Students at Johns Hopkins University’s medical school are circulating a petition to replace Dr. Benjamin Carson as their commencement speaker after the famed neurosurgeon... [said on Sean Hannity's show] on Tuesday that opposite-sex marriage is “a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality — it doesn’t matter what they are. They don’t get to change the definition.”
२९ मार्च, २०१३
Destroying Ben Carson.
TPM:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२२० टिप्पण्या:
220 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»What a bunch of good little pansies. Should they be called the lemming generation?
I say that as a relative of someone who has been accepted to that medical school. I hope he picks Penn or Yale or UVA instead.
The students circulating that petition will never be in his league as a surgeon or as a human being.
He'd make a fine Surgeon General.
Barack Obama's 2011 position on gay marriage is now as unacceptably right wing as John Kerry's 2002 position on deposing Saddam or Bill Clinton's 2000 position on federal spending.
Or POTUS
Hardly destruction. The good Daddy's Little Girls at Radcliffe or one of the other Sisters tried to do the same thing to Barbara Bush.
They just made themselves look like the fools they were.
It's unfair and wrong to claim that all gays are evil. It is equally unfair and wrong to claim that all gays are good.....I'm just now reading the New Yorker article about the events at Horace Mann school. It seems to me that those teachers were truly evil. I wouldn't claim that their behavior is typical of gays, but it happened. I would warn any high school kid against hanging out with a minty teacher. And I suppose that makes me a bigot.
AJ, they may or not be the lemming generation, but they are the generation who has been fully indoctrinated by the arrayed forces of the left to believe that gay is OK.
Quote:
" a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality — it doesn’t matter what they are. They don’t get to change the definition.”
Dr. Carson was either itching for a fight or letting his mouth run ahead of brain
William said...
It's unfair and wrong to claim that all gays are evil. It is equally unfair and wrong to claim that all gays are good.
If you're old enough, you remember when TV and the movies told us all the Negroes were Magic.
Prophetic-
No?....
How would we have reacted if someone declared
"a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they the Catholic Church, be they Fred Phelps, be they people who believe in wives should cloaked and sileced — it doesn’t matter what they are. They don’t get to deny equality.”
Shame on you Dr. Carson.
How hysterical. Where did the academic freedom go?
One can say 9/11 was an inside job, cuddle up in your writings to Al Qaeda, and it's all about your freedom as a professor to say these things.
But say anything against the PC/MC crowd, and watch-out. They will have your nuts for breakfast.
Who are those students? Please let all know so they may avoid them in the "real world".
H8rs gotta h8.
Most medical students are now reliably leftist. It's a good thing because their lives will be dominated by leftist politics. I'm noting some possible second thoughts by a couple of my students. One is reading The Citadel, a great book about medicine in 1920s and 30s Britain.
One good story in the book, that has to be based on real life, is of a poor country GP whose grateful patient gives him a stock tip. The trouble is that when he needs to sell, he is out doing a tracheotomy on a child with diphtheria. He loses all his money.
Before the end of the year, I'm going to ask him his impression of the book. I must have read it five times when I was a medical student in a very different era.
Proud now? Althouse??
Is this what what "decent" people do?
The definition evolves to make the word useful and aligned with what people have an interest in talking about
Dictionaries try to follow it.
PC at best can destroy the word, make it uninteresting.
Orwell's position is that that's to make the original meaning unthinkable, which may be right.
I'd propose calling traditional marriage participants retards, since that word is now available.
"They don’t get to deny equality.”"
Well if they tried to redefine the word "equality" to mean something like 2 + 2 equals 4 or 5, then it would be a damned good analogy.
God forbid that they take the opportunity to listen to someone who has a brilliant mind but may not spout the current orthodoxy!
What a bunch of fucking intellectual pussies!
Some clown wants to speak at their commencement, who basically believes what almost all of the Democratic senators & representatives believed in 1996 & what Obama & Clinton said they believed until, what, two weeks ago, and they get the vapors. If you can't even talk to them when you disagree on a topic that 17 years ago was off the political event horizon, what hope is there for any sort of dialog on matters of moral importance?
What a bunch of Stalinists! I'm really sad to say this, but I see how, before my life here is over, if our liberties are going to be preserved, we may have to kill some of these people.
Lately, I've been getting a strange desire to own a Mazda MX-5. I can't explain it.
It was a dumb remark for Carson to make, but it would be bad precedent for universities to start shunning people who make dumb remarks.
