January 9, 2011

"Our spirited political discourse, complete with name-calling, vilification—and, yes, violent imagery—is a good thing."

"Better that angry people unload their fury in public than let it fester and turn septic in private. The wicked direction the American debate often takes is not a sign of danger but of freedom. And I'll punch out the lights of anybody who tries to take it away from me."

Slate's Jack Shafer comes out in favor of free speech.

Can you imagine writing about politics without the violent metaphors (and dead metaphors... yikes!)? You'd have to give up words like campaign! From the Online Etymology Dictionary:
campaign

1640s, "operation of an army in the field," from Fr. campagne "campaign," lit. "open country," from O.Fr. champagne "open country" (suited to military maneuvers), from L.L. campania "level country" (cf. It. campagna, Sp. campaña, Port. campanha), from L. campus "a field" ... Old armies spent winters in quarters and took to the "open field" to seek battle in summer. Extension of meaning from military to political is Amer.Eng. 1809. ...
And you know damned well that the people who are calling for the abandonment of violent metaphor are setting themselves up for hypocrisy when they go back to it. It will be so tedious to point it out when the time comes.

"Argument is war" was used as the first example of a metaphor we live by in the book "Metaphors We Live By":

Primarily on the basis of linguistic evidence, we have found that most of our ordinary conceptual system is metaphorical in nature. ...

To give some idea of what it could mean for a concept to be metaphorical and for such a concept to structure an everyday activity, let us start with the concept ARGUMENT and the conceptual metaphor ARGUMENT IS WAR. This metaphor is reflected in our everyday language by a wide variety of expressions:

ARGUMENT IS WAR

Your claims are indefensible.

He attacked every weak point in my argument.

His criticisms were right on target.

I demolished his argument.

I've never won an argument with him.

you disagree? Okay, shoot!

If you use that strategy, he'll wipe you out.

He shot down all of my arguments.

It is important to see that we don't just talk about arguments in terms of war. We can actually win or lose arguments. We see the person we are arguing with as an opponent. We attack his positions and we defend our own. We gain and lose ground. We plan and use strategies. If we find a position indefensible, we can abandon it and take a new line of attack. Many of the things we do in arguing are partially structured by the concept of war. Though there is no physical battle, there is a verbal battle, and the structure of an argument — attack, defense, counter-attack, etc. — reflects this. It is in this sense that the ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor is one that we live by in this culture; its structures the actions we perform in arguing. Try to imagine a culture where arguments are not viewed in terms of war, where no one wins or loses, where there is no sense of attacking or defending, gaining or losing ground. Imagine a culture where an argument is viewed as a dance, the participants are seen as performers, and the goal is to perform in a balanced and aesthetically pleasing way. In such a culture, people would view arguments differently, experience them differently, carry them out differently, and talk about them differently. But we would probably not view them as arguing at all: they would simply be doing something different. It would seem strange even to call what they were doing "arguing." In perhaps the most neutral way of describing this difference between their culture and ours would be to say that we have a discourse form structured in terms of battle and they have one structured in terms of dance. This is an example of what it means for a metaphorical concept, namely, ARGUMENT IS WAR, to structure (at least in part) what we do and how we understand what we are doing when we argue. The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another. It is not that arguments are a subspecies of war. Arguments and wars are different kinds of things — verbal discourse and armed conflict — and the actions performed are different kinds of actions. But ARGUMENT is partially structured, understood, performed, and talked about in terms of WAR. The concept is metaphorically structured, the activity is metaphorically structured, and, consequently, the language is metaphorically structured.

Moreover, this is the ordinary way of having an argument and talking about one. The normal way for us to talk about attacking a position is to use the words "attack a position." Our conventional ways of talking about arguments presuppose a metaphor we are hardly ever conscious of. The metaphors not merely in the words we use — it is in our very concept of an argument. The language of argument is not poetic, fanciful, or rhetorical; it is literal. We talk about arguments that way because we conceive of them that way — and we act according to the way we conceive of things.

