Romney gave five network television interviews... on Friday. While it was true that a bunch of Securities and Exchange Commission filings submitted into the new millennium described Romney as Bain Capital’s boss, that was a technicality, he told CNN.So... he used the word "entity," and I guess if you don't have much familiarity with the world of business or law but you have watched television, "entity" sounds like something from outer space to you.
Well, actually, he said, “I was the owner of an entity that is filing that information.” Also that there’s a difference between an owner and “a person who’s running an entity.”
Bain Capital is a Limited Liability Company, which is "a flexible form of enterprise that blends elements of partnership and corporate structures." Romney said "entity" for simplicity and accuracy. He was speaking like a normal, knowledgeable person.
But law and business are just too hard. Why not act childish? Entity?! That's silly. Collins continues in this style:
While he was in Utah getting the luge runs in shape, Romney was also still getting a six-figure salary for being a Bain “executive.” Perhaps for Mitt, that was just the going-away equivalent of a monogrammed briefcase. Although it does sort of take the steam out of his principled refusal to accept any money from the Olympics until his turnaround was successfully completed....We can't possibly understand a business arrangement. It's really hard. Like all that science stuff we don't want to understand.
If we ever manage to really get our heads around Higgs boson, perhaps we will also be able to understand the Mitt Romney Olympics period.
Are Democrats abandoning the idea that they are the smart party?
Speaking of Olympics:
ADDED: Let's pay attention. I think what is going on right now is an effort to create a mindset, and emotional orientation toward Romney. Business is an alien entity. It's scary and mystifying, and Romney is part of that. You can't understand it, so don't even try. Collins is planting the seed of fear. You laugh now. You won't even feel it. But it will grow. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Posts
128 comments:
We can't possibly understand a business arrangement. It's really hard. Like all that science stuff we don't want to understand.
Thank you for succinctly summing up the state of the modern left.
If it isn't a slogan, then it is just too complicated for them.
When all is said and done the essential message is:
He made money and fired people. THAT'S BAD!
Collins is the alien here, a person deficient of normalcy. So she can't see normal.
She wins today's award for creative media nuance in the art of attacking Obama's enemy.
Entity as a Star Trek idea means WEIRD and not to be trusted.
That is the basic theme of Obama's campaign. Romney is a weird guy and a Mormon too.
Would you trust an Entity at your door? Would you let an entity into your home?
Romney needs to communicate who he is by showing some passion and becoming a known person. Hiding out is not going to get it. The voters want more than a rich entity.
A promise is a promise:
You are soooo intelligent,...
He uses the word, "entity", and that makes him a Trekkie?
PS If the Gray Lady wants to make him an alien, he is more likely a Vulcan (preferable) as a Romulan or a Klingon.
PPS The Demos stopped being the smart party (if, in fact, they ever were) long ago, slick party is more like it.
She focused on this word because it fits into her Romney as a sub-atomic particle image that can be in two places at once: Bain and not Bain. I thought it was a creative piece of writing, sort of like what Althouse does on occasion as she riffs on "faceless" in Obama's bio.
I used to work for company that was a limited liability partnership.. LMS LLP.. They were sold to a bigger company.
I saw several partners retired and stayed on, in some limited capacity. They never just dropped everything. These people had business connection and experience that were invaluable to the firm.
We shouldn't expect Obama to know anything about that.
For me, the word "entity" conjures up its opposite, "non-entity," a term which would apply to certain reality TV "stars," overrated actors ... and politicians.
In all this idiotic smear campaign I keep wondering what Obama doing from 1999 - 2002.
While Romney was rescuing the Salt Lake Olympics, Obama was ... unsuccessfully running for congress. And skipping state senate votes.
Remember all that executive experience Obama never found time to accumulate?
Read and compare.
Tg,
Romney is a weird guy and a Mormon too.
Would you trust an Entity at your door? Would you let an entity into your home?
Last Sunday, I'm having coffee at my friend's house when his daughter drives up. As she gets out of her car, another vehicle arrives, and an older man inside yells to her, "I'm ready when you are!" He then shoots a look at my friend - her father - and immediately drives away.
When I asked who the creep was, both my friend and his daughter said, "The bishop,..."
There are so many people, smart and educated in their own way, who know nothing about the real world or how it works. Several of them write for the NY Times editorial page. You read their columns and just shake your head. They are so far from where I/we are, you can't even talk to them.
They think using the word entity is alien? Sigh. A clusterfuck of thinking. There is so much stupid in them, you can't even unpack it.
I think what you getting at today, maybe unintentionally, is that Romney doesn't handle the popular lexicon very well.
He speaks some sort of weird language - much like Bob Dole referring to himself in the third person. People can't get their heads around how he packages his ideas.
They're going to hammer this trope into the ground. "Romney isn't like us - he's different! Don't trust him!"
That certainly sounds familiar.
I sincerely hope that the folks who pay $50,000 per plate to schmoose with have at least some idea of what terms like "contract," "deferred compensation," "tax liabilities," etc. mean, or they could easily find themselves living under bridges when their good looks are gone.
Please insert "Obama" after "with."
I sincerely hope that the folks who pay $50,000 per plate to schmoose with Obama have at least some idea of what terms like "contract," "deferred compensation," "tax liabilities," etc. mean, or they could easily find themselves living under bridges when their good looks are gone.
Not sure what happened here. Blogger strikes again?
"She focused on this word because it fits into her Romney as a sub-atomic particle image that can be in two places at once: Bain and not Bain. I thought it was a creative piece of writing, sort of like what Althouse does on occasion as she riffs on "faceless" in Obama's bio."
I agree that it's like some of my humor projects over here on the blog.
It makes you wonder what Collins sees as her audience. Surely the large majority of her readers are already committed Dem voters who would crawl over broken glass to vote for thr One. But she undoubtedly also sees her audience as the educated, informed sort -- those for whom even reinforcement of previously formed views and biases are not necessary as voting motivators.
If that's an accurate picture, then this screed is intended to amuse and entertain rather than convince. It is often said that laughing at someone or something is a great way to cause people to write the object of that treatment off. (That's why the most effective attack on Obama will come in ads that will make you laugh.).
I think that's what Collins is up to here. Romney and Reps generally are a joke as far as she's concerned. So she's running with that. I suspect she understands perfectly well what Romney was saying and why, if anyone else were saying it, no one would even stop to question it.
It's just the new opinion journalism of the NYT -- it' even more apparent in Krugman's columns.
Entities are scary
"Good work, Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, the lone Republican who stuck with the [New Start] treaty through thick and thin and never mutated into a scary new entity."
Gail Collins, 12/22/2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/23/opinion/23collins.html?_r=1
Entities are weird
"The office sent me a list of the entities in question. They include the Quilters Hall of Fame in Indiana, the National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame in Texas and the Hulda Klager Lilac Gardens in Washington."