Circulating a petition is just how Stalin did it~!
I don't know how "gays" are redefining marriage in Dr. Carson's view. Does he believe that marriage will no longer be available for heterosexual couples? Does he think that you have to go gay to be able to marry?
So why is he so threatened as to be irrational?
For the "gay is not OK" group out there. Who gets to decide? Only heterosexuals, the majority? What about gay people who believe that they are OK and those who believe that love and commitment to another soul is a spiritual relationship, not necessarily based around sex. What a quaint notion that only people who are married can have sex, and then only if their intention in having intercourse is to procreate.
Dr. Carson may be a brilliant doctor but that doesn't make him an authority in any other subject. Who cares what he thinks about marriage? I can't imagine asking my doctor, dentist, optometrist, etc., what they think about the subject or believing that would have any more importance to me than their opinion on financial investing or what car to buy.
Why was he invited in the first place? Is there still a valid reason to believe he has something worth hearing, despite his irrelevant opinions on political topics?
@Garage,
No, garage, shutting down free speech because you think you've got the scientific truth of the matter on moral issues, and all that came before needs to be thrown aside to make way for better future, then we are talking the history of the Bolsheviks.
If you want to discuss the Soviet Revolution, let's have at it. If you just want to snark, spare us.
Disagreeing with same-sex marriage is like having the cheese touch. This behaviour, like changing your profile pic and constant petitioning outside of government ballot s is very afluent suburban middle school.
Again fatherless is a huge issue for minorities, to ignore their concerns is racist. Trying to shut up a black man? Sorry not trying to play the race card, but in Massachusetts this doesn't happen.
@R Chatt,
Dr. Carson may be a brilliant doctor but that doesn't make him an authority in any other subject. Who cares what he thinks about marriage??
Yeah, maybe you'd want to ask an expert on marriage. Like, maybe, a clergyman!
Oh wait, that won't work, either.
PS: Do you apply that non-expert=no talky rule to all the important folks like Hollywood actors on the pro-SSM side, too?
Don't mess with the leftwing supremacists.
They don’t get to change the definition.
Actually, in a free society like ours "they" (however that term is defined in a given context) do get to change the definition of legal terms if "they" get enough people to support them in a given context. It's a pity that Dr. Carson doesn't understand that concept and moreover has decided to join forces with the George Wallaces of this generation, but that's his free choice also.
"Carson was raised by his single mother in the 1950s but this was uncharacteristic for the time. Now 80% of children in the Detroit area are being raised in single parent homes and it shows in the pathologies of the city. Low high school graduation rates, high crime rates, 49% adult illiteracy rates, and child poverty are just some of the major issues affecting the children in Detroit.'
http://www.blackbluedog.com/2013/03/news/absent-fathers-linked-to-child-poverty-low-graduation-rates-says-dr-ben-carson/
Yeah, maybe you'd want to ask an expert on marriage. Like, maybe, a clergyman!
How the heck are clergy experts on marriage? Most of them have never been married!
Sure, they've been present at the start of a lot of marriages, but so have most caterers. :)
Dr. Carson may be a brilliant doctor but that doesn't make him an authority in any other subject.
Clearly not the sort of person who should be giving an address at a medical school, then.
If they want an authority on all subjects, they should get a lawyer. Carson's never did anything but pediatric neurosurgery. Big deal. Barack Obama had a book written for him.
somefeller opines: Actually, in a free society like ours "they" (however that term is defined in a given context) do get to change the definition of legal terms if "they" get enough people to support them in a given context. It's a pity that Dr. Carson doesn't understand that concept and moreover has decided to join forces with the George Wallaces of this generation, but that's his free choice also.
I'll give you "better" example: there's link up at Instapundit of some Planned Parenthood witch backing the death of abortion survivors. I'll betcha she insists on them being called a fetuses.
And Carson's free speech rights aren't being violated. They are being responded to by more speech. He can take his schtick to the Sean Hannity show or some talk radio program, where I'm sure he'd be welcome. Maybe that's what he's striving for anyway.
Actually, in a free society like ours "they" [...] do get to change the definition of legal terms if "they" get enough people to support them in a given context.
The first half of that sentence has nothing to do with the second half; majority rule has nothing to do with freedom. Indeed, for 51% of a society to force 49% to do something against its will is an affront to freedom.
Remember, we're a democratic republic not because democracy is synonymous with freedom, but because the alternatives are even more dangerous to freedom than a tyrannical majority is.
