (generally speaking) expected handouts and favors for having suffered the indignities of surrender, which, he noted, most of them negotiated fairly successfully.

    In the final analysis, my uncle was far more impressed with the “enemy” who had been tested by fire than the “victim” French who suffered damage while being liberated, and then wanted somebody to show up and take of them and their problems.

    I have always taken instruction from this tale and noted that the
    Lord helps those who help themselves. We have become too much of a nation that demands a redress of grievances while standing pat rather than being a people who face our losses and adjust accordingly. Life is unfair. It is not the cards you are dealt, but how you play them.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 18, 2012 @ 8:39 pm - December 18, 2012

  30. We have become too much of a nation that demands a redress of grievances while standing pat rather than being a people who face our losses and adjust accordingly. Life is unfair.

    Yup. And it’s a mistake to think that taking things away from those who were dealt a better hand is going to make you any happier.

    Comment by V the K — December 18, 2012 @ 8:51 pm - December 18, 2012

  31. ILC
    NDT did make reference to Huckabee

    http://www.examiner.com/article/lack-of-school-prayer-behind-newtown-massacre-fischer-huckabee

    Having a very diverse FB family, old Huck came up alot.
    Along with the WBC folk.

    I think there are many ways to help foster connectivity and interpersonal understanding in our diverse culture.

    Comment by rusty — December 18, 2012 @ 9:02 pm - December 18, 2012

  32. OK, so based on what’s provided in that link… One must first decide whether Fischer meant his own comments literally, or metaphorically.

    Perhaps there is other context or history to show that Fischer must have meant it literally. If he did, that would put Fischer into dial-a-God territory, which is poor theology. And poor morals, because it obscures Adam Lanza’s responsibility (his agency), just as much as arguments that the murders were the fault of Asperger’s, of society, of Lanza’s family, of budget cuts, of gun enthusiasts and 2nd Amendment advocates, etc.

    But if Fischer meant it metaphorically: then he is just saying, in colorful language, what SCR said: Prayer doesn’t protect us from evil; but a culture where prayer is accepted, does.

    Even if he meant it literally, I don’t see how you interpret from there that Fischer wants to force public school kids to pray. Maybe he does in some other comments. But not from his linked comments. Same with Huckabee, who at 2:20 in the video starts making a sound argument, and at 3:20 a clearly moral/cultural (or metaphorical) version of Fischer’s argument. Huckabee ends by saying that God *was* there at the school.

    Perhaps the crux of the dispute is whether voluntary prayer, the posting of the 10 Commandments silently, and the use of tradiational (but sect-free) moral concepts and discipline in educating kids, amounts to forcing them to pray, to accept religion, etc. You appear to think it does. I don’t.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2012 @ 9:46 pm - December 18, 2012

  33. (continued) Now, I must admit, the God-in-schools debate is not my strong suit. Others may have to take over from here. I must admit that if public schools were posting things with a Satanic or (say) Islamic cast, I wouldn’t see it as a good thing. But that is because those religions, I would argue, are inferior as civilizing forces, compared to the Judeo-Christian-Aristotelian tradition. (Islam’s great period was back when they allowed a lot more Aristotelian influence; they don’t now.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2012 @ 10:00 pm - December 18, 2012

  34. NO a fair response would be “stop using false comparisons” Wanting to prey on children has nothing to do with being gay.

    Though it does not surprise me thats someone as intellectually dishonest as Reynolds would accept such a horrible logical fallacy with”fair response.”

    Comment by mike — December 18, 2012 @ 6:19 pm – December 18, 2012

    Actually, a better description for Reynolds would be “well-read”.

    NAMBLA has been a member of the International Lesbian and Gay Association for 10 years. We’ve been continuously active in ILGA longer than any other US organization. NAMBLA delegates to ILGA helped write ILGA’s constitution, its official positions on the sexual rights of youth, and its stands against sexual coercion and corporal punishment. We are proud of our contributions in making ILGA a stronger voice for the international gay and lesbian movement and for sexual justice…….

    ILGA’s current positions on man/boy love and pedophilia are
    explicit:

    – In 1985, ILGA adopted a position on “Age of Consent/Paedophilia/Children’s Rights” that urged member organizations to “lobby their
    governments to abolish the age of consent law” so long as there is “adequate protection for youth from being sexually abused without the age of consent law.”

    – In 1986, ILGA adopted a position that says the group “supports the right of young people to sexual and social self-determination.”

    – In 1988, ILGA declared “this conference recognizes that existing same-sex age-of-consent laws often operate to oppress and not to protect; that in many countries, existing laws on sexual coercion and rules of evidence also often operate to oppress and not to protect; that therefore member organizations are urged to consider how best children, adolescents, and people of all ages can be empowered and supported against both sexual coercion and sexual oppression and to work towards that end.”

    – In 1990, ILGA “calls on all members to treat all sexual minorities with respect and to engage in constructive dialogue with them. In another position adopted that year, ILGA declared that it “supports the right of every individual, regardless of age, to explore and develop her or his sexuality.”…..

    Every one of the resolutions cited above was adopted by at least an 80 percent majority of ILGA delegates; many were adopted unanimously. Their status as official ILGA positions is a matter of public record. Not one of these positions has ever been revoked by ILGA’s membership, and all have been distributed to the media as recently two months ago by ILGA’s Information Secretariat as official positions.

    Given how Barack Obama and the Obama Party have been insisting that the NRA, all of its members, anyone who has voted in line with its recommendations, and anyone who owns a gun supports mass murder, without any such resolutions to that effect and with the only evidence being the actions of Adam Lanza, who to anyone’s knowledge was not even a member, the linkage between gays and pedophilia is iron-clad by comparison.

    And, since the Obama Party and Barack Obama insist that any white male in this country is responsible for anything that happened two hundred years prior to their birth and well before their ancestors ever arrived in the first place, it seems that gays and lesbians regardless of age or whether or not they were even alive at the time can be held accountable for the actions of NAMBLA.

    And all of this is in line with Barack Obama’s screaming insistence that Mitt Romney murdered a woman who he had never met, never been in touch with, and who died seven years after the event that was claimed to have killed her happened.

    Or Barack Obama’s screaming insistence that Mitt Romney was a tax cheat without any evidence whatsoever to that effect, all while Barack Obama and his staff openly cheated on their own taxes.

    For you, concern-troll mike, cultist and worshiper of Barack Obama, to say that anyone else is “intellectually dishonest” verges on delusional. You can no longer recognize honesty or intellect, because you have long since subsumed them to addiction to leftist bigotry and hate.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 18, 2012 @ 10:02 pm - December 18, 2012

  35. V – By definition, a gun owner would be somebody that gun control has not managed to deprive of guns. But gun control may have deprived them of appropriate carry/use of their guns – in which case, they may be unable to tell us anything about their suffering, being dead. An honest inquiry would also consider the crime victims who are *not* gun owners; having been either deprived, or at least discouraged, of gun ownership by excessive or unconstitutional levels of gun control.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2012 @ 7:27 pm – December 18, 2012

    I personally find it hilarious that those like Cinesnatch who have an aneurysm about their “suffering” over laws supposedly denying them “rights” that never have under any circumstances appeared in the Constitution now insist that their deliberate attempt to abrogate those rights that are explicitly spelled out in the Constitution don’t qualify as “suffering”.

    But then again, one must remember the “progressive” wiring: anything that gets them what they want is good, and anything that prevents them from getting it is bad.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 18, 2012 @ 10:05 pm - December 18, 2012

  36. The WBC is known for spewing vile words at those while they publicly mourn the dead. In this thread, Rusty offered heartfelt, incredibly detailed and thoughtful words regarding the Newtown massacre and the debate that ensued, sparked in part by his mourning their loss.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 18, 2012 @ 6:02 pm – December 18, 2012

    Which you then demonstrated you had no intention of following yourself by then trying to use them to attack other people who disagreed with them.

    The beauty of liberals like yourself, rusty, and concern-troll mike is that you’re so transparent, Cinesnatch. You don’t mean a word you say, and everything you do is meant to manipulate, control, and exploit others. All one needs to do is actually test your words, i.e. post a dissenting opinion, and poof, the illusion of tolerance and diversity that you preach vanishes.

    The breakthrough that happens when one is dealing with an abused person is when that person finally recognizes that the abuser cares nothing for them, but only for the sense of power that comes from controlling them.

    And that is the core of liberalism. Liberals care nothing for life or people; they seek only power and control over peoples’ lives. As we see from your actions, rusty’s statement was not meant to be a statement of belief; it was meant to be used as a cudgel to browbeat conservatives into silence or compliance.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 18, 2012 @ 10:23 pm - December 18, 2012

  37. More personalized anonymous mudslinging from ND30. How impressive. Do you give classes on your technique? Or, is it so easy as registering an email address and dreaming up an alias that a 12-year-old could do it? My, my, what a big man you are.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 18, 2012 @ 10:29 pm - December 18, 2012

  38. More personalized anonymous mudslinging from ND30. How impressive. Do you give classes on your technique? Or, is it so easy as registering an email address and dreaming up an alias that a 12-year-old could do it? My, my, what a big man you are.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 18, 2012 @ 10:29 pm – December 18, 2012

    Mm, yes, Cinesnatch, and “Levi”, “mike”, “Little Kiwi”, “PeeJ”, “JennofArk”, “Serenity”, and “Passing By” are all proper names, easily identifiable, directly linked to a specific person, identity fully disclosed.

    LOL.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 18, 2012 @ 10:38 pm - December 18, 2012

  39. Newsflash, North Dallas Anonymous, my name links to my blog Cinesnatch. You can also type my name into Facebook and guess what? I come up! And, guess what else? I’m the administrator of Cinesnatch’s FB page.

    North Dallas Anonymous Fail.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 18, 2012 @ 10:56 pm - December 18, 2012

  40. Mm, yes, Cinesnatch, and “Levi”, “mike”, “Little Kiwi”, “PeeJ”, “JennofArk”, “Serenity”, and “Passing By” are all proper names, easily identifiable, directly linked to a specific person, identity fully disclosed.

    LOL.

    Piety dance denied.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 18, 2012 @ 10:59 pm - December 18, 2012

  41. Well, I’m glad you had your fun ND30.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 18, 2012 @ 11:06 pm - December 18, 2012

  42. Do you ever wonder if Timothy McVeigh hadn’t vehemently believed the 2nd amendment was under threat of being eliminated he would have killed 168 Oklahomans?

    Do you ever ask yourself why you entertain such falsehoods as facts? Have you ever bothered to look into his reasonings? Have you read anything that he wrote?

    Frankly, I’m surprised he hasn’t been held up as a hero by the liberal left.

    Comment by TGC — December 18, 2012 @ 11:41 pm - December 18, 2012

  43. TGC > Interesting anecdote about McVeigh: In 1993, he traveled to Waco, TX to show his support for the Branch Davidians during the Waco Siege. He handed out pro-gun rights paraphernalia, which included slogans like ‘When guns are outlawed, I will become an outlaw.’

    Student journalist Michelle Rauch, who interviewed him at the time, later testified portions of the interview transcript at his trial after the 95 Oklahoma bombing. What he told her included:

    “The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile … people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control.”

    McVeigh certainly didn’t kill those innocent Oklahomans with guns, but he did possess an irrational fear that the government wanted to take away his right to own them.

    Now, to your questions, TGC …

    “Do you ever ask yourself why you entertain such falsehoods as facts?” They don’t appear to be falsehoods anymore than rjligier’s, which is what my point was originally if you read my response. “Seems like a more legitimate quandary than that ridiculous notion you’re presenting,” considering that rjligier didn’t even provide any sound basis to back his notions up, which I just did.

    “Have you ever bothered to look into his reasonings?” His reasonings appear pretty clear from the interview, unless you have counter-evidence to offer.

    “Have you read anything that he wrote?” No, but, I have read things that he is on record as saying. Have you read anything he wrote? Feel free to share.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 18, 2012 @ 11:58 pm - December 18, 2012

  44. Oh, and, PS, That Gay Conservative!, I also wrote this, “Or was his irrational fear mutually exclusive of his psychotic actions?” So, I asked several questions and didn’t present one answer as being “right,” unlike rjligier, who declaratively said, well, you read what he said.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 19, 2012 @ 12:03 am - December 19, 2012

  45. Timothy McVeigh

    Wow, I didn’t even see that until TGC flagged it. I was too busy reading and responding to real comments.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 19, 2012 @ 12:46 am - December 19, 2012

  46. Being the original author of the post that started this debate, I’d just like to clarify ownership of the original writing by posting the link to the Facebook page where I wrote it: https://www.facebook.com/jwmisner/posts/832156529763

    Thanks for the great dialogue, even when you don’t agree. I sincerely appreciate being able to discuss these issues rationally.

    Comment by Josh — December 19, 2012 @ 1:48 am - December 19, 2012

  47. Thanks for the inspiration.

    I modified it a little bit for my FB. “People who think banning guns after Sandy Hook is the answer think banning sodomy after Penn State was the answer.”

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 19, 2012 @ 7:53 am - December 19, 2012

  48. I see, #7 was Josh’s words. rusty, I am sure you meant well… just please don’t forget the link/attribution next time ;-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 19, 2012 @ 10:06 am - December 19, 2012

  49. My apologies. I failed to acknowledge J Misner. I have extended my apologies to Josh via FB. Wasnt aware that I didnt get the last line of the FB post that acknowledged Josh. I am pretty good at providing links and giving credit where credit is due.
    Thanks ILC.

    Comment by rusty — December 19, 2012 @ 10:20 am - December 19, 2012

  50. I am pretty good at providing links and giving credit where credit is due.

    You are! We all make a mistake sometimes.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 19, 2012 @ 10:40 am - December 19, 2012

  51. I can remember clean back in the ’90′s, when nonjudgmental collectivism as espoused by Rusty and the like, became the norm. There is no right or wrong, only “good” and “questionable” decisions. This started in the inner cities, because then, like today, private schools knew the dangers of moral relativity, and wouldn’t let such philosophers near their children. Have any of these shootings happened in private schools? And BTW, this whole thing against individualism is only useful to a person who needs to hide in a collective.

    Comment by Douglas — December 19, 2012 @ 11:57 am - December 19, 2012

  52. Well said, Rusty.

    I’d like to comment on the idea of prayer in school. When I was in elementary school (a government school), we said the Lord’s Prayer and recited the Pledge. At my age, I just repeated the words (the “give us our bread” part made me hungry) and I didn’t know what was meant by “forgive us our trespassesssesssess”).

    So, no, I don’t think prayer protected us from evil. What I think protected us was a culture that accepted prayer as OK.

    Our pursuit of individualism has passed the point where it’s healthy and into the realm of destroying a sense of community in a real sense (not the faux “community” of today – the “community” of collective grievance, gender, skin color, sexual orientation, and geography).

    I completely agree. We have lost a sense of community. A lot of things are responsible for this loss, but I don’t think prayer is one of them. We’re still one of the most religious countries in the west, and we still have the highest percentage of gun deaths. It’s definitely not acceptance of prayer.

    Technology has a lot to do with it. Corporations are another. 40 or 50 years ago, there were local restaurants, local retail stores, local coffee shops. Now there’s McDonald’s, Wal-Mart, and Starbucks, in every community, on every corner. How are communities supposed to have an identity if there’s nothing special about them? People hate Wal-Mart because they move into communities with established small businesses that are forced to close down because they can’t compete with a juggernaut. Communities need small business, not massive box stores administered thousands of miles away.

