After all when the State can take your property, restrict your political speech and disarm the populace, you really don’t have much left in the way of freedom.
Yes, you do. You have freedom from responsibility, freedom from fear, ...
For all their groupthink cowardicwe and retardistributiveness, the Left believes in a Right to be Unafraid - and it is that mental-myth that makes them feel heroic and strong and brave when they (supposedly) "Speak Tuth to Power" - especially when it's their own truth and they're talking to themself like a crazy lady shouting at lamp-posts on Shattuck Ave. in Berkeley.
They need to feel the feeling of bravery and against-the-odds, after all those feelings are more real than the actuality of their experienc in the Hive-mind - and it allows them to claim some individuality...
I'd include Gonzalez v. Raich and the various cases in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld line as being "big SCOTUS cases which IMHO, really define our freedoms and personal liberty". Not too suprising they were left out though, since the convservative justices didn't end up looking quite so good in those cases.
So you think the Court should have found in favor of Gonzales? How would we pay for THAT precedent?
I haven't read Hamdi, but I understand that Thomas was the only Justice to side entirely for the .gov. Given my opinion of Thomas's Originalist credentials, that goes a long way towards making me think that the majority was wrong in that one.
The reasoning behind a ruling is just as important as the specific outcome. In Raich only Thomas took the pro-liberty position that the commerce clause does not permit the government to constrain individual activity due to a vague indirect effect it could have on markets.
The other conservative either ruled for the government (Scalia) or ruled only that the state governments have a right to overrule the federal government, while leaving the federal government free to mandate a default it ought not be permitted to make.
As for Hamdi (and I said line because I was also including the various follow on cases), well even Thomas is wrong from time to time. The idea that the government can detain someone indefinitely, without charge, and without any outside review solely because the President promises to only do it when he has a good reason (but he can't tell anyone what that reason is, we just have to trust him) ought to be anathema to those who value liberty.
Where we differ on Hamdi, I think, is on the difference between law enforcement and the prosecution of war. The two MUST follow different rules. Police cannot be allowed to summarily execute suspects. Soldiers must not be required to arrest and read Miranda rights to enemy combatants. They should be free to call in airstrikes on them. Captured combatants should not receive the same rights as captured criminal suspects. Hamdi blurs that line, and I think Thomas saw that.
Good quote from the last iteration of Battlestar Galactica: "The police protect the People. The military protects the State. When the military becomes the police, the People become the enemy of the State."
I would buy that if the government were treating them as prisoners of war all the time, rather then as sometimes-POW's-sometimes-criminals-sometimes-terrorists depending on which status happens to be most convenient for the state from moment to moment.
There's also the issue that this is an undeclared war that claims the entire planet as a battlefield. Is there any point where "well this is war and war is different" ceases to be an excuse for what is effectively an assertion by the Executive branch to the power to grab anyone, anywhere and to hold them incommunicado for as long as they see fit and never have to justify the decision to anyone?
I would buy that if the government were treating them as prisoners of war all the time, rather then as sometimes-POW's-sometimes-criminals-sometimes-terrorists depending on which status happens to be most convenient for the state from moment to moment.
I'm completely with you on this one.
Is there any point where "well this is war and war is different" ceases to be an excuse for what is effectively an assertion by the Executive branch to the power to grab anyone, anywhere and to hold them incommunicado for as long as they see fit and never have to justify the decision to anyone?
Yes. When they use law enforcement officers to apprehend suspects in areas that are not combat zones. If the COPS grab them, it's a criminal case. If SOLDIERS grab them, they're "enemy combatants," POWs and hopefully intelligence sources. The difference is, the soldiers can shoot them, shell them, or have bombs dropped on them. The cops can only shoot them if the suspects put the cops or bystanders in danger themselves.
As I understand it, Hamdi was given to the U.S. military after being captured - on the battlefield - by Northern Alliance troops. He should have gotten a military tribunal. The Supreme Court should have butted out, which is what Thomas's dissent says.
Okay, how about Rumsfeld v. Padilla? US Citizen nabbed by FBI agents on US soil (is the US a combat zone?) and was being held without trial in a miltary prison. Thomas took the brave stand of punting the case on a technicality rather than addressing the issue.