Gail Collins, 9/25/2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/25/opinion/25collins.html
Entities are efficient, like the Borg:
"Great! Fear and loathing may abound, but it’s business-friendly fear and loathing. In Ohio and Wisconsin, angry new governors John Kasich and Scott Walker are taking economic development out of the hands of state bureaucrats and giving the job to new quasi-private entities that will be much more effective and efficient."
Gail Collins, 4/22/2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/23/opinion/23collins.html
Fight fire with fire, you know.
"I sincerely hope that the folks who pay $50,000 per plate to schmoose with have at least some idea..."
Schmoose... it's something they do in Alaska.
The two parties - especially in presidential elections - have been trying to portray the other party, candidate, philosophy as "not being like you" or "not like you" or "not caring about you" for decades.
Republicans have tried to portray Obama as some sort of odd character who is on the far left and who doesn't believe in American exceptionalism. We saw it with Bush and Cheney - the "evil oil men" or "evil neocons".
So it's Romney's turn to receive the attacks. Of course the problem for Republicans is that when they tried to portray Obama as an outsider, the charges of racism ensued.
But this is not new.
Ann, how about putting up this video. May be Gail Collins will watch it and educate herself how the business world runs. It is from CNN and not Fox, so maybe more believable for the 0bots in the media.
Hagar said...
Not sure what happened here. Blogger strikes again?
Every now and again, it appears some kind of Microshaft-ish grammarcheck kicks in and it seems to rewrite a phrase to suit itself.
You guys take the cake:
Gail Collins thinks using the word entity is alien and she's weird.
Mitt Romney ACTUALLY BELIEVES IN ALIENS and he's not only normal but deserving of your full-throated defense.
Explain that one to me - anybody.
They're using Saul Alinsky's Rule # 12.
Romney needs to respond with ridicule.
I think I'm in greater danger from Obama's form of socialism than I am from Romney's form of aliens.
Astro,
I think I'm in greater danger from Obama's form of socialism than I am from Romney's form of aliens.
O.K. - you're cult apologist #1 - anybody else want to try?
Hopefully with an answer that has some basis in logic,...
schmooze
schmooze or schmoose (shm?z) Slang verb, intransitive
schmoozed or schmoosed, schmooz·ing or schmoos·ing, schmooz·es or schmoos·es
To talk casually; chat.
noun
A chat.
[Yiddish shmúesn, possibly from shmúes, a chat pl. of shmúe, rumor; akin to Hebrew šemû‘â, rumor.]
So schmucks might schmoose or schmooze as their fancy take them, whether in Alaska or the Upper West Side.
Mitt Romney ACTUALLY BELIEVES IN ALIENS and he's not only normal but deserving of your full-throated defense.
Crack, whether you like it or not, belief in aliens is the norm in these United States. Depending on the poll or survey, upwards of 75% of the adult population of this country is of the belief that extraterrestrials exist.
Even more think angels exist.
I'm sorry. What was your point again with the above statement? Other than rank, hateful bigotry, that is?
Journalists are dumb clucks. And the love to display their stupidity for all to see.
I don't care what the religious views are of a candidate - we have no religious test in America for office - UNLESS that person uses his or her religion to influence public policy.
Is there a record of Romney using his religious views in the policy arena?
It's why we have the Establishment Clause. To prevent religious doctrine from being legislated.
Romney can believe in leprechauns as long as he doesn't get policy advice from them.
Or thinks he does.
When I asked who the creep was, both my friend and his daughter said, "The bishop,..."
The Bishop!
(that's the scene that came to mind, but I suspect reality was a lot less dramatic)
Crack,
You're cult obsession is cultish and boring. The very idea of a cult requires faith in a true belief system that the cult can be outside of.
What's yours? What ever it is, I'll bet it's no "weirder" than Mormonism.
"Let's pay attention. I think what is going on right now is an effort to create a mindset, and emotional orientation toward Romney. Business is an alien entity. It's scary and mystifying, and Romney is part of that. You can't understand it, so don't even try. Collins is planting the seed of fear."
The self-defeating thing about this is, the liberal left needs the host to prosper for them to feed.
They can't create prosperity or wealth on their own - they need capitalists.
Yet as they cannibalize capitalism with their regulations, their deficit spending, their wealth-robbing taxes, in the end they hurt themselves, because they cannot create the prosperity and wealth they need to feed.
Corporations who aren't entities are the luckiest corporations in the world.
Crack -
Point us to evidence that Romney's Mormonism compromised his ability to do his jobs, especially his job as governor of Massachusetts.
Then show us to how that example compares unfavorably to the current example in the White House.
If you can't do that, then you're nothing but an idiot crank ranting about Romney for no good reason.
So show us.
Chef Mojo,
Crack, whether you like it or not, belief in aliens is the norm in these United States. Depending on the poll or survey, upwards of 75% of the adult population of this country is of the belief that extraterrestrials exist.
Even more think angels exist.
I'm sorry. What was your point again with the above statement? Other than rank, hateful bigotry, that is?
My point is a lot of people believed in slavery, too. And their sheer numbers are enough to have made it right for a long, long time.
Your point, on the other hand, is - because you said "bigotry" - I should know my place and shut up when something illogical is happening.
There's a conflict there, but I just can't seem to put my finger on it,...
SMGalbraith,
Is there a record of Romney using his religious views in the policy arena?
Yes, but - because Romney or his cult have not screamed that's what they were doing at the time - you wouldn't care,...
"Yes, but - because Romney or his cult have not screamed that's what they were doing at the time - you wouldn't care,..."
Okay, where? What policy? Why would I not care? I don't think you know anything about my views. Right now, I have no idea as to whom I'm voting for. Or even if I will vote for either man.
He was governor of Mass. for years. What public policy did he impose that was based on Mormon teachings?
I'm not screaming, just asking.
I am expecting Romney to say at some high profile event when most people are paying attention -- like either the Republican Convention or one of the debates -- that if elected president he will donate his presidential salary to charity until some easily measurable milestone that the majority of people, regardless of political affiliation, think is important is reached. Maybe an unemployment rate of less than 6%. Or the federal budget deficit is 4% or less of GDP, or whatever.
Then to really get the goat of Democrats he should name some charity that is dear to Democrats as the beneficiary of his charitable presidential salary donation.
I can only imagine how the NYT opinion shapers will attack him if he does that.
Old Dad,
Crack,
You're cult obsession is cultish and boring.
Gee, the English newspapers - which always seem to be doing better journalism than ours these days - don't seem to think so. Does this article - "How Tom Cruise is to Scientology what Mitt Romney is to Mormonism" - sound familiar?