    And yes, now I’m pivoting to criticizing the Republican Party, because this is a faction that defines and prides itself on being anti-community and worshiping individualism. Poverty? Education? The environment? Health care? On each of these issues, the Republican Party’s position is to insist that the government (aka, community) does absolutely nothing, and hope that some enterprising individual figures out a way to make money by servicing the problems. I don’t understand where ‘respect for the community’ is to be derived from that kind of ideology.

    Take Romney’s rant about the 47%. For all the bellyaching that goes on around here about how divisive Obama is, I think it’s difficult to imagine something more divisive than accusing half the country of being lazy moochers looking for handouts. The message there is abundantly clear; “Don’t care about anybody but yourself, because you’re surrounded by incompetent idiots who want to leech off your productivity!” Is that supposed to be community-building? I don’t think so.

    How about the GOP’s entire “We Built That!” theme? Obama makes a point about how each of our successes can be traced to some prior communal investment in schools or roads or technology that is perfectly reasonable, and how do the Republicans react? By stomping around claiming that they never got any help and that their stuff is their stuff because they earned it all by themselves. This is an effective piece of propaganda because it strokes egos – people get an inauthentic and inflated opinion of themselves and their achievements – while at the same time bolstering their fear of ‘the others,’ those lazy people who Didn’t Build That and want to take their money so they can continue on with Not Building That. Boosting the individual, diminishing the community. Are you noticing a trend?

    Union-busting! The Republicans love union-busting, and what is a union but a community of workers? Would it be more accurate to call it community-busting? I think so. The beneficiaries of this community-busting are the already wealthy executives, who can now make themselves wealthier because they’ve eliminated virtually all of their employees’ leverage. A community of workers with bargaining power becomes a thousand individual employees that have to take whatever they can get – community-building? Not really.

    Let’s try gay marriage. According to social conservatives, gay marriage is a big community-builder and has been throughout human history. It has provided us with the basic family units that make up communities, and has had a massive cultural significance in terms of instilling people with honor, tradition, and respect. Yet…. gay people must never be allowed to participate. So here’s an example of conservatives supporting the idea of community, and then turning around and trying to make it an exclusive club that you can only get into if you meet some arbitrary standards. An institution that should be about community becomes about labeling people and ostracizing them. That isn’t helpful, either.

    I could go on and on. Needless to say, I think that public investment is a great way to build community. I think being proud of your country because it tries to solve big problems is a great way to build community. We used to do these things. We don’t anymore, in large part because Republican economic policies have been ascendant since the fall of the Soviet Union. Instead of our government solving big problems, our government is now dedicated to protecting the wealthy. Is it any wonder that our sense of community has been destroyed?

    Comment by Levi — December 19, 2012 @ 12:13 pm - December 19, 2012

  53. Ah, guess Levi’s mommy gave him internet access back.

    Now if only she could buy him the ability to read.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 19, 2012 @ 12:20 pm - December 19, 2012

  54. Kind of off topic… Obama wants gun control, while more deaths are laid at his feet.

    Best quote.. “Guns don’t kill people, Drug Cartels armed by the Obama administration kill people.”

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 19, 2012 @ 12:28 pm - December 19, 2012

  55. The little fascist @ #52 clearly says “screw prayer” and tries to redirect the conversations to:

    1. “Technology has a lot to do with it. (….) Communities need small business, not massive box stores administered thousands of miles away.”

    2. “….the Republican Party, because this is a faction that defines and prides itself on being anti-community and worshiping individualism. (….)the Republican Party’s position is to insist that the government (aka, community) does absolutely nothing, and hope that some enterprising individual figures out a way to make money by servicing the problems.”

    3. How about the GOP’s entire “We Built That!” theme? Obama makes a point about how each of our successes can be traced to some prior communal investment in schools or roads or technology that is perfectly reasonable, and how do the Republicans react? By stomping around claiming that they never got any help and that their stuff is their stuff because they earned it all by themselves.

    4. Union-busting! The Republicans love union-busting, and what is a union but a community of workers? Would it be more accurate to call it community-busting? The beneficiaries of this community-busting are the already wealthy executives, who can now make themselves wealthier because they’ve eliminated virtually all of their employees’ leverage.”

    5. Let’s try gay marriage. (….) Yet…. gay people must never be allowed to participate. So here’s an example of conservatives supporting the idea of community, and then turning around and trying to make it an exclusive club that you can only get into if you meet some arbitrary standards. An institution that should be about community becomes about labeling people and ostracizing them.”

    6. “Instead of our government solving big problems, our government is now dedicated to protecting the wealthy.”

    7. “I could go on and on.”

    The little fascist is 100% about #7. His rants know no bounds.

    So, “The Media’s gun control obsession” is related directly to: technology, big-box stores, the Republican Party, individualism, “We Built That”, Union-busting, the wealthy, gay marriage, and ……

    Well, the little fascist could rant on and on, but mercifully he didn’t.

    The “thread” the little fascist attempt to weave into a fabric is all about “community.” But, the little fascist rejects religion as either a community or as community building. Why. Because it is, you stupid idiot.

    Unions and mom and pop stores and anybody but Republicans and statism and attacking the wealthy are the solution to determining why “”The Media’s gun control obsession” is prevalent.

    If you believe you have tuned in to the ramblings of a pot head chasing butterflies, you just may be right.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 19, 2012 @ 1:18 pm - December 19, 2012

  56. @55 – Wow. I think I must have read a completely different post than the one you’re describing. That post had nothing to do with “The Media’s gun control obsession”, but instead his views as to the causes of the loss of community. The very first sentences are “I completely agree. We have lost a sense of community. A lot of things are responsible for this loss…”. There’s not a single word in there about the media’s gun control obsession. The word “gun” only appears once, in reference to gun deaths. Nothing about gun control or the media. Nor does he reject religion. He comments that he thinks that prayer in school (more specifically the loss thereof) is not a contributing source of that decline. There’s nothing there as to the religion can play in the larger society.

    Look, I don’t agree with everything he says here. I think he overplays the “Republicans are solely at fault here” aspect. But he does offer some interesting perspectives. I agree that the loss of local business, mom and pop shops, etc are a contributing factor to the loss of community, but one can easily make the argument that Democrats are to blame because of over-regulation and burdensome rules making it too hard for small businesses to survive. We can certainly arguments the causes of these changes.

    But it is a worthwhile contribution to the discussion. The “fascist” and “pot head chasing butterflies” comments are just unnecessary and somewhat silly…

    Comment by Alan — December 19, 2012 @ 1:32 pm - December 19, 2012

  57. I agree that the loss of local business, mom and pop shops, etc are a contributing factor to the loss of community.

    I also agree. But, I’ve noticed when I’ve brought elements like ‘jobs being shipped overseas’ on these boards, the response has been, ‘but, I like my cheap China-made products.’ Not sure why. I remember in the 1980s, where “made in the USA” as a big deal.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 19, 2012 @ 1:49 pm - December 19, 2012

  58. Local shops are often specialized now, and as such are more vulnerable to a bad economy. (like the kind Levi supports)

    In fact, many of those ‘big box companies’ want to work with the local companies.

    As an example, Paizo sells their product from their site (I’m a subscriber) As a subscriber, I get free copies of the PDFs with my monthly shipment. I also get a 15% discount. Now the FLGS can try to compete with a 10% discount, but still no PDF.

    Paizo also has the Pathfinder Society organized play. What this does is increase the pool of gamers (market size) and push them towards the FLGS because that’s where we gather to play.

    Of course this is anethma to Levi, since he’s on record saying that the art and games Paizo help create doesn’t matter, since it’s not ‘economically productive’.

    In fact, the reason the Brick and Mortar stores suffer is as the purchasing power of the dollar shrinks (which again Levi supports) people can’t afford to go to mom and pop stores. When it becomes have enough food for the week or support your local grocery store, who are you going to choose?

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 19, 2012 @ 2:00 pm - December 19, 2012

  59. @57 – I agree with you. I’ve made a concerted effort to buy less stuff, but more that is produced here using skilled labor. As a example, when we purchased a piano, instead of buying a cheap mass produced one from Asia, we bought a more expensive hand made one produced here in the US by a local company (in Ohio I think). Thankfully we were financially able to make that additional investment, which can be challenging for a lot of people. But I do think we need to put our money where our mouth is. If we want to be proud of America and help the economy (and our communities), we should put up the money to purchase items produced here.

    Comment by Alan — December 19, 2012 @ 2:02 pm - December 19, 2012

  60. Another Levi fails economics lesson.

    This company is creating jobs in the US thanks to their kickstarter. In Levi’s world, they wouldn’t exist, and neither would the jobs they provide.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 19, 2012 @ 2:06 pm - December 19, 2012

  61. The funny part is watching Levi and his ilk shriek that the welfare office, because it is government, is more “community based” and responsive than a local charity, made up of local citizens, donating their own money and making their own decisions.

    But that’s typical “progressivism”. “Progressives” don’t believe in private industry and believe that it should all be nationalized. “Progressives” are fascists who are addicted to government power and want every single transaction, every single life, every single business to be suppressed and brought under government control.

    Hence, they lie like Levi does. Levi and “progressives”, especially the Obama Party, hate local charities, because “progressives” want all support and help and comfort in the community to be offered in exchange for votes. If people are being helped by private charity, Levi can’t purchase them with votes. That’s why Levi and his fellow Obama supporters try to destroy local charities in favor of big government.

    Once you realize that “progressives” don’t want private business, don’t want private industry, don’t want private charity, and want everything brought under the control of government where rewards are given for party loyalty, Levi’s rants become simple to understand. Levi is agitating for a world where he and his fellow “progressives” can starve and punish anyone who doesn’t vote for them, can destroy any business that doesn’t pay kickbacks to the Obama Party, and can have fired any worker who doesn’t make campaign contributions.

    It’s all about fascism. And “progressives” like Levi are fascists.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2012 @ 2:10 pm - December 19, 2012

  62. @58 – I wholeheartedly support big box companies working with local companies. I’m glad they’re making the investment in the local communities. But at the same time, I’m not a fan of all of that money being taken out of the local community and sent back to wherever the headquarters may be located (potentially thousands of miles away). Yes, the workers are getting paid, which is good, but the profits are taken out of the community. With local small businesses, the owners that make the profits are part of the community, so that money usually gets reinvested back into the same community.

    Comment by Alan — December 19, 2012 @ 2:12 pm - December 19, 2012

  63. The little fascist is 100% about #7. His rants know no bounds.

    So, “The Media’s gun control obsession” is related directly to: technology, big-box stores, the Republican Party, individualism, “We Built That”, Union-busting, the wealthy, gay marriage, and ……

    Well, the little fascist could rant on and on, but mercifully he didn’t.

    Again, if you’re going to interject, at least pretend to follow along? I was not relating ‘the media’s gun control obsession’ with those things, I was relating SoCalRobert’s ‘destroying of the community’ to those things.

    The “thread” the little fascist attempt to weave into a fabric is all about “community.” But, the little fascist rejects religion as either a community or as community building. Why. Because it is, you stupid idiot.

    Obviously, religion is a community builder. I don’t think it’s the best community builder, since it’s exclusive by nature, and because it’s moral code relies too heavily on promising unbelievable goodies for compliance and eternal suffering for disobedience, but I would never argue that it doesn’t build community.

    Unions and mom and pop stores and anybody but Republicans and statism and attacking the wealthy are the solution to determining why “”The Media’s gun control obsession” is prevalent.

    Like I said, follow along. I am not interested in whatever point Dan was trying to make with the title, I was interested in SoCalRobert’s comments about the destruction of community and the extremes of individualism.

    Comment by Levi — December 19, 2012 @ 2:22 pm - December 19, 2012

  64. But it is a worthwhile contribution to the discussion. The “fascist” and “pot head chasing butterflies” comments are just unnecessary and somewhat silly…

    Comment by Alan — December 19, 2012 @ 1:32 pm – December 19, 2012

    Not really, Alan.

    Of course, this is common; “progressives” tend to be less factual/educated than conservatives and more likely to equate intelligence of argument with adherence to “progressive” talking points rather than factual basis or rationality.

    Perhaps you should educate yourself on Levi’s established track record of bigotry. Indeed, would you state for the record that Levi’s statement that, because of his “progressive” views, he is automatically smarter and more moral than your alleged conservative partner is correct?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2012 @ 2:24 pm - December 19, 2012

  65. Alan,

    Levi’s admitted he’s a fascist, not to mention his constant posts approving it. He just gets upset when we point out his own words. Indeed, he refuses to reply to any of my replies to him, because he knows that he’s outclassed and shown to be a liar and a fool, either by his own words I quote, or by links to actual facts that show his screeds for nothing but lies his idol Gobbels would be proud of.

    Levi’s also admitted to being a consumer of pot, therefore “pot head chasing butterflies” is also accurate.

    In the link above in fact, he condemns any private expending of money on anythng that doesn’t serve the community. Rodan’s The Thinker, the Mona Lisa, the works of the Cistine Chapel? None of those would exist if our little fascist had his way. Though I’m sure he’s a fan of the works of Leni Reisenthal.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 19, 2012 @ 2:34 pm - December 19, 2012

  66. Obviously, religion is a community builder. I don’t think it’s the best community builder, since it’s exclusive by nature, and because it’s moral code relies too heavily on promising unbelievable goodies for compliance and eternal suffering for disobedience, but I would never argue that it doesn’t build community.

    So, since Levi and his Barack Obama Party want religion excluded from society, mocked in the public square, shamed, and destroyed, we can state that they are anti-community and anti-community-building.

    That is no surprise. Fascists throughout history have sought to destroy the churches and replace them with worship of government. The Obama Party and “progressives” like Levi are clearly fascists.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2012 @ 2:36 pm - December 19, 2012

  67. Levi worships government. The State occupies, in his heart, the place that God would occupy in the hearts of the religious. That’s the essential trait of the fascist.

    My description is functional, based on observation of Levi’s comments. Of course Levi wants to be called something else. Of course he’ll claim he isn’t a State-worshipper. Of course he’ll accuse me of exaggerating, if not lying. So, what? I still see what I see, know what I know.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 19, 2012 @ 2:43 pm - December 19, 2012

  68. @64 – Oh NDT. How I’ve missed you…..

    So if I follow your logic, the first link provided showed an example of Levi insulting conservatives. I’m assuming that you find this to be unnecessary, silly, and rude. Therefore, it’s perfectly acceptable for heliotrope to be insulting and rude to Levi? Two wrongs make a right? Or perhaps we can say “Hey Levi, that was inappropriate and silly” AND “Hey heliotrope, that was inappropriate and silly”? I’ll even start for you: Levi, that comment you made in the other thread was rude, inappropriate, and silly. Please try to be more civil in the future.

    There’s plenty that I disagree with in regards to what Levi says. But his comment above in this thread that heliotrope commented on was rather straightforward and worthy of being included in the discussion, instead of the personal attack it received.