The most important claim we have made so far is that metaphor is not just a matter of language, that is, of mere words. We shall argue that, on the contrary, human thought processes are largely metaphorical. This is what we mean when we say that the human conceptual system is metaphorically structured and defined. Metaphors as linguistic expressions are possible precisely because there are metaphors in a person's conceptual system. Therefore, whenever in this book we speak of metaphors, such as ARGUMENT IS WAR, it should be understood that metaphor means metaphorical concept.
Now, perhaps you think we shouldn't argue anymore and you'd like to deprive us of our war metaphors as a way to make us amiable, uncomplaining citizens in the future. You think that controlling speech would improve the world. But it wouldn't. In fact, it would be... doubleplusungood.

276 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 276 of 276
Michael said...

Conservatives4: "This sounds to me as if you are opposed to restraint in the realm of violent speech, even if self-imposed or put into a less crude context than firearm sightings."

This is a bit tortured but I will try and help.

I am opposed to the restraint of violent speech in or out of the "realm."
I am not opposed to self imposed restraint of any type.
I am not sure what you mean by "less crude context than firearms sightings." But I am absolutely not opposed to any self imposed restraint in regard to whatever you meant by it.

BJM said...

Meanwhile...the leftie media continues to beclown themselves.

Alex said...

HD - were you born stuck on stupid? My point is the guy was totally confused as evidenced that he read both Mein Kampf & The Communist Manifesto. OTOH, both Hitler and Marx are 2 sides of the same authoritarian coin...

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Michael:

Do you think laws against making threats are wrong? If not, how about veiled threats?

Birkel said...

HDHouse,

I think Hitler and Stalin felt about one another as Stalin and Trotsky felt about one another.

They were fellow travelers until they became political rivals who should be eliminated.

So if what you mean is Hitler, as one form socialist, felt about Stalin, another form of socialist, that he was useful until he wasn't...

Peter Hoh said...

Upset people look around for someone or something to blame. It's part of human nature.

It happens whether they are facing an autistic child or news reports about a school shooting or an explosion on an oil rig. Even in the aftermath of a blizzard, people start looking around to assign blame.

But just because there is a part of our brain that wants to blame doesn't mean that there is someone or something to blame.

Add to this the partisan desire to score points, and you get the conditions for a perfect shitstorm.

Unknown said...

For HD, the reason Hitler and Ernst Rohm fell out was because Rohm thought Hitler didn't go far enough in his socialist revolution. National Socialism is just that, the economy is controlled by the state, which tells business owners what to make, what to charge, how much to make, etc.

Rohm wanted what Lenin and, BTW, Mussolini had created - state capitalism, where the state controls the engines of production. Hitler made his deal for power by allowing Krupp, Daimler, Messeschmidt, etc. to keep nominal control in exchange for kickbacks.

Except for the fact that Lenin wanted to be the fountainhead of a global revolution of which he would be the ideological head, while Hitler and Mussolini wanted global control with physical control, there isn't that much difference.

Which is why both the Krauts and the Russkies were willing to talk deal as far as Poland was concerned.

PS Most historians agree that, if there was no Barbarossa, Stalin, paranoid as he was, would have attacked Hitler

Peter Hoh said...

And the 24-hour news cycle, which requires something to be said, right now, further magnifies the shitstorm.

Steve M. Galbraith said...

It is strange to me that in all of the rantings and ramblings by this shooter on Youtube and elsewhere that nowhere does he mention political parties or figures.

No mention of Bush or Obama or Palin or even Giffords. He talks about "the government" but he never mentions individual figures or the parties.

Very strange.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

I notice that Michael has declined to either respond or take a stand on laws against threats, open or veiled.

Birkel said...

C4BDH,

Please reference a law that criminalizes "veiled threats" that does not violate the First Amendment. Until you can provide one such law, I assume your question is rhetorical.

JAL said...

lyssa writ: but they can regulate out of existence,

Exactly. Don't know where I read it but Obama apparently articulated (cleanly) that at some point. I think it had something to do with his Sustein appointment (the Regulatory Czar). If they can't pass something they want they look to see how they can accomplish their goal (which is inevitably control) by "regulating" it.

There really can't be much push back on this as once as usually no one is aware of what the applications and consequences actually will be. Recent bad example is the consumer protection chickie. She put in place regulations (Bam! That's it!) which make it quite hard, if not impossible, for 'unemployed' homemakers / stay at home moms and domestic goddesses to get credit on their own. I am sure that wasn't her intent, but regulations aren't very well thought out.

