A ruling by Utah’s Supreme Court has overturned the rape conviction of Warren Jeffs, the leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). The state has shown an interest in retrying the case, making the promise that Jeffs will not go free over a procedural error. The Washington County prosecutor has 30-days to decide if they will pursue a retrial.
This comes on the heels of Arizona prosecutors asking a judge to dismiss five counts of rape against Jeffs. The judge dismissed the counts with prejudice, thus assuring Jeffs cannot be tried on those same cases again in the future.
FLDS leader and prophet Warren Jeffs
Warren Jeffs took over leadership of the FLDS after the death of his father, Rulon. The FLDS teaches a doctrine of plural marriage, a practice that the mainstream Church of Latter Day Saints has disavowed since 1890 (even though scripture condoning the practice is still found in the Book of Mormon). Since 2002 Warren Jeffs has been the supreme ruler and sacred prophet of the small splinter sect. According to excommunicated members of his sect, Jeffs has encouraged and presided over plural marriages between underage girls and grown men. A 2008 raid on the FLDS compound in Eldorado, Texas turned up mountains of evidence of these sorts of marriages. Several rape convictions have already come down as a result of this raid.
135 Comments
Every time a sex offender goes free another liberal gets their wings…
Yes you know Warren Jeffs and all his “liberal” followers in the FLDS…because the religious whackjobs..especially mormons…are always liberal right?
The entire premise of controlling others through religion is something reserved for conservatives…paranoia and fear driving their entire belief system.
If it weren’t for liberals, sick monsters like Jeffs would probably be free of conviction based on them infusing their religous hate/belief system into our constitution.
Interesting you see religion in an organization that encourages/forces underage girls to wed and bear children to men nearly three times their age.
I am sorry I see a group of pedophiles and/or defacto pedophiles.
My comment was referring to liberals “compassion” for sex offenders.
For example in the Health Refrom “control” bill there is a provision whereas convicted sex offenders would receive ED (erectile dysfunction) drugs. Liberals (who authored the bill) felt it would be discrimination or uncompassionate to exclude convicted sex offenders from ED drugs be covered by taxpayers.
And since you seem to bow at the alter of big government are you a religious (secular) wacko?
Well since you stereotype me as a secular liberal, I’ll go ahead and assume you to be the classic tea party nut searching desperately for birth certificates, communist conspiracies and maybe even Big Foot.
From the statement you wrote, you act as if pedophiles are specifically given ED drugs. FALSE. In reality, ED drugs are covered for the general population and Sen. Tom Coburn just enacted an amendment ensuring that convicted pedophiles no longer recieve them. Now ask me about “death panels…”
The problem with conservatives is that you live outside reality. Those annoying “facts” always destroying your wild conspiracy theories and fear mongering campaigns. Why do you think you are called “fringe” and not mainstream?
I am actually not secular. Born and raised Italian Catholic. But I’d prefer that religion I’ve CHOSEN to continue to remain out of my constitution. Not everyone chooses Jesus. And they shouldn’t have to. I thought you were the ones squawking on about “freedom.”
The Christian version of Iran doesn’t sound appealing to the vast majority of this great nation…
For the record our Declaration and Constitution were derived from Jedeo – Christian values – the Declaration firmly based on Divine Providence.
Where is your proof? You can’t show specifics, can you? SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS VERY CLEAR AND VERY EASY TO UNDERSTAND.
Please explain to me the separation of church and state. As a catholic do you support abortion – what about partial birth abortion? Where in “your” constitution is the right to abortion? Does that make abortion unconstitutional? Prove or disprove? How are “our” founding documents not based on judeo christian values and the concept of divine providence?
As a catholic, I believe abortion a sin. However I also understand that that believing this is a PERSONAL CHOICE and that not all agree. Thus I wish not my personal choices in religion be enforced in this nation. This is not Iran.
You see to mainstream America, the conservative argument that government is intruding into their personal lives becomes more and more hysterical each time you bring up religion. You don’t want government in your lives, yet expect government to somehow have authority in the realm of individual conscience. That’s what religion is: INDIVIDUAL conscience.
Yes most founding fathers were Judeo-Christian. And they designed a country that would accept ALL religions and not favor one over the other. Hence the establishment clause and excersise clause, which allow the freedom to worship any god you may so choose, with the underlying concept that government will not force that choice.
So practice your religion in the way you see fit and stop worrying about anywhere else. I don’t seem to find these militant phrases in the Bible about indoctrinating your local government with the word of Christ. I believe a personal commitment and faith is just fine.
I don’t want government sticking its nose where it don’t belong…
As an American, I kind of enjoy knowing that if I wanted to so as I’m not commiting acts on behalf of religion that are against our laws. I am free to worship anything I want, including a tree. Its called religious freedom, but more often just referred to as “freedom.”
Logic as citizens of this magnificent country – America – our rights are derived from where?
And what is Federalism?
US laws and rights are derived from what we, as a society, have agreed upon through a democratic process. Am I wrong? Each law and ammendment was put to a vote by citizens. I don’t believe God has a seat on the Senate floor.
Please don’t try and “educate” me on Federalism and Hamilton…I believe the relationship between our states and Federal government is evolving as we as a country evolve.
Aside from cases of discrimination, you would be hard-pressed to cite one example of the Federal Government trumping states rights.
This massive “fear” of Obama’s “giant government” is pure smoke and mirrors…demagoguery and fear mongering that historically has been reserved for corrupt religious leaders to keep followers in line (like Warren Jeffs). It has absolutely no substance.
Try reading the Declaration our rights are God given (whatever God we choose) inalienable rights – not government given/permitted/granted.
We are not a Democracy we are a Constitutional Republic.
So I take it you think the Constitution is a living and breathing document?
Well a Federal Judge in California just negated 7 million citizens of that state in regards to gay marriage. So if a state decides whether or not they want gay marriage as several have chosen a Federal Court can just strike down their votes. Seems a pretty clear violation of states rights to me.
I truly wish your last statement were true – I wish the last 2 years were all a bad dream however they are not – this is real and I have faith America will prevail.
Logic which bothers you more? Me being correct or the fact that America overwhelmingly agrees with my views.
What bothers you more? The fact that if you weren’t lying, we would be living in an alternate reality where McCain and Palin were in power, or the fact that its eating you alive that our country is progressing and you find yourself among a minority of people who have been permanently framed as “nuts?”
Since when has progress been a bad thing?
McCain hasn’t shown any backbone since he was in the Hanoi Hilton – in my opinion.
We are progressing into Bankruptcy!
Logic any comment on 72% of Missouri voting against Obama care? Note MO is a swing state – politically speaking.
Well considering the question was asked on the ballot of a hotly contested Republican primary, then well just say my name “logic.” Republicans dislike healthcare. It was not “Missouri” that voted that way, it was “Missouri Republicans.”