    In regards to my “alleged conservative partner”, to what is the alleged referring to? That I have a partner? Or that he is in fact conservative? I assure you that both are true. And I will gladly state for the record that my conservative partner is significantly smarter than the vast majority of people that I know (including many of my progressive friends). That said, it doesn’t always make everything he says or thinks automatically correct. People have a hierarchy of values, and policies can differ based on those values. People can base their policies based on ranking security higher than freedom, or social good higher than individual liberty. The fact is, he and I often want the same outcome, but our policies and how to achieve that are based on our different ranking of values (our abortion discussion was actually incredibly enlightening for me). You’d be amazed at how much you can learn about a person’s position if you actually listen to them instead of just assuming you know what they think and why they think it……

    Comment by Alan — December 19, 2012 @ 2:50 pm - December 19, 2012

  69. I find the idea that religion is bad because “it’s exclusive.” is silly. Name me one ‘community builder’ that is all inclusive. Everyone excludes/includes based on certain criteria.

    I’d invite Dan, Bruce, Pat, ND30 V the K, Leah (especially Leah if she brought a younger single sister) or ILC to my house based on hwat I know of them and or having met them. I’d exclude Vince, Levi, or mike for the same reason.

    That doesn’t make it bad. That makes it real.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 19, 2012 @ 4:04 pm - December 19, 2012

  70. So if I follow your logic, the first link provided showed an example of Levi insulting conservatives. I’m assuming that you find this to be unnecessary, silly, and rude.

    Yup.

    Therefore, it’s perfectly acceptable for heliotrope to be insulting and rude to Levi? Two wrongs make a right?

    Yup.

    You see, Alan, what you and your fellow “progressives” have made abundantly clear is that “unnecessary, silly, and rude” is a) what you do, b) what you respect, and c) what wins elections.

    “Progressivism” has depended for far too long on conservatives being polite pushovers. What conservatives have now figured out is that “progressives” see politeness as a sign of weakness, and only allow the viewpoints of others to exist if it is made clear to “progressives” that failure to do so will result in quick and substantial retaliation.

    In short, we have figured out why you and your bigot boy Levi harass and bash Christians while shrieking “diversity” when confronted with radical Islam; it’s the fact that they punch back twice as hard.

    That now informs our reaction. You and yours screamed, pissed, and cried throughout the election that Mitt Romney was a murderer, a tax cheat, and everything awful under the sun, all without evidence – and then had the temerity to call him a liar. You are demanding, as we see in this prime example here, that we support your bans on something that you can’t even define, under pain of being called a child murderer if we don’t. You are shrieking that we are racist for not electing “enough” black people, and then when we send a black person to the Senate, you scream that that person is not “authentically black”.

    In short, “progressives” like you do not respect decency or politeness. The only thing you respect is violence and thuggery. Worse, you attempt to use the fact that conservatives DO respect decency and politeness to manipulate them into allowing you to run roughshod over them.

    And, given that Levi has screamed and pissed that people like the FRC deserve to be shot because their views are “provocative”, not to mention LGBT and progressive hero Dan Savage calling for the death of all Republicans, Obama Party and LGBT icon Mike Signorile saying that gay Republicans should kill themselves, GLAAD honoree Joe Jervis stating that all gays who don’t worship Obama are racist Nazi traitors, or Obama Party icon Harry Belafonte calling for Obama to rule as a dictator and imprison all opposition, we now know just how much “progressives” respect our right to exist.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2012 @ 4:43 pm - December 19, 2012

  71. People have a hierarchy of values, and policies can differ based on those values.

    That’s true. That’s the discussion I prefer, the one where both sides end up seeing the same universe of facts and if they still have a difference, they realize that it’s not going to be resolved without one of them changing their values, because it’s a value difference. That, I think, is the discussion which generates the most light.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 19, 2012 @ 4:57 pm - December 19, 2012

  72. Dennis Kucinich is one of the most polite, well-spoken politicians out there. And he identifies as progressive and sees civility as a strength.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 19, 2012 @ 4:58 pm - December 19, 2012

  73. what… “progressives” have made abundantly clear is that “unnecessary, silly, and rude” is a) what [they] do, b) what [they] respect, and c) what wins elections.

    Also true, from where I sit.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 19, 2012 @ 5:01 pm - December 19, 2012

  74. Whether Kucinich actualliy practices either civility or sanity is, of course, another matter.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 19, 2012 @ 5:02 pm - December 19, 2012

  75. Kucinich doesn’t appear to fit in ND30′s limited description of progressive. And out of all the politicians out there, Kucinich has been labeled progressive quite a bit compared to others.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 19, 2012 @ 5:26 pm - December 19, 2012

  76. Alan,

    This thread is tied to Dan’s post identified thusly: The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/12/18/the-medias-gun-control-obsession/trackback/

    For whatever reason, the little fascist decided he would rather like to babble about the destruction of the concept known as “community.”

    For a couple of years, I attempted to reason with the little fascist in his rants about hating Christians and wanting statists to drag knuckle dragging conservatives (like me) kicking and screaming into the future and about his insistence that G. W. Bush lied and people died and that he also caused the US deficit problem and blah, blah, blah. I questioned his elitist proclamations concerning man-made caused global warming and his inability to admit that Darwin is theory and not scientific fact, no matter how appealing it may be intellectually. His response is a knee-jerk reaction of calling me anti-science and being some sort of fundamentalist stuck on stupid.

    My patience completely wore through after one of his prolonged and particularly vicious and degrading attacks concerning his intolerance for not only religion but for anyone who is stupid enough to have religious faith. His bigotry was so completely laid bare that I only treat him with the disdain he delivers and regard him as an aggressive form of cancer without any particular use other than as an example of closed minded bigotry.

    If you hang around for a while, you will soon enough discover that my demeanor and intellect are not what you may be thinking now.

    I appreciate your standing up for the little fascist, but soon enough you will begin to realize that he is an insincere troll who just adores hearing himself rant.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 19, 2012 @ 6:06 pm - December 19, 2012

  77. I see the little fascist has returned to “explain” his rant, which he blithely blames in # 63 on:

    I was not relating ‘the media’s gun control obsession’ with those things, I was relating SoCalRobert’s ‘destroying of the community’ to those things.

    See how it works?

    The little fascist is among the first to speak of the gay community or the black community or the Hispanic community as if there is some sort of inescapable, monolithic, genetic (think Hitler and the Jews) tie that binds them together.

    The truth is that the little fascist has a plantation view of those he performs victim-speak for and he is among the first, for instance, to see Herman Caine as not authentically black or GayPatriots as sell-outs to the gay agenda.

    “Community” is a wonderful Progressive catch-phrase for selective definition. If you see the definition outside of the selective definition then you are politically incorrect, a h8ter, and a correct definitionophobe.

    Unions are a community. Non-union workers are community-busters. Mom and Pop stores covering costs with high prices and few employers are a community. Big-box stores with low prices, wide variety and lots of employees are community-busters. Competition which lowers cost and raises quality are community busters. Churches may weave a certain sense of community, but at the cost of truth, science and intelligence. Individualism is by definition destructive to the community. Personal responsibility is destructive to the effort of the village raising a child. Restricting marriage is exclusionary to gays, polygamists, pederasts, animal lovers and tree huggers.

    Everything is free of any religion informed morality and entrenched in a free form system of correct thinking and common sense as decided by those elite who have the power to establish what is right.

    How many times is the little fascist going to drag us through his Alice in Wonderland world of Mad Hatter and The Queen of Hearts where:

    “Be what you would seem to be- or, if you’d like it put more simply- Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.”
    ― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

    Comment by heliotrope — December 19, 2012 @ 6:48 pm - December 19, 2012

  78. If Bush caused the U.S. deficit problem (and the math says that Obama has caused it more), he did so by applying ‘progressive’ policies. His expansion of entitlements, of regulation, and more. Levi should have loved Bush, especially after most of his security policy was taken over and validated by Obama.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 19, 2012 @ 6:56 pm - December 19, 2012

  79. @70 NDT -

    In short, “progressives” like you do not respect decency or politeness.

    I’ll leave it to the other readers here to determine which of us has been more polite and decent in this thread.

    Comment by Alan — December 19, 2012 @ 7:08 pm - December 19, 2012

  80. @76 – Thanks for the clarification heliotrope

    Comment by Alan — December 19, 2012 @ 7:18 pm - December 19, 2012

  81. Alan. . .here is another take

    http://bornon911.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/bully-for-you/#comments

    Comment by rusty — December 19, 2012 @ 7:23 pm - December 19, 2012

  82. But there is also hope.

    A follow up.

    http://bornon911.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/happenings-are-still-happening/

    Maybe the spirit of Christmas will touch NDT

    Comment by rusty — December 19, 2012 @ 7:27 pm - December 19, 2012

  83. Indeed, Alan.

    Fortunately, since you made it clear that you endorsed Levi’s behavior as “polite” and “decent”, you will likely find that the outcome is not what you expect.

    And then, entertainingly, you will likely shriek about how mean conservatives are for actually calling you and Levi on your abuse.

    Again, Alan, you define. “politeness” and “decency” the same way that Levi does intelligence: solely on the basis of agreement with “progressive” dogma.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2012 @ 7:27 pm - December 19, 2012

  84. Alan,

    You are welcome. Now, understand that NDT is playing the role of bad cop by which he gives better than he got. He is playing out the aphorism of what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    When the little fascist or others paint him with a broad brush, he returns with a fire hose.

    You may not quite understand what NDT is up to, but in the scorched earth game of playing hand grenades practiced by progressives, you may count on NDT turning up with a cluster bomb to raise the ante and settle the matter.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 19, 2012 @ 7:32 pm - December 19, 2012

  85. @83 – I said nothing of the kind about Levi’s behavior. In fact, if you look at #68, I specifically say the following (hardly an endorsement):

    Levi, that comment you made in the other thread was rude, inappropriate, and silly. Please try to be more civil in the future.

    More specifically, in #79, I was calling out your behavior on this thread. You accused me of being indecent and impolite and abusing you. I think an honest reading of this thread would show that you were the one exhibiting rude behavior, not I.

    I hardly think conservatives are mean. I am allegedly in a relationship with one after all. There are many commentators on here that I very much enjoy reading (ILC and heliotrope among them). While I certainly don’t agree with a lot of the views, their comments give me a different perspective and force me to reevaluate my own positions. Were I to accuse anyone being mean, it would be you and you alone. And that is solely on the basis of your behavior and nothing to do with your political, religious, and/or social worldview.

    Comment by Alan — December 19, 2012 @ 7:53 pm - December 19, 2012

  86. @84 – heliotrope – That was an incredibly funny description. Thanks for the chuckle :-)

    Comment by Alan — December 19, 2012 @ 7:55 pm - December 19, 2012

  87. @84 – heliotrope – While I did get a laugh from your description, I do have to admit that I’m still disappointed in his behavior, only for the fact that it makes it next to impossible to actually discuss anything and try to find middle ground. The hyperbolic and bombastic nature of his comments where he immediately lumps people together and turns anyone who disagrees with him into the enemy is somewhat disconcerting. How do you find similarity and compromise with someone if you’re convinced that they hate America, or hate capitalism, or hate freedom? The same can be said with some of the progressive posters as well (little_kiwi comes to mind). You can’t make progress with someone if you’re convinced they hate gays, or hate women. I’m still pretty convinced that most of us want the same thing (or at the very least we want what we think is best for the country). How to get there is open for discussion. But he raises it to a whole different level of us vs. them, no compromise because they’re determined to destroy America.

    I’ll tell you two stories to help demonstrate where I’m coming from:
    My partner abstained from voting on Prop 8. He was really torn between wanting the right to get married and having issue with it going through the courts instead of the legislature. We had liberal friends who basically disowned us over this because he was obviously a “self-hating gay” who thought of them as “second-class citizens”. But if you were to actually talk to him about it, he has a very interesting perspective on the entire concept of marriage, family, society, legal rights, etc. that is so easily lost in the landmines of “your side hates gays” and “your side is just a bunch of hedonistic narcissists”.

    The other story has to do with abortion (which I mentioned earlier). We started off a discussion with the typical “you’re murdering a child” and “a woman has rights over her own body” stuff. By the time we were done, though, we were actually incredibly close on where we stood and why. The sole difference has to do with the hierarchy of values I mentioned earlier. He placed one particular value higher than another one, which led to his boundary on the restrictions such that fewer people had access to abortions. My value placement was different and had a different set of outcomes. Taking the time to understand the nuances of the positions is hard and one has to own up to not having the answers and truly listening to what the other person says.

    But you can’t really have those kinds of discussions and come to that level of understanding when you’re throwing launching cluster bombs.

    Wow, kind of went off on a tangent there. Sorry for the long comment. Thanks!

    Comment by Alan — December 19, 2012 @ 8:19 pm - December 19, 2012

  88. Some people do hate capitalism, freedom, etc. it’s no use pretending they don’t; especially when their strategy is to pretend they don’t. In that case, it is better to rip their mask off.

    NDT is fighting a war. I don’t blame him. Neither do I agree with everything he says, to be clear. I think his tactics hit some people unfairly at times, people who wandered into the war zone not knowing that it was one. Other times, I see him using facts and logic well and for ends that I think are right, and I admire it.

    The question of meeting people in real life is interesting. I have met NDT, and yes I found him as kind and loyal and cheerful and generous as others have said. I have met others from this blog who seemed nice at the time but, in retrospect, are not very nice people and were ‘nice’ because they were looking to manipulate me. Actually, one.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 19, 2012 @ 10:18 pm - December 19, 2012

  89. Alan, Alan, Alan.

    Do you think I don’t know how this game is played?

    Example A:

    Maybe the spirit of Christmas will touch NDT

    Comment by rusty — December 19, 2012 @ 7:27 pm – December 19, 2012

    Oh, of course.

    Because disagreeing with and criticizing “progressives” is always bad, and if you do so, you’re a mean old grinch who hates and doesn’t have the “Christmas spirit”.

    And if you don’t let me ban that which I can’t even define, you’re an awful person who wants to murder children.

    This is why I always laugh when liberals and “progressives” put forth pap like rusty’s on “diversity” and “tolerance”.

    Because, as they make clear with their whiny “do as I want or you’re ruining Christmas”, their version of “diversity” and “tolerance” depends on your slavish obedience to their every whim.

    The breakthrough in dealing with “progressives” is to realize that they are abusers. Their core belief, indeed YOUR core belief, is that they get their way, they get what they want, and if you don’t agree with them and do as they say, you’re against “compromise” or “middle ground”.

    I have a very simple answer. You, your Barack Obama Party, and your Barack Obama screamed for twelve months that Mitt Romney was a murderer, that Mitt Romney supported rape, and that Mitt Romney was a tax cheat.

    With ZERO evidence.

    That showed how much “tolerance”, “compromise” and “middle ground” there was in “progressivism”. Granted, we already knew how empty those statements had been, but there was some hope that it was just politics, etc.

    Now we know better. There is no decency in the Obama Party. No Obama supporter is a decent person. No “progressive” in existence wants anything other than power, and they do not care how it is gotten.

    That is the reality, Alan. It is the reality that you and your fellow Barack Obama supporters created. And it is the reality in which you are now going to live — one where conservatives know what a rotten, stinking, amoral pile of junk you and your fellows like Levi, rusty, and others are, and remind you of it constantly.

    You try to lie to yourself. It’s no longer going to be something supported.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2012 @ 10:20 pm - December 19, 2012

  90. And there he may have a point. Someone brought up kucinich as decent etc. well, did he have anything to say about the Obama ad, where Romney’s cruelty supposedly killed the worker’s wife?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 19, 2012 @ 10:43 pm - December 19, 2012

  91. ILC, if you read the last two lines of comment 88, reasoned that the speaker was referring to you based on comments he made in the past, and knew it to not be true, how would you respond? Or would you not?