They were trying to protect college students from themselves. Instead of telling the credit card companies they should think about limiting the credit non-working full time college students qualify for, they broad brush the whole thing and make intrusive "rules and regulations."

There was something else she did that will effectively end free checking accounts. Something the poor and older folks with limited resources really like. Makes keeping checkbooks balanced easier. But no. The People's Party want to take of everyone. By screwing them every way they can, as they claim they were helping.

David said...

My point is the guy was totally confused as evidenced that he read both Mein Kampf & The Communist Manifesto.

I'll bet you a cheese sandwich, a Usinger bratwurst and a six pack of Point beer he has never read either of them. Guy's a fake, because he had nothing at his core.

It's also not clear to me that this guy was crazy or delusional. Stupid, ignorant and for sure.

Now if he had Camus, The Stranger, on his list, maybe I would believe he read it. It's up his alley. Doubt he ever heard of Camus, or had an idea of his own, other than murder, of course.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

If there were political ads put out in 2004 with W.'s head in the crosshairs, what would your response be? Fair game?

Revenant said...

The quality of Ritmo's trolling has really declined this last couple of months. I think he took the November defeats hard.

Paco Wové said...

At least he no longer feels the need to pen his tedious little multi-part essays here. BAM! He's in, BAM! He says something stupid, BAM! He's gone.

Beta Rube said...

So did Dick Durbin saying this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqIlXfkylD4

Lead to this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/01/AR2009060103655.html

Is that how we work this deal now?

Fred4Pres said...

Olbermann is to blame for the shootings in Arizona.

For making public madness acceptable.

Michael said...

Conservative4: Laws against open threats are on the books and should be enforced. Not certain about veiled threats but I would imagine Rushdie had little legal recourse against the fatwa that held him hostage for years. Radical muslims have made it clear they will kill you or me if we mock their prophet. Should we sue them? They are beloved by the left, but the left values its neck.

rhhardin said...

According to a world traveller I know, metaphor in modern Greek means luggage carousel.

Michael said...

Conservatives4: Bush in the crosshairs? Google Images has a few. As I recall, though, no one shot GWB as a result. Ads with GWB in the crosshairs? Can't recall. I would be shocked if there weren't any. I don't get all in a wad with obvious hyperbole, however. It appears that only lefties can be urged to kill by that mean ole S.Palin. Words kill not guns.

Known Unknown said...

If there were political ads put out in 2004 with W.'s head in the crosshairs, what would your response be? Fair game?

Who's head was in the cross hairs in this instance? Yeah, Palin put them on a map — which I believe is all sorts of stupid — but it's currently correlation without causation. Unless there's evidence this monster's IP address hit up SarahPAC, we should probably pull back on the x-caused-y rhetoric.

There were democratic maps that featured targets, not crosshairs during Bush's tenure. This militarily-themed language has been in the political vernacular for a long, long time. Don't act like this is something new.

BJM said...

The left rounds up another of the usual suspects as State Congressional Representative Linda Lopez(AZ,D), made this remark on Fox immediately after the shooting, without any information or facts;

”the shooter is likely, from what I’ve heard, an Afghan vet..”

Stupid bint.

Michael said...

Conservatives4: If Bush was in the crosshairs in a political ad I would think "they are targeting Bush in the upcoming election." I would not think it meant to, like, go kill the president. And nobody on the right is so stupid as to think that is what such an ad would mean. The left I cannot speak for.

Michael said...

Conservatives4: You will recall this literary masterpiece: http://www.theassassinationofgeorgebush.com/ A book with the very title The Assassination of George Bush. Nice, eh? But that probably doesn't mean the same thing as the word "targeted."

Pastafarian said...

Dateline NBC is running a story on this right now.

So far, they've shown screen shots from Palin's website with little crosshairs on the map; they haven't explicitly blamed her. But that's the only information that they've given that has attempted to delve into this moron's motives.

This Giffords, by the way, seems like a really decent and fascinating person. They're going into the details of her injury and treatment, and I really don't want to hear it.

Sprezzatura said...

"This Giffords, by the way, seems like a really decent and fascinating person."