Thomas joined the majority opinion and did not file a concurrance in Padilla. Stormy, there's a lot of bad law out there that is based on how the system works ("technicalities" in other words). When judges that agree with us violate the rules, we think it's great. When judges that disagree with us violate the rules, we call it "judicial activism." Interesting how that works, isn't it?
Thomas has been the single consistent Originalist voice on the Court. I'm inclined in this case (again) to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yet look at his dissent in Raich. I can't say that I'm all that surprised or worked up about a minor not having the full panoply of rights, particularly while at a school-supervised event.
I'm happy with the gun rights cases and am laughing my ass off at Citizen's. That one is so going to come back and bite the Right in the ass. I'm going to be sure to have an extra big tub of popcorn layered with butter and salt for that one.
Right and as I said I'm happy with the outcomes of the gun cases and do think the living free of fear thing is ludicrous. I was making a comment about the freedom from responsibility part of your comment which honestly sums up where the current form of the conservative movement not the progressive movement. Hence, the Rove comment.
"I was making a comment about the freedom from responsibility part of your comment which honestly sums up where the current form of the conservative movement not the progressive movement."
I just dumped on you at your own blog about twisting (torturing) our arguments last night, and you go and do it again here? You're really not here for the hunting, are you?
Again, since you claim to be a Christian, perhaps you're familiar with these verses:
Do not give false testimony against your neighbor.
(Exodus 20:16 HCSB) — The 9th Commandment
Whoever speaks the truth declares what is right, but a false witness, deceit.
(Proverbs 12:17 HCSB)
A false witness will not go unpunished, and one who utters lies will not escape.
(Proverbs 19:5 HCSB)
If a malicious witness testifies against someone accusing him of a crime, the two people in the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD before the priests and judges in authority at that time. The judges are to make a careful investigation, and if the witness turns out to be a liar who has falsely accused his brother, you must do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from you. Then everyone else will hear and be afraid, and they will never again do anything evil like this among you. You must not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, and foot for foot.
(Deuteronomy 19:16–21 HCSB)
The LORD hates six things; in fact, seven are detestable to Him: arrogant eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that plots wicked schemes, feet eager to run to evil, a lying witness who gives false testimony, and one who stirs up trouble among brothers.
(Proverbs 6:16–19 HCSB)
For the record, personal responsibility—the concept that each person is responsible for their own actions, or lack thereof—is central to conservatism. Your claim is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the truth.
Like I said, Tam, be prepared for an ass biting when progressive corporations start buying elections thanks to Citizens United. As always, nice beliefs...no practical application in reality.
Tam, contrary to how I am painted on here, I am not a Marxist. Nor am I even a subscriber to any sort of conflict theory. Certainly conflict does play a factor in any sort of socio-economic analysis but it is a moderate role at best. In all honesty, I'm more of functionalist and interactionist. Marx's theories have largely been proved completely wrong. Classless societies are completely impossible given how basic cultures function and our very own US of A proved that the working class is perfectly capable of owning the means of production.
The problem with this statement
I thought corporations were evil things that trampled the rights of the workers?
is that it operates under a paradigm that is woefully outdated. You can't trample on someone's rights who doesn't give a shit about those rights and does give more of a shit about the 5G iPhone...which is the majority of Americans. And you can't have government power when that government is a wholly owned subsidiary of multinational corporations. Karl Marx would have no answer for our plutonomy. None whatsoever.
In fact, no one does. And that's the whole problem.
Tam, contrary to how I am painted on here, I am not a Marxist.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps you'd be painted differently if you'd stop handing people brushes and paint cans? Haven't you noticed that when people here "paint you as a Marxist", they are much more likely than not to do so by quoting you?
"I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way." - Jessica Rabbit
I didn't want to detract from the likely TamSnark, but I had considered asking Mark if he'd even entertained the possibility that Tam's perception was shaped not by our "verbatim" comments, but by her own powers of observation...
The Cult defines themselves through their words and actions.
You link to a bit whose point is "generalizations are bad"... right in between those two statements. Even though with your "The Cult" meme you accuse atheists (like Kevin and myself) of wanting a Christian theocracy, blacks (like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and Alfonzo Rachel) of being white racists, and unemployed people or people doing piece work to make ends meet (I'm one, I know several more) of "wanting to keep their privileges".