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 19, 2012 @ 11:07 pm - December 19, 2012

  92. As a wise sage has posted. . .

    You don’t have to like someone and not oppose dishonest smears against them.

    And if you think it is ok to smear someone over and over and over, just because you disagree with that person, your ethics are questionable.

    Comment by rusty — December 9, 2012 @ 3:28 am – December 9, 2012

    Comment by rusty — December 19, 2012 @ 11:41 pm - December 19, 2012

  93. and NDT don’t worry about my Christmas. . .have lots that keeps me going

    Back in 1988 I spent Christmas eve and Christmas Day with two folk, friends. . .one was Jewish and the other was an athiest. We were in New York City. Twas one of the better Christmas holidaze ever. Even though there was no tree, cookies, big meal, presents, treats. . .I had Christmas in my heart and memories. Christmas is magic.

    I woke up in NYC, on Christmas, we went and had fabulous Chinese food, saw Beaches, walked about the streets of NYC and ended up in a great piano bar and sang Christmas carols with total strangers.

    Please don’t push Christmas, share it.

    Comment by rusty — December 20, 2012 @ 12:00 am - December 20, 2012

  94. Like I said, rusty: you, your Barack Obama Party, and your Barack Obama screamed for twelve months straight that Mitt Romney was a murderer, supported rape, and was a tax cheat.

    With ZERO evidence.

    Just as you screamed Sarah Palin was responsible for the Tucson shooting, like you screamed the Tea Party was responsible for the Aurora shootings, and as you’re now screaming the NRA was responsible for the Newtown shootings.

    So yes, your ethics ARE questionable.

    Indeed, I would say nonexistent.

    Not that that matters; you could lie about your HIV status, have bareback sex, and sicken/kill millions of people who won’t ever see Christmas again, and it’s all OK, because you’re “progressive”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2012 @ 12:39 am - December 20, 2012

  95. Whatever miss Rita Beads

    Comment by rusty — December 20, 2012 @ 12:46 am - December 20, 2012

  96. I woke up in NYC, on Christmas, we went and had fabulous Chinese food, saw Beaches, walked about the streets of NYC and ended up in a great piano bar and sang Christmas carols with total strangers.

    What a wonderful memory Rusty. That’s awesome.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 20, 2012 @ 1:00 am - December 20, 2012

  97. Not that that matters; you could lie about your HIV status, have bareback sex, and sicken/kill millions of people who won’t ever see Christmas again, and it’s all OK, because you’re “progressive”.

    I’ve actually been accused by ND30 of doing all of these things, not coupled in “you could” terms, but declarative, “You did.” That was about this time last year, I think (ND30 can check his LOL [Library of Links] for accuracy). I guess the Christmas spirit is beginning to soften his heart. Maybe it’s all those years in San Francisco.

    P.S. Dennis Kucinich is considered a true progressive, unlike President Obama, who, by the way he governs, is more of a middle-of-the-road Democrat. At least, according to progressives …

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 20, 2012 @ 1:04 am - December 20, 2012

  98. Amusingly, Alan doesn’t even address the posts pointing out that Levi is a fascist and a pot smoker, and a liar, etc. Instead his argument changes to “But that NDT is so mean…”

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 20, 2012 @ 8:06 am - December 20, 2012

  99. VS 91: When I’m dealing with a person who is manipulative and untruthful, for starters, I don’t ask him to advise me.

    Neither do I frequent the blog where he hangs out; try to play games (e.g., like denying that I’m talking to him in moments when I am directly talking to him); and so forth. All those are the opening ‘seduction’ tactics of the untruthful person who wants to see if he can engage the truthful person for (further) manipulation. Goodbye and have a pleasant Christmas.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 20, 2012 @ 9:51 am - December 20, 2012

  100. What’s with the Kucinich loveliest?

    “Kucinich earned seventh place [among worst mayors in US history] the hard way: by his abrasive, intemperate, and confrontational populist political style, which led to a disorderly and chaotic administration.” According to Dr. Holli, Kucinich’s record shows little achievement but a lot of “Bad judgment, demagoguery, and default [which] spelled political failure.”

    Professor Holli reports, “[Kucinich] barely survived a recall vote just ten months into office, then disappeared for five weeks, reportedly recuperating from an ulcer. When he got back into the political fray, his demagogic rhetoric and slash-and-burn political style got him into serious trouble when he stubbornly refused to compromise and led Cleveland into financial default in late 1978 – the first major city to default since the Great Depression.” See: Melvin G. Holli, The American Mayor: The Best & The Worst Big-City Leaders.

    Look, Dennis the Menace Kucinich has been around for a long time and he is a typical professional politician who lives under a rock, but when you turn it over, he is always either there or left vivid signs of having just been there.

    Kucinich is a strong gay marriage proponent and he has an above average Progressive voting record (65/100) and he is forever introducing legislation to tell other countries what to do in controlling pollution, engaging in ceasefires and negotiations, supporting clean oceans, and on and on and on. He is a regular Mr. Feelgood with almost no record of having done anything by way of actual, meaningful domestic legislation. Oh, he did attempt to impeach Dick Cheney.

    If I were going to pay to watch a mud wrestling match, it would be between Kucinich and Ron Paul so long as Ross Perot and Al Sharpton were the referees and Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson Lee were the scorekeepers. But they must all enter the arena in the same clown car.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 20, 2012 @ 9:52 am - December 20, 2012

  101. Vince,

    I’ve actually been accused by ND30 of doing all of these things, not coupled in “you could” terms, but declarative, “You did.”

    You got sprayed with being a Progressive who does not object to the amoral and immoral things that your fellow Progressives do. Thus, you are painted with the broad brush of aiding and abetting and being an enabler. It takes guts to criticize your own causes. But that is what morality and ethics and personal responsibility and honesty require.

    Progressives and Democrats and power seekers band together like little Nazis with the three monkeys disease: Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil concerning your causes or other Progressives.

    NDT is a craftsman at identifying a Progressive characteristic and then saying “you” as in “you Progressives, of whom you are one.” Grow a set, Vince. Instead of just applauding feel good stuff, try applying some critical thinking toward what the costs and benefits of your wants are and how to accomplish the goals.

    NDT is not going away. He is there to say you are no different from the rest of the Progressives who will not think, who will not provide facts, who will not take responsibility, who only blame, who only shift the topic, who only ignore facts, who only name-call when they are challenged to defend their feel good stuff with substance.

    Until you personally show that you have broken out of that mold, “you” will be part and parcel with the Progressive circus that is stuck on full bore demagoguery.

    I read the comments of many Progressives here and when I have finished, I try to ascertain just what they are promoting and what support they have offered. You might attempt the same process. Just because you have strong “feelings” does not mean a thing. This is not (yet) a bandwagon world where people throwing candy and balloons can get the job done.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 20, 2012 @ 10:13 am - December 20, 2012

  102. I don’t read the bible, but I hope that through my words and action I live it. This spoke to me as a truth this morning on my commute…
    Ephesians 4:20:
    “Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an encouragement to those whoe hear them.”
    Have a blessed day! (Merry Xmas Pat)

    Comment by rusty — December 20, 2012 @ 10:19 am - December 20, 2012

  103. “Let everything be good and helpful.”

    See: Tough Love.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 20, 2012 @ 10:46 am - December 20, 2012

  104. Rusty, I am delighted that you are enthused with the good will of the season and I share your feelings. You might ponder these words by Alicia Colon:

    While I was at Mass on December 8th, the feast of the Immaculate Conception, I listened to a reading from Genesis and another reading was about the angel Gabriel visiting Mary telling her she would become a mother and I thought, “Boy, is that hard for some to swallow.” Such a fantasy – a virgin birth – a legend and yet, one that is the core of my faith. It then occurred to me that belief in the supernatural and otherworldly events requires one to be humble. Humility is probably the hardest virtue and Pride probably the most deadly sin. To surrender to a higher power and feel its love is a gift that is there for us all and it is in the Christmas season that we are reminded that God so loved the world that He gave us His only Son.

    Atheists have closed their minds to that love and reveal a blindness that is self-inflicted and prefer to live in a world of superficial emptiness.

    I do not try to “sell” my religious belief system to anyone. I have looked into other religious belief systems with an open and curious mind. I understand agnosticism and atheism. I do not understand the war on religion, the Judeo-Christian ethic, moral relativism and situation ethics because they are Prideful and offer no alternatives except secular, temporary arrogance.

    Hopefully, the spirit of Christmas helps to temper the edges of ill-will, abrasiveness and poor manners while strengthening the powers of patience, temperance and good-will. The key, as Ms Colon notes is humility and a willingness to be humble. Merry Christmas.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 20, 2012 @ 11:11 am - December 20, 2012

  105. I’m not sure how it’s humble to maintain a lifelong fantasy wherein you imagine yourself to be best friends with the creator of time and space. Particularly when you invoke this belief to tell everyone how we’re supposed to be living. Humble? Egocentric, maybe. Self-centered. Delusional for sure. But humility doesn’t rely apply to religious claims – it’s the exact opposite.

    Comment by Levi — December 20, 2012 @ 12:35 pm - December 20, 2012

  106. Ah, the fascist comes back to spew more hatred.

    “Egotistical?” This coming from a child who declares himself superior despite ample evidence to the contrary and flees from anything that crushes his world view. From a child who thinks that Brown people cannot comprehend democracy, and that children are a burden and should be snuffed out.

    Really, Levi’s mom needs to take away his internet again.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 20, 2012 @ 1:22 pm - December 20, 2012

  107. rusty: I know you mean well, so please have a wonderful Christmas, and please rest assured that NDT will also, for he knows well about the spirit of Christmas. I believe you’ve even linked his blog post on it, before.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 20, 2012 @ 1:47 pm - December 20, 2012

  108. I’m not sure how it’s humble to maintain a lifelong fantasy wherein you imagine yourself to be best friends with the creator of time and space. Particularly when you invoke this belief to tell everyone how we’re supposed to be living. Humble? Egocentric, maybe. Self-centered. Delusional for sure.

    Comment by Levi — December 20, 2012 @ 12:35 pm – December 20, 2012

    Actually, Levi, you’re quite the expert on that.

    I’m smarter than most conservatives, this is beyond any doubt. I’m also a better person – you guys have given up any claim to that argument with your morally decrepit positions on torture and wars. If that sounds condescending, it’s because it is. And you should probably spend more of your time teaching yourself things and thinking, rather than complain about the mean people that make fun off you for not being very smart.

    People like you need people like me to drag you kicking and screaming into the future.

    Comment by Levi — February 8, 2010 @ 11:22 pm – February 8, 2010

    I find it amusing that you are more than willing to tell everyone else how to live, think, and be moral — while screaming and p*ssing yourself that anyone else doing so is “egocentric, self-centered, and delusional”.

    And I wonder if your “progressive” friends that have been screaming and whining that everyone else denounce my statements be as willing to denounce yours.

    Again, “progressives” are impossible to understand on a logical, rational, or objective basis — until you realize that their behavior is shaped only by their lust for power.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2012 @ 2:31 pm - December 20, 2012

  109. I’ve missed a bunch of comments here and have some to respond to (hopefully later today). In the mean time:

    @105 Levi – That’s a shitty way to express your disdain for religion. I’m not a religious person myself, but a lot of people find solace and guidance in religion. Even if you disagree with the tenets of Christianity and find it stupid, you should at the very least be respectful of those that embrace it so that hopefully they will have respect for your beliefs in return.

    NDT – His immature behavior still doesn’t absolve you of yours

    Comment by Alan — December 20, 2012 @ 2:39 pm - December 20, 2012

  110. I’ve missed a bunch of comments here and have some to respond to (hopefully later today). In the mean time:

    @105 Levi – That’s a shitty way to express your disdain for religion. I’m not a religious person myself, but a lot of people find solace and guidance in religion. Even if you disagree with the tenets of Christianity and find it stupid, you should at the very least be respectful of those that embrace it so that hopefully they will have respect for your beliefs in return.

    And will heliotrope be receiving a lecture from you as well for all the things he said about the morality of atheists?

    Oh that’s right. Religious people are for some reason allowed to take deep personal offense to the mildest of criticisms. Heliotrope can freely accuse me of wanting to wage a war on Christians, but I can’t even take issue with his blatant misuse of the word humility to describe people that believe in unbelievable things? For someone who isn’t very religious, you seem to be reading out of their playbook.

    Wouldn’t it be great to justify all of your political, ethical, and philosophical beliefs just by saying “Because!”, and then throwing a tantrum if someone has a problem with your avoiding the question?

    Oh wait, no. No that wouldn’t be great at all. That sucks.

    It’s the 21st century, and we shouldn’t abide this kind of incoherence and feigned indignation anymore. Like I said, they have absolutely no qualms with casting aspersions on people who don’t agree with them. All I did here was ask for them to show some perspective, and to understand that the blue ribbon for humility shouldn’t go to people who claim to know exactly how and why the universe was created.

    Comment by Levi — December 20, 2012 @ 3:22 pm - December 20, 2012

  111. Aw isn’t it cute when Levi has a tempertantrum?

    Like monkeys flinging their poo.

    Sorry, I’m insulting monkeys.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 20, 2012 @ 3:24 pm - December 20, 2012

  112. NDT – His immature behavior still doesn’t absolve you of yours

    Comment by Alan — December 20, 2012 @ 2:39 pm – December 20, 2012

    LOL.

    First, I didn’t ask for absolution.

    Second, even if I wanted absolution, why on earth would I seek it out from someone whose ideology worships as Lord and Messiah a person like Barack Obama, who screams that his political opponents are rapists, murderers, and tax cheats without a shred of evidence?

    Again, it’s the classic abusive pattern. “Progressives” regularly exploit conservatives’ own healthy desire for self-examination and correction to make conservatives feel like they’ve done something wrong when they haven’t.

    One has to remember this. “Progressives” do not scream bloody murder because they have been actually wronged; they scream bloody murder to get you to do what they want. Whenever a “progressive” starts yelling about racism, misogyny, or hate, it has nothing to do with any of those; these are just words that “progressives” use to try to make others feel bad and to do what the “progressive” wants to make the pain stop.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2012 @ 3:29 pm - December 20, 2012

  113. Wouldn’t it be great to justify all of your political, ethical, and philosophical beliefs just by saying “Because!”, and then throwing a tantrum if someone has a problem with your avoiding the question?

    Oh wait, no. No that wouldn’t be great at all. That sucks.

    It’s the 21st century, and we shouldn’t abide this kind of incoherence and feigned indignation anymore.

    Comment by Levi — December 20, 2012 @ 3:22 pm – December 20, 2012

    Oh, but you DO, Levi.

    President Barack Obama delivered an extensive denunciation of a ‘crude and disgusting’ anti-Islam video made in California, telling the United Nations that ‘it is time to heed the words of Gandhi’ and declaring: ‘The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.’

    And indeed, you and yours blathered and whined and cried and screamed that Muslims taking offense to the video justified all manner of destruction and attacks on the United States. Indeed, that was your excuse for Benghazi; you stated flatly that everything was the video’s fault, and that anyone who criticized Islam was evil.