I doubt most Repubs vote in democratic primaries…
Bankruptcy? The US government is starting collect nicely on interest accumulated through corporate loans…like REAL NICELY. The hope is that by ending two wars, we also greatly reduce this giant spending. From there the deficit shrinks to normal levels.
You do realize that bailouts were only about 15% of the 2009 deficit right? War spending, tax cuts and spending in the last months of Bush’s presidency accounted for the vast majority of that deficit.
In 2010, the deficit is continuing to shrink and will continue. Yes we spent a lot of money, yes the deficit is huge, but yes, we did go through the worst time in our nation since 1930. Seems rather logical wouldn’t you say?
The kensian economic model does not work.
The only proven way to increase revenues is through tax cuts. JFK did it and so did Reagan as a matter of fact until Bush’s 2001 tax cuts JFK and Reagan were responsible for the largest tax cuts in history. I believe Bush’s topped theirs. From 2000-2005 the unemployment rate in the US were all time record lows (4-5%). All facts.
Clinton – he left a “projected” surplus which in reality was a deficit for fiscial year 2000 – which I believe ends in sept of the year.
Bush’s ending deficit was $400 billion – after 8 years – Obama rang up several trillion in under 18 months and our debt ceiling has been raised to 13 trillion. Our bonds have been downgraded and China is contemplating moving away from the dollar. More facts.
Thirty percent of the 72% voting in the MO primary were registered Democrats. This has not been confirmed – I believe I heard via AP news.
And your so called worst economic times since 1930 – was in reality 3-4 quarters of negative growth. A recession yes a depression – not even close.
What’s next the housing crisis. Caused by Fannie and Freddie mac – go ahead google Community Reinvestment Act of the late 1970’s under the liberals beloved Carter. So dem policy was responsible for the housing crisis and low and behold a dem “saved” us.
Let me tell you something “even a dog knows the difference between getting purposely kicked and accidently tripped over.”
This is no longer a democrat vs republican battle this is Americans vs the Marxists. Pure and simple!
Why the heck do they have the same avatars?
Unfortunately I can’t respond directly to “Patriots” post, so I’ll respond here.
Are you living in an alternate reality?
President Ronald Reagan’s economic and foreign policies — tax cuts combined with substantial increases in Cold War defense spending — led to a string of deficits that averaged $206 billion a year between 1983 and 1992.
Adding insult to injury, Patriot also missed Sunday’s NYTimes piece where David Stockman, Regan’s budget director, slammed the GOP over their insistence on tax cuts amid such a large deficit.
He says the debt explosion is “not from big spending by the Democrats.”
Stockman, a deficit hawk, called it a “delusion” to say that tax cuts will get the economy to grow and narrow the deficit.
But it is eye-popping to hear from a well-known conservative’s point of view some things that progressives and labor activists have been saying for a while. Tax cuts for the rich, sky high military spending, deregulation and the growing wealth gap are GOP policies that are detrimental to most Americans, and especially working families.
PS–This was an Op-Ed, not an interview. Educate yourself: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&sq=apocalypse&st=cse&scp=1
Oped pieces are intended to promote a newspapers agenda – gee isn’t the NYT a liberal (bankrupt – noticing a trend yet) newspaper and Stockon is trying to sell a book. The initials GOP don’t impress me.
Bottom line JFK, Reagan and Bush II tax cuts created employment, wealth and increased revenues.
Reagan tax cuts created 22 million jobs over 8 years and the largest revenues in history. Obama has lost 8 million jobs in under 2 years while having deficit spending never seen before in the entire history of the world – oh and revenues are down the lowest since the 1930’s.
Once again the keysian economic model does, has not will never work.
Yes Reagan left office with a deficit. I ask simply who controlled the House – Dems who controlled the Senate mostly Dems over that eight years I can surmise when the 1981 tax cuts were enacted there was a Repucican majority in the Senate.
So if given the choice I would choose as JFK, Reagan and Bush II choose: tax cuts, increased revenues, increased employment and increased wealth. Even if the Dems in Congress insist on increasing deficit spending.
Really? A conspiracy theory about the NYTimes “agenda” is the only thing you have to come back with? Of course Sarah Palin…that damn mainstream media just doesn’t agree with me! Why would a conservative such as Stockman, who worked under Reagan for decades (the Jesus of the Conservatives) want to advance a “newspapers agenda?” The NYtimes doesn’t ask for Op-Eds, Stockman submitted the piece on his own accord which was published the exact way he wrote it. He is still a conservative.
So now do you want to correct yourself and note that you were false about Reagan cutting the deficit? Sure millions of jobs have been lost under Obama and if not for the stimulus, millions more would have been lost and you won’t find many economists saying otherwise.
Give Obama a full 8 years and see how far this country will come out of the recession…instead you all went nuts in his first month and have been trying your hardest to spread mistruths and flat out lies (such as Reagan cutting deficit) to demean his presidency. Doesn’t sound like something a true “patriot” will do.
True patriots stand by their elected leaders and respect the will of the people. Tax cuts increase revenues for big business and wealth for the 1% of millionaires in this nation (which neither you or I are apart of.)
Do you know that because of Bush tax cuts, after 2008 federal revenues were reduced to 15 percent of gross domestic product, lower than they had been since the 1940s? This after 8 years of Bush. This was not Obama, this was Bush.
And why remove such necessary restrictions on leverage and speculation on Wall Street? Do you really trust Goldman Sachs and big banks to do what’s “right?” Come on those guys would sell their souls to Satan if it meant more money.
After the BP and Toyota crap came to light where does this devout loyalty to big business come from? As if big corporations have “your best interests” in mind or the “interests of US citizens.” If it meant they could increase revenue, they would poison drinking water and replace workers with robots because after all, their main motivation is $$. Taxing them down to earning a $5 Billion as opposed to $8 billion while at the same time protecting US citizens is what any good American leader will do.
I’ve often wondered where this devout “loyalty” or rather “obsession” with big business, the NRA and other mainstays of conservative life from. They certainly don’t reward conservatives for their loyalty. I believe it must be something psychological, given their extreme, many times irrational embrace of puritain religions.
Gee that’s a new one demonize corporations – Logic you are like a one trick pony? You do know Wall Street is in the Democrats pocket – check political donations for these companies.
I like how you just make stuff up to refute a point. Ends justifying the means uh logic – polarize your target.
Trivial really you are like water off a duck’s ass!
Oh and David Stockton (who is not a conservative) was a fan/student of Keynsian or supply side economics which as I have mentioned don’t work – why he resigned from the Reagan Administration in 1985 – apparently Reagans tax cuts which once again created employment, increased revenues and increased wealth confused Mr. Stockton as he was quoted “nobody knows what these numbers mean? and the phrase ‘trickle down’ economics.”
Gee I can’t believe he has nothing good to say about Reagan. Who’s next Scott McClellan talking about Bush II.