And of course there's this, cut and pasted from your own blog:
"As Bill Maher said, not all conservatives are racist but if you are a racist, chances are, you're conservative"
But of course, that's a fair generalization.
See what I mean? If you don't want people to paint you a certain way, stop handing them paint cans.
"Tam, contrary to how I am painted on here, I am not a Marxist. .... And you can't have government power when that government is a wholly owned subsidiary of multinational corporations. Karl Marx would have no answer for our plutonomy. None whatsoever."
I'm sure this comment was meant to be sarcastic but I guess I'm wondering, Tam, when the last time you walked down K Street. When you have members of the financial services industry writing position papers for our representatives in Congress and those papers becoming policy, what other conclusion can you come to? Or when you have BP filling in regulatory reports in pencil and the MMS people re-copying them in ink, what other conclusion can you come to? Or the Citizens United case which essentially says that corporations are people?
It's quite a strange world you live in if you do indeed think that our government has any real power anymore.
Or the Citizens United case which essentially says that corporations are people?
And there you have it folks. The people who work in coal mines or coal fired power plants aren't really people. The people who work in the oil industry aren't really people. Neither are their stockholders. The former stockholders of GM sure as hell aren't, they've been made "unpeople" by the Obama Administration, at least for purposes of bankruptcy law applying to them. Your insurance agent isn't really a person. Neither is your broker. Neither is my neice's husband, the bank teller. Kevin works on mine equipment for a living, so chances are he's not a real person. Worse yet, he's a right-wing blogger, and worse still an armed, middle aged white guy from Arizona!, which elevates him to a status of some sort of archdemon or something.
You see, they're all "evil corporate interests", and it's their fault Obama took the money.
So, when something bounces off you, does it make a ping or a thud?
I keep laughing that despite 3 years of you spouting off Marxist talking points, we're just supposed to take your word for it that you aren't a Marxist.
You are either truly dense or wonderfully ignorant. Of course, nothing precludes you from being both.
BTW: it's been a while, so I wanted to bring your attention to the "firing bad teachers" discussion - I've been swamped and was changing computers, just got around to asking you for more clarification - I was hoping you'd answer while I was busy.
"Tam, contrary to how I am painted on here, I am not a Marxist."
Here in Kevin's parlor, you have been a champion of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" for over three years now. If you don't want to be painted a Marxist, then shave off the paint-by-number tattoo.
DJ, that's your intpretation colored by your perception which begins by shaving the football field in half and calling anyone at the 50 yard line a Marxist. As I told Russell, you are wrong...as you are about many of the "liberals" in Congress.
which begins by shaving the football field in half
Shaving?
That'll take a while.
and calling anyone at the 50 yard line a Marxist
In your case, it's like Schrodinger. Soon enough you'll run by with the goalpost and plant it next to them, and they'll be Marxist based on your goalposts.
...which begins by shaving the football field in half and calling anyone at the 50 yard line a Marxist.
Aren't you the one who claims that Obama, Pelosi and Reid, the ones who crafted a compromise between the far factions of their own party and cut the opposing party out of the process entirely, are moderates?
"DJ, that's your intpretation colored by your perception ..."
Yes, it is. My interpretation is based on perceiving your blitherings for over three years now. The ink is dry, teacher boy, and you still fool no one.
How odd then that you should argue in support of the Marxist conceit of "false consciousness". So, maybe you don't buy the whole Marx baloney - just a few slices.
I find it interesting that Kevin can post what he says is not the Uberpost, but that non-uberpost runs over 13 thousand words....
In a discussion over the McDonald ruling over in the ArsTechnica forums, I brought up how disarmament has almost always been followed by genocide, and got told that saying such things hurts my cause because it appears reactionary and inflammatory.
It was a repost (edited and updated) of a previous Überpost. It was not the forthcoming Überpost on the topic of Mr. James Kelly of Scotland that I'm still working on.
Furthermore, when you made a claim about how "The Köö1t" argues about what is and is not appropriate for the Federal Government, you changed the topic rather than admit that your claim about what we argues doesn't actually match up with our own words! In fact, you demonstrate a warped understanding of our words so often, that the strawman fallacy is one of your Standard Responses! You obviously love using the strawman fallacy so much, that you've built it into a giant effigy called "The Köö1t"!