Tony Ortega is a very nice man who edits the Village Voice and who, for as long as I can remember, has sent an almost daily email blast about the scandals and dirty dealings that surround the Church of Scientology. Up until Katie Holmes left Tom Cruise, Tony seemed merely like a man with a slightly troubling obsession. Now, he seems like a man who has lucked into a great story.
Somebody around here's been saying all this before, but - again - I just can't put my finger on who.
No matter - I'm going to enjoy hounding the rest of you, after you vote for this nutjob, as we all got to hound Ann for backing Obama. Anything that comes up will be met with the refrain, "BUT YOU VOTED FOR ROMNEY!" and you opinion will thereafter be null-and-void.
It's gonna be sweeeeeeeet,....
I recently watched a quirky little movie from the '70s called They Might Be Giants. Not great art, but entertaining enough.
CrackMC's remake lacks the original's light comedic touch, however well cast.
Business is an alien entity. It's scary and mystifying, and Romney is part of that. You can't understand it, so don't even try.
It's why liberals say fetus.
Your baby is an alien!.
Crack,
It's the Guardian for Crissakes. Talk about a cult.
And you "forgot" to answer my question.
Guess Collins didn't know that our foreign president earned 30% of his income in 2009-11 from foreign sources: http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/13/over-30-of-president-obamas-2009-2011-gross-income-came-from-foreign-sources/
"He was governor of Mass. for years. What public policy did he impose that was based on Mormon teachings?
I'm not screaming, just asking."
He can't answer the question.
He just can't.
So, he'll misdirect.
Which is to say, he'll lie.
If Romney had imposed his church's doctrine on the people of Massachusetts I think we would have heard about it.
Both at that time and especially now. It'd be on the front page of the NY Times and the liberal/left would be promoting the story constantly.
Heck, the concern about Romney isn't that he's a religious absolutist but that he believes in anything if it'll get him elected.
That may be as dangerous as sectarian-based policy but it's completely different.
"And you "forgot" to answer my question."
LOL.
He didn't "forget."
He can't answer your question anymore than he can answer mine.
He won't, either.
He'll just keep stirring shit up about Romney's Mormanism, as if that is a greater threat to America's future than Obama.
Tim,
Crack -
Point us to evidence that Romney's Mormonism compromised his ability to do his jobs, especially his job as governor of Massachusetts.
Then show us to how that example compares unfavorably to the current example in the White House.
If you can't do that, then you're nothing but an idiot crank ranting about Romney for no good reason.
"No good reason"? Why? Because you lames can't think of one? That low bar is hardly evidence I'm out to lunch. Don't forget:
You guys have been coming around to my point-of-view, ever so slowly, for years now - not the other way around - so it's you who has to prove you have a track record of success, not me.
You really must think I'm as stupid as you are.
That said, Romney can be anything and it would be beside the point. The point is IT'S OUR JOB TO PROTECT THE COUNTRY. Remember this:
Citizens to Ben Franklin: "What have you given us?"
Ben Franklin: "A republic - if you can keep it."
Long story-short, you are NOT doing your job as citizens, but behaving like trained seals.
Sorry, but all I'll give you in return is cold fish,...
If Romney had imposed his church's doctrine on the people of Massachusetts I think we would have heard about it.
Aha! That's just what they want you to think. They won't show their hand until they've seized all the levers of power.
Quick, Watson! The game is afoot!
Mitt Romney ACTUALLY BELIEVES IN ALIENS and he's not only normal but deserving of your full-throated defense.
Explain that one to me - anybody.
The universe is really vast and it seems stupid to conclude as fact that it's impossible for their to be animal or vegetable life on other planets.
In fact, since atheists believe that humanity spawned out of nothing--pure accident upon pure accident--it seems really bizarre to insist that there can be no other accidents throughout the universe. And note too that we're not the only species on our own planet, Crack.
The idea that there's life on another planet somewhere seems to me to be a no-brainer. Find a planet with oceans and you'll probably find some kinda life. Why wouldn't you?
Look, Mormonism is an odd religion. A cult if you will (I'm agnostic on this one).
But Catholics literally believe that the Eucharist (the communion wafer) - the bread and wine - has been transubstantiated (changed) into Jesus' flesh and blood.
Literally. That Jesus is literally (again) there. His flesh and blood is right there.
No Catholics need apply?
As I said, as long as they separate their sectarian beliefs from public policy and their policies are based on secular ideas, I don't care what they believe on Sunday. Or any other day.
"No matter - I'm going to enjoy hounding the rest of you, after you vote for this nutjob, as we all got to hound Ann for backing Obama. Anything that comes up will be met with the refrain, "BUT YOU VOTED FOR ROMNEY!" and you opinion will thereafter be null-and-void.
It's gonna be sweeeeeeeet,....
But first, there's the small matter of you showing us first evidence that Romney's Mormonism compromised his ability to do his jobs, especially his job as governor of Massachusetts.
Then you have to show us to how that example compares unfavorably to the current example in the White House.
See, the basic rule of gloating is, you have to warn us of the specific example, that should have been obvious to any intelligent observer.
For example, it was painfully obvious to any intelligent observer that Obama was the least qualified person ever nominated by a major political party for president, and that his political ideology was decidedly the most liberal, left-of-center since, well, the founding.
His failure, therefore, was obviously predictable.
You haven't come close to demonstrating Romney's Mormonism will have the equally predictable effect you predict.
So try, first.
Because you can't gloat later if you don't make the case before hand.
And you haven't made the case. You haven't even tried. No facts, no evidence, just rantings of a crank.
You make the global warming alarmist look cool, rational and sane.
You just do.
SMGalbraith,
If Romney had imposed his church's doctrine on the people of Massachusetts I think we would have heard about it.
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!
Yeah, because our journalists are so fucking good. It just took them - what? - A YEAR to report on the John Edwards scandal? And another year to report on Fast & Furious?
I'm sure the governor who delivered universal healthcare to a liberal state - rendering it a financial basket case - would be sure to get both barrels from that collection of morons, right?
You have GOT to be joking,...
Tim,
LOL.
He didn't "forget."
He can't answer your question anymore than he can answer mine.
He won't, either.
You're right - that's exactly how I've built my reputation around here - by avoiding answering questions, not providing evidence, and being dishonest. Do you have, like, a bag of stock answers you pull from or do you make these up on-the-spot?
Man, you guys "crack" me up with your delusional thinking
When I was in grad school the chair of the English Department was Mormon. The gospel he believed in was written by Charles Dickens.
Quiz show!
Which is more alien?
a) running an entity
b) having a fetus inside you
c) eating a dog
"Sorry, but all I'll give you in return is cold fish,..."