Dr. Carson may be a brilliant doctor but that doesn't make him an authority in any other subject.
I keep waiting for the "and".
Ok, so his opinions on gay marriage are dumb. And?
somefeller entertains countermajoritarian sympathies--especially when he's in the majority.
And Carson's free speech rights aren't being violated. They are being responded to by more speech.
It is worth remembering that the Hollywood blacklist was also nothing but "more speech"; citizen groups pressured advertisers and studios into not hiring people who held offensive views.
What the protesters are doing isn't a First Amendment violation, but they *are* trying to stop Carson from engaging in public speech. They have a right to advocate for that, but they're still a bunch of pricks for doing it.
@Rev,
How the heck are clergy experts on marriage? Most of them have never been married!
Not true for the Prods, the Orthodox Catholics, the Jews, the Hindus,& the Muslims, Rev!
And, all of them, end up counseling dozens & dozens of couples over the course of their careers.
And Carson's free speech rights aren't being violated. They are being responded to by more speech. He can take his schtick to the Sean Hannity show or some talk radio program, where I'm sure he'd be welcome. Maybe that's what he's striving for anyway.
Of course, like the anti American idiot claiming Bush dropped the twin towers.
Hey, what about this? Maybe he is saying what he actually thinks, and which actually makes sense. Because some people stomp their feet, doesn't mean the world needs to change the meaning of a word whose foundations have been around for thousands of years.
Especially since the stupid call is "It's not Fair!" First, it IS fair, and second, how old are these people? Six?
Indeed, for 51% of a society to force 49% to do something against its will is an affront to freedom.
You mean, like Obamacare?
Remember, we're a democratic republic not because democracy is synonymous with freedom, but because the alternatives are even more dangerous to freedom than a tyrannical majority is.
Fair point, though we aren't talking about a tyrannical majority taking away people's legal rights here. The issue here is that Carson seems to think that "they" (presumably gay marriage supporters) can't legitimately work to change the legal definition of marriage, which is nonsense. "They" can. And "they" will, if they are successful in doing so within the rules of our system, which is where gay marriage supporters are working.
Groupthink. Ugh.
God I despise the elite youth of today. Fucking morons.
@somefeller,
They" can. And "they" will, if they are successful in doing so within the rules of our system, which is where gay marriage supporters are working.
When "they" succeed, they will go after every religious group who has the temerity to disagree with them hammer & thong.
You still don't get it. That a 2.5% of the US population gets the "right" to marry & an even smaller percentage will us it, will change absolutely nothing societally. But, as a cultural cudgel against revealed morality, this will be priceless.
Don't say "Oh No". It's already happening in MA, in Britain, & in Canada.
That should be "tongs" not "thong".
"Hammer & thongs" sounds like it might even be fun!
And "they" will, if they are successful in doing so within the rules of our system, which is where gay marriage supporters are working.
Not all of them. Certainly not the protester who stole a couple dozen Prop 8 signs from a friend's lawn and egged his house and car.
The following are not illegal, but not in the spirit of the democratic process either.
Such as forcing Mark Regnerus up for scientific misconduct because his study reported results unfavorable to the gay marriage cause.
Then there's repeated efforts to call anyone who disagrees with gay marriage bigots, as our very own Andy R does.
Gay marriage folks have the real smell of the mob about them.
Definitions. Oy vey. They just coddle and comfort the capitalist monopoly.
Carson isn't black. He's _______. Give me a minute to fill it in. Must consult my Oxford Emerging Dictionary, which may take a while because I'm still writing it. (And no, you can't have a copy -- it's copyrighted).
In the meantime, know this: Carson wasn't raised by an illiterate poor single black Christian mom who worked her tail off. Rather Carson grew up in a stricken-by-poverty, emerging-majority, neuro-typically challenged, atheistic, human household. And NO ONE built that.
Also? He's a white girl lizard. Smith is so going to win this thing.
Carson should have simply said that marriage is a fundamental pillar of society and no group gets to change its definition. Full stop.
Lumping gays in with NAMBLA and bestiality was a creepy thing to do.
Get back on the leftwing plantation, or we will remove you from your job.
wow.
Tolerance.
So "destroying" a person is getting a petition to stop them from being a commencement speaker because of their well-known political views?
But, as a cultural cudgel against revealed morality, this will be priceless.
If you mean that SSM will further undermine the influence of the Rick Santorums of the world, you're probably right. But becoming unpopular because society has evolved past you isn't the tyranny of the majority enshrined in law. Sorry, social conservatives don't get to veto the rights of others because they claim the exercise of such rights oppresses them.