These Köö1t "words and actions" you keep referring to don't exist anywhere but inside your own mind. You gotta stop listening to the little Alinsky in your head. He's making you look like a fool.
A fool does not delight in understanding, but only wants to show off his opinions.
(Proverbs 18:2 HCSB)
'Course, maybe I should pay more attention to this verse. After all, it's truth has been demonstrated here excessively:
Don’t speak to a fool, for he will despise the insight of your words.
(Proverbs 23:9 HCSB)
And I now have a much better understanding of this one:
A stone is heavy and sand, a burden, but aggravation from a fool outweighs them both.
(Proverbs 27:3 HCSB)
"You (along with many others) have set themselves up as the ultimate authority on the Constitution. And the Bible, for that matter. Take, for example, the comment above. In anon's eyes, anon and only anon knows what securing the border means."
… "I know no such conceit and am willing to submit that there are many diverse ways of looking at just about anything...some of which can be superior to my point of view."
As I write this, a black President is speaking at the funeral for a Senator famous for his ties to the KKK. I, who have never been eligible for any of the adjectives used above, feel certain that each of them have firmly believed most of their lives that they were doing the best they could for this imporvement of their country and the betterment of their fellow man. This even though not only were the differences between the two quite stark, but I have rarely agreed with either of them.
And in a multitude of ways both foreseen and unforeseen, we are both better and worse off for their efforts.
Hat tip to juris imprudent who posted the link in a comment at Markadelphia's blog.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/06/quote-of-day-liberty-edition.html (79 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
And yet she voted for Obama. She can bite me.
Amen!
After all when the State can take your property, restrict your political speech and disarm the populace, you really don’t have much left in the way of freedom.
Yes, you do. You have freedom from responsibility, freedom from fear, ...
That's really how the Left sees it.
Cue our favorite fuckwit...
Amen.
For all their groupthink cowardicwe and retardistributiveness, the Left believes in a Right to be Unafraid - and it is that mental-myth that makes them feel heroic and strong and brave when they (supposedly) "Speak Tuth to Power" - especially when it's their own truth and they're talking to themself like a crazy lady shouting at lamp-posts on Shattuck Ave. in Berkeley.
They need to feel the feeling of bravery and against-the-odds, after all those feelings are more real than the actuality of their experienc in the Hive-mind - and it allows them to claim some individuality...
Well said, Dirt.
I'd include Gonzalez v. Raich and the various cases in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld line as being "big SCOTUS cases which IMHO, really define our freedoms and personal liberty". Not too suprising they were left out though, since the convservative justices didn't end up looking quite so good in those cases.
So you think the Court should have found in favor of Gonzales? How would we pay for THAT precedent?
I haven't read Hamdi, but I understand that Thomas was the only Justice to side entirely for the .gov. Given my opinion of Thomas's Originalist credentials, that goes a long way towards making me think that the majority was wrong in that one.
The reasoning behind a ruling is just as important as the specific outcome. In Raich only Thomas took the pro-liberty position that the commerce clause does not permit the government to constrain individual activity due to a vague indirect effect it could have on markets.
The other conservative either ruled for the government (Scalia) or ruled only that the state governments have a right to overrule the federal government, while leaving the federal government free to mandate a default it ought not be permitted to make.
As for Hamdi (and I said line because I was also including the various follow on cases), well even Thomas is wrong from time to time. The idea that the government can detain someone indefinitely, without charge, and without any outside review solely because the President promises to only do it when he has a good reason (but he can't tell anyone what that reason is, we just have to trust him) ought to be anathema to those who value liberty.
Where we differ on Hamdi, I think, is on the difference between law enforcement and the prosecution of war. The two MUST follow different rules. Police cannot be allowed to summarily execute suspects. Soldiers must not be required to arrest and read Miranda rights to enemy combatants. They should be free to call in airstrikes on them. Captured combatants should not receive the same rights as captured criminal suspects. Hamdi blurs that line, and I think Thomas saw that.
Good quote from the last iteration of Battlestar Galactica: "The police protect the People. The military protects the State. When the military becomes the police, the People become the enemy of the State."