So then, you don't have any evidence Romney's Mormonism compromised his ability to do his job as governor of Massachusetts, or that it is a greater threat to America's future than Obama?
Why didn't you just say so?
I would advise you, until you have such evidence, you should just mutter to yourself.
People don't like the rants of crazy, obsessive cranks.
But you knew that already, didn't you?
Old Dad,
Crack,
It's the Guardian for Crissakes. Talk about a cult.
Rupert Murdoch and Tony Ortega don't work for The Guardian. Neither do I, BTW.
Nor are we members of a cult - like Romney - who YOU'RE defending.
A warning:
I like you - don't let that asshole twist you up too much - getting untwisted is a motherfucker.
Getting seemingly rational people to say totally irrational things - and taking irrational positions - is but one of the scary things about how cultism affects those around it.
And - as this collection of Mormon defenders proves - it's already happening.
Shouldn't you guys be up-in-arms about the weight being applied to Scientology, too?
Isn't that "bigotry" as well?
Hypocrites, one and all,...
"You're right - that's exactly how I've built my reputation around here - by avoiding answering questions, not providing evidence, and being dishonest. Do you have, like, a bag of stock answers you pull from or do you make these up on-the-spot?"
So then, answer the questions.
As of now, your reputation is that you are a crazy, obsessive crank.
Fix it.
Answer the questions:
1) How did Mormonism compromise Romney's ability to do his job as governor of Massachusetts?
2) How is Romney's Mormonism a greater threat to America's future than Obama staying in office?
This should be easy for you.
Getting seemingly rational people to say totally irrational things - and taking irrational positions - is but one of the scary things about how cultism affects those around it.
Indeed.
Just look at the effect your ex-wife's cultism has had on you.
Saint Croix,
The universe is really vast and it seems stupid to conclude as fact that it's impossible for their to be animal or vegetable life on other planets.
That's not what Mitt Romney believes - or what I'm talking about - AND YOU KNOW IT.
Now the cult has turned you into a liar.
Watching you guys, one by one, sell out your intelligence and integrity is FUN!!!
QUIZ TIME!
Crack is:
1) A crazy, obsessive crank on Romney's Mormonism?
2) A truth-teller, warning us of the known risks of Mormonism in the nation's highest office?
"Watching you guys, one by one, sell out your intelligence and integrity is FUN!!!"
Crack lives in his own, private "The Body Snatchers."
"Sorry, but all I'll give you in return is cold fish,..."
And he won't respond because that would require facts, which can be checked. As far as the failure of journalists is concernd, what were Obama's grades that got him into Harvard Law School?
SMGalbraith,
Look, Mormonism is an odd religion. A cult if you will (I'm agnostic on this one).
But Catholics literally believe that the Eucharist (the communion wafer) - the bread and wine - has been transubstantiated (changed) into Jesus' flesh and blood.
Literally. That Jesus is literally (again) there. His flesh and blood is right there.
Yes, but we don't have rock-solid proof Jesus was a fraud and con man, that his occult beliefs are now being sold to us as Christian (a deception I find hilarious, considering how easily debunked it is) and - other than Mitt Romney - I haven't heard one of his followers declare he's moving to Missouri.
Tim 1
Crack 0
Crackster, you're embarrassing yourself. Give up.
Chip S.,
Just look at the effect your ex-wife's cultism - AND THEN KILLING THREE PEOPLE BECAUSE OF IT - has had on you.
FIFY.
Great reason to make a cultist president, too.
I'm on your side,...
"Yes, but we don't have rock-solid proof Jesus was a fraud and con man"
I think you missed the point: don't you think it's odd that they believe that they are eating Jesus's body?
That he has literally returned? That the Eucharist is actually his body and flesh and blood?
And they're eating him?
Look, all religions (at least the ones I'v read about) have bizarre beliefs and practices. But as long as the adherents keep those beliefs privately I have no concern about them serving in public office.
To return to Romney: when he was governor he was pro-choice on abortion and supported gay rights legislation.
There's two example of him going AGAINST Mormon teachings.
Once again: give us a policy that he imposed that was based on Mormon doctrine.
Crack,
Now I get it.
You're the leader of the cult of Crack. You "save" people from evil, you warn them.
You're a goddamned prophet.
And sorry, Crack, if you think the liberal press wouldn't have reported on him imposing his religion on people then we're not familiar with the same press.
Don't you think the NY Times would report it? The Boston Globe? Certainly the liberal political press like The New Republic or The Nation, Mother Jones, et cetera.
Sigh ... another worthwhile Althouse thread derailed by a troll ...
The person making the affirmative claim has the burden of proof.
For example, if I say, "X is true," it's up to me to prove that X is indeed true - not for someone else to refute me by proving that X is untrue.
Put another way, one shouldn't be put in the position of trying to prove a negative.
Just my .03.
Tank,
Tim 1
Crack 0
Crackster, you're embarrassing yourself. Give up.
No I'm not embarrassing myself - you're accepting Tim's premise - starting with I have to answer him when it's clear no answer will do.
His question is based on the same idea someone posed a few days ago - that Romney must be O.K. because he never undermined Bain Capitol - as though it's reasonable to expect the boss of the company to be seen as the problem.
That happens with cultism, but very, very rarely (By the way, I called that one, too - it's a knack.)
What I find funny - as this blog's ONLY LONG-TIME RESIDENT CULT CRITIC - is you guys pretending to know more about it than I do.
Chip S. is even going so far as to pretend I'm a conspiracy theorist, when he's been around long enough to know better (it's you who shame yourself, Chip.)
I keep being right, you guys, and you want to keep pretending it isn't so - I even provide you with links - but you still see what you want to see.
Not one of you has EVER proven me wrong on cultism in - what? - FIVE YEARS?!?
Are you seriously incapable of admitting you know nothing in this area?
You're the ultimate dupes,...
Michael K said...
"Sorry, but all I'll give you in return is cold fish,..."
And he won't respond because that would require facts, which can be checked. As far as the failure of journalists is concernd, what were Obama's grades that got him into Harvard Law School?
=================
Add to the mystery of what did Obama do in a cubicle as a copy editor after graduating Columbia in an unknown level of distinguishment or non-distinguishment or later as yet another of tens of thousands of black activist community organizers that every city has several of... that made him stand out enough to get in Harvard Law? Was it his LSAT scores...or was it the mentors he picked up...very rich and powerful mentors that "knew people" in Harvard Law Admissions?
Did they...the Colunbia Leftist Faculty, pull strings? Or was it the wealthy Jewish progressive "patrons" of the Chicago merchantile Families (Crowns, Klutzniks, Pritzkers, etc. that later set him and Michelle up at U of Chicago in nice, undemanding sinecures by being the billionaires on the Board of Trustees that could tell U of Chicago Admin to hire) pick him out after Bidenlike, for Harvard? After noticing this "unusually clean looking and articulate" mixed race kid, who might be useful to cultivate and advance the progressive agenda??