Yet you fail to show true evidence of “suppy side economics” not working. FDR is credited with introducing Keynes theories into our economy first after the Great Depression, which worked and then WWII came. Thus, they have never really been tested so we don’t know.
What we do know is that a non-regulated marketplace and continued tax cuts for wealthy and big business DO NOT WORK thanks to the last 3 miserable years.
You may try hard to sound intellectual, but you are literally reading point for point from conservative blogs which are rather easy to find by Googling your sentences.
That’s interesting because FDR’s policies enacted in the early 1930’s created more unemployment, large deficits and actually extended the Great Depression into the 1940’s – again don’t let facts influence your comments.
WWII brought us out of the Great Depression and no thanks to any of FDR’s silly wealth absorbing policies.
I suppose you are still waiting around for FDR’s second Bill of Rights (which included the right to a job, right to housing – the right to a centrally planned economy- gee too bad he died before he got the chance to shove that down American’s throat.
Why are liberals always trying to force tyrannical legislation down America throat?
I will ask again where has the Keynes economic model worked?
I am truly sorry for telling you to google anything I was under the impression you had the capacity to learn something – my mistake.
I bet a liberal turned the phrase supply side economics? I don’t know what you mean by conservative blogs but I would guess that a conservative blog would not waste time discussing an inffective economic model – sounds more like what you might find on a liberal blog to me.
You’ve gone back to the KTF Media Group threads and plagiarized phrases from other readers.
You also seem to be plagiarizing, whole cloth, from AK Press pamphlets, liberal blogs and cable television news programs. You’re an intellectual bankrupt.
You’re a sophist–and a very poor one at that. I could walk into any remedial high school social sciences classroom in the United States and be dealing with someone with the same level of “knowledge” (ignorance) as you.
You’re a hack. You’re trying sooo painfully hard to sound well-read (and “up” on contemporary political discourse), and if you really were as much of a hot shot as you think you are, you’d be starting trouble on somewhere other than THIS blog.
Your time would be better spent by re-enrolling in whatever high school equivalency workshop you’ve been consistently withdrawing from for the last 20-years and trying to develop something closer to an actual understanding of what you THINK you’re defending. Either that, or develop some marketable job skills. Matriculating at the University of Wikipedia doesn’t count in the real, grown-up world.
Please, do yourself a favor and put away the Ani DiFranco records, put down the Abbie Hoffman book and Jean Paul Sartre Cliffs Notes, take off the Che Guevara t-shirt, pour the soy-wheatgrass-portabella mushroom smoothie down the toilet, click on this link and get started on Achieving the Dream:
http://www.triton.edu/cgi-bin/r.cgi/index.html
“Logic” has been trolling these threads for months, which is fine, but his efforts have failed to be distracting, truly irritating, or even funny. In other words, he’s a bad troll. (I realize that I’ve just used sexist language by presuming “he” and not “she,” but I don’t apologize for it.)
If “Logic” is not trolling, then he’s trying to represent American News Post’s “loyal opposition” but does an unconvincing job of defending left-leaning positions and philosophies.
Logic, please step up your efforts and produce some good material, or go to this blog http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/plonk.php and get to work.
Who says American News Post is a conservative outlet? You forget, my comments await moderation by Joe. If he thought I was truly a “troll” (which must mean someone who disagrees with you?) then he would not allow my comments.
Joe can you clarify that for a confused reader?
Dear Logic,
I see no issue requiring moderation right now.
I got dimes to dollars Logic is a woman.
Now there is a clever comeback.
Purporting to employ “logic” to defend postmodernist liberal positions is totally ILLOGICAL because liberalism fundamentally equals relativism.
As everyone knows, relativism allows irrational and incoherent arguments and positions, and is, frankly, juvenile.
During the first week of a high school logic course, you learn that “the consequence of relativism has been both to undermine the value of knowledge and to narrow the scope of intellectual and political debate.”
Liberals are nothing but conservatives who have yet to go through puberty, anyway.
So THERE!
Frankly I’m impressed. Can I really have an intellectual conversation with you? What if I was to say that liberalism is the philosophy of a rival absolute truth to creationism, an absolute truth discovered in nature through reason and/or
experience. It is not relativism. Relativism, which denies even the primacy of reason and the certainty of experience, is illiberal, just as much so as any illiberal ideology of the right.
For its the liberals who rejoice the freedom to reason, freedom to use logic and rational thought and freedom to question everything, including religion.
After all, aren’t we the ones who advocate for science and empiricism while you advocate for biblical reasoning?
Conservatives are just people more prone to paranoia than the rest of us…or who just live in really, really, small towns.
PS-Are you really mocking me in a California surfer voice? Should I respond in a mock Arkansas southern twang, or should we just act like adults?
And thank you, Patriot, for drawing attention to the fact that Kennedy was not a liberal. If anything, he could more accurately described as an “opportunist” because his foray into politics was a winning a vacant house seat in a largely Democratic district. He came from a Republican family and remained a lifelong Democratic by default.
If anyone would like to fact check these statements regarding Kennedy, please see his exhaustive biography titled, “An Unfinished Life : John F. Kennedy, 1917–196,” by Robert Dallek–distinguished professor from Oxford and Columbia Universities.
Good point Glenn.
In that book, Kennedy is quoted as snapping at Arthur Schlesinger, saying, “I am not a liberal.” He may have been a Democrat–and a good one at that–but he wasn’t a liberal.
You know, you’re repeatedly showing yourself to be a person who chooses, on principle, to be flagrantly ignorant.
Logic never answers questions just continues spewing talking points sort or like a seminar commentor.
What question hasn’t been answered? Please ask one yourself.
Read this thread or any thread logic has commented on.
I did and still don’t get your point? Why don’t you ask him a question and prove your statement?
No, no, no, no. You’re confusing sane liberalism (and classic liberal principles), say from the Enlightenment-era, with postmodernist liberalism, which is what we have today, and which is so patently ridiculous and destructive that it’s nauseating.
Granted, REAL liberal intellectuals (in the classic tradition) were geniuses and deserve to be lionized accordingly. You’re either unaware that you’re talking about two completely different things, or you’re conflating them, which isn’t allowed in grown-up conversation.
So save your rambling about the “primacy of reason” and “creation” and whatever else you think you have in your arsenal because not only do they NOT apply here (and not make sense), but they’re not helping your case. You’re not making any sense.
Fuzzy-thinking, RELATIVIST, radical, continental “intellectuals” were and still are extremely influential in American universities (especially elite universities) and their ideas have, unfortunately, been disseminated and embraced by liberal political culture in the United States. But, clearly, most all of the work of these twentieth-century “intellectuals” was concerned with tending the flame of Marxism, and should be of no use to anyone anymore because that flame has been long-extinguished. What don’t you understand about that?
Bill Ayers has retired – so that’s one less marxist intellectual.