I would buy that if the government were treating them as prisoners of war all the time, rather then as sometimes-POW's-sometimes-criminals-sometimes-terrorists depending on which status happens to be most convenient for the state from moment to moment.
There's also the issue that this is an undeclared war that claims the entire planet as a battlefield. Is there any point where "well this is war and war is different" ceases to be an excuse for what is effectively an assertion by the Executive branch to the power to grab anyone, anywhere and to hold them incommunicado for as long as they see fit and never have to justify the decision to anyone?
I would buy that if the government were treating them as prisoners of war all the time, rather then as sometimes-POW's-sometimes-criminals-sometimes-terrorists depending on which status happens to be most convenient for the state from moment to moment.
I'm completely with you on this one.
Is there any point where "well this is war and war is different" ceases to be an excuse for what is effectively an assertion by the Executive branch to the power to grab anyone, anywhere and to hold them incommunicado for as long as they see fit and never have to justify the decision to anyone?
Yes. When they use law enforcement officers to apprehend suspects in areas that are not combat zones. If the COPS grab them, it's a criminal case. If SOLDIERS grab them, they're "enemy combatants," POWs and hopefully intelligence sources. The difference is, the soldiers can shoot them, shell them, or have bombs dropped on them. The cops can only shoot them if the suspects put the cops or bystanders in danger themselves.
As I understand it, Hamdi was given to the U.S. military after being captured - on the battlefield - by Northern Alliance troops. He should have gotten a military tribunal. The Supreme Court should have butted out, which is what Thomas's dissent says.
Okay, how about Rumsfeld v. Padilla? US Citizen nabbed by FBI agents on US soil (is the US a combat zone?) and was being held without trial in a miltary prison. Thomas took the brave stand of punting the case on a technicality rather than addressing the issue.
Thomas joined the majority opinion and did not file a concurrance in Padilla. Stormy, there's a lot of bad law out there that is based on how the system works ("technicalities" in other words). When judges that agree with us violate the rules, we think it's great. When judges that disagree with us violate the rules, we call it "judicial activism." Interesting how that works, isn't it?
Thomas has been the single consistent Originalist voice on the Court. I'm inclined in this case (again) to give him the benefit of the doubt.
he (Thomas) sure gave us a boner with Morse v. Frederick (aka Bong Hits 4 Jesus)
Yet look at his dissent in Raich. I can't say that I'm all that surprised or worked up about a minor not having the full panoply of rights, particularly while at a school-supervised event.
That's really how the Left sees it.
Nice Rove, Sarah.
I'm happy with the gun rights cases and am laughing my ass off at Citizen's. That one is so going to come back and bite the Right in the ass. I'm going to be sure to have an extra big tub of popcorn layered with butter and salt for that one.
Mark, you and your views do not comprise the entirety of progressivism, but it's nice to know that you think they do.
Have you not read the go-rounds with James? His argument is precisely that gun bans allow people to live free of fear.
Right and as I said I'm happy with the outcomes of the gun cases and do think the living free of fear thing is ludicrous. I was making a comment about the freedom from responsibility part of your comment which honestly sums up where the current form of the conservative movement not the progressive movement. Hence, the Rove comment.
"I was making a comment about the freedom from responsibility part of your comment which honestly sums up where the current form of the conservative movement not the progressive movement."
I just dumped on you at your own blog about twisting (torturing) our arguments last night, and you go and do it again here? You're really not here for the hunting, are you?
Again, since you claim to be a Christian, perhaps you're familiar with these verses:
Do not give false testimony against your neighbor.
(Exodus 20:16 HCSB) — The 9th Commandment
Whoever speaks the truth declares what is right, but a false witness, deceit.
(Proverbs 12:17 HCSB)
A false witness will not go unpunished, and one who utters lies will not escape.
(Proverbs 19:5 HCSB)
If a malicious witness testifies against someone accusing him of a crime, the two people in the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD before the priests and judges in authority at that time. The judges are to make a careful investigation, and if the witness turns out to be a liar who has falsely accused his brother, you must do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from you. Then everyone else will hear and be afraid, and they will never again do anything evil like this among you. You must not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, and foot for foot.
(Deuteronomy 19:16–21 HCSB)
The LORD hates six things;
in fact, seven are detestable to Him:
arrogant eyes, a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that plots wicked schemes,
feet eager to run to evil,
a lying witness who gives false testimony,
and one who stirs up trouble among brothers.