My point is a lot of people believed in slavery, too. And their sheer numbers are enough to have made it right for a long, long time.
But that's not what you're asserting, Crack, in your statement about Romney and aliens. You just toss it out there like it's extraordinary that people believe in aliens.
I respond that this is not outside the norms of our society.
And you respond with the lack of righteousness in the institution of slavery?
Ok. Let's talk slavery then. At one time slavery in our society - Western society - was the norm. Do you get that, Crack? It was the norm until it was not the norm. As the norm, it was therefore right in the eyes of those at the time of experience.
This is known as "historical context."
Certainly, at the time, there are those who don't like slavery - namely the slaves themselves, even though for the most part they came from slave holding societies, which is how they usually became enslaved in the first place - but they were a deviation from the norm. They are not so in our time. Whether that is based on the "righteousness" of the matter is immaterial.
"Norm" and "right" do not mean the same thing. Nor are they mutually exclusive.
At this point in time, Mitt Romney's belief in aliens is reflective of societal norms. So is his belief in angels. Therefore, your statement about Romney believing in aliens is superfluous. It is not at all extraordinary. It is essentially, meaningless. There is nothing in Mormonism that is extraordinary when held up to any other of the Christian cults such as Catholocism and the myriad of other of its schismatic offshoots. thats where your arguments about Romney's religion falls apart; your whacked out desire to separate it from all the other Christian cults out there, and make it seem somehow deviant from the norms of our society, based on how that society views religion. Aliens? Angels? Fairies? Leprechauns? It's all the same, pace Sagan.
Unless you can provide some evidence of cause and effect between Mormanism and Romney's style of governance and his business acumen beyond the Admiral Akbar (alien!!!) It's-A-Trap! Theorem, I can only surmise that you make that statement out of rank, hateful bigotry.
That's not what Mitt Romney believes - or what I'm talking about - AND YOU KNOW IT.
oh shit, you capped me.
i'm so terrified i'm going to go wee little man now, like e.e. cummings.
you're so macho with the caps
terrified
running away
Now the cult has turned you into a liar.
okay, okay.
you're not macho with the caps
Romney's over 60, he has a wife and a bunch of kids and grandkids, he's been in public office, he's worked with lots of people in lots of different circumstances for decades.
There isn't a single shred of evidence that he's a cultist or is some bizarre person.
If anything, he's too average, too perfect.
He's sort of a male version of a Stepford Wife.
Fullstop.
Actually, belief in space aliens and belief in slavery are not the same type of belief.
One is an assumption, the other is an endorsement.
SMGalbraith,
Two things:
I think you missed the point: don't you think it's odd that they believe that they are eating Jesus's body?
Lots of people have what I think of as odd beliefs, but that's normal. Forming a cult around those beliefs is what's dangerous. You make think lemon juice is a great healing elixir, but that would just make you a fool. To join the Healing Elixer Cult who start trying to infiltrate and replace medicine with it is a whole other thing.
Once again: give us a policy that he imposed that was based on Mormon doctrine.
Because you seem to want to have a real dialogue (unlike these others) I'll get you you - I promise - but I'm having too much fun toying with these others with their wild speculations and dumb-as-a-rock assertions. You know - like I've been the kind of guy who, over five years, has never backed up what he said. I mean, you can't make this stuff up! It's incredible.
They're turning themselves into bald-faced liars right before my eyes, and I find that fascinating.
If I just gave you what you want A) most of you would ignore it anyway, and B) the churning of the lies would end and then what fun would I have?
Sorry, but I'm not Garage and don't hang here for that purpose,...
Old Dad,
Crack,
Now I get it.
You're the leader of the cult of Crack. You "save" people from evil, you warn them.
You're a goddamned prophet.
It's right there on the right side my site:
As a former homeopathic 'doctor', I commend you for your bravery and brilliance.
Your blog is like an antidote to the 'New' Age too-cool-for-school-aid that America's been drinking like it's going out style...which, with the help of brilliant minds like you, hopefully it is. The sooner the better, for all our sakes.
I can't thank you enough for saving me from the eau de toilet/oprahahaha cesspool..."
-- Donavan Freberg
Only you dumbshit's doubt it - or think your ignorant asses know better,...
SMGalbraith,
Don't you think the NY Times would report it? The Boston Globe? Certainly the liberal political press like The New Republic or The Nation, Mother Jones, et cetera.
And get in the way of Universal healthcare? Come on.
You're also relying on papers that report woo on a regular basis as though it's fact. Ann just did a post on the NYT spouting cultish bullshit - do you seriously think we can count on them for accuracy in this area?
They're as guilty as Romney.
The Crack Emcee said...
You're right - that's exactly how I've built my reputation around here - by avoiding answering questions, not providing evidence, and being dishonest.
Pretty much, when it comes to cult in general. Why, what reputation do you think you've built around here?
I realize that you've been through some pretty serious shit in your live, far more serious than anything I've ever been through. For that, you have my pity.
But your anti-mormon stuff is getting pretty old. So how about an actual prediction: If Romney is elected, what do you think he will do based on his mormonism, that would be outside the range of actions that are already considered acceptable by non-mormon candidate of either party?
Crack, are you voting for Obama?
SMGalbraith,
[Romney's] sort of a male version of a Stepford Wife.
Put that on his campaign posters - best endorsement in years,...
Chip S. is even going so far as to pretend I'm a conspiracy theorist, when he's been around long enough to know better (it's you who shame yourself, Chip.)
Crack, if I may be serious for a minute...
I do understand where you're coming from. I do understand the devastation that cultism brought to your life. I also understand why you campaign to warn others.
But in my view, seeing everything through the lens of cultism crosses the line between critical thinking and obsession.
It is possible to take all of your concerns into account, weigh them against what has been observed of Romney throughout his adult life, and conclude that Romney is far, far preferable to Obama in this election.
Shouting at me (and others who share this view) that we are blind fools isn't persuading us of anything other than that the stresses of this campaign season have taken a substantial toll on you.
As someone who has enjoyed your comments and your blog in the past, and as someone who thinks of you as more than just some pixellated internet character, I beg you to step back from the edge and consider the evidence that Romney is not out to molest young girls or bankrupt the government in some program to search for alien life.
It is Obama who will remake this country into either France (best-case scenario) or Argentina (worst case) if re-elected. He has already demonstrated his readiness to rule by executive fiat, and to endorse mod action on his behalf, so IMO the Argentine outcome is the far likelier case.
And that, my friend, is truly horrifying.
er, mob action...