Are referring to the original liberal definition which is Liberatarianism and marxist influenced liberalism/progressivism?
Marxist! Jail Him! Grab your guns! Bomb shelters everyone! Paranoia!
In reality, that’s how you sound to most Americans when you use these ridiculous phrases and fear mongering words.
You do know this is the same Bill Ayers that headed the Weather Underground whose intent in the late 1960’s was to overthrow the US Govt. He and his wife and their group planned and bombed bombed several police stations and the pentagon. A death of a San Fransico police man was due to a weather underground attack in that city. Ayers is on record as saying “we didn’t bomb enough.” This is the same Ayers that silenty coauthored Barack Obama’s book.
This is reality not fear mongering – he was one bad dude that for the last 20 years has taught marxist principles to students at UIC on the tax payers dime.
Most Americans are sickened by men like this.
LOL. You’re such an idiot. Marxism is dead. My point is that the ideas that tended its flame are therefore dead.
You’re the “Logician” remember? LOL
LOL if “the ideas that tended his flame are therefore dead” then why continue using the term. Make sense?
Your paranoia of higher education may say something about you and I’m beginning to believe your understanding of relativism was derived from an online blog and not within an intellectual environment.
You fail to provide any evidence of how today’s liberalism is “ridiculous and destructive,” which is the thesis of your counter-argument, correct?
It’s true that some people do employ a sort of cultural relativism, in which actions are made right or wrong by the country or culture in which they happen. This is far from a purely liberal principle–its a scientific priciple. Are you talking moral relativism? As if liberals don’t believe in a common set of morals? With all the anti-hate and discrimination movements they have created, that wouldn’t make much sense…
One cannot just
PS-If the Marxist flame was long extinguished (which we’ve been trying to tell you nuts) then why do you still keep using McCarthy-style language and fear tactics, as if there is a real threat?
Read the thread. You’ve thrown out the word “paranoia” a lot. That’s a defense mechanism. Those who don’t agree with your shrill political screeds are paranoid, right?
OK smart guy or gal, name ONE continental intellectual–or intellectual of any kind–that influenced higher education and liberal intellectual culture in the United States from the 1960-1990’s who wasn’t a Marxist.
That’s right. You can’t.
“Marxism,” I’m sure you’ll agree, isn’t a bad word. No one here is scared of it.
My point is that all the academic scaffolding and political gibberish that allowed for it to temporarily masquerade as a legitimate “model” –or whatever you want to call it– is worth about 2-cents since the fall of the Soviet Union.
You obviously are scared of it the way you seem to accuse so many of people of being “Marxist.”
I don’t use “paranoia” to write off those I disagree with, just those who believe a communist takeover of the United States is something realistic. I believe most psychologists take my side.
Intellectuals of the 20th Century? Well it was dominated by the coming to terms with science and modern society…feminism, equal rights, sexual revolution, all of which were great liberal victories and all of which had profound impacts on intelectual thought.
Marxists? I wouldn’t exactly ride off the likes of Milton Friedman or Richard Rorty (both of whom had significant influence after 1960) as “marxists.” If you want to call them that, you will have to prove it.
You use the term “marxist” as the puritains used “witch” or the Taliban use “infedel.” (both were ultra conservative groups). It’s extremely telling as to your efforts to convince others to accept your views…you are trying to do it through fear. (paranoia).
HAHAHAHA.
Wow, yeah, two of the super, heavy-hitting intellectuals that were SO central to liberal thought in the United States during the time that I mentioned. (LMFAO)
Rorty’s big influence didn’t come until later, and the fact that you inserted him here shows that you know as much about your “positions” as my toilet flange. Rorty hated Derrida, one of your side’s heroes, by the way. And, oh yeah, gotta look out for the classically liberal Milton Friedman–whose tradition I already gave credit to and rightfully so.
‘”You obviously are scared of it the way you seem to accuse so many of people of being “Marxist”‘
—
I’m haven’t accused anyone on here of being Marxist. The influential intellectuals I’m referring to were/are openly Marxist, so there’s no big revelation there.
Richard Rorty? Milton Friedman? Two great intellectuals with a huge impact on higher education who you would be hard pressed to write-off as “marxists.”
The 20th century was dominated by incredible liberal social acheivements: sexual revolution, feminism, equal rights, etc. Now name a great conservative movement (aside from prohibition.)
I’m not even sure what “Marxist” means anymore to be perfectly honest. You use the term like puritains use “witch” or the taliban use “infedel.” Mind you, both groups were ultra-conservative, but what does that say about your thinking? As if you can convince others through fear? You subscribe to paranoia.
I only use the term paranoia to describe someone who honestly believes Obama will stop democracy and capitalism and instill communism or socialism. I believe most psychologists are on my side.
It’s ridiculousness is manifest and well-documented in every one of your comments on many of the threads on this website.
Do you really want me to enumerate all of the reasons that it is accurately characterized as “destructive,” as well? I have a feeling you wouldn’t read it since you IGNORE all of the good sense in these articles and the well-stated arguments in these threads.
You are using the wrong tense of “manifest” which is a verb in your sentence. Try “manifested” as you are speaking in past tense.
Regardless, its more like you ignore any counter-argument or counter-point to the mindset you have so devoutly subscribed to. Its a devout belief that must sit there next to Jesus, given your refusal to embrace anything from an opposite view.
The right wing is the religious party and as I’ve stated elsewhere on this thread, I believe some of that psychology driving such devout religious obsession is what drives such devout loyalty to the NRA and recycled talk points that mainstream America proved false and accepted as false months ago.
You misuse “employ” in this sentence:
“It’s true that some people do employ a sort of cultural relativism, in which actions are made right or wrong by the country or culture in which they happen.”
People don’t “employ” world views. People “employ” logic, particular lines of reasoning, and so forth. Scrutinize your own errors before those of others, you petty troll.
No, I don’t think Logic is a troll, per se. But, Logic is definitely doing the work of a troll, perhaps unwittingly, by defending intellectually bankrupt and extremely passé “philosophies” on a website that generally seems to have a grown-up, well informed, levelheaded readership.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You seem to be alone on this one and honestly, you aren’t doing much to continue intelligent conversation.
I’m alone in saying that you’re not a troll, per se, but that you’re creating chaos in the threads, nonetheless? I don’t think so.
You telling me that I’m not “doing much to continue intelligent conversation” is ironic since you’ve made it abundantly clear that you really don’t even know what you’re defending. You have NO point. You’re talking about things that you don’t understand. I think you may even be going back into older threads and just recapitulating intelligent-sounding things that have been said by other readers. (Perhaps you are a troll…)
Simply taking the exact opposite position as everyone else on here doesn’t mean you have a substantive point. But, by all means, please proceed as if you do because it’s very entertaining.
Thank you…would you mind providing evidence of any of your outrageous claims? I seem to be “refudiating” each and every one of your false conclusions through facts.