I'm hoping that Ben's one-eyed-trout has never jumped out of the pond.
He destroyed himself.
don't know how "gays" are redefining marriage in Dr. Carson's view.
Marriage, for so long: X + Y. Before that, to thousands of years ago, all over the world, X + Y + extended family.
Redefinition X + X or Y + Y or X + Y.
But, X + X can't procreate, and Y + Y can't procreate.
But Y + X + X can, yet that's banned. And Y + Y + X can, but that's really rare, both in the animal kingdom and in humans.
So how did these non-procreators jump to the head of the line?
Right, they have little to add for the next generation, and want all the perks for none of the work.
@somefeller,
See, your use of the term "evolve". What, somefeller, is that the course we're on -- towards an end of societal justice under the wise tutelage of our Social Democratic betters?
Are we "evolving" like Darwinian species evolve, so it's okay to cull the "unfittest"?
You use a term that's loaded with the assumption that we, as a society, have some sort of moral teleology. Well, sf, that's a fucking truckload of moral assumptions you're hauling there. Do you mind if we ask you and yours like, uhmm, what is this all based on?
Be interesting to see who these pussies select to replace Dr. Carson, who I predict will soon be called "not a real black person".
Perhaps they can get a former social worker who is now the Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman. I bet she is a fascinating speaker.
Does phx = fucks?
Yes, Dr. Carson has forbidden ideas. They ought to be kept secret.
Maybe they can have indecent people like Carson wear a yellow star or something.
Just so we can tell who's who here.
I wish that today's students had a nice scholarly dispassionate interest in exposing themselves to a variety of viewpoints. It seems they do not, but rather want to shield themselves from anything other than what they already believe. Not very intellectual.
A little bit from Column A and a little bit from Column B, YoungHegelian, plus a pinch from some other recipes. If you want more details, you'll need to pay me for my time. But I'm surprised to see a good modern American conservative blanching at the idea of the survival of the fittest in the marketplace of ideas. Haven't you read your Rand?
Hands off the righties - your criticisms of their views are destroying them! Keep your mouths shut and stop victimizing righties - at least until they can figure out how to get back in the game.
Stop bullying Republicans.
But maybe these Johns Hopkins students can have a good Internet Tough Guy like AJ Lynch teach them what's what. He's no pansy or pussy, just ask him!
Not true for the Prods, the Orthodox Catholics, the Jews, the Hindus,& the Muslims, Rev!
It is true for the majority of Christian clergy.
As for asking Muslim clergy -- go ahead. They'll explain why polygamy is a good thing. :)
"Most medical students are now reliably leftist."
Which means they won't lose any sleep if they have to leave a baby on a table to die, as Planned Parenthood is now openly advocating.
Such compassionate people, these leftists.
I've slowly come to the conclusion that we will not solve our fiscal issues (debt, taxes, spending, entitlements, defense, etc.) or constitutional issues (civil rights, immigration, privacy, gun-rights, drug war, drones, etc.) because republicans refuse to drop the social conservative stupidity. We have a Republican in
Alaska talking about wetbacks. We had two tea-party senate candidates making stupid (and and in one case, biologically incorrect) comments about rape in the fall. We have a ridiculously intelligent and courageous neurosurgeon comparing same sex marriage to beastiality. Look, women and minorities do not trust Republicans and this is why Obama won. Everytime one of these stupid statements is made, we lose. Rush Limbaugh said we lost the same sex marriage argument - maybe just maybe he's suggesting Republcans move on to more productive issues.
In fact, I'd argue the future of the country rests on Republicans moving on from these social issues (as a side note: it would be far better to be the party which believes in and fights for the idea that freedom means freedom for everyone). Our debt and loss of liberty is going to destroy any chance America has to remain a strong, free nation. How's about we stop arming the looters and moochers with the ammo to beats us? Anything else is re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
somefeller said...
But, as a cultural cudgel against revealed morality, this will be priceless.
If you mean that SSM will further undermine the influence of the Rick Santorums of the world, you're probably right. But becoming unpopular because society has evolved past you isn't the tyranny of the majority enshrined in law. Sorry, social conservatives don't get to veto the rights of others because they claim the exercise of such rights oppresses them.
It's got nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with devolution. All this has been tried and it was proven not to work thousands of years ago.
And people like some phony folksy don't care about anybody's rights. It's just about the vanity.