Crack said:
"Only you dumbshit's doubt it[His godlike majesty] - or think your ignorant asses know better,..."
Damn, omniscient,too.
Turn me into a newt--I dare you.
"I don't care what the religious views are of a candidate - we have no religious test in America for office - UNLESS that person uses his or her religion to influence public policy."
I utterly fail to understand this point of view. As in, if Romney decides to round up all the "intellectuals" in to re-education camps because God told him so, that's bad because it's religous, but if Romney decides to round up all the intellectuals in to re-education camps because he a follower of the Khmer Rouge, that's OK because it's secular?
For a given person with his particular ideology, a policy is some value on the good (1.0) to bad (0.0) scale. In all seriousness, why should that person care whether the motivation of the policy is religious or secular? I can read SMGailbraith's statement as saying he would oppose a policy he considers beneficial solely because it was proposed for religious reasons. That makes no sense to me.
Ignorance is Bliss,
Pretty much, when it comes to cult in general. Why, what reputation do you think you've built around here?
You must be new.
I realize that you've been through some pretty serious shit in your live, far more serious than anything I've ever been through. For that, you have my pity.
Save it. But your anti-mormon stuff is getting pretty old.
No - what's pretty old is you guys not doing your own investigations but continually spouting typical cult apologist bullshit. Not a single original thought between the lot of you. That's just sad.
So how about an actual prediction: If Romney is elected, what do you think he will do based on his mormonism, that would be outside the range of actions that are already considered acceptable by non-mormon candidate of either party?
Yeah, like anyone already aware of them could predict Jonestown or Heaven's Gate. But that's not my point:
As I've pointed out, above, Romney's cultism has already started twisting many people's good intentions into making them liars. Last I heard, lying was a bad thing. Doesn't usually lead to good results. Multiplied into the huge numbers backing a national political campaign, the potential for disaster - there alone - is outrageous.
There's also a sort of self-enforced ignorance here - you guys won't look at this "religion" Rupurt Murdoch recently called "a mystery" because you don't want to know what's behind the curtain. That's EXTREMELY dangerous considering you're trying to elect one of it's members to the highest office in the land and the most powerful position in the world. You don't want to know what you don't want to know. Another wildly bad idea. They start to add up, IIB.
I could go on, but - rather than the simple A will lead to B scenario you propose - I'll settle for saying none of this can turn out well. From Mitt Romney and his cult to his supporters, you're all relying on the occult ("hidden") to get you through and it can't. As Geoff Gilpin, author of The Maharishi Effect, wrote:
Occult beliefs make you weaker,...Avoiding this fate means avoiding the occult.
You guys are courting disaster,...
Saint Croix,
Crack, are you voting for Obama?
Nope - I can't vote this year:
Two cultists on the ballot?
I'm out,...
"You're right - that's exactly how I've built my reputation around here - by avoiding answering questions, not providing evidence, and being dishonest. Do you have, like, a bag of stock answers you pull from or do you make these up on-the-spot?"
Yes, Cracky, that is exactly the rep you have, exactly your MO. You. Don't. Answer. Straight. Questions. With. Straight. Answers. Just like every other sky-is-falling crackpot. You still haven't told me what the deal is with that pic on your blog, back when you had a blog, of the woman with half her scalp peeled off holding a cup of dirt.
And I assume that was an easy fact-based datum for you to share, presenting no challenge to your authoritah. You just don't give enough of a damn, even about people who make the effort to come to your blog and comment, to listen and respond. You demand "logical" answers but ignore them when they come, because against logic you have mo defense. Here's your dirty little secret:
You hate other cults because you want your own.
You've become a tiresome humorless scold. At this point you may actually have less to contribute than Robert Cook. Up your game.
" can read SMGailbraith's statement as saying he would oppose a policy he considers beneficial solely because it was proposed for religious reasons. That makes no sense to me."
Absolutely. Religion only based law is forbidden by the Constitution.
If we allow "good" religious policy "A" to be imposed than how do we prevent "bad" religious policy "B" from being imposed? The Establishment Clause does not mean the "right" religion can be promoted and the "wrong" one cannot. It says no religion can be promoted.
The government must be neutral - not hostile - but neutral towards religion and must not favor one over another.
You cannot impose your religious beliefs - no matter how noble, no matter how good, no matter how beneficient - upon people in our system of government.
All laws must be based on secular arguments, values, ethics and morals.
For example, we can ban abortion not because the Catholic Church believes it is a life but because science or secular sources tell us it is a life.
"can read SMGailbraith's statement as saying he would oppose a policy he considers beneficial solely because it was proposed for religious reasons"
And it's not just the fact that I may oppose it for religious reasons but that believers in other religions (or atheists) oppose it.
We can't allow the government to impose the sectarian beliefs of one religion over those of other religions or those who believe in no religion.
Again, we have a secular government.
It's a good way of preventing, for example, Sharia Law from being enforced.
Among other things.
Tank said...
"Tim 1
Crack 0
Crackster, you're embarrassing yourself. Give up."
Thanks, but I don't keep score on this one.
It's sorta like the S.F. Giants vs. the American League in the All-Star Game this year.
Unfair match up.
Chip S.,
Crack, if I may be serious for a minute...
For a minute,...
In my view, seeing everything through the lens of cultism crosses the line between critical thinking and obsession.
Now we're getting somewhere:
So you've seen and heard me say rollercoasters are the creations of cults?
You've seen and heard me declare Thaddeus McCotter was a cult member?
You've seen and heard me say the wearing of shorts was part of the occult?
Come on, Chip. I am VERY SPECIFIC about who and where I make the charge - and I back it up. You're choosing to ignore that for this bullshit "seeing everything through the lens of cultism" line, and you know it. You've purposefully misrepresented my views - which is only one part of the ugly process I see cults and cultism having on those around me. Think about that:
It's happening to you.
How any of you think such behavior is going to lead to our country's success is beyond me.
Look, I get it - you want to beat Obama - and you know (as another long-time Althouse member) so do I. But - just as I couldn't vote for the First Black President because it was THAT guy - I can't endorse Romney for the same reason.
Don't blame me because you guys have created a cult clusterfuck for us - I've played no role in that. I've told you to avoid them - and how to do so - and you've chosen to laugh or lie instead. That's fine:
You do what you want - just don't lie on me anymore,...
"If we allow "good" religious policy "A" to be imposed than how do we prevent "bad" religious policy "B" from being imposed?"
Exactly the same way we allow good secular policy A but prevent bad secular policy B.
It seems to me you are the one imposing a religious by judging policies on the religious preference of the proponent. If yo want to be neutral to religion, you should not care. To make it a litmus test like this is to be strongly biased. To disallow religion as a basis for politics is to be hostile. To be neutral is to treat it the same as any other ideology.