Facts & Evidence: Mocking conservative thought since Galileo.
You haven’t contributed a single fact to this entire thread.
There’s nothing scary about Marx. He was just a man who history has shown had some extremely off-base and silly ideas about politics and economics.
Columbia College must not have heard the news. Are you aware that Soviet Union fell?
I am…but apparently your political party has not. The Glenn Beck paranoia of “communists” and “marxists” in the Whitehouse is rather ridiculous. Yet I still see signs at tea parties as if Obama is the next Stalin and still hear the most popular GOP pundits warning of communism, socialism…and those uh death panels.
Can we agree on the level of ridiculousness this creates?
Speaking of death panels did you hear Britain has decided to ‘decentralize’ their national health system. Yes they plan to privatize in order to save money and increase care. They also mentioned that until this happens health care would be increasingly rationed… sounds death panelish to me but I am not a 82 British citizen waiting for a hip replacement, pace maker or suffering from rectal cancer. I guess death panels are in the eye of the beholder.
Would you be more comfortable if instead of the words Marxist or Marxism I use Democratic Socialism?
Why the fixation with Glenn Beck?
Glenn Beck is an idiot. No one here is rallying behind Beck.
Nice straw man, though.
Your entire party seems to rally behind Beck, given the amount of mainstream GOP leaders who will attend his 9/12 “Freedom Fest” or whatever clever name he came up with.
I’ve provided plenty of facts. Pushing them off as “conspiracies” appears to be your choice in accepting them.
Logic disclosed that he/she is Italian. I’m convinced what we’re being subjected to, readers, is Harlem Playboy’s argumentative and educated side.
Maybe its a conspiracy? LOL
Harlem Playboy? Please try Bridgeport…those Elmwood Park boys stayed north.
No offense Joe 😉
You can’t argue with a relativist because when relativism is the rule of the game, anything is allowed. Fallacy, after fallacy, after fallacy. Switch maneuvers, straw men, distractions, … In other words: trolling. I’m guilty of feeding the troll.
Logic, why the mentioned of Beck and the reference to Sarah Palin and all of your other inferences and innuendoes?
Is it that hard to believe that a person can subscribe to something OTHER than liberal policies and still not be all that impressed with our conservative cartoon characters, radio personalities, megalomaniacs, and political boobs?
I realize that you’re not the one who brought up Marx. But the problem is that so much (if not ALL) of the academic and political thought that influenced liberal political and social movements in our country over the last 50 years was originally intended to bolster the Marxist model.
That model is dead, and there’s no discussion about that. It was never truly alive–at least not to the extent that “Marxists” would have us believe.
THAT IS WHY liberal views (like yours), which have been INFORMED by that SAME academic and political thought, is now bankrupt, also. Like it or not, it is nonsense.
Our liberalism today is different than liberalism before the 1960’s. The Democratic party today is NOT the democratic party of our parents’ day. Someone can say the same thing about the Republicans, and I’d take it lying down because it’s more or less true, but for different reasons.
All the liberal political and social movements over the last 50 years were meant to bolster Marx? FALSE and extremely conspiracy-ridden. What if I was to make a statement that all conservative thought over the last 20 years relies heavily on the evangelical church and inducing our constitution towards becoming a sort of Christian Republic, requiring laws of religion to become infused in our nation. You see anyone can make a statement, but not everyone can prove that statement true.
You seem to want to call Beck and Palin “cartoons” because they incite fear through falsehoods and conspiracy theories, yet seem to subscribe perfectly to these tactics by brushing off any opposition as some sort of conspiracy. Not everyone or everything has a “hidden agenda” and in most cases, rational thought or simple logic can help you understand. I myself would rather just use facts to prove my points and you won’t find me going on about conpircies with John Birchers, right wing terrorists or necon agendas. Yup…just pure and simple facts.
And I don’t believe you speak for anyone but yourself when you cite our academic thought (believe ALL institutes of higher ed subscribe to this still today) than you. What university doesn’t right now? The one Glenn Beck just started 😉 It’s as if you want to use his arguments and pretend they are not his.
Tell you what…no more “Socialism” or “Marxism” talk and no more “Palin” and “Beck.” Deal?
ALL of the academic efforts by continental intellectuals was meant to bolster Marx–American academia took these ideas, for some reason, and ran with them. Read the thread or ship off because you’re consistently misreading the comments of your opposition and it’s getting extremely annoying.
Sorry we Americans do not negociate with terrorists or in your case verbal terrorists? Say whatever you want you marxist/socialist/progressive/liberal et al.
Seems you should be enjoying Carters second term, but it doesn’t seem like you are.
I wonder when Obama is done apologizing for America to the entire world one country at a time will he then apologize to Americans for ruining America oh I am sorry transforming/progressing/evolving America?
This week was Barack Obama’s 49th Birthday. What do you get for the man that has ruined everything.
Maybe a new career? If a comedian like Dennis Miller can get a job as a political commentator on Fox News, then maybe they would consider hiring Pauly Shore? He would be great on Glenn Beck (and probably stupid enough to eat the conspiracy theories.)
“The spirit that built our country was bold, not timid. It was a spirit of pride, confidence and courage that we could do anything.” Ronald Reagan 1982
Couldn’t say it better myself.
I ask what in the liberal philosophy formulated by marxism – democratic socialism or I guess statism is inspirational?
This is what the liberals will always lack and why only drones with talking points will be around to support this sick, dying animal.
Dear Patriot and supporters,
From the bottom of my heart, thank you, and congratulations on your overwhelming victory against “Logic” this evening.
“Logic” made the mistake of thinking that because of his handle that readers would believe that he’s an authority on the subjects of politics and academia. However, everyone immediately saw through this preposterous facade of erudition, as “Logic” more or less managed to consistently unravel his own arguments. Why he continued to waste his time–as well as ours–is beyond comprehension. Perhaps he was bored and was merely interested in obstructing on-topic discussion.
Thank you again, and I look forward to the occasion when “Logic” decides to defend yet another defenseless position against your own clearly august and very formidable rhetorical abilities, debating skills, and intellect. You are clearly an individual not to be trifled with.
Dear Conservative Supporters-
Thank you again for a hard-fought battle and am sorry to have defeated such respected foes…for if anyone can come and claim “victory” then I shall too.
Conservatives stand for the “preservation” of society while I myself subscribe to a liberal docrtine of “evolution” of a society. Based on history, one might never find where a society has been “preserved” and unchanged even within a single decade, aside from the Dark Ages.
Look forward to Joe’s next post on Prop 8 or gun rights.
Joe–appreciate you letting me speak for the other side.
Re Logic claims victory
So our 230+ year experiment as a representative republic doesn’t amount to anything in your eyes.
And as a rep/constituional republic – what is the other side but stateism/socialism/pure democracy/marxism – take your pick!