    And actually, keep commenting. Being that you’re an Obama supporter, a good “progressive”, and someone who Alan and his fellow “progressives” think makes “a worthwhile contribution”, you are doing an absolutely bang-up job of showing how “progressives”, liberals, and Obama supporters actually think and behave.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2012 @ 3:43 pm - December 20, 2012

  114. I can’t think of anyone on this blog lately who avoids questions more than Levi. So, talk about feigned indignation!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 20, 2012 @ 4:02 pm - December 20, 2012

  115. And indeed, you and yours blathered and whined and cried and screamed that Muslims taking offense to the video justified all manner of destruction and attacks on the United States. Indeed, that was your excuse for Benghazi; you stated flatly that everything was the video’s fault, and that anyone who criticized Islam was evil.

    This is the kind of stuff that earns ND30 praise from people like ILC and heliotrope. He’s the ‘bad cop,’ he’s the ‘fighter,’ and all he has to do to earn these cool, tough nicknames is make up a bunch of stuff that doesn’t represent anybody. Who knows what he’s even talking about here?

    Next up, he’ll accuse me of getting teenagers drunk so I can rape them and force them to have abortions, because this one time I was arguing against the effectiveness of abstinence-only education. Oh yeah, real brilliant, this one!

    ND30 is easily the worst poster here, and is the big reason that I started checking names before reading posts. Although, typically, I only need to read a few words to identify his posts, which I usually can simply disregard. He wants to paint with his turds, and I’ll leave him to it.

    Comment by Levi — December 20, 2012 @ 4:22 pm - December 20, 2012

  116. For a very long time now, the little fascist has been avoiding laying out what informs his morality and his code of ethics. As close as he has come is to go off on one of this free form rants.

    So, morality, according to the little fascist means what he wants it to mean if and when he has any need for it. The rest of the time he is amoral and is guided by what feels good and what is convenient for avoiding pain. Ethics are relative for the little fascist. He has no guide if he can’t relate to the situation. After all, how can you form a useful excuse if you don’t know what the circumstances are?

    Thanks for your paranoid reaction, little fascist. Your string is so easy to pull it is almost a game to wind you up just to watch you flail around and then fall flat on your face.

    Your comments are always heavy on pride and arrogance. Have you any measure of humility in you? Or, is humility a sign of weakness in your world view?

    As a hedonistic utilitarian, the little fascist is tied up in believing that the ends justify the means. He weigh things in terms of consequences. If an act results in a “good” consequence, he still has to determine whether he will be the primary beneficiary of that consequence and he also has to determine how the consequence will be judged and who will do the judging.

    So, the little fascist is basically amoral, so long as the outcomes of morality either leave him alone or compliment his ideology. There is no right and wrong for the little fascist as much as being in the right if he is ever questioned. In this sense, the little fascist measures things in terms of where he is in terms of his sense of “equality” and “justice.”

    As a moral relativist, the little fascist “knows” there are no absolute or universal moral standards, because that is a tacit admission of a higher power. So he relies on “cultural” relativism which means that when the culture shifts, morality shifts with it. Therefore, the state is perfectly capable of creating morality by law, polling, social engineering, community organizing, punishment, reorganization, extermination, etc. [See: Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Castro, Chavez, and cheaper knock-offs and wannabes.]

    Comment by heliotrope — December 20, 2012 @ 5:01 pm - December 20, 2012

  117. Next up, he’ll accuse me of getting teenagers drunk so I can rape them and force them to have abortions, because this one time I was arguing against the effectiveness of abstinence-only education. Oh yeah, real brilliant, this one!

    Actually, Levi, it’s because you stated this:

    Getting too drunk or forgetting your condoms or allowing yourself to be pressured into it by your horny boyfriend or the kind of everyday, run-of-the-mill bad decisions we all make, like spending 6 dollars on coffee or watching Jersey Shore.

    Comment by Levi — September 24, 2012 @ 1:57 pm – September 24, 2012

    You really demonstrate the delusional nature of “progressives”, Levi. Since you can’t defend your actual words, you make up lies. Since you can’t explain why you and your Barack Obama scream and piss and cry when people insult Muslims, you try to divert the topic.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2012 @ 5:34 pm - December 20, 2012

  118. Your comments are always heavy on pride and arrogance. Have you any measure of humility in you? Or, is humility a sign of weakness in your world view?

    Comment by heliotrope — December 20, 2012 @ 5:01 pm – December 20, 2012

    There are two bits of insight I have gleaned from watching “progressives”, heliotrope.

    1) What they accuse you of doing is in fact what they are doing.

    2) Whatever they demand of you is behavior into which they are attempting to manipulate you because they consider it weak, vulnerable, and foolish.

    Case in point: “progressives” accuse conservatives of being obstructionist and unwilling to compromise.

    Therefore, what “progressives” are doing is obstructing, and what they want you to do is “compromise” — which they consider foolish.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2012 @ 6:15 pm - December 20, 2012

  119. For a very long time now, the little fascist has been avoiding laying out what informs his morality and his code of ethics. As close as he has come is to go off on one of this free form rants.

    I’ve actually done this many times now. Our morality is derived from our physiology, our genetics, and the fundamental social organization of our species that’s developed over millions of years. Just as mammals evolved stereoscopic vision, just as primates developed opposable thumbs, Homo sapiens evolved behaviors that helped us live together in communities, which multiplied our survival chances exponentially. You just never want to hear any of this, because you’re looking for me to provide an instruction manual to life in the form of commandments or sacraments or divine law. You want a shortcut, you think you need instructions and an overseer to be a good person (not to mention a severe and eternal system of reward and punishment!) You don’t really need any of that crap to be a good human being, and I would think that our species capacity to survive for a hundred thousand years without Christianity demonstrates that point well.

    So, morality, according to the little fascist means what he wants it to mean if and when he has any need for it. The rest of the time he is amoral and is guided by what feels good and what is convenient for avoiding pain. Ethics are relative for the little fascist. He has no guide if he can’t relate to the situation. After all, how can you form a useful excuse if you don’t know what the circumstances are?

    What’s funny is how in flux your supposedly authoritative guide has turned out to be! There’s lots of incredibly evil stuff in the Bible, and it’s frequently being visited upon people by the Big Man himself. If slavery was okay back then, why isn’t it okay now? How come God gets to commit genocide and he’s a good guy, but Hitler commits genocide and he’s a bad guy?

    Boy, I’d hate to have a moral code where I had to square those circles.

    Thanks for your paranoid reaction, little fascist. Your string is so easy to pull it is almost a game to wind you up just to watch you flail around and then fall flat on your face.

    Full of yourself much?

    What next, you’ll tell me how afraid I am of Sarah Palin?

    Your comments are always heavy on pride and arrogance. Have you any measure of humility in you? Or, is humility a sign of weakness in your world view?

    Based on absolutely no evidence, you claim to be able to communicate with the creator of the universe, you claim to know how he wants us to behave, you claim to know that he created us and why, and you claim to know that after we die, we go to be with him forever. People like you think that this big, expansive universe was created specifically for us, and you think this earns for you the mantle of humility? You really want to go around accusing people of being proud when that’s how you perceive your existence? FART SOUND.

    As a hedonistic utilitarian, the little fascist is tied up in believing that the ends justify the means. He weigh things in terms of consequences. If an act results in a “good” consequence, he still has to determine whether he will be the primary beneficiary of that consequence and he also has to determine how the consequence will be judged and who will do the judging.

    So, the little fascist is basically amoral, so long as the outcomes of morality either leave him alone or compliment his ideology. There is no right and wrong for the little fascist as much as being in the right if he is ever questioned. In this sense, the little fascist measures things in terms of where he is in terms of his sense of “equality” and “justice.”

    As a moral relativist, the little fascist “knows” there are no absolute or universal moral standards, because that is a tacit admission of a higher power. So he relies on “cultural” relativism which means that when the culture shifts, morality shifts with it. Therefore, the state is perfectly capable of creating morality by law, polling, social engineering, community organizing, punishment, reorganization, extermination, etc. [See: Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Castro, Chavez, and cheaper knock-offs and wannabes.]

    Same old crap.

    Comment by Levi — December 20, 2012 @ 7:55 pm - December 20, 2012

  120. NDT,

    Agreed. Reluctantly, I have come to realization that I know no honest Progressive. An honest person will engage in critical thinking and recognize demagoguery for what it is and avoid association with it.

    I also have developed a fairly negative attitude toward people who favor stroking a check in deference to extending a hand. Most of these people do not actually contribute a single penny voluntarily. They favor the government forcing other people to pay through taxes. Get it? They walk by the Salvation Army kettle in deference to voting for demagogues who sell snake oil about ending poverty and forcing other people to pay their “fair share.”

    Being a Progressive is the most judgmental and dishonest role you can take in a society. They are a mob of jackals all pumped up on “feelings.”

    I will gladly engage any Progressive who disagrees.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 20, 2012 @ 8:01 pm - December 20, 2012

  121. You don’t really need any of that crap to be a good human being, and I would think that our species capacity to survive for a hundred thousand years without Christianity demonstrates that point well.

    “That crap” would be morality and ethics.

    There you have it. We have “evolved behaviors that helped us live together in communities.” We are no more and no less than the sum of our evolutionary parts. Dear me, the little fascist is as primitive a eugenics fanatic as they come. What a very, very perfect little Nazi he would have been.

    By his words shall you know him.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 20, 2012 @ 9:36 pm - December 20, 2012

  122. Exactly, Heliotrope.

    And as always, Levi is useful.

    He shows how “progressives” like rusty who pretend to try to live by the moral tenets outlined in the Bible are lying.

    He shows how “progressives” like Alan who claim to be open-minded are lying.

    He shows the true nature of “progressives” — condescending, hateful, fact-free, and fanatically bent on destroying religious belief.

    Levi by opening his mouth completely discredits and destroys his fellow Obama supporters and “progressives”. You notice how they’ve all slunk away, unwilling to actually apply the pious pronouncements they’ve made, seemingly unable to apply the standards they demand of conservatives to be “moral” to one of their own.

    And they also expose your point. It is not a good place to be to have to recognize that there are no honest “progressives”. The core of Christianity, after all, is the denial of man’s perfectibility coupled with faith in man’s essential decency, and it is spiritually and morally painful to recognize that there are people like “progressives” who wholeheartedly repudiate that decency as weakness. But as with accepting age, one must accept the presence of evil when one finds it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2012 @ 10:46 pm - December 20, 2012

  123. Meanwhile, don’t forget how “progressive” gay-sex marriage supporters like Levi are threatening to kill Republicans.

    Not that this is surprising; they’re just following orders.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2012 @ 10:56 pm - December 20, 2012

  124. @120 –
    I disagree. There are good progressives and bad progressives just as there are good conservatives and bad conservatives. I regularly donate to charity (voluntarily) and I’m spending this upcoming Christmas evening serving food to underprivileged folks at a food bank. The program is being run by my friend’s church. This particular church has my respect because it’s very active in the community in terms of doing good works (cleaning up schools, feeding the poor, etc). [personal note: I do not identify as Christian, and to be honest find the majority of the tenets of the Christian faith to be untenable. That said, I know that it provides a strong foundation of support and community and guidance for a lot of people. I respect people that have embraced it as a way to better their own lives and the lives of those around them]

    I have developed a fairly negative attitude towards people who neither extend a hand nor write a check. And I know plenty of progressives *and* conservatives that fall in that bucket.

    Comment by Alan — December 20, 2012 @ 11:00 pm - December 20, 2012

  125. @ NDT -
    Christianity alone does not have an exclusive lock on morality. There are many faiths and religions and belief systems that try to enforce a moral system. Some form of “Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you” is found in just about every major belief system.

    You claim that I am not open-minded. Yet you seem to imply that anyone who is not a Christian is (by definition?) amoral. That strikes me as far more closed-minded.

    Comment by Alan — December 20, 2012 @ 11:05 pm - December 20, 2012

  126. And I should add that Levi could definitely be more respectful in the way he talks about Christianity. Denigrating one belief systems makes it unlikely that those believers will respect your belief system in return. It’s OK with disagree with something while not bashing it.

    Comment by Alan — December 20, 2012 @ 11:24 pm - December 20, 2012

  127. Being an atheist is ok. Being an atheist and shaming religion and spirituality as silly is not ok.

    Being chrsitian is ok. Being homophobic, racist, or an otherwise hateful person in the name of Christianity is not ok.

    Being a reindeer is ok. Bullying and excluding another reindeer because he has a shiny red nose is not ok.

    Comment by rusty — December 20, 2012 @ 11:30 pm - December 20, 2012

  128. @rusty – very well said!!

    Comment by Alan — December 20, 2012 @ 11:32 pm - December 20, 2012

  129. You claim that I am not open-minded. Yet you seem to imply that anyone who is not a Christian is (by definition?) amoral. That strikes me as far more closed-minded.

    Comment by Alan — December 20, 2012 @ 11:05 pm – December 20, 2012

    And, Alan, you favor us with a demonstration of my points one and two above.

    1) You accuse me of being close-minded while simultaneously hewing to a belief system, “progressivism”, that states that, unless you do as I say, you want to murder children, kill gays, etc.

    2) You try to push me to be more “open-minded”, which you see as weak and easily exploited, when you and your fellow “progressives”, as Levi has demonstrated, are not open-minded at all, and in fact take great pride in their absolute and inexorable form of opposition to all spiritual beliefs.

    Again, “progressives” are nothing more than manipulative abusers. The key to cracking the code and successfully resisting such manipulation and abuse is simply letting go of the concept that “progressives” have any type of objective truth or morality at all and in fact accepting that their only goal and purpose is self-aggrandizement.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2012 @ 11:33 pm - December 20, 2012

  130. Oops. Christian

    Comment by rusty — December 20, 2012 @ 11:33 pm - December 20, 2012

  131. Being chrsitian is ok. Being homophobic, racist, or an otherwise hateful person in the name of Christianity is not ok.

    Comment by rusty — December 20, 2012 @ 11:30 pm – December 20, 2012

    All of which, of course, are subject to definition by the “progressive” making the value judgment.

    Who under no circumstances would accept the Christian making any type of criticism and in fact would state that their judging the “progressive’s” behavior would be “egocentric, self-centered, and delusional”.

    Again, points one and two: one, “progressives”, since they accuse others of being judgmental and bigoted, are themselves judgmental and bigoted; two, “progressives” see objective moral standards as weak and constraining, and thus do their best to tie others up in them while casually ignoring them themselves.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2012 @ 11:37 pm - December 20, 2012

  132. TOUCHING TRIBUTE

    http://youtu.be/rhg3t16rdT0

    Comment by rusty — December 20, 2012 @ 11:53 pm - December 20, 2012

  133. NDT –
    As I said, you *seem* to imply that anyone who is not a Christian is (by definition) amoral. Now whether or not that’s an accurate representation of what you actually believe, I do not know. I specifically left it open like that to give you the space to either acknowledge that it’s a correct interpretation, or to correct me by explaining your position better.

    I stand by my position that, to me, the notion that non-Christians are automatically amoral is closed-minded. I suspect that you do not truly believe that. But that’s what your words seem to imply. Whether or not anyone else interprets them that way is totally up to them.

    I assure you that I do not see you as weak or easily exploited, nor do I suspect anything I will ever say on here will change that.