A little bit from Column A and a little bit from Column B, YoungHegelian, plus a pinch from some other recipes. If you want more details, you'll need to pay me for my time.
2 cents should be about right.
But I'm surprised to see a good modern American conservative blanching at the idea of the survival of the fittest in the marketplace of ideas.
They will prevail, as they've done in the past, but a lot of lives are going to be ruined in the process.
Of course, "compassionate" Lefties like some phony folksy don't care about that.
@somwefeller,
A little bit from Column A and a little bit from Column B, YoungHegelian, plusA little bit from Column A and a little bit from Column B, YoungHegelian, plus a pinch from some other recipes.
Meaning you have no idea, and this is the first time someone has actually used the word "teleology" in your presence.
I'm surprised to see a good modern American conservative blanching at the idea of the survival of the fittest in the marketplace of ideas. Haven't you read your Rand? But I'm surprised to see a good modern American conservative blanching at the idea of the survival of the fittest in the marketplace of ideas. Haven't you read your Rand?
Social Darwinism never existed, SF. No one, conservative or liberal, ever called himself a Social Darwinist in American history. I call myself YoungHegelian, SF. Ideas don't have a "marketplace". They develop dialectically.
And I think Ayn Rand was a bad author, and an even worse philosopher. Why would a believing Catholic, with an abiding interest in modern philosophy, have any truck with Rand?
Destroying conservatives, they've figured out the formula so it continues.
Does phx = fucks?
I do that too with people I disagree with. I like to say something about their names (or if they have an avatar their physical appearance) - find something clever to say that will annoy them.
It's one of the things that makes me a force to be reckoned with.
I respect people who roll the way I roll when it comes to making fun of people's names.
I thought phx = phoenix.
No, it's "fucks".
Look how they're trying to destroy me!
Fair point, though we aren't talking about a tyrannical majority taking away people's legal rights here.
Aren't we? The opponents of DOMA and California's Proposition 8 claim that's exactly what was done to them. You're correct that the majority isn't redefining marriage, though, since (with the exception of a handful of states) they haven't been able to. Thus they are resorting to the courts.
In any event there will be an effect on everybody's rights, because the government legally forbids people from treating (legally) married people as if they were unmarried. E.g., it is illegal to NOT give special visitation privileges to the spouse of a patient in your hospital, even if the owners of that hospital would prefer not to do so.
One of the many, many problems with the "everything in the state, nothing outside the state" government we have these days -- there's no place for freedom of conscience.
Meaning you have no idea, and this is the first time someone has actually used the word "teleology" in your presence.
Ha! Don't flatter yourself. But I'm sure those are great clove cigarettes you're smoking.
Social Darwinism never existed, SF. No one, conservative or liberal, ever called himself a Social Darwinist in American history. I call myself YoungHegelian, SF. Ideas don't have a "marketplace". They develop dialectically.
No one may have self-described as such, but the concept of a social survival of the fittest isn't an imaginary one. Spend a little time among a few ambitious young lawyers or businessmen and you'll hear it. And the idea of a marketplace of ideas isn't a uniquely Social Darwinist one, in fact it's a very common American concept, one which is used to support free speech concepts.
And I think Ayn Rand was a bad author, and an even worse philosopher. Why would a believing Catholic, with an abiding interest in modern philosophy, have any truck with Rand?
Good for you! I really mean that. Now go see what you can do with Paul Ryan.
"Most medical students are now reliably leftist."
Which means they won't lose any sleep if they have to leave a baby on a table to die, as Planned Parenthood is now openly advocating.
That is what is known as an association fallacy: "X are lefties, and Y are lefties too. X favor baby killing, therefore Y does too." Sloppy reasoning.
TWM said...
God I despise the elite youth of today. Fucking morons.
No, it's been going on forever. I was student at UW-Madison in 1983 when leftists shouted down Eldridge Cleaver because he had "betrayed" them. Here's a photo I found which appears to be from that night: link. The left has a particularly cruel and racist fetish for going after black men.
Aren't we? The opponents of DOMA and California's Proposition 8 claim that's exactly what was done to them.
Well played. But I was referring to social conservatives saying their rights were being taken away. One of these things is not like the other.
You're correct that the majority isn't redefining marriage, though, since (with the exception of a handful of states) they haven't been able to. Thus they are resorting to the courts.
Usage of the courts is part of playing within the rules of a free society. As you correctly pointed out, one must safeguard against the tyranny of the majority, and the courts are the traditional place for that.