Where does your evolution of America end? When would your insasiable appetite for control or tyranny end?
It’s obvious you cannot defend your position so at least define the boudaries of your position or idealogy.
What sick dying animal? Name one GOP leader at the forefront proned to take over for Obama or one realistic GOP economic policy put forth as substitute for what Obama has done?
Its as if you think you are talking into a mirror and saying over and over that you are right until finally, you actually believe yourself. Doesn’t make much sense.
Also others on this thread have noted that calling “marxists” “communists” “socialists” and heck “extra terrestrials” does nothing to help the conversation and makes you out to look just as “cartoonish” as Beck Palin or Bachman each time.
Why do you hate America?
Are you not describing what you have to do every day? But I guess as long as the ends justify the means right logic – I think you know you are the only cartoon character here. You are a good desciple of your idealogy – indentify target, freeze target, polarize target.
Seems to me a sad way to go through life.
As for me I can trace my lineage back to 1650 in this land, with my relatives fighting in the revolutionary, civil war, one dying at the Alamo and that’s with out even mentioning this century.
Does this make me more American than anyone else? No I stand shoulder to shoulder with any American that loves this country however I take issue with those who seek to destroy or make America less great.
Correction 1750 my relatives didn’t beat Columbus here. Logic you know Columbus was Italian?
Yes, Mr. Gladstone. I, too, was convinced that “Logic” appeared to be focused on posting any old crap to provoke other commenters.
Thankfully, however, this proved to be no enticement whatsoever for American News Post’s vigilant but restrained readers, who were focused on the topic at hand, and were only interested entertaining relevant and worthwhile positions.
I trust that in the event that “Logic” again undertakes to disrupt normal, topical discussion on here, readers will rise to the occasion by calmly having their say and inviting him to go create havoc on another forum.
Yes, “Logic” was behaving in a way that he hoped would elicit some kind of emotional response from us. No further analysis is necessary. It’s also very strange that he volunteered that piece of information about being Italian.
Reading my questions/comments on Fosco’s Outfit-related posts would probably prove that to anyone.
What I don’t get about “logic” is they control the country right now and yet they are still miserable. We had better let them down easy the next 90 days because some may be in for a shock on November 2, 2010.
Shouldn’t they be living it up like I don’t the Pres (Is there a band that hasn’t played the White House?) and the first lady. I wonder how “racist” Spain is this time of year?
Finally what is the deal with the fixation on Glenn Beck?
The problem seems that, for “Logic,” “liberalism is an aesthetic” and perhaps better understood as an identity statement.
He clings to liberalism because letting the truth in would result in an identity crisis. So, his dogmatism and overconfidence results in a selective reading of these threads.
I can see the troll horns from here. Come on, am I really the only one who realizes that Logic is a troll?
Logic do you know who Friederick Hayek is?
Dear Mr. Fosco,
Is it true that a certain professor who specializes in media communications at Loyola University will, on Monday, be touching on the subject of Online Reputation and Etiquette in the Blogging Community during one of his lectures–using Logic’s antics as a kind of case study in why “enforcing civility” in comment threads is necessary for “legitimate” online journalists?
Dear Loshon,
Excuse me for taking a bit to get back to you. I called Loyola to learn that no such lecture sounds familiar to them.
Thanks,
JF
As I understand it such as lecture is planned and may be open to non-students.
Wow. I don’t think anything I’ve ever written has gotten this level of a response, though to be fair it has little to do with my actual topic 🙂
I have always considered ANP to not be a conservative or liberal stage, and I gladly welcome everyone that can (constructively) contribute to serious dialog about any subject.
I would like to extend an invitation to anyone who has written on this thread to pen an article or two for American News Post. It seems like we have a few people here who are not shy to write about things that concern them. Please contact me (alexjsharp@gmail.com) or Joe (via the contact form at the top of the page). We are always looking for new writers, especially ones with different viewpoints.
You are all very accuasatory and very odd in the way you respond to my arguments. I plagiarize? Please post a link and support your statement.
Sorry, but academia has not been pushing Marxist ideology…thats just your parnoia and probably the way you rationlize the fact that higher percentage of those educated are liberal.
Hollywood has a liberal bias, the media has a liberal bias, academia has a liberal bias, the internet has a liberal bias…instead of crying about why everyone seems to have “hidden agendas” against conservatives, ever ask yourselves why it is that EVERYTHING seems to have liberal bias?
Maybe reality has a liberal bias?
Sometimes I feel as if you don’t want to acknowledge what perplexes us liberals so much because you enjoy having the “crutch” to use in defense.
Just tell me where it ends you have significant Federal ownership of banks and auto companies, national health care, financial reform on deck is cap and trade and a VAT tax.
And you are still unhappy! We Americans are being ruled by 20% of this country a group of elitists. We do not want any of what I have listed above – why would you expect us to just lie down? We won’t.
Since you cannot effectively communicate your beliefs or reasons I ask again where does it end? When will you be satisfied?
You guys should be as happy as Bill Clinton in a brothel but you are not, you whine enough is never enough is it.
Self Proclaimed “Patriot”–
I had thought it was the government’s job to protect the people and defend our rights. Reform and regulation I believe is how they protect people. If not the government then who else? They obviously won’t regulate themselves when their main motivation is to make money.
The government does not “own” banks and auto companies…they made an investment and are slowly withdrawing that investment year by year with exceptional ROI. In 5 years, GM and the banks will not have the US gov owning shares…it was done in a time of crisis to stop these companies from falling and taking millions of jobs with them.
What don’t you understand about that?
Sorry but healthcare (life or death in many cases) isn’t a “business” in my eyes.
And where does the term “elitists” come from aside from Glenn Beck? Please explain the definition. Someone who is educated? What’s wrong with that? Someone who is wealthy? Well they probably are republican then right, otherwise they are taxing themselves. Someone who doesn’t acknowledge conspiracy theories? Then average citizens fall into this category.
Where does it end? My question is where did it begin? Using logic and rational thought, do you really think Obama is trying to transform our economy? Capitalism needs restriction and most understand that.
Government under Obama is no more in your everyday life than it was under Bush. Unless you don’t already have healthcare, you will essentially be unaffected by Obamacare. The health insurers will be taxed to the point where they make maybe $2-3 Billion less than normal. What’s so wrong about that I ask you?
What in the hell are you all so mad about? You survived 8 years of Clinton didn’t you? Was the country transformed?
All this “loss of freedom” and “growing government” is percieved and you have bought into paranoia created by a political party and pushed by talking heads.
If you disagree, I will ask you to provide one specific example of where government has “intruded” into your personal life. Emphasis on specific.
Answer the question – where does it end? When will you liberals/progressives/marxists/democratics socailistc/stateists be content tell me when is enough enough?
And since I don’t know much about Glenn Beck aside from you innane constant mentioning of him why don’t you tell me everything about him.