"We can't allow the government to impose the sectarian beliefs of one religion over those of other religions or those who believe in no religion."
But we must require the government to impose the sectarian beliefs of the no religion over the religious?
P.S. After your exchange with Crack Emcee, perhaps you could lead by example by answering my question about rounding up the intellectuals.
Crack is an expert in Cult Watching. Whether that will go very far in political life is a question. But I do award him the Thaddeus Stevens Award for his single minded dedication.
In Pennsylvania in the 1830s Thaddeus Stevens was first elected on the Anti-Mason Party ticket. He later was Republican when the formed to fight slavery. As an attorney Stevens had hidden fugitive slaves in his office's basement. He was a dedicated man.
Anti-Masons were Christians who were mad at the secret power of the Free Mason's cult which was in fact the forerunner of all of the Mormon Cult's Temple ceremonies and belief system.
Like our friend Crack, Stephens loved a good fight, which I fully understand.
So after that pussyfooter Lincoln went full emancipation and got shot for winning, Stevens became the Radical Republicans' leader in the Senate. He didn't like sharing power with Lincoln's VP either.
The southern States had not been allowed back in yet and they wern't until they ratified Stevens' personal Amendments that were being numbered 13, 14, and 15.
So maybe Crack will one day make a difference too just by fighting to the end.
Not to derail the thread or anything, but I cannot find my (bleep) suntan lotion. Where the (bleep) is it?
Mitt Romney: "Gosh, I know that's annoying. Retrace your steps."
I have retraced my steps, mother(bleep). Of course I've retraced my (bleep) steps. I don't need some mother(bleep) from the (bleep) government to tell me to retrace my (bleep) steps.
Barack Obama: "Don't forget to put air in your tires."
Seriously, where the (bleep) is it?
And I'm not going to buy any more. (Bleep) that (bleep). You know how much mother(bleep) suntan lotion costs these days? (Bleep) inflation can go (bleep) itself. And (bleep) if I'm going to buy any when I already have some. I just can't find it!
So I'm stick here, arguing mother(bleep) aliens with mother(bleep) Crack.
Because I don't want to get skin cancer, that's why!
Son of a (bleep) (bleep).
The Crack Emcee said...
No - what's pretty old is you guys not doing your own investigations but continually spouting typical cult apologist bullshit.
What have I ever said that qualifies as typical cult apologist bullshit?
As I've pointed out, above, Romney's cultism has already started twisting many people's good intentions into making them liars. Last I heard, lying was a bad thing.
Everything I've seen you classify as a lie related to Romney is no more of a lie than your claim that I've spouted 'typical cult apologist bullshit'. Nothing more than the typical shadings of truth that you find on all sides of politics, both on and off the internet. I'm not saying those lies are okay, but your obsession with cults is causing you to apply an absurd double standard.
Correction: Thaddeus Stevens was in leadership inthe House and not the Senate, the better to impeach Andrew Johnson with.
The wiki article mentions that Stevens will be played by Tommy Lee Jones in Spielberg's new film, A Team of Rivals coming out soon. I cannot wait to see Crack in action in his fighting ancestor's role.
"Exactly the same way we allow good secular policy A but prevent bad secular policy B."
But we use secular arguments to support or oppose secular policy A or B.
In religious based law, arguments for or against would be based using theological or religious sources or teachings/doctrine. The Bible, the Koran, the Torah et cetera.
If that took place, then Congressman Smith would be citing the Catholic Church's teachings or the Bible, Congressman Jones would be citing Jewish teachings or the Torah, Congressman Adams would be citing the Koran.
Each person believes that his source - the Bible, the Koran, the Torah - has the "Truth."
When people did that 240 years ago it led to the religious wars of Europe. Church and state were mixed and one sect imposed its teachings on another.
The Framers rejected this.
We have a secular government and all laws must be based on secular reasonings.
Crack is an expert in Cult Watching. Whether that will go very far in political life is a question. But I do award him the Thaddeus Stevens Award for his single minded dedication.
Thank, Tg.
What's interesting to me is the way the whole phenomena unfolds:
Ann just did that post on Detoxing - a cult practice I've written quite a bit about.
Now, if you think about it, on one side you've got Salma Hayek, the Wall Street bigwigs, Oprah Winfrey, the NYT, and a gigantic marketing campaign - on the other you have me.
Who is anyone going to listen to?
Does the fact I'm outnumbered by my adversaries make me wrong?
Does the fact my adversaries are all rich make me wrong?
Does the fact my adversaries are almost all famous make me wrong?
Does the fact my adversaries are almost all wildly popular make me wrong?
Does the fact my adversaries are supposedly-smarter make me wrong?
Not a chance.
And then there's the fact that when I say such shit is bogus, it gets push-back, laughter, and charges of insanity - but let Ann say it's bullshit and now there's a whole thread of support. Suck-ups, that's all they are. Just like with Romney.
Most of these people are full of shit - and dumb, too, because they can't decipher good information from bad based purely on the merits. Like most people, they need to have everything crashing down around their ears before they can admit, "Wow - I really fell for a bunch of crap this time!"
But I still don't think - even then - they'd really accept it. No, any scapegoat will do - that's how it works. It can't be you. They're to good/smart/whatever to make such fucked-up decisions.
Sure.
Like I said, I'll have the last laugh on this Romney thing - I'm 100% positive - I always am when it comes to cultism,...
Crack said, in his 12:07 comment: Nope - I can't vote this year
For purposes of clarification, am I correct that you mean you specifically can't cast a vote among the presidential candidates, and NOT that you won't be going to the polls at all? I am assuming that there are other down-ticket offices to be decided in the state and/or locality in which you live. You could leave the top slot blank, or write-in "no votes for cultists" or some such thing, and then complete whatever parts of the rest of the ballot aren't a complete "fail" for you similar grounds. And I am curious: If you were to write your idea of an ideal presidential candidate (among people who actually might/could run for POTUS, who would it be?
The other thing about which am curious: Why DO you live in Utah, of all states, given your problems with Mormonism? I freely admit that it's not one of my damn business, your personal decisions, but still...I'm curious and it's not like I have to pay money or something to ask.
(OT aside to the commenter--I think it was Scott M--who first noted quite a bit ago that one doesn't have to bother with the number/picture part of the blogger word verification: Thanks! This tip has saved a lot of hassle and time, over time.)
Because I don't want to get skin cancer, that's why!
I hardly think you'll get skin cancer from going outside without suntan lotion just this once (or even a few times). Is that too obvious a thing to point out?
I say: Live dangerously! Go ahead and enjoy that sunshine.
Tabbai is a good writer. Too bad he is on the dark side.
Wasn't he the writer that got NcChrystal fired?