    I also assure you that I am very open to just about all spiritual beliefs. I also recognize that many beliefs have their own “truth” and morality. And that many of them rank their values in different hierarchies than others (even different denominations of Christianity focus on different aspects of the gospel). I have (or at least I think I have) a rather nuanced view of religion and spirituality, but there’s absolutely no way we could have an actual discussion of religion/morality/spirituality or my views on here because I suspect anything I say will be used against me to prove that I think that you want to murder children or gays or that I want to manipulate and abuse you. Which is a shame, because I don’t think those thing about you……

    Comment by Alan — December 21, 2012 @ 12:00 am - December 21, 2012

  134. As I said, you *seem* to imply that anyone who is not a Christian is (by definition) amoral. Now whether or not that’s an accurate representation of what you actually believe, I do not know.

    Comment by Alan — December 21, 2012 @ 12:00 am – December 21, 2012

    Mhm. Just like Romney “seemed” to be a tax cheat, which no one really knew was true or not, but if he just did what “progressives” wanted him to do…

    That’s another aspect of the “progressive” game. Once denounced by the “progressive”, you are guilty until proven innocent, as we see here:

    I specifically left it open like that to give you the space to either acknowledge that it’s a correct interpretation, or to correct me by explaining your position better.

    Or here’s a novel thought; produce evidence to back up a claim prior to making it.

    As is the typical pattern followed by researchers, scientists, logicians, and other folks arguing in a rational fashion.

    Followed by, of course, the pre-emptive manipulation strike.

    I have (or at least I think I have) a rather nuanced view of religion and spirituality, but there’s absolutely no way we could have an actual discussion of religion/morality/spirituality or my views on here because I suspect anything I say will be used against me to prove that I think that you want to murder children or gays or that I want to manipulate and abuse you.

    Comment by Alan — December 21, 2012 @ 12:00 am – December 21, 2012

    Or, put differently, “Everything is YOUR fault and you need to change YOUR behavior.”

    I have to give “progressives” some credit. They know that conservatives are, at the core, decent people who want to do right by others — and they shamelessly exploit that to get conservatives to give them what they want.

    Again, the secret to breaking the cycle of abuse, which is what “progresssivism” is, is the realization that really, you mean nothing to the abuser other than an object of their domination. You have no value to them other than in your giving them pleasure.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 21, 2012 @ 12:26 am - December 21, 2012

  135. NDT –
    And I have to give you some credit. You prove my point that we can’t have a discussion without you resorting to accusing me of manipulating and abusing you. Speaking of abuse, these are all from you on this thread alone:

    One must always remember that liberals equate “love” with enablement and “hate” with inconvenience
    Liberals care nothing for life or people; they seek only power and control over peoples’ lives
    everything you do is meant to manipulate, control, and exploit others
    “Progressives” don’t believe in private industry and believe that it should all be nationalized.
    “Progressives” are fascists who are addicted to government power
    “progressives” don’t want private business
    want religion excluded from society, mocked in the public square, shamed, and destroyed,
    The only thing you respect is violence and thuggery.
    No Obama supporter is a decent person
    No “progressive” in existence wants anything other than power, and they do not care how it is gotten.
    their behavior is shaped only by their lust for power.
    take great pride in their absolute and inexorable form of opposition to all spiritual beliefs.
    “progressives” are nothing more than manipulative abusers

    I would ask you to reflect on your own behavior and tone to see if it strikes you as appropriate, but then I suspect you would accuse me of again manipulating you and abusing you yet again. You do seem utterly convinced that I’m here solely to abuse and manipulate you. I’m tired of trying to convince you otherwise, as it seems there is little I can say that will change your mind about that. Which is a shame.

    I do very much enjoy reading comments and discussing issues with people on here (ILC and heliotrope among others). But the level of discourse can be easily corroded when it turns into these flame wars. To prevent the comment threads from veering off topic and deteriorating into these flame wars, I’m quite happy to leave you be and, if you’d like, do my best to not respond to your posts. I suspect that you’ll accuse me of running away scared and that you’ve “won” with your “bring a cluster bomb to a knife fight” tactics (as I’ve seen you do to others in other threads), but I’m OK with that.

    I’ll close this out by referencing one of your quotes above – No Obama supporter is a decent person. If you truly believe that roughly 50% of Americans are not decent people, then indeed there is little hope to ever find any common ground to work on resolving our most pressing issues as a country and as people. It’s also, in my opinion, a decidedly non-Christian view.

    Have a good evening.

    Comment by Alan — December 21, 2012 @ 1:32 am - December 21, 2012

  136. I’ve actually done this many times now. Our morality is derived from our physiology, our genetics, and the fundamental social organization of our species that’s developed over millions of years.

    Then This
    <a href=The sheer number of casualties proves not only that the Bush administration was incompetent, but that the idea that you can force democracy on a people as alien to the concept as Arabians was utterly ridiculous.

    So again, we have Levi displaying his racist colours. “Arabians” are genetically incapable of understanding Western Civilization. According to Levi.

    Alan, again, I ask how you can argue this child, who Gobbels himself would cherish as his own, is worth anything but contempt?

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 21, 2012 @ 8:12 am - December 21, 2012

  137. Dangit, bungled the HTML.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 21, 2012 @ 8:12 am - December 21, 2012

  138. I would ask you to reflect on your own behavior and tone to see if it strikes you as appropriate, but then I suspect you would accuse me of again manipulating you and abusing you yet again.

    Yup.

    And it’s easy to show how.

    First example:

    It’s also, in my opinion, a decidedly non-Christian view.

    Comment by Alan — December 21, 2012 @ 1:32 am – December 21, 2012

    However, you said previously:

    [personal note: I do not identify as Christian, and to be honest find the majority of the tenets of the Christian faith to be untenable.

    Comment by Alan — December 20, 2012 @ 11:00 pm - December 20, 2012

    And yet, here you are demanding that, unless someone does what you want, they are a “bad Christian”.

    As far as your ability to define “Christian”, I personally find it amusing that your criteria – “very active in the community in terms of doing good works (cleaning up schools, feeding the poor, etc)” – was in fact also used by very prominent “progressive” politicians, including the sainted Harvey Milk, to explain their support of a particular church.

    That was the Peoples’ Temple.

    So let’s see, Alan; you’re calling me a bad Christian, when you yourself explicitly reject Christianity as “untenable” and support and endorse as “Christian” organizations that are emphatically not.

    Not to mention politicians like Barack Obama, whose openly stating without a shred of evidence that their political opponents like Mitt Romney are rapists, murderers, and tax cheats never seems to bring cries of “un-Christian” down on their heads.

    This is typical liberal magic-words twaddle. Screaming “racist”, “homophobe”, “misogynist”, “bigot”, “non-Christian” and the like simply means that you are doing something with which a “progressive” disagrees. Once you realize that Alan indeed has no problem with any of these things when the appropriate “progressive” does them, i.e. Barack Obama, you recognize that his only point is to manipulate you.

    And now, second example:

    But the level of discourse can be easily corroded when it turns into these flame wars.

    Unless, of course, such “flame wars” are directed at Republicans, conservatives, and the religious, in which case they are praised as offering some “interesting perspectives” and “worthwhile contributions to the discussion”.

    And that leads us into this.

    I’ll close this out by referencing one of your quotes above – No Obama supporter is a decent person. If you truly believe that roughly 50% of Americans are not decent people, then indeed there is little hope to ever find any common ground to work on resolving our most pressing issues as a country and as people.

    Meanwhile, Joe Biden screams that all Republicans want to reinstate slavery, Nancy Pelosi screams that all Republicans want women to die on the floor, Alan Grayson screams that all Republicans want people to “die quickly”, Maxine Waters screams that all Republicans are “demons”, DNC delegates and leaders scream that Republicans are Nazis, etc. etc. etc.

    Dr. Helen phrased it beautifully in her column yesterday.

    I wonder how much the media and the liberal hatred of Republicans plays into the current Republican angst. It’s almost as if Republicans are the new Jews of yesteryear where any vile dirty thing can be said about them with little blowback and less truth. The media blames Republicans for every ill that comes down the pike. A storm in the Northeast? Damn Republicans caused it. You aren’t making the money you once did? A Republican did that to you. A violent young man kills 27? That Republican sitting next to you is somehow to blame. That’s what the media wants people to believe and because people are eager for a scapegoat, many listen without critical thought.

    I am always surprised at those people who consider themselves intelligent, well-meaning “empathetic” types who think nothing of tossing out some nasty crack about Republicans –whether at the holiday table, in the classroom or in line at the supermarket. It puts people on the opposite side of the political fence on the defense and makes for an antagonistic atmosphere, one that is growing more hostile by the day. I used to think that people should try to be “tolerant” and not get too upset by the jabs. I was wrong.

    Here is my advice: rather than just take it and fill out a poll saying you are demoralized, fight back. Even if you feel uncomfortable, even if you might wreck the holiday party, and even if it means you might be open to hostility like you have never seen before, speak up. Or, if you don’t want to talk politics, just say so and say that this type of talk makes you feel uncomfortable. If you are with friends or family and they don’t understand this, how important can they be in your life? If your well-being is that unimportant to them, why bother? Perhaps next year, you need to spend the holidays in Barbados if you can or at least in the company of those who don’t see your politics as evil.

    So no, Alan, you and your fellow Obama supporters AREN’T decent people. You have sided with and endorse and support outright indecent people — and your only response is to attack and blame conservatives and demand they change their behavior so Pelosi, Obama, Reid, and your liberal friends won’t call them Nazis.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 21, 2012 @ 11:01 am - December 21, 2012

  139. “That crap” would be morality and ethics.

    Learn to read. I was referring to your holy text, which need I remind you contains lots of contradictory and absurd statements about morality. I was saying that you don’t need to read a bunch of ancient, superstitious scribbling to understand morality or ethics.

    There you have it. We have “evolved behaviors that helped us live together in communities.” We are no more and no less than the sum of our evolutionary parts. Dear me, the little fascist is as primitive a eugenics fanatic as they come. What a very, very perfect little Nazi he would have been.

    By his words shall you know him.

    There is a wide range of scientific evidence that supports my argument, and absolutely none that supports yours. I think it’s important getting this question right. Humanity has made a lot of progress as we’ve figured out the actual truth explaining natural phenomena, and that’s particularly true when we’re finding out things about ourselves. The world is divided into different kinds of people with extremely dissimilar social characteristics, and I think a greater appreciation of how we came to be this way can help us shed light on contemporary morality issues. That means studying the history of technology, economics, politics, and yes, religion, too, but it doesn’t end there. We can look back further to our species’ origins and the system of natural selection that brought us here. If we want to understand who we are (and what morality is) today, then it can only help to understand who we were.

    You may even agree that the above is true, but where you go wrong is insisting that this old dusty book you like so much is some kind of key that deciphers the mysteries of the universe. When you do this, you’re not pursuing knowledge, you’re just restating your preference for what you’d like the truth to turn out to be. That doesn’t put you in much of a position to make blanket statements about the objective moral truth that’s permanently woven into the universe by god. Especially when we’re talking about a god who got so much wrong!

    What’s important is finding out what’s true, because you can build upon things that are true. Religion has never been able to offer that, but they could at least pretend to before the modern, more scientific era. No longer, so you just accuse all dissonant messengers of being Nazi wannabes! That’s certainly my only interest in debating this with you, right?

    Comment by Levi — December 21, 2012 @ 11:24 am - December 21, 2012

  140. NDT -
    Wow. You just labeled the Christian Church I occasionally attend as not emphatically not Christian solely on the fact that they are actively involved in the community. That’s quite bold. And yes, I do find the theological tenets of Christianity untenable while still firming believing that it’s a belief system and structure that can be incredibly good in many people’s lives. I also think it can be incredibly destructive. Just like any other religion. Depends on how people use it.

    I’m done arguing with you. I sincerely wish you a very merry Christmas and much happiness in the coming year.

    Comment by Alan — December 21, 2012 @ 11:28 am - December 21, 2012

  141. Ah the littel fascist continues to natter on that science backs his racism.

    Dr. Mengela would be proud.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 21, 2012 @ 11:46 am - December 21, 2012

  142. Wow. You just labeled the Christian Church I occasionally attend as not emphatically not Christian solely on the fact that they are actively involved in the community. That’s quite bold.

    Comment by Alan — December 21, 2012 @ 11:28 am – December 21, 2012

    Actually, Alan, this is what I said:

    As far as your ability to define “Christian”, I personally find it amusing that your criteria – “very active in the community in terms of doing good works (cleaning up schools, feeding the poor, etc)” – was in fact also used by very prominent “progressive” politicians, including the sainted Harvey Milk, to explain their support of a particular church.

    That was the Peoples’ Temple.

    So let’s see, Alan; you’re calling me a bad Christian, when you yourself explicitly reject Christianity as “untenable” and support and endorse as “Christian” organizations that are emphatically not.

    Your attempt to take umbrage is a deliberate misreading on your part that is based solely on the fact that, by your definition of “Christian”, the Peoples’ Temple qualified as such, and your unwillingness to back out and acknowledge that maybe there’s something more to Christianity than that.

    I’m done arguing with you.

    Comment by Alan — December 21, 2012 @ 11:28 am – December 21, 2012

    No, you’re not. And at any rate, I’m not done arguing with you.

    You’re just cornered and unable to deal with why you endorse and support what is patently undecent behavior – Levi’s antireligious bigotry and flame-war posts, Joe Biden screams that all Republicans want to reinstate slavery, Nancy Pelosi screams that all Republicans want women to die on the floor, Alan Grayson screams that all Republicans want people to “die quickly”, Maxine Waters screams that all Republicans are “demons”, DNC delegates and leaders scream that Republicans are Nazis, etc. etc. etc., so you’re running away.

    The answer is clear, Alan. You’re not a decent person. You openly endorse and support people who rail that your alleged partner is a traitor, Nazi, quisling, demon, murderer, rapist, and tax cheat who wants women to die on the floor and wants to put all black people in chains — all while you rant on and on and on about how mean and awful “conservatives” are.

    You can run away and snivel, but your true colors are out. You’re NOT honest. You ARE indecent. You’re a lying, pathetic hypocrite who whines and complains about “flame wars” and “diversity” and “tolerance” and “getting along” while you endorse and support people like Levi, Pelosi, Obama, Reid, Biden, Grayson, Waters, the DNC, and others who outright demonize Republicans and conservatives.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 21, 2012 @ 11:58 am - December 21, 2012

  143. And once again we have it; Levi makes liars of rusty, Alan, and Cinesnatch by making it clear that he true “progressive” position that religious belief is worthless and harmful to society.

    “Progressives” are all dishonest liars. Truly.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 21, 2012 @ 12:05 pm - December 21, 2012

  144. NDT –
    I read the following

    support and endorse as “Christian” organizations that are emphatically not.

    as implying that the Christian church I attend is in fact not Christian. My apologies if that’s not what you meant. The other stuff about the People’s Church is irrelevant.

    You seem to be under the impression that one side is all sunshine, puppies, rainbows, and goodness, while the other is just pure hatred, lying scumbags. That liberals alone have a stranglehold on indecent behavior. That no conservative has ever said one single bad thing about a liberal or misrepresented their views, or said hateful things. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of terrible behavior out there by people of all stripes. And yes, I can simultaneously think that that ad about the man’s wife was an incredibly shitty, misleading ad, while still supporting Obama because I think his policies are better for the country. I can support some of the goals of the occupy movement while simultaneously thinking that some of their behavior was utterly reprehensible. I can support the policy of trying to help the poor, while thinking that spending $150,000 to help one person is not a wise way to implement that help. It’s not my job to repudiate everything that was ever said or done by anyone who shares a similar political view to me, just as it it not yours to do the same with all people that share your political views. I’ve already stated that I think Levi could handle his tone and behavior better.