Sorry a mandate of what kind of health insurance is acceptable to the federal government is reaching too far into my life. When did you become the one who determines how much profit is enough or too much. Again none of your damn business this is America not Iran as you also seem to state again again.
Elitists are poeple who think they have a right to determine what is best for another. Sort of like you deciding who shall make what profit or what health insurance coverage me and my family shall have.
Clinton became a moderate after losing the House in 1994 – due to an attempt to pass a national health care plan. Sort of like Obama will lose the House in November for forcing a national health plan upon Americans. Again you liberals learn nothing from history.
Again why are you unhappy you liberals seemingly have everything you want right now?
“self proclaimed patriot” really you are starting to embarass yourself.
It would be interesting to see what Logic would be capable of producing as far a legitimate piece of writing when he knows his words aren’t going to be buried in the comment threads, only to be viewed by periodic lurkers and ANP staff. For the last two days, he’s been trolling, clowning, as saying whatever ridiculous garbage he can conjure from the comfort of his armchair, even though he thinks he’s impressing everyone with his supposed breadth of knowledge and erudition.
Logic either tries to ignore or is completely unaware of the influence of the European Marxist intellectuals whose work is responsible for much of the fuzzy-thinking philosophies of contemporary liberalism, via American universities. Even though well-informed, intelligent liberals do not distance themselves from such philosophies, Logic insists on denying such an influence. When asked to name a single influential non-Marxist continental intellectual, he named 2 AMERICAN academics–one of whom was a “classically liberal” economist; the other was a philosopher whose true influence is debatable and whose significant work came after the time period in question. (By the way, if Logic is does not know what “continental” means in this context, then Logic should have withdrawn from this discussion almost as quickly as it started, issuing an apology upon his departure.)
Notice how other readers felt comfortable using the word “Marxist” without recoiling in horror or sounding the alarm. This is because we realize that Marxism is nothing to be feared because history has shown us its bankruptcy. For some reason Logic continued to make the mistake of reacting as if we were being alarmist and paranoid about the subject. Ironically enough, it was Logic who was being alarmist. Logic, not surprisingly, overreacted to just about everything that was said by his opponents.
Logic thinks that by accusing other readers of trying to “sound” intellectual and not knowing what they’re talking about, that that makes it the case. Perhaps he even thinks that in saying so, it helps his own highly suspect credibility— as if by accusing others of intellectual pretenses, it somehow makes him an intellectual. Also, by scrutinizing the way other users conjugate verbs and pointing out other petty mistakes, Logic thinks he is deflecting attention away from his own numerous errors and especially his own baseless, fallacious arguments and positions. How sad it must be for him that none of this is the case.
How sad it is to be so gullible that you buy into these vast “conspiracies” and “agendas.” You are literally a prime target for any scammer looking to make a buck. Life is not the X-Files.
You’ve tried to use “continental” instead of just saying “European” right? Sorry, but I don’t believe many of them, especially after 1960 have had an impact on American academia.
You know nothing about philosophy—especially political philosophy—and your insertion of Rorty (LOL) and Friedman into this conversation proves that. The fact that you don’t know what “continental philosophy” is mystifying. You’ve shown yourself to know nothing about the history of ideas in the U.S. By the way, you’re the only liberal “intellectual” (LOL) I’ve ever met who would say, “I don’t believe many of them [continental intellectuals], especially after 1960 have had an impact on American academia.” That is preposterous.
Yes, notice that there’s a consistent disparity between what Logic THINKS is the case, and what is widely agreed-upon TO BE the case.
Logic, if you honestly don’t think that continental intellectuals were that influential to American academia beyond the 1960’s then it’s clear that you didn’t even attend college. Seriously. (Or if you did, you were a PE or hospitality major. No offense.)
You’re the first person on either side of the aisle that I’ve ever heard say something like that. You’re ignoring history.
Does logic have a drivers license? Or better yet how does logic interact in day to day situations because I have personally witnessed dozens of odd comments some of relevance most however seem like logic is having their own dialogue.
Logic either disengenuous, extremely annoying, ignorant or an odd type of evil.
“Odd type of evil.” I’d prefer that as I’m finding it increasingly amusing pushing more conservatives toward paranoia.
PS–were you lucky enough to read the words of a good Republican who will probably ben booted from his party?
Bob Inglis (R-SC):
“I figured out early in the race I was taking a risk by being unwilling to call the President a socialist,” Inglis says. “I’d get asked a question and they’d all wait to see if I’d use the word – socialist – they were throwing around. I wouldn’t. Because I don’t think that’s what he is.
“To call him a socialist is to demean the office and stir up a passion that we need to be calming, rather than constantly stirring up.”
So keep letting the others “stir up the passion (fear/paranoia) as its easier to motivate and manipulate the frightened than the confident. You might find an entire course devoted to “fear mongering” in “Leadership for Tyrants 101.”
NO ONE is talking about obama being a socialist.
NO ONE is talking about ANYBODY being a socialist.
what WAS being talked about is the influence that marxist continental intellectuals had on american universities and contemporary liberal thought, POST-1960’s.
the academic output of these intellectuals still a considered a worthwhile approach to critical theory in areas of the ARTS in american universities. but its value in theory and practice with regard to the political arena was shown to be ZERO upon the fall of the soviet union.
this, as everyone BUT Logic knows, is something that liberals do no deny but, in fact, freely advertise.
the educated world knows and accepts this.
Logic does not accept this for some reason.
Logic, for some ODD reason, has taken the absurd position of denying this and accusing us of being paranoid about it.
why would Logic do this?
because Logic is either a troll who’s just stirring up trouble (and very successfully, at that)
or possibly even because…
he does not know what he’s talking about; doesn’t know what he’s defending; is unaware of his own intellectual tradition and does not care
If you freely admit as you do that Obama is NOT a socialist, NOT a communist, NOT a Marxist, then what is the signficance of Marxism in American Universtities? What is the signficance of Marxism whatsoever or the need to continue discussig it. In univeristies, it is discussed within an intellectual context, as is incest, anarchy, revolution, civil war and other subjects that many Americans feel republsed by. Never in this intellectual context is influence exerted in efforts to turn a government into what Karl Marx wrote about.
So what is the obsession with Marxism? A subject that like religion, has so many various meanings and scholars claiming they know the “true Marx” though all he did was write a book. Scholars agree the USSR was extremely far off from what Marx wrote about, so you are obsessing on a subject that like religion, about every other person claims they know and understand more than the other. Marx is dead. Jesus is dead. Keep the memory of Jesus alive in in your life and the memory of Marx alive in an intellectual capacity as students try to understand the world.
Easy enough?
Alex not sure how serious you are but off the top of my head here are a few ideas for articles:
1. A Tale of Two Liberals – about the IL senate race between Mark Kirk and Alex Gannulious.
2. E Kagan: Pretty On The Inside.
3. Why ANP Is A More Legitimate Newssource Than the NYT.
Keep up the great offerings at ANP.