So the fight is on. The media and their Journolist Cadre are all making the election coverage about how scary Rich Weird Romney can be... if you stand on this chair and look very carefully at the Rich guy traits that he cannot hide any longer. And his epidermis is showing too.
Mitt could easily win this by not hidding out on everything. But it's too late to remake his personal style.
So the Conservatives need to work twice as hard to get his secret keeping Mormon ass elected, but that is the hand that we have been dealt to play. It is literally life and death that Obama be booted out ASAP.
Side note: In honor of this thread, I'm blasting Keb' Mo's version of "(What So Funny 'Bout) Peace, Love and Understanding. Just for fun and because I can.
Here's a YouTube version.
Next up: Popa Chubby's "Dirty Lie"
"Hopefully with an answer that has some basis in logic,..."
So the logic is... Romney's aliens exist? Or Obama's socialism doesn't?
My logic here is impeccable.
Why should I care anymore about Romney's aliens (or his belief in them) than the beliefs of any other religion? Aliens are no more illogical than the Satan that the Christians and Muslims fear. It's all a crazy train.
Crack, you really think you're in danger of Romney's aliens?
Umm, yeah - you're the one with the problem putting a logical thought together here.
Notice how the liberals are always trying to get conservatives indicted? First Walker, now Romney. They are so Bolshevik like that, criminalize dissent.
"but if Romney decides to round up all the intellectuals in to re-education camps because he a follower of the Khmer Rouge, that's OK because it's secular?"
No, because I will use secular arguments - like the ones in the Constitution protecting the right to life, liberty and property - against such an action.
Nowhere did I say all secular views are right. Nor did I say all sectarian views are wrong.
I said that under our government laws must be based on secular reasons and not sectarian ones.
Otherwise, which sect gets his or her policies imposed and which don't?
rcommal,
For purposes of clarification, am I correct that you mean you specifically can't cast a vote among the presidential candidates, and NOT that you won't be going to the polls at all?
Yes.
The other thing about which am curious: Why DO you live in Utah, of all states, given your problems with Mormonism? I freely admit that it's not one of my damn business, your personal decisions, but still...I'm curious and it's not like I have to pay money or something to ask.
Two answers:
1) Considering the prevalence of cults in America, why not Utah? It's not like there's some safe (or safer) state for me. I'm simply trapped wherever I go. There's also levels of religious thought I have to watch out for - I was recently in Texas, where every job interview included the interviewer stating, "I'm a Christian, I don't know what you are,…" Oooh, boy, THAT was fun,….
2) My best friend from high school lives here, and - since I didn't trust many people after discovering how my wife's cultism branches out into society - he suggested I join him in Utah.
My thinking at the time was that I can either live where I was, San Francisco, with a billion little cults - all pretty much operating on the d/l - or someplace with one big open and proud one. It seemed like a no-brainer, especially knowing my friend's got my back. He's from a huge Mormon family, but doesn't buy into their bullshit, so there were no worries he'd doubt what I know, because he knows it, too. (Most non-Mormons living in Utah do.) How was I to know Romney would be the next Republican nominee?
Also, while not the prettiest place I've ever been, but the most conservative of conservative states, Utah has a few things to recommend it - no unions, low cost of living, low taxes, etc. - so, once you get past the "Theocracy In America" crap, it's not exactly a terrible place to live. For a while anyway.
That's my answer.
Actually, that should read:
Once you LEARN TO NAVIGATE the "Theocracy In America" crap,...
There's no getting past it,...
Both my friend and his daughter said Bill Ayers.
So, Crack, by ignoring me you mean to say "He's a hundred percent right and I have no defense. Please, pay no attention to my rhetorical disembowelment?" Glad we got that straightened out. KTHXBAI.
Oh yeah, and when you can only say "that's not what I meant and you know it," this is also an admission of defeat. At least if you don't follow up with a clarification...which is so beneath you? That or the poverty of your upbringing has affected your abilities in public discourse more harshly than you care to admit:
In general, admitting isn't your long suit, one finds.
PS Yes, I am mocking your style with the stupid colon abuse. Kindly stop.
"But we use secular arguments to support or oppose secular policy A or B."
Fine, then oppose religious based policy with secular arguments. I don't see the problem.
With regard to rounding up intellectuals, you write "I will use secular arguments". Why won't the exact same arguments work if Romney is rounding up intellectuals based on his religious views? If your secular arguments "work" in the sense of being politically succesful, I fail to see how Romney's motivation matters. If they don't work, then again Romney's motivation seems irrelevant. After all you're not trying to persuade Romney, you are trying to persuade the citizenry.
"which sect gets his or her policies imposed and which don't?"
The ones that convince sufficient voters to support their policies, exactly like secular sects (e.g. tranzis, conservatives, libertarians), as long as they follow the Constitution. Which, I will note, makes no mention whatsoever of requiring political arguments to be secular.
We seem to be talking past each other and as far as I can tell it's because you presume that if a politician promotes policy A using religious arguments, one must respond to that by using arguments based in the same religion (e.g. you can argue against a Khmer Rouge round up with secular arguments, but not against a theocratic round up). I don't understand that viewpoint.
Nichevo,
So, Crack, by ignoring me you mean to say "He's a hundred percent right and I have no defense. Please, pay no attention to my rhetorical disembowelment?" Glad we got that straightened out. KTHXBAI.
Oh yeah, and when you can only say "that's not what I meant and you know it," this is also an admission of defeat.
Tell yourself whatever makes you feel good, Nichevo, that's how you roll anyway.
The only person I still owe an explanation to is SMGalbraith, because A) he's the only reasonable person - meaning telling no lies or making bullshit self-serving accusations - to emerge from this discussion B) he's the only one I've agreed to answer, and C) he wants evidence pertaining to the discussion and not based on lies, like say Tim, who's said I can't answer.
I do have a mind of my own, y'know,...
I agree that it's like some of my humor projects over here on the blog.
Adam Carrolla is right.
Gail Collins doesn't know how to make an argument that isn't ad hominem. Fits perfectly with NYT style book.
I don't remember where I was recently when someone reminded us about Collins' "plan" after the '08 election.
Believing that Obama needed to seize the reins of government immediately so that he could start meeting the many challenges of the day, she suggested that we could have Cheney and then Bush resign (which presumably they would do for the good of the nation) making Nancy Pelosi president. Nancy, of course, would merely be a figurehead and act at Barack's behind-the-scene direction. The bonus to her plan, said Gail, would be that not only would we get our first AA president, we'd also get our first female president! A win-win twofer!!
That the Times would appoint Gail Collins its editorial page editor tells you pretty much all you need to know about the organization.
For SMGalbraith - and there's more to come,...
Post a Comment