I agree. I wish she was my Congressperson. I can see how she won her McCain district, in 2010 (i.e. year of the R), after she voted for health care reform. Her constituents knew her.

I wish all Congressfolks, of both parties, had her decency. They could have completely different political views, but maintaining Giffords-like decency would be a good thing.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Thank God there are no schizophrenics in the world who watch television. I am happy that Michael is here to pretend their meddlesome existence away.

Pastafarian said...

According to Dateline NBC: He bought his Glock 9mm from a sporting goods store; was armed with 100 "bullets" (presumably loaded into complete rounds of ammunition).

They're interviewing Katie Parker; but for some reason they omitted any statement that he's "leftwing". That's odd. Guess it just didn't come up.

Classmates said he was quiet, a little wierd; he had his opinions, but...no one is saying just what they are. That's strange.

They mentioned his gold buggism; and his grammar fetish. But no mention of his favorite books including The Communist Manifesto, or his favorite video a burning American flag.

Wow. That seemed pretty sanitized to me. It seemed as though any mention of his politics, other than the gold standard stuff, was scrubbed from the report.

I wonder why.

Michael said...

Conservatives4: I remember how proud I was of the American left wing when they condemned the publication of the novel "The Assassination of George Bush." The outcry was nearly as great as those massive Muslim marches against terrorism. Huge but not that huge. And guys like you were in the forefront of that movement. It was a time to remember.

Michael said...

Because we have to watch our every word lest the schizoids be listening.

David said...

Blogger Jim Hoft has summed this nonsense perfectly:

We already knew that the Tucson shooter Jared Loughner was an anti-Christian, anti-Constitution, left-wing, pro-Marx, antiflag, "quite liberal" lunatic.

Today we found out that he also wanted to kill cops.

Using the state-run media model, we can therefore draw two conclusions from this information:

1.) He must be a tea partyer
2.) It's Sarah Palin's fault

Pastafarian said...

Now they're interviewing the parents of the little girl that was killed.

I don't know how they can maintain their composure. These are some pretty strong and stoic people.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ritmo Re-Animated said...

"guys like you..."

Wow Michael. With lumping that crude and cloudy, you yourself could be a schizophrenic.

Pastafarian said...

Ritzy, would continuously changing one's avatar and screen name be a red flag for schizophrenia?

Anonymous said...

But no mention of his favorite books including The Communist Manifesto, or his favorite video a burning American flag.

It doesn't fit the narrative. CNN is in the tank for "Palin in the cross hairs" as a trigger for this.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Only for someone whose identity is literally defined by a picture of a long-haired naked barbarian clad in leather straps.

But most of us do a better job of differentiating between real life and internet land. Let me know when you've come to learn the difference.

Anonymous said...

CNN "political correspondent" Jessica Yelin is reminding viewers about Palin's "cross hairs" map.

Over & over & over & over...

Michael said...

Conservatives4: I apologize. I realize you thought The Assassination of George Bush was a worthy contribution to the canon.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

I know Jay. It sucks. Not having psychological violence and intimidation at your disposal really limits you.

Pastafarian said...

This is Dateline NBC, Jay. I wouldn't even know where CNN is on my cable lineup.

But yeah, it could be argued that they seem to be omitting any evidence that he's influenced by leftist ideology.

And now they're interviewing the idiot 75 year old liberal sheriff that says this is all Sarah Palin's fault. Awesome.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Feel free to start making sense at any time, Michael.

I have never endorsed assassination talk of any U.S. politician, including W. Nor have I had any problem with its condemnation or even requests for its voluntary suppression.

Anonymous said...

Not having psychological violence and intimidation at your disposal really limits you.

Um, after this incident took place. One side of the political spectrum was busy deleting Internet postings and falsely accusing those they politically disagree with for inciting such actions.

One side was not.

Guess which side you're on, bozo?

Sprezzatura said...

Pasta,

What is the con theory that indicates this guy was a radical leftist?

Let me take a shot...no no, not shot! Yikes. I mean, let me take a guess:

Left wing commie decides to kill D who voted for health care reform and was clearly targeted (for replacement via the ballot box) by the right wing. He does this because she's pro-life, and she's pro gun. Are cons suggesting that this guy was motivated by Giffords' conservative stands on the social issues?