If you’ve got something you want to say about any of these subjects please send it our way. I particularly like the 3rd one 😉
While I cannot guarantee that a particular article will definitely be published, you can rest assured that provided the piece is not flooded with purposely inflammatory, vitriolic commentary and devoid of factual arguments it will be given every chance to be published at ANP.
Since I have no reason to assume any work from yourself or other major commenters at ANP would be of such a baseless nature (Joe does a good job keeping all vulgarians at bay), I am practically positive some kind of a working relationship can be established between any of the writers here and ANP.
Thank you for your interest and we hope to hear from you soon!
Dear staff,
Please publish an article by Patriot. I don’t really have the reputation of being the kind of person who uses street language, but this Patriot person is really kicking some major a– on here. The more I read this thread, the more I realize that this debate ended a long time ago.
Dear Joe F., publisher,
I remember that you once wrote something about how as a union official, your dad (God rest his soul) was a lifelong Democrat. And, if he were alive today, you would stand fast by your decision to align yourself with Republican / Conservative ideologies, while still respecting his opinions and views.
Joe, with respect, you would know better than I about your late-father’s political views. But I’m wondering if you’ve thought about the possibility that if he was still here today that he might be a Republican. All my descendants and older living relatives on both sides of the family were diehard Democrats up until the early 1980’s when they realized that “Democratic” nowadays stands for an entirely different set of beliefs than it did 50-years ago.
If Armando Sr. was a wise and levelheaded man of great resolve, I could easily imagine such a person making the decision to “switch parties.”
Dear Bright,
Thank you for the kind words.
Dear Bright,
Furthermore, in my late father’s era, in order to be a successful businessperson in Chicago, you had to be two things, Catholic and a Democrat.
Or Outfit member…you act as if the democrats during the height of corruption were true democrats. I’m sure Accardo and his minions would just has easily been conservatives if they were power at that time. And all the familiar names could just as easily had “republican” in the name.
Please stop using Chicago as a basis for criticism against democrats. Its like using a Hutaree meeting as a basis for criticism against moderate right wingers. The Chicago machine is not run by democrats in Washington or Obama, but rather by local Chicagoans with vowels in their last name from social clubs on grand avenue and the filthy pols who have enjoyed power for decades who do their bidding.
Dear Logic,
Whatever.
How about just “agreed” instead of “whatever” which sounds a little childish. After all, would you deny the Outfit is usually the main culprit behind a vast amount of Chicago corruption? You sure enjoy writing about it. Would you believe that had Daley Sr. been a Republican, it would be the Chicago GOP machine as opposed to democrats?
Blagojevich, Daley, Ryan, Madigan, etc….they aren’t truly “republicans” and “democrats” but actually corupt greedy pols who would choose left or right based on where the larger pile of money is.
A lot of Union rank and file were called Reagan Democrats in the 1980’s.
Joe a while back you relayed a story about your Father being told to give someone a raise. Your Father did ableit a small or moderate one as I think you put it he thought of spending the Teamsters money as spending his own and would not do so without careful consideration.
My point is your to me Father did not sound like just another back slapping good old boy Chicago Democrat.
God rest his soul.
Dear Patriot,
Thank you for the kind words.
Seeing as how I’ve effectively created a major distraction in yet another thread with my nonsensical positions and patently false assertions on the subjects of politics, philosophy and sociology (all of which I know nothing about), I think it is high time I began focusing on another article. Thank you, Joe and Alex.
And remember: ¡Viva la Revolución!
Dear Logic,
Whatever makes you happy.
It’s sad to see that Logic has a skewed world view and not even a remote understanding of his own political tradition’s intellectual history.
At least he’s not lacking in self-understanding–he used a troll for his avatar.
He did use a troll!
See how easy it is for others to steal your name?
Logic isn’t so stupid as to post something like that…though you would have to be subpar to believe those were actually his words.
Then again, many of us believe the President isn’t actually born in the United States and have been purchasing “survival seeds” during commercial breaks from Glenn Beck…thus I guess anything is possible when paranoia sets in.
Dear Logic,
Was that you? Someone used my name as if I left a comment and because I did not know who it was (since there are roughly 10 different used names affiliated with it); I simply replaced my name with the commenter’s IP address. Okay, I will remove it as you requested – as soon as I am back from lunch.
Yes that was me. Someone had done the same thing to me with that silly response “¡Viva la Revolución!” and I wanted to ensure you knew I was a little more sophisticated than that by showing you how anyone can steal names in the comment section.
Might you be able to prevent this from happening going forward? Quite obvious most right-leaning readers do not enjoy reading what I have to say. Also quite obvious I don’t care, but simply wish to inject simple logic and facts where necessary 🙂
Joe, did you read his article from the Daily Telegraph?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100050002/the-obama-presidency-increasingly-resembles-a-modern-day-ancien-regime-extravagant-and-out-of-touch-with-ordinary-people/
It’s disappointing to see that such a unapologetically irreverent display such as this is getting coverage by ENGLISH (!) newspapers (and other European news outlets), while not receiving the same scrutiny by our liberal news outlets.
Shame on our government. How embarrassing for American media.
Nile Gardiner is a well-known conservative commentator who writes for the Heritage Foundation. His columns are “opinion.” http://www.heritage.org/About/Staff/G/Nile-Gardiner
What if Rachel Maddow’s columns ran in a foreign publication? What image of America would they have then? Instead the shame should focus on the Telegraph, a conservative outlet, for not hiring objective writers to cover the politics of other nations.
Silly “facts.” 😉
Do liberals ever get sick of rewriting history?
When you say “rewriting history” is that another name for separating fact from fiction?
PS–Sorry you find factual clarifications a “bore”…I wish I could just make random statements with little regard for the truth…unfortunately, I want to be taken seriously by others. If lying is morally wrong, then making fictional statements when understanding others will take that as truth is also…morally wrong.
ha ha… Good call,9 August 2010 at 1:19 pm.
Well, rewriting history in order to accommodate liberal delusions seems to make for entertaining news programs, if nothing else. (Albeit, in a Mystery Science Theater 3000 sort of way.)
Also, if you’re aware of Howard Zinn’s People’s History of the United States, you’ll know that it’s also a lucrative enterprise.
How have liberals rewritten history? We’ve done that and taken over the media, hollywood, education and Google??!
Wow we must be doing something right?!?
Sounds more like you are trying the change the subject away from you not realizing Nile Gardiner was a conservative opinion writer, which honestly was an easy mistake that I was trying to clarify for other readers.
There need to be more liberals like Paul Berman, who actually understands the world and is able to write its complexities using standard formal English (and does so in a coherent, sensible yet still very engaging way).
Logic check out http://www.breitbart.tv/reagan-the-prophet/