(Proverbs 6:16–19 HCSB)
For the record, personal responsibility—the concept that each person is responsible for their own actions, or lack thereof—is central to conservatism. Your claim is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the truth.
Yeah, Mark, whe know where you stand on 1st Amendment issues: Side by side with McCain and Feingold.
Oh shit, I felt that one from way over here!
Fearsome open hand from the shoulder, square across the face. Nice form.
Like I said, Tam, be prepared for an ass biting when progressive corporations start buying elections thanks to Citizens United. As always, nice beliefs...no practical application in reality.
"progressive corporations"
I thought corporations were evil things that trampled the rights of the workers?
Tam:
That was last week.
Do keep up with the NewSpeak, would you?
Tam, contrary to how I am painted on here, I am not a Marxist. Nor am I even a subscriber to any sort of conflict theory. Certainly conflict does play a factor in any sort of socio-economic analysis but it is a moderate role at best. In all honesty, I'm more of functionalist and interactionist. Marx's theories have largely been proved completely wrong. Classless societies are completely impossible given how basic cultures function and our very own US of A proved that the working class is perfectly capable of owning the means of production.
The problem with this statement
I thought corporations were evil things that trampled the rights of the workers?
is that it operates under a paradigm that is woefully outdated. You can't trample on someone's rights who doesn't give a shit about those rights and does give more of a shit about the 5G iPhone...which is the majority of Americans. And you can't have government power when that government is a wholly owned subsidiary of multinational corporations. Karl Marx would have no answer for our plutonomy. None whatsoever.
In fact, no one does. And that's the whole problem.
Tam, according to what I say, I am a variant of a Marxist, but deny it vehemently.
FTFY.
In other news, are we now to finally get a actual definition for "good capitalism?"
Tam, contrary to how I am painted on here, I am not a Marxist.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps you'd be painted differently if you'd stop handing people brushes and paint cans? Haven't you noticed that when people here "paint you as a Marxist", they are much more likely than not to do so by quoting you?
"I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way." - Jessica Rabbit
I didn't want to detract from the likely TamSnark, but I had considered asking Mark if he'd even entertained the possibility that Tam's perception was shaped not by our "verbatim" comments, but by her own powers of observation...
GOF, regarding painting with a broad brush
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2010/04/brilliant.html
The Cult defines themselves through their words and actions. When they stop talking and acting Cult like, I will have nothing on which to comment.
The Cult defines themselves through their words and actions.
Yes, and as we all know, Mark is the leading expert around here on definitions.
When they stop talking and acting Cult like, I will have nothing on which to comment.
So as long as you're commenting, they're "talking and acting Cult like"? There's a name for that, somewhere, it escapes me..
GOF, regarding painting with a broad brush
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2010/04/brilliant.html
The Cult defines themselves through their words and actions.
This from the guy who defines everyone to the right of Ben Nelson as "The Cult".
Again, nice Rove. You're getting good at this.
"The Cult defines themselves through their words and actions."
You won't either define or accept a definition of "cult", aphasia boy.
"When they stop talking and acting Cult like, I will have nothing on which to comment."
When you stop acting like an Obama-worshipping cultist, we will have less on which to comment.
GOF, regarding painting with a broad brush
The Cult defines themselves through their words and actions.
You link to a bit whose point is "generalizations are bad"... right in between those two statements. Even though with your "The Cult" meme you accuse atheists (like Kevin and myself) of wanting a Christian theocracy, blacks (like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and Alfonzo Rachel) of being white racists, and unemployed people or people doing piece work to make ends meet (I'm one, I know several more) of "wanting to keep their privileges".
And of course there's this, cut and pasted from your own blog:
"As Bill Maher said, not all conservatives are racist but if you are a racist, chances are, you're conservative"
But of course, that's a fair generalization.
See what I mean? If you don't want people to paint you a certain way, stop handing them paint cans.
"Tam, contrary to how I am painted on here, I am not a Marxist. .... And you can't have government power when that government is a wholly owned subsidiary of multinational corporations. Karl Marx would have no answer for our plutonomy. None whatsoever."
Dude, you totally win. I surrender.