Maybe that sort of theory will hold up. But at this point, the right trying to pin this on the left is just as absurd as the reverse.

Seems like we should stick w/ the 'if it walks like a nut and looks like a nut....' theory, until we know otherwise.

Sprezzatura said...

"Um, after this incident took place. One side of the political spectrum was busy deleting Internet postings "

Didn't Palin take down the crosshairs thing since the shooting?

Pastafarian said...

At least the interview with the idiot sheriff was mercifully short.

Ritzy, I'm just pointing out the irony of your accusing someone of having multiple personality disorder, when you have had at least 3 that I can recall:

Montana Urban Legend

Ritzy Brassiere

Conservatives 4 Blah Blah Blah

You know, I think I missed one. Was there another I'm forgetting?

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Um, after this incident took place. One side of the political spectrum was busy deleting Internet postings and falsely accusing those they politically disagree with for inciting such actions.

Um, since you're so bad at citing, I'll help you out and direct you to the site doing the deleting.

Anonymous said...


But yeah, it could be argued that they seem to be omitting any evidence that he's influenced by leftist ideology.


Sure.

It is reasonable to conclude that he read,

My Congresswoman voted against Nancy Pelosi and is now DEAD to me (yes “dead” was in all caps) on the Daily Kos and took action.

After all, as a liberal, it is quite likely he read sites like that and there is no evidence he was ever exposed to anything the Tea Party or Sarah Palin said

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Pasta:

I wouldn't try irony if I were you. You don't seem particularly good at it.

You're also confusing psychological disorders and failing to recognize the internet as a source of humor and, um, fantasy.

When you start posting by your real name I'll consider not using my avatar and handle as a source of satirical jokes and other banter.

Anonymous said...

Um, since you're so bad at citing, I'll help you out and direct you to the site doing the deleting.

You missed this one, bozo.

Now why do you think that is?

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Jay's use of the "I know you are but what am I?" defense is very elegant.

Anonymous said...

Glenn Reynolds has a column in the Wall Street Journal tomorrow on the politics of Democrat Party blood libels (of the kind committed by AlphaLiberal, Andrew Sullivan, Yglesias, Kos, Garage, et. al. against Sarah Palin.)

You can read it today here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Pastafarian said...

To be honest, 1jbp, I don't think he was actually influenced by any political philosophy.

I think he's a moron. I mean, an actual clinically diagnosable idiot with an IQ somewhere south of 80. He apparently glommed onto a few book titles and conspiratorial notions to make himself feel smarter or appear smarter than he actually was.

But if anyone wants to present evidence that he was influenced by some particular political rabble-rousing, they should point out that one of his favorite books was The Communist Manifesto. And one of his favorite videos was an American flag burning. And one of his classmates called him a leftist.

Because that would immediately dispel the idea that he was inspired by Sarah Palin or by anyone on the right.

Michael said...

Conservatives4: No, I think you meant this http://twitter.com/jtLOL/status/23839578917961728

hombre said...

Leftists never seem to get it that the tactics they use against the right may one day be turned against them. (3:32 pm)

The sleazy, divisive tactics of the left are not merely used against "the right", they are used against everyone, including former comrades, as the need arises. Such is the nature of the moral relativist.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

I don't read or endorse Kos.

Michael, if you had personal integrity, don't you think it would be easier to address people and issues directly instead of having to stand behind and take fire against a political label? Just wondering.

Other than that, good job on emulating Jay's use of the Chewbacca defense.

Pastafarian said...

It's OK, Ritzy. If I'd made all of those embarrassing comments supporting AGW, the modern-day equivalent of Piltdown Man, I'd probably drop the Woodsie Owl avatar and screen name, too.

No explanation necessary, dude.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

I like owls. They're a symbol of wisdom and good hunters. I prefer that they be allowed to proliferate and not be threatened with extinction, but I used a common species and didn't see any political statement behind using a Great Horned Owl as an avatar. I just liked the way it looked.

Other than that, ha ha.

Michael said...

Conservatives4: I would recommend that you employ your own advice having just linked to redaction on a Palin site. Kos, I believe, is engaged in left wing politics and I linked to a similar redaction of one of his musings. Some others on the left have been furiously erasing these last thirty hours as well. You pretty easily accuse people of having no personal integrity without evidence. Very down market.