    I’m interested in hearing and understanding conservatives viewpoints better. In the wake of the school shooting, I thought it be interesting to see what people with other viewpoints are saying. One poster (I think Heliotrope) in particular has been very helpful in explaining his views on gun control in a way that I can understand and relate to. You can’t really have a conversation if it constantly turns into “A politician that you clearly fully support in every single way once said something that was bad, therefore you’re a terrible, horrible, indecent person and have no place here at all”.

    Comment by Alan — December 21, 2012 @ 12:27 pm - December 21, 2012

  145. @143 -
    And yet, I JUST stated that “it’s a belief system and structure that can be incredibly good in many people’s lives”.

    Comment by Alan — December 21, 2012 @ 12:29 pm - December 21, 2012

  146. Alan,

    We Christians are attacked for “tolerating” James Dobson, John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, etc.

    The politically correct Progressives have taken ownership of “tolerance” and they also determine what must not be “tolerated” by shunning, silencing and even by destruction. Sandra Fluke dare not be criticized, but no holds are barred when seeking to destroy Sarah Palin or Uncle Tom blacks like Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain and now Tim Scott.

    The Progressive “religion” has at its core, the St. Saul Alinsky tenet that your goal is use ridicule, threat, deception and to pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it and cause confusion, fear and retreat among your opponents. You can not win by playing defense, so make the offense as offensive as possible.

    The purpose of constantly attacking the opponent is to paint him as mean-spirited, un-American, greedy and egocentric.

    In the early 1930′s the cultured world was treated to Säuberung which was the cleansing by fire of written works which were “un-German” in spirit. This massive book burning was the work of university students who were acting against the old order and in the name of the state and the utopia it would create. This state socialism was called Naziism and it embodied all of the characteristics of fascism.

    Super states must always destroy religion because there must be nothing above the state or beyond the state. Good little fascists feel this viscerally.

    So, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s story illustrates, religious morality must never conflict with the morality of the moment as it is dictated by the state and the “tolerance” or “intolerance” fad that is useful for the moment in painting your enemy as scum.

    Conservatives value good government that operates efficiently. Conservatives do not want unsafe food, water, medicines, roads, bridges, airplanes, cars, toys, clothing, housing, drilling, transporting, mining, pumping, and on and on.

    Conservatives want safe neighborhoods, a system for dealing with criminals, protection from fraud, safety from gangs and hoodlums and invaders.

    There is much that Progressives and conservatives share in their core values.

    But, Progressives are for a large central state imposing a broad spectrum of concepts that are emotionally appealing, but not particularly well thought out in terms of measuring success and progress and having an end goal. Therefore, the war on poverty goes into its sixth decade with trillions spent and more poverty and unemployment now than since the war was begun. Public education continues in a downward spiral. Now we are going to turn healthcare over to the same crowd of statists who are true believers that a politburo can solve all problems.

    I will take the list you called NDT out on and apply it differently. Progressives have a choice. Universities should be able to survive intellectually and culturally with conservative teachers, students and administrators alike. They do not, per se, have to be staffed to the hilt with Progressives who promote an “academic” agenda and party line.

    The news media can report the double sourced facts without colorful language or innuendo or slippery terms or by omitting conflicting information. The process of determining what to report is a form of censorship. When issues that undermine a political agenda arise, they are as news worthy in an objective sense as reporting those issues that support the political agenda.

    To scream that one party is starving grandma or going to cut her social security is to demagogue. If it is a fact. State it. Otherwise, raising the specter of crisis and tragedy is mean-spirited and evil. It is hostage taking, it is inciting, it is throwing a brick into the crowd, it is manipulative and it is exploitation.

    Our legal system and our social codes are inextricably intertwined with the Judeo-Christian ethic as it has developed between the religious world and the secualr world over 2000 years. To deny that and then to try to fight it is both ignorant and without purpose. Yet, Progressives have made their place by doing everything within their power to try to force gay marriage through the courts and by by-passing the heavy lifting of convincing the people of its efficacy and place in society.

    Which leads to why Progressives want power and how they yield it. Since the end justifies the means to Progressives, how you obtain power is not nearly so important as getting it and keeping it. Progressives are utilitarians who want the state to maximize the good and minimize the pain and suffering. Surely, those are noble enough goals, but it is not mathematically possible to maximize for two (or more) variables at the same time. You can have the greatest good or you can have the greatest number, but you can not have the greatest good for the greatest number except by assessing it for one nano-second at a distinct point in time.

    We can not have a nation of laws when we more and more depend upon a nation of men who snoop about and hector and fine people for committing “wrongs” that are perceived and adjudicated and settled by the inspectors.

    That is the very problem with the concept of “hate” laws. What reliable hate-o-meter does the state use to measure the intensity of the hate?

    All of this is to say, the Progressives do not have a Constitution style agenda in which laws inform and the people obey. The Progessive agenda is to force opinions and processes on people through the courts and the threat of fines and imprisonment. That is how all dictatorships work. The state overcomes “we the people” and the state hold the sovereign power which it dispenses at its will and on its terms to various people of whom it approves.

    You are a Progressive. Which part of the above bothers your sensibilities? For instance, did that Black Panther standing outside the Pennsylvania polling place bother you as much as if he had been dressed in KKK garb?

    How come union thugs get to paint up state capitol buildings and tear down tents and issue threats and it is just a form of protest, but people supporting right to work laws are provoking and inciting to riot?

    Until Progressives clearly take responsibility for the how, who, what, where, why and when of their assaults on common decency, anyone who joins with them is one of them.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 21, 2012 @ 2:22 pm - December 21, 2012

  147. You can’t really have a conversation if it constantly turns into “A politician that you clearly fully support in every single way once said something that was bad, therefore you’re a terrible, horrible, indecent person and have no place here at all”.

    True. It’s more of a warzone approach. Again, I say that without blaming NDT. His approach is what it is; he’s fighting a war. I can relate to that, even if the two of us aren’t always fighting the same war at the same time. You can have a warzone approach or conversational one; either may be valid, depending on your goal.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 21, 2012 @ 2:31 pm - December 21, 2012

  148. Merry Christmas and goodbye.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 21, 2012 @ 2:51 pm - December 21, 2012

  149. Heliotrope -
    Thank you for the thoughts. There is much in there I agree with.

    Conservatives value good government that operates efficiently. Conservatives do not want unsafe food, water, medicines, roads, bridges, airplanes, cars, toys, clothing, housing, drilling, transporting, mining, pumping, and on and on.

    Conservatives want safe neighborhoods, a system for dealing with criminals, protection from fraud, safety from gangs and hoodlums and invaders.

    There is much that Progressives and conservatives share in their core values.

    I absolutely agree with this. As I said earlier, how we solve those problems differs based on our hierarchy of values (retribution over restitution, etc), but I do think we share more core values than most people think.

    Yet, Progressives have made their place by doing everything within their power to try to force gay marriage through the courts and by by-passing the heavy lifting of convincing the people of its efficacy and place in society.

    Agreed. That’s why the recent passage of marriage rights in three states in this election was so powerful. I understand the desire to push things through the court from the progressive point of view (protection of the minority from the majority, etc), but I do agree that we should (and can) win the hearts and minds of the general population. And the fact is, we are. I’m convinced that gay marriage will be a reality sooner than we think and it will come from the people.

    That is the very problem with the concept of “hate” laws. What reliable hate-o-meter does the state use to measure the intensity of the hate?

    I admit to being really, really torn on this. I see both sides of the issue, but there’s definitely a slippery slope about where it ends. That would be an interesting discussion to have.

    To scream that one party is starving grandma or going to cut her social security is to demagogue. If it is a fact. State it.

    It’s definitely easy to demagogue, and unfortunately it happens far more than is necessary. And it happens on both sides. I find the whole concept of death panels and the concern that government is making medical decisions for doctors to be demagoguery, especially when people making those claims support forcing doctors to perform certain operations (such as trans-vaginal ultrasounds) that support their own ideology rather than what is medically necessary and sound.

    I also agree that the media sucks, but probably for different reason. I find them incredibly lazy, constantly looking for the next big scoop, playing to emotions, and unwilling to do the hard work of putting events and information in context.

    You can not win by playing defense, so make the offense as offensive as possible. The purpose of constantly attacking the opponent is to paint him as mean-spirited, un-American, greedy and egocentric.

    I hate to point out the obvious, but that seems to be exactly what NDT does.

    I wish I had more time for additional comments, but I really am slammed at work and trying to wrap up everything before vacation next week. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. I hope you have a wonderful Christmas and New Years.

    Comment by Alan — December 21, 2012 @ 2:57 pm - December 21, 2012

  150. @147 -
    I wholeheartedly agree

    You can have a warzone approach or conversational one; either may be valid, depending on your goal.

    There is a place and time for both. I’m just not a fan of turning every conversational one into a warzone one. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you!

    Comment by Alan — December 21, 2012 @ 2:59 pm - December 21, 2012

  151. Super states must always destroy religion because there must be nothing above the state or beyond the state. Good little fascists feel this viscerally.

    So, in your view, religion is (or should be) above the state?

    You should know that for most of human history, religion and the state have been essentially intertwined. It’s only in the past few centuries that these institutions have diverged, and it happens to coincidence with great bursts of progress, but that’s beside the point.

    The real point is that if no religion is true (and there’s no evidence that even remotely suggests that any of them are), then every religion is just a group of regular human beings with no special insights. Why should that be preferable or superior to a state that’s based on a Constitution of laws? You can place all kinds of limits on the state – you can have elections and term limits and transparency requirements. A religious hierarchy can just say whatever they want and never be held accountable for it. Our humble little Constitution isn’t perfect, but it’s far more consistent than the laws in the Bible, which periodically has to be reinterpreted in secret by an unrepresentative group of sexless old men. Why should anyone want this lumbering, decaying relic from ancient times placed in the hierarchy above a modern government of the people, by the people, and for the people?

    Comment by Levi — December 21, 2012 @ 3:05 pm - December 21, 2012

  152. You should know that for most of human history, religion and the state have been essentially intertwined. It’s only in the past few centuries that these institutions have diverged, and it happens to coincidence with great bursts of progress, but that’s beside the point.

    The Renaissance, Great Awakening, Abolitionist, Sufferage movements disagree with you. Of course so do the people Castro, Hitler, Che, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and others have killed, but hey, when has actual history and facts ever gotten in the way of Levi’s lies?

    We all know the little fascist won’t reply to this bit of truth either.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 21, 2012 @ 3:37 pm - December 21, 2012

  153. And yes, I can simultaneously think that that ad about the man’s wife was an incredibly shitty, misleading ad, while still supporting Obama because I think his policies are better for the country. I can support some of the goals of the occupy movement while simultaneously thinking that some of their behavior was utterly reprehensible.

    Comment by Alan — December 21, 2012 @ 12:27 pm – December 21, 2012

    Of course.

    Because, as always happens in the “Progressive” worldview, the end justifies the means.

    So Levi’s antireligious bigotry and flame-war posts, Barack Obama screams that Mitt Romney was a tax cheat, rapist, and murderer, Joe Biden screams that all Republicans want to reinstate slavery, Nancy Pelosi screams that all Republicans want women to die on the floor, Alan Grayson screams that all Republicans want people to “die quickly”, Maxine Waters screams that all Republicans are “demons”, DNC delegates and leaders scream that Republicans are Nazis, etc. etc. etc., — none of these things matter to you because you agree with all of these peoples’ “policies”.

    So put directly, you don’t care that Barack Obama and the Obama Party call your alleged partner a traitor, Nazi, quisling, demon, murderer, rapist, and tax cheat who wants women to die on the floor and wants to put all black people in chains – because you support their policies and you want them to take power by any means necessary, even demonizing Republicans.

    To put it bluntly, you think Barack Obama’s policies of lying about and demonizing his political opponents by calling them rapists, murderers, and tax cheats without a shred of evidence is “better for the country”.

    And this was REALLY hilarious, in a pathetic sort of way.

    I’ve already stated that I think Levi could handle his tone and behavior better.

    AFter all this ranting about how “awful” supposed flame-war posts were, how they destroy “dialogue”, etc., that’s it? That’s all you can say?

    Again: the ends justify the means. Levi pushes “progressive” policies, so you don’t care how much he bullies, brutalizes, and blasphemes people.

    You truly have no sense of right and wrong, Alan. And since you support and endorse as “better for the country” Barack Obama’s policies of lying about and demonizing their political opponents, you are exposed as nothing more than the biggest of hypocrites when you complain about other peoples’ “tone”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 21, 2012 @ 4:50 pm - December 21, 2012

  154. NDT -
    I hope you have a wonderful Christmas!

    Comment by Alan — December 21, 2012 @ 4:59 pm - December 21, 2012

  155. So, in your view, religion is (or should be) above the state?

    Religion deals with the soul which is the immaterial aspect or essence of a human being; that which confers individuality and humanity. [Encyclopedia Britannica]

    Much of what differentiates religions concerns the life and afterlife of the soul and dual or multiple souls. Religion tends to one’s spiritual self by helping to understand and guide the soul.

    Government deals with bodies. People need to be regulated and organized and administered in order to keep the infrastructure efficient and useful to people as communities. Government must also provide security and that means it raises and maintains a military and arrests and incarcerates criminals.

    However, the Progressives turn the soul and nurturing the soul over to the government.

    Let’s drop in on Howard Dean, shall we?:

    He [Obama] laid out a proposition that is we shouldn’t have redistribution. [....] that’s what governments do—is redistribute. The argument is not whether they should redistribute or not, the question is how much we should redistribute…. The purpose of government is to make sure that capitalism works for everybody …. It’s government’s job to redistribute.

    The little fascist is emblematic of this salmagundi of new age philosophy which includes pragmatism, utilitarianism and consequentialism.

    Pragmatists argue over whether beliefs represent reality and one side sees beliefs as predispositions which may or may not be true depending on whether the predisposition is helpful in accomplishing the believer’s goals. [Don't worry, only pragmatists care what that means and why it is or isn't important.]

    In other terms, the pragmatists, as a rule, do not hold that any belief should be accepted as “true.” What is “true” is what results in the greatest “good” over the longest period of time. This is the crux of pragmatism and, therefore “hope and change” is necessary for overturning the status quo (which is never good enough for the Progressive) and may result in the chance that the “hope and change” produces something better.

    For the pragmatist and the Progressive, everything is experimental and in flux in the endless search for perfection.

    Which takes us back to Howard Dean. Too many people have been seduced by the Progressives into believing that “social justice” through “social engineering” is at the core of government.

    We started down this road with Social Security which was at its inception a very modest program of making sure the elderly had a few dimes insulating them from being flat broke. Over time, it morphed into a great national lie that it was a retirement fund. The national lie was encouraged by politicians who profited politically by telling it over and over knowing that they would never be called on it or held responsible when it collapsed under the weight of underfunding and mismanagement. Social Security was the nose of the camel under the tent and all manner of underfunded and unfunded entitlements came into being as a method of buying more and more votes.

    Here, we turn to Ambrose Bierce:

    Politician: An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared.

    Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.

    Now it is time to return to the little fascist and the relationship between religion and the state.

    IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

    X. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

    The little fascist, Progressives and Howard Dean are dedicated to taking what is not theirs [thievery, robbery, usurpation, appropriation, commandeering, confiscation, seizure, infringement, take over, arrogation, etc.] and giving it to others for reason of pure covetousness, cupidity, passion, ambition, lasciviousness, rapaciousness and social greed. This is all accomplished by continual and intentional lying.

    As all of this abrogation of the soul and individualism and human responsibility is in direct conflict with the Judeo-Christian ethic and the tenets of all other religions in general, the state must necessarily act as God, Buddha, Pharaoh, etc.

    Therefore, according to Progressives and the little fascist in particular, nothing in man is above what the state rules is due to man.

    There is ZERO difference between the Divine Right of Kings, the Politburo, the Supreme Leader, Der Führer, Il Duce, the Emperor, the Tyrant, the Dear Leader, etc. (The problem with dictators is that they run out of clever titles.)

    Progressives are linked into the hope and expectation of the impossible. They are futurists who imagine perfect traffic, perfect defense, no poverty, a balanced social consciousness, happiness outweighing depression, and all other manner of Utopian dreamscapes.

    The little fascist can not look into a mirror and see himself. He is lost in an Alice in Wonderland of fantasy. Realism is evil, only the impossible is acceptable. This is the very definition of dementia. When you can not deal with reality, you create your own world.

    So, should religion be above the state? Of course. We must look inward to our own souls to deal with our condition in human life. The state can not do that on a computerized program and measured out in teaspoons of attention. In the words of William Ernest Henley (1849-1903):

    Out of the night that covers me,
    Black as the pit from pole to pole,
    I thank whatever gods may be
    For my unconquerable soul.

    In the fell clutch of circumstance
    I have not winced nor cried aloud.
    Under the bludgeonings of chance
    My head is bloody, but unbowed.

    Beyond this place of wrath and tears
    Looms but the Horror of the shade,
    And yet the menace of the years
    Finds and shall find me unafraid.

    It matters not how strait the gate,
    How charged with punishments the scroll.
    I am the master of my fate:
    I am the captain of my soul.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 21, 2012 @ 8:00 pm - December 21, 2012

  156. Religion deals with the soul which is the immaterial aspect or essence of a human being; that which confers individuality and humanity. [Encyclopedia Britannica]

    Much of what differentiates religions concerns the life and afterlife of the soul and dual or multiple souls. Religion tends to one’s spiritual self by helping to understand and guide the soul.

    Government deals with bodies. People need to be regulated and organized and administered in order to keep the infrastructure efficient and useful to people as communities. Government must also provide security and that means it raises and maintains a military and arrests and incarcerates criminals.

    So what you’re offering here is a religionist’s argument of last resort in the 21st century. It used to be that the religious need only look around the physical world to see an abundance of evidence for their god and religion. No longer. Science has been able to offer better explanations for virtually every phenomena we’ve encountered, and so religion has retreated into the human mind, since this is a highly complex and uncertain area of human study. This is a great choice for religion. It’s said that we know more about outer space than the workings of the human mind, and religion is always the first to volunteer to fill in the gaps of human understanding. Consciousness is a hell of a thing, I’ll grant you that. However, it’s still much more likely that there’s nothing enchanted or magical about it, and that it’s a physical organ that produces measurable results. People that suffer brain trauma provide evidence for that statement, go and take a minute to read about Phineas Gage. He had a large iron rod rammed through his brain and lived to tell about it, but he was…. different. Gabrielle Giffords is a more contemporary example. Alzheimer’s patients and people who have had a stroke provide even more evidence – our physical brains are what make us, and damage to our physical brains make us different. That shouldn’t be true if we have an immaterial soul.

    Anyway, during its heyday, religion most certainly ‘dealt with bodies.’ As but one example, the Christian religion offered rules and justification for some humans to be in complete possession of other humans. For thousands of years, people could have their bodies abused, tortured, and discarded for blasphemy, or even rumors of blasphemy! And the justification was similar to what you described: “People need to be regulated and organized and administered in order to keep the infrastructure efficient and useful to people as communities.” Thankfully, you guys lost the job, and now the regulation of our bodies is up to a Constitutional government that we get to choose every four years. Progress!

    However, the Progressives turn the soul and nurturing the soul over to the government.

    Before you take too much issue with what I said above, you should know that I think the soul is a useful, definable concept even if I disagree that it has magical properties. But I can’t tell what you’re talking about here. I don’t know of any Progressives who would agree that they’d like to turn the nurturing of the soul over to the government, whatever that’s supposed to mean.

    Let’s drop in on Howard Dean, shall we?:
    He [Obama] laid out a proposition that is we shouldn’t have redistribution. [....] that’s what governments do—is redistribute. The argument is not whether they should redistribute or not, the question is how much we should redistribute…. The purpose of government is to make sure that capitalism works for everybody …. It’s government’s job to redistribute.

    The little fascist is emblematic of this salmagundi of new age philosophy which includes pragmatism, utilitarianism and consequentialism.

    Pragmatists argue over whether beliefs represent reality and one side sees beliefs as predispositions which may or may not be true depending on whether the predisposition is helpful in accomplishing the believer’s goals. [Don't worry, only pragmatists care what that means and why it is or isn't important.]

    In other terms, the pragmatists, as a rule, do not hold that any belief should be accepted as “true.” What is “true” is what results in the greatest “good” over the longest period of time. This is the crux of pragmatism and, therefore “hope and change” is necessary for overturning the status quo (which is never good enough for the Progressive) and may result in the chance that the “hope and change” produces something better.

    For the pragmatist and the Progressive, everything is experimental and in flux in the endless search for perfection.

    Which takes us back to Howard Dean. Too many people have been seduced by the Progressives into believing that “social justice” through “social engineering” is at the core of government.

    We started down this road with Social Security which was at its inception a very modest program of making sure the elderly had a few dimes insulating them from being flat broke. Over time, it morphed into a great national lie that it was a retirement fund. The national lie was encouraged by politicians who profited politically by telling it over and over knowing that they would never be called on it or held responsible when it collapsed under the weight of underfunding and mismanagement. Social Security was the nose of the camel under the tent and all manner of underfunded and unfunded entitlements came into being as a method of buying more and more votes.

    Here, we turn to Ambrose Bierce:
    Politician: An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared.
    Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.

    Now it is time to return to the little fascist and the relationship between religion and the state.
    IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
    X. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

    The little fascist, Progressives and Howard Dean are dedicated to taking what is not theirs [thievery, robbery, usurpation, appropriation, commandeering, confiscation, seizure, infringement, take over, arrogation, etc.] and giving it to others for reason of pure covetousness, cupidity, passion, ambition, lasciviousness, rapaciousness and social greed. This is all accomplished by continual and intentional lying.

    As all of this abrogation of the soul and individualism and human responsibility is in direct conflict with the Judeo-Christian ethic and the tenets of all other religions in general, the state must necessarily act as God, Buddha, Pharaoh, etc.

    Actually, religion hates individualism. Just look through your storied past to find incident after incident where people were killed because they were too individual. There are many cases where brave people met brutal ends instead of conforming to the prevailing religious sentiment. Look at the tenth commandment you just quoted – it’s illegal under your religion to even think about wanting your neighbor’s wife – what is that but an order to give over your mind to religion?

    And how is it that you figure that there is more human responsibility in a religious scheme wherein a supreme being creates and controls every detail of the universe?

    Yet, you consider individualism and human responsibility to be bedrock principles of the Judeo-Christian ethic. Ha! That’s utterly ridiculous and impossible to justify to anyone with even glancing familiarity with the history of Christianity.

    Therefore, according to Progressives and the little fascist in particular, nothing in man is above what the state rules is due to man.

    There is ZERO difference between the Divine Right of Kings, the Politburo, the Supreme Leader, Der Führer, Il Duce, the Emperor, the Tyrant, the Dear Leader, etc. (The problem with dictators is that they run out of clever titles.)

    Progressives are linked into the hope and expectation of the impossible. They are futurists who imagine perfect traffic, perfect defense, no poverty, a balanced social consciousness, happiness outweighing depression, and all other manner of Utopian dreamscapes.

    I’m hard-pressed to find things in this section to respond to, but I see the opportunity in what is likely a throwaway line for you about perfect traffic.

    I’m not sure if you’re going to make it, heliotrope, but I’ll probably see widespread adoption of driver-less cars in my lifetime. This will be a tremendous revolution that will save lives, lower energy costs, and yes – create perfect traffic! Okay, perfect traffic is an exaggeration, but automation will dramatically improve traffic to the point that 30 minute delays will be reduced to 30 second delays. In other words, good enough! It would be progress and it would be measurable.

    Maybe that doesn’t pan out, but it most likely well, and other seemingly impossible spans have been bridged as well. I think it was around the 1950′s that Isaac Asimov was writing his Foundation stories, which prominently featured a compendium of all human knowledge. This thing was massive and it required an entire planet on the outskirts of the galaxy. If people in the 1950′s imagined that such a thing was possible, they probably thought it would just be a very large library that had a copy of every book in every language.

    Fast forward sixty years, and we’re able to carry the entire thing in our pocket and access it virtually anywhere. And government, like it or not, was involved in creating and disseminating these technologies every step of the way.

    My point here is that human beings aren’t really good at defining what’s impossible. Perfect traffic, perfect defense, no poverty – you don’t really have the credibility or authority to tell me that any or all of those are impossible objectives. And maybe they are – that still doesn’t mean there isn’t a better place between the status quo and the perfect that we shouldn’t strive for.

    The little fascist can not look into a mirror and see himself. He is lost in an Alice in Wonderland of fantasy. Realism is evil, only the impossible is acceptable. This is the very definition of dementia. When you can not deal with reality, you create your own world.

    So, should religion be above the state? Of course. We must look inward to our own souls to deal with our condition in human life. The state can not do that on a computerized program and measured out in teaspoons of attention. In the words of William Ernest Henley (1849-1903):

    Well, I’d have no choice but to agree with you if I knew that religion was true. Obviously, if there is an all-powerful deity that created us with a purpose and has instructions for us, then any of our lowly human governments are naturally subject to his divine command.

    However, there is no way to prove that god actually exists. And if god doesn’t exist, then religion is man-made. And humans are subjective and fallible. So when you say that religion should of course be above state, what you’re really saying is one group of subjective and fallible humans should of course be above another group of subjective and fallible humans. Why is government better? Because at least we can vote for which group of subjective and fallible humans make up the government. With religion, you just have to take what you get. No thanks, especially when ‘what you get’ these days involves spreading AIDS in Africa and an international pedophile exchange program.

    Comment by Levi — December 26, 2012 @ 12:49 pm - December 26, 2012

  157. The little fascist is s-o-o-o-o-o-o confused.

    He dreams of driverless cars created by man as a step to perfecting a system. Bravo.

    Then he carps that if God exists that God is a chump because there is evil in the world.

    As usual, the little fascists sets the terms for his argument and will not allow that his premise is flawed. To do so would destroy his conclusion.

    The little fascist has enormous faith in his theories of government, socialism, Darwinism, man-made global warming, Progressivism, etc. He returns to his themes again and again with a fervor that is religious. He believes in objectivism, utilitarianism, and philosophical determinism.

    Sarte is the little fascist’s main man. There is no God. There is no such thing as “human nature.” There might be a human “condition” but first you exist, then you acquire “essence.” We only become what we are by having willed it ourselves. Our “essence” is of our own making and the “culture” or society that nurtures us. You are subject to a transcendental capacity in which you conceive, theorize and plan.

    Because you are the center of your own universe, you always bear responsibility for your choices, even in the most desperate and abusive circumstances. This has to be true, because if choice is no longer available to you, you have ceased to exist. You can not claim to be following orders, because you have the choice not to follow orders. You can not blame others, for to do so you have given “them” power over your person and creativity and choice and therefore ceased to exist. There are no excuses.

    In this existential world, you can not make any decision without accepting the full responsibility of all the consequences of your decision. There is no such thing as a “private” decision in which only you suffer or enjoy the consequences. Every aspect of your existence is inextricably tied to the existence of others. When you cross the street you occupy space that is closed to all others and you cause motorists, pedestrians, bike riders, etc. to accommodate your existence and the consequences of your choices of where, how, why and when you decide to cross the street. And every other person in the vicinity is equally important and responsible for his choices. It is the interaction of nuclei each giving off a force field of self-centered existence and free will.

    There is no “good” involved in any of this because because you lack a perfect and omnipresent consciousness by which to measure the utility and determination of your choice in guiding your existence from moment to moment.

    You are trapped and enslaved by the current definition of liberty which is defined by the rules and regulations of the moment which determine the parameters of your choices.

    You can imagine the future and you can take a hand in shaping it. But what you imagine is a future in which the regulation of choice must be stoically accepted in order to “exist.”

    Of course, you also have “bad faith” to support your weaknesses. You can pretend that you are who you are and therefore you have to be accepted as who you are, warts and all. Or, you can be transcendent and just fiddle away at wishful thinking, build castles in the sky, and dream dreams. Since none of these exist, they are not consequential and you are free to blather away endlessly.

    Since there is no God, you have no permanent ideal against which you are held to account. Without God, you can always manipulate the scales. You do not have to worry about self-deception and illusion, because you create reality by your very existence. You are God.

    You do not have to give anything up or change anything about yourself or even worry about “fundamentals” because you are you and you exist. You don’t have to answer to any religious questions or worry about being philosophically shallow or being socially repressive or politically armed and dangerous.

    You acquire power of through association with “like-minded” existentialists and utilitarian determinists and together you create a state where the infantile mumbo-jumbo about all the God stuff is erased and the state establishes universal virtues and morality and ethics without any mystical foolishness.

    Your world has no radical consequences. Your list of particular include these “self-evident” truths about the validity of the existential state: No one kills in the name of God. Abortions are a private choice medical procedure. Evolution is fact. Man-made global warming exists because of a consensus. Capitalism is a form of theft. All religion is equally bad. The rich have plundered the poor. Greed must be confronted and regulated.

    So, just how do existentialists unite? They really can’t. They are actually all people in crisis. To the extent that they are individually “different” from one another they are isolated and alone by their own definition. They have no “meaning” in their lives, so they can not comfortably grasp their own mortality. This often results in a profound sense of purposelessness. Their understanding of existential freedom often cripples them because the responsibility of making choices overwhelms them. They try to shun responsibility and pretend that they are not enslaving themselves by bad choices in the process. It is very hard to be the center of your own universe, so the individual universes try to gravitate toward compatible universes in order to create a galaxy of existentialists which is not unlike a school of fish.

    The the overarching problem boils down to whether or not there is a meaning to life. Each existentialist becomes more entrenched in the meaning of another person’s life than he does in examining his own. This is not only an escape mechanism, it provides validation by “discovering” victims and crusading from them.

    So, the little fascist runs away from the concept of the soul, because, like God, it is not subject to scientific measurement. Also, it is not under his self-centered existential control.

    The little fascist is prime for being herded by the state or being one of the state herders. Either way, he loses his battle entirely. Once the existential person looses power over his ability to choose, he becomes an entity of the chooser. A cypher. A vassal. A slave. The state controls both the herd and its herders. The state is everything and everything is for the state. Every self-centered entity is re-programed to obey the “will of the people” which is expressed by the kingdom, the power and the glory of the state.

    It is the total control of free will and the death of hope, faith and liberty.

    That is what the little fascist is peddling.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 30, 2012 @ 12:13 pm - December 30, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.675 Powered by Wordpress