Always remember that others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.
That was Ben Carson, or Nixon or Althouse or someobody like that.
Such compassionate people, these leftists.
Feel sorry for them, because this life of wrongly placed self-righteousness and hatred for godliness is but a vapor of smoke compared to the eternal never to end suffering they will endure for their foolishness and calling of evil "good".
It is true that all of us suffer though while they exist here. None of them will ever achieve at a level of a Ben Carson or many of the great men of the past. There can be no leftist equivalent of a Regan or Churchill or even Martin Luther King, Jr. There is no internal insight or selflessness or humility or true, real acceptance of those different than themselves that exists in them and there is no capacity for them to change. Shun them politely whenver possible. The world goes through it's throes - there was a time when Christians were killed and fed to lions, dipped in pitch and set on fire to light palaces and other things by those very same leftist philosophies. But the world got better when they were eventually demolished along with the atheistic, immoral Hitlers and Stalins and Pol Pots. They are today the intellectual and moral heirs of such men and will pay for their immorality and evil most surely one day.
I first became aware of Ben Carson years ago on some tv documentary about him removing one side of the brain of a patient to treat epileptic seizures and hadn't read or heard anything about him until he recently emerge into the spotlight with his prayer breakfast comments.
No one may have self-described as such, but the concept of a social survival of the fittest isn't an imaginary one.
True, but that's not what "social darwinism" means. The correct label for a person who believes that fit people are more likely to thrive in society than unfit people isn't "social darwinist". It is "person with a functioning brain".
Now go see what you can do with Paul Ryan
Oh, please. If you think Paul Ryan is an Objectivist then you've got your head up your ass. He liked one of her books. I liked "Johnny Got His Gun", but that doesn't mean I'm a fan of Trumbo's Stalinism. :)
Or at least, the courts have been the traditional place to protect minority rights for the past 60 or so years. They obviously didn't help Mr. Korematsu or Mr. Dred Scott.
Tom said...
I've slowly come to the conclusion that we will not solve our fiscal issues (debt, taxes, spending, entitlements, defense, etc.) or constitutional issues (civil rights, immigration, privacy, gun-rights, drug war, drones, etc.) because republicans refuse to drop the social conservative stupidity.
Good Lord. Has it ever occurred to you to try and change the economic politics of the Democratic Party? Just a little? You can keep the liberal social policies you cherish and "save" the country! Why is it imperative for Conservatives to change their social mores instead of Democrats changing their economic thinking and policies? Think about it. Which would be easier to change?
That was Ben Carson, or Nixon or Althouse or someobody like that.
That was Nixon. I just saw the clip a few weeks ago.
Feel sorry for them, because this life of wrongly placed self-righteousness and hatred for godliness is but a vapor of smoke compared to the eternal never to end suffering they will endure for their foolishness and calling of evil "good".
It is true that all of us suffer though while they exist here. None of them will ever achieve at a level of a Ben Carson or many of the great men of the past. There can be no leftist equivalent of a Regan or Churchill or even Martin Luther King, Jr. There is no internal insight or selflessness or humility or true, real acceptance of those different than themselves that exists in them and there is no capacity for them to change. Shun them politely whenver possible. The world goes through it's throes - there was a time when Christians were killed and fed to lions, dipped in pitch and set on fire to light palaces and other things by those very same leftist philosophies. But the world got better when they were eventually demolished along with the atheistic, immoral Hitlers and Stalins and Pol Pots. They are today the intellectual and moral heirs of such men and will pay for their immorality and evil most surely one day.
Wow. Easter sure casts a dark and deeply religious pall over this righty-lefty split for some believers, eh?
I would actually dispute the idea of dialectical progress, or at least the whole thesis/antithesis thing and the weltgeist.
Hegel made some pretty bold claims which are pretty convenient for Hegel.
That said, I think these students should just go and listen. No need to be pussies, as you'll meet plenty of people you disagree with.
Such compassionate people, these leftists.
"Feel sorry for them, because this life of wrongly placed self-righteousness and hatred for godliness is but a vapor of smoke compared to the eternal never to end suffering they will endure for their foolishness and calling of evil "good".