Dude, you totally win. I surrender.
I admit it -- You are smarter than I am.
Tam:
I'm sure this comment was meant to be sarcastic but I guess I'm wondering, Tam, when the last time you walked down K Street. When you have members of the financial services industry writing position papers for our representatives in Congress and those papers becoming policy, what other conclusion can you come to? Or when you have BP filling in regulatory reports in pencil and the MMS people re-copying them in ink, what other conclusion can you come to? Or the Citizens United case which essentially says that corporations are people?
It's quite a strange world you live in if you do indeed think that our government has any real power anymore.
when the last time you walked down K Street.
Personally, it was when I was in London with Gerry Rafferty.
Or the Citizens United case which essentially says that corporations are people?
And there you have it folks. The people who work in coal mines or coal fired power plants aren't really people. The people who work in the oil industry aren't really people. Neither are their stockholders. The former stockholders of GM sure as hell aren't, they've been made "unpeople" by the Obama Administration, at least for purposes of bankruptcy law applying to them. Your insurance agent isn't really a person. Neither is your broker. Neither is my neice's husband, the bank teller. Kevin works on mine equipment for a living, so chances are he's not a real person. Worse yet, he's a right-wing blogger, and worse still an armed, middle aged white guy from Arizona!, which elevates him to a status of some sort of archdemon or something.
You see, they're all "evil corporate interests", and it's their fault Obama took the money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TuLBa-rgBk
"I am not a Marxist"
Oh sure.......... We believe you Marky
"I am not a Marxist"
Is anyone else feeling the echos of "I am not a crook"?
"I am not a Marxist"
And yet, we think you are. Must be because of the false consciousness.
Well, you're wrong, Russell which, I know, is the end of the fucking world...a right winger being wrong=cue the boiling pit of sewage.
So, when something bounces off you, does it make a ping or a thud?
I keep laughing that despite 3 years of you spouting off Marxist talking points, we're just supposed to take your word for it that you aren't a Marxist.
You are either truly dense or wonderfully ignorant. Of course, nothing precludes you from being both.
"You are either truly dense or wonderfully ignorant. Of course, nothing precludes you from being both."
He is a troll, Russell, and nothing precludes him from being all three at once.
True, and a persistent troll at that! He's like an anti-mascot for TSM :)
"Well, you're wrong, Russell which, I know, is the end of the fucking world...a right winger being wrong ..."
... says the little boy who cannot admit error.
Yet again, you fool no one, little boy.
BTW: it's been a while, so I wanted to bring your attention to the "firing bad teachers" discussion - I've been swamped and was changing computers, just got around to asking you for more clarification - I was hoping you'd answer while I was busy.
"Tam, contrary to how I am painted on here, I am not a Marxist."
Here in Kevin's parlor, you have been a champion of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" for over three years now. If you don't want to be painted a Marxist, then shave off the paint-by-number tattoo.
DJ, that's your intpretation colored by your perception which begins by shaving the football field in half and calling anyone at the 50 yard line a Marxist. As I told Russell, you are wrong...as you are about many of the "liberals" in Congress.
which begins by shaving the football field in half
Shaving?
That'll take a while.
and calling anyone at the 50 yard line a Marxist
In your case, it's like Schrodinger. Soon enough you'll run by with the goalpost and plant it next to them, and they'll be Marxist based on your goalposts.
...which begins by shaving the football field in half and calling anyone at the 50 yard line a Marxist.
Aren't you the one who claims that Obama, Pelosi and Reid, the ones who crafted a compromise between the far factions of their own party and cut the opposing party out of the process entirely, are moderates?
Nice Rove, Mark.
"DJ, that's your intpretation colored by your perception ..."
Yes, it is. My interpretation is based on perceiving your blitherings for over three years now. The ink is dry, teacher boy, and you still fool no one.
I am not a Marxist.
How odd then that you should argue in support of the Marxist conceit of "false consciousness". So, maybe you don't buy the whole Marx baloney - just a few slices.
Nice Rove, Sarah.
Nice Rove, Mark.
Boy, this is much easier!
Nice Rove, UJ.
You're right, that is easier!
Suggestion:
"Nice Alinsky, Mark."
You're right. That is a lot easier than thinking! ;)
Hrumpf, Echo ate my comment.