Trooper York said...

All kinds of speech has consequences.

Some much more profound than others. But consequences none the less.

We all have to stand behind what we say.

My position is free speech is above all other considerations.

Pastafarian said...

For owls: They fly silently. I once had one swoop down over me through dense trees, and it was remarkable -- it moved through like a ghost.

Not so great about owls: They spit up the mouse hair and bones after digesting it. Sort of like shitting out of their beak.

But I agree, that was a cool avatar. You should go back to that one. It's not cool, making fun of people's teeth.

traditionalguy said...

Playing tag with the label of shameful acts is all we see and hear. That is the famous negative politics firing its big psychological guns that are aimed to discourage a candidates own supporters from bothering to vote. It is early for that, but the slander slingers are desperately trying to affect the GOP's nomination with whatever they can find. But Palin cometh.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Michael,

Sorry you feel unjustly accused.

As I said, I don't read or endorse Kos. I think they're more of a problem than any on the left, and certainly moreso than all the paranoid "Alinsky" baiting that goes on here. But maybe that speaks to my distaste for mainstream partisan factionalism.

Anyway, the comparisons are not apt. Palin deletes any and all criticism for what she does. All the time. It's weak and weak-minded. Kos OTOH appeared to retract a violently inflammatory post. As you should be able to tell from my comments by now, I'm all for people voluntary and honorably deciding - even if in hindsight - to avoid violent rhetorical directives in their domestic politics.

Anonymous said...

There is a Daley in the White House now, it is going to get worse.

Michael said...

conservatives4: "Sorry you feel unjustly accused."

Was waiting for your justification, not a non apology.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Your lack of graciousness is noted.

Anyway, not everyone feels that all knowledge should be or even can be 100% certain. In the absence of absolute certainty, we make inferences. At some points you give me reason to believe your integrity is less than praiseworthy than at others. You should consider my bet hedging ambivalence and lack of absolute loyalty to iron-clad presumptions of good faith on your part a reflection of how you choose to present yourself to me. Situational.

888 said...

Peter Hoh:
"Upset people look around for someone or something to blame. It's part of human nature."

I think this is why the congresswoman was really targeted by an apparently very disturbed young man. He had a political bent to his madness and she had been in the news during a hotly contested race.

Which reminds me of what Althouse wrote. One alternative that some prefer to the militaristic argument is intercourse. We can come together and strip the the subject bare, coax and caress its notions, see what responses we get from various stimuli, see how things move and fit together. It's very Dewey in its pragmatism. See, all you need is love. But we can't have this as long as any republican lives and breathes.

Michael said...

Timon wrote "But we can't have this as long as any republican lives and breathes." Is this the harsh eliminationist rhetoric we have read so much about?

888 said...

eliminationist? I was just trying to be spontaneous. This idea is just a plant that will bloom of itself in well tended soil.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

BTW, I failed to realize how dumb the actual post was. War metaphors were all applied to arguments. The current debate about violent rhetoric applies to its application against people. It would behoove Ms Althouse to learn about problematic constructions such as the ad hominem.

Really.

Birkel said...

C4BDH,

I note without surprise that you could not cite any law under which "veiled threats" are illegal.

Now run along and play with your "internet friends"...

DADvocate said...

Kos OTOH appeared to retract a violently inflammatory post.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!

Could you be any more hypocritical?

IDisposable said...

We don't have to wait for the hypocrisy, here's 2004's version

Micha Elyi said...

If our government becomes tyrannical, we have an obligation to end that government - peaceably if possible - but if that's not possible[...]
Florida 1/9/11 3:47 PM

As I'm sure you know Florida, John Locke pretty much said that. America's founding fathers later inscribed the same sentiment into the Declaration of Independence. The principle was taught to America's grade school children and considered uncontroversial - at least before the 60s Generation came along and birthed the current Age of Stupidity.

Obviously, those who wear the label "liberal" in 21st century America have repudiated the principles of liberty enumerated by the original Age of Enlightenment liberals.

dick said...

woof,

Fred Phelps and the members of the Westboro Baptist Church are all registered and voting Democrats, not Republicans. You own them. Enjoy!!

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 276 of 276   Newer› Newest»