It is true that all of us suffer though while they exist here. None of them will ever achieve at a level of a Ben Carson or many of the great men of the past. There can be no leftist equivalent of a Regan or Churchill or even Martin Luther King, Jr. There is no internal insight or selflessness or humility or true, real acceptance of those different than themselves that exists in them and there is no capacity for them to change. Shun them politely whenver possible. The world goes through it's throes - there was a time when Christians were killed and fed to lions, dipped in pitch and set on fire to light palaces and other things by those very same leftist philosophies. But the world got better when they were eventually demolished along with the atheistic, immoral Hitlers and Stalins and Pol Pots. They are today the intellectual and moral heirs of such men and will pay for their immorality and evil most surely one day. "
3/29/13, 9:49 PM
Hellfire and Damnation! Flashback to my youth in the Pentecostal church.
@Tom: I mean, I don't hear liberals around here raving about Barack Obama's economics. So why the fuck are they not putting pressure on him to change it? Or demanding that Journolists change their tune. Wouldn't this create the kind of world they really want?
Unless of course you're happy with the Obama economy.
True, but that's not what "social darwinism" means. The correct label for a person who believes that fit people are more likely to thrive in society than unfit people isn't "social darwinist". It is "person with a functioning brain".
Thanks for the clarification. You're the one bringing up and going on about Darwinism. I didn't mention it, social or otherwise, until you raised the point. But if you want to continue talking in circles about that topic, feel free to do so. I won't stop you. Free speech!
Usage of the courts is part of playing within the rules of a free society.
Usage of the courts is part of playing within the rules of a government. Freedom, again, has nothing to do with it; courts take away freedom at least as often as they extend it.
As you correctly pointed out, one must safeguard against the tyranny of the majority, and the courts are the traditional place for that.
It happens occasionally, sure, but it isn't applicable here. Gay people are already free to marry; this entire hubbub is over their right to hop on the government entitlement bandwagon with the married heteros.
Thanks for the clarification. You're the one bringing up and going on about Darwinism.
Are you high? You mentioned it before I did. My one and only mention was in response to a claim you made about it.
Living in a Free Country is a bitch. The teabaggers have to put up with the gay dog porkers and the pinko-commie lesbos have to put up with the NRA's iron fist up Congress' ahem.
somefeller said...
Meaning you have no idea, and this is the first time someone has actually used the word "teleology" in your presence.
Ha! Don't flatter yourself. But I'm sure those are great clove cigarettes you're smoking.
Flatter yourself.
When some phony folksy gets nailed, he tries to change the subject.
Aren't we? The opponents of DOMA and California's Proposition 8 claim that's exactly what was done to them.
Well played. But I was referring to social conservatives saying their rights were being taken away.
Which ones were these, care to give some examples?
You're correct that the majority isn't redefining marriage, though, since (with the exception of a handful of states) they haven't been able to. Thus they are resorting to the courts.
Usage of the courts is part of playing within the rules of a free society. As you correctly pointed out, one must safeguard against the tyranny of the majority, and the courts are the traditional place for that.
No, the Lefties use the appellate courts when they can't win at the ballot box.
And, in this case, intend to use the tyranny of a supposed majority to justify their desires.
the eternal never to end suffering
As opposed to temporary never to end suffering.
Brent - I copied your comment and sent it to a relative who is deciding if Johns Hopkins is the right med school to choose.
Inga - my comment left a mark, did it?
You always seem to find a way to comment about something you don't supposedly believe.
Throw a rock into a pack of dogs and the one who yelps loudest is the one who got hit.
Ack - I typed too quickly and confused Revenant for YoungHegelian on the last comment. Snark about talking in circles withdrawn! However, my point about YoungHegelian raising the topic of Darwinism, not me, stands.
Inga - my comment left a mark, did it?
It certainly left an impression with me.
The world goes through it's throes - there was a time when Christians were killed and fed to lions, dipped in pitch and set on fire to light palaces and other things by those very same leftist philosophies.
The very same leftists here in Althouse I tell you.
"to light palaces...and other...things..."
Are you high?
I wish! That would be a good excuse for my dumbass attribution mistake there. I'm too old for that stuff, though.
Brent, such sanctimony on a Good Friday. Even Jesus took the place of a sinner on the Cross.
LOL at the free speech posturing in this thread. These particular students aren't responding to Carson's speech with more speech.
In the marketplace of ideas, there petition is nothing more than trying to close the store.
I'm so sick of this shit. Our host, for obvious reasons, finds it interesting, and affirming.
It is the future, you know. And it is, not only wrong, but damn sad.
I've been banned, so this may be up for only a second or so, if that.
Some feller,
But obligations are tied to marriage, that if it leads to government recognition that society as a whole benefits from it.