Nice Nixon, UJ.
You're right, so much easier!
Third try here…
Suggestion:
"Nice Alinsky, Mark."
You're right. This is much easier than thinking!
Looks like Echo is eating comments again. I've tried to reply to Unix-Jedi's last comment three times. Not one is showing up.
They're posting, they're just really sluggish. I posted a comment this afternoon that didn't show up until this evening.
Whaddayawantforfree?
13,000+ word posts, by gum!
You got that already! :-D
I find it interesting that Kevin can post what he says is not the Uberpost, but that non-uberpost runs over 13 thousand words....
In a discussion over the McDonald ruling over in the ArsTechnica forums, I brought up how disarmament has almost always been followed by genocide, and got told that saying such things hurts my cause because it appears reactionary and inflammatory.
Where is that facepalm smiley when I want it...
It was a repost (edited and updated) of a previous Überpost. It was not the forthcoming Überpost on the topic of Mr. James Kelly of Scotland that I'm still working on.
Ayuh; those types.
Because waiting until you're actually in the Gulag is so much more helpful.
"The Cult defines themselves through their words and actions. When they stop talking and acting Cult like, I will have nothing on which to comment."
Small problem… We can't "stop" doing something we're not even doing in the first place.
I recently challenged you to show where "The Köö1t" actually does the things you claim in how we treat women. (Just as a fer instance.) Your response: Dead silence. This is because we don't treat women as you claim.
Furthermore, when you made a claim about how "The Köö1t" argues about what is and is not appropriate for the Federal Government, you changed the topic rather than admit that your claim about what we argues doesn't actually match up with our own words! In fact, you demonstrate a warped understanding of our words so often, that the strawman fallacy is one of your Standard Responses! You obviously love using the strawman fallacy so much, that you've built it into a giant effigy called "The Köö1t"!
These Köö1t "words and actions" you keep referring to don't exist anywhere but inside your own mind. You gotta stop listening to the little Alinsky in your head. He's making you look like a fool.
A fool does not delight in understanding, but only wants to show off his opinions.
(Proverbs 18:2 HCSB)
'Course, maybe I should pay more attention to this verse. After all, it's truth has been demonstrated here excessively:
Don’t speak to a fool, for he will despise the insight of your words.
(Proverbs 23:9 HCSB)
And I now have a much better understanding of this one:
A stone is heavy and sand, a burden, but aggravation from a fool outweighs them both.
(Proverbs 27:3 HCSB)
BTW… I should point out this comment from Mark:
"You (along with many others) have set themselves up as the ultimate authority on the Constitution. And the Bible, for that matter. Take, for example, the comment above. In anon's eyes, anon and only anon knows what securing the border means."
…
"I know no such conceit and am willing to submit that there are many diverse ways of looking at just about anything...some of which can be superior to my point of view."
This is a perfect example of deconstructionist thinking, which developed as part of Critical Theory, the brainchild of the Frankfurt school.
Mark, the bottom line is that when we think of you as someone who has socialist/marxist ideas, it's because your own words promote those ideas.
"You (along with many others) have set themselves up as the ultimate authority on the Constitution. And the Bible, for that matter."
LOL!
As I write this, a black President is speaking at the funeral for a Senator famous for his ties to the KKK. I, who have never been eligible for any of the adjectives used above, feel certain that each of them have firmly believed most of their lives that they were doing the best they could for this imporvement of their country and the betterment of their fellow man. This even though not only were the differences between the two quite stark, but I have rarely agreed with either of them.
And in a multitude of ways both foreseen and unforeseen, we are both better and worse off for their efforts.
My how the worlds turns...
And THAT is QotD!
Here's a good place to mine for tomorrow's:
http://www.doczero.org/
What's not to understand, GOF; one racist speaking at the funeral of another racist...
That's right. So by Marxaphasia's (tortured 'till it screams) "logic", that means Obama and Byrd were exactly alike.
Let me guess. Moderate?
Don't be silly. Obama's trying to save capitalism, by golly, so he must be a right wing zealot.
Looks like Chicago decided to give the Supreme Court the proverbial finger:
Chicago approves tough new handgun restrictions
Hat tip to juris imprudent who posted the link in a comment at Markadelphia's blog.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>