In its one man/one woman definition to form policy, the obligations is towards the benefit of children and their natural right to their mom and dad. Children are not chattel, and just be passed off to any two adults.
Redefinition takes away the obligation that was apart of marriage, making it about two people in which society doesn't play a role in concerns of the relationship. If society play no role and has no interest and has no affect on others, then the government shouldn't be involved at all.
When a mom and dad do not parent together in a stable home, it affects the community when this occurs within a large segment of the population.
Chicklit said: Good Lord. Has it ever occurred to you to try and change the economic politics of the Democratic Party? Just a little? You can keep the liberal social policies you cherish and "save" the country! Why is it imperative for Conservatives to change their social mores instead of Democrats changing their economic thinking and policies? Think about it. Which would be easier to change?
Please name a liberal social policy I cherish. Libertarian? Yes - cherish many of those policies. Whatever the issues I have with socially conservative Republicans, my issues with Democrats fiscal policies are much much worse. I believe the Democrats have embraced an economic theory of having your neighbors cake and eating it too. It's unsustainable. My argument is that it Republicans CAN address our fiscal issues but won't get the opportunity because of the social issues. At some point, the social issues become moot because financial collapse reek far more havoc on our society than same sex marriage ever will.
In the marketplace of ideas, there petition is nothing more than trying to close the store.
You aren't allowed to do that in the marketplace? That's regulated?
Another hero for the fag-haters.
Has it ever occurred to you to try and change the economic politics of the Democratic Party?
The Democratic Party's entire existence depends on funneling money to Democratic constituencies. You might as well suggest that the Klan embrace racial diversity.
If opposition to gay marriage is that vital to the Republican party then the Republican Party has no more of a future than the Anti-Masonic Party did. Pick an issue people will still give a shit about twenty years from now.
Of course, I hate most of the strident progressives and same sex marriage "activists" too.
Am I an anarchist?
Of course, I hate most of the strident progressives and same sex marriage "activists" too.
Hate. Who can get enough of it?
The world goes through it's throes - there was a time when Christians were killed and fed to lions, dipped in pitch and set on fire to light palaces and other things by those very same leftist philosophies.
I've heard some crazy shit in my time, but "the Emperor Nero was a left-winger" takes the cake.
I don't know Palladian, but you most assuredly are a sinner and will burn for eternity, along with me of course:)
Hate. Who can get enough of it?
Hate is the Tabasco sauce of intellectual life.
I don't know Palladian, but you most assuredly are a sinner and will burn for eternity, along with me of course:)
Christ tells me otherwise :)
Well, not even a few seconds. Good job, Meade.
Whew that's good to know Palladian, Brent had me feelin' the flames there for a minute.
I've heard some crazy shit in my time, but "the Emperor Nero was a left-winger" takes the cake.
Well, his decision to use Christians as kindling rather than coal was seen as an environmentally progressive policy at the time.
Even Jesus took the place of a sinner on the Cross.
And normally Jesus was a real dick about helping people out, so you should really be ashamed that he was nicer to sinners than you are.
Even Jesus took the place of a sinner on the Cross.
And that I am truly thankful and have a better life and hope for eternity.
Brent, such sanctimony on a Good Friday.
But the sanctimony is all yours dear Inga. It is not me who takes only part of the Word of God, discarding the part I don't like.
but again, why even bother if you don't believe? why waste your time on a fool like me, eh?
You know why Inga.
R chat wrote:
I don't know how "gays" are redefining marriage in Dr. Carson's view
you don't know how changing the definition of marriage and changing who can marry is a redefuning of marriage? What are you, daft?
"'X are lefties, and Y are lefties too. X favor baby killing, therefore Y does too.' Sloppy reasoning."
OK, Revenant, point me to those leftists who are anti-abortion and oppose Planned Parenthood. 'Cause they're awfully quiet these days.
Whew that's good to know Palladian, Brent had me feelin' the flames there for a minute.
Brent always makes me feel flames, of the flame-war kind.
Hate is the Tabasco sauce of intellectual life.
Disdainful snark is the Sriracha paste.
I love the idea the She Devil of the SS is using the Homosexual Equality logo super-imposed with what?
Lady Liberty going down on Dame Justice? Where's the pink triangle?
It's as nonsensical as the super-cool hand sign all the little Obamatrons were going to use after Choom was nominated in '08.
My argument is that it Republicans CAN address our fiscal issues but won't get the opportunity because of the social issues. At some point, the social issues become moot because financial collapse reek far more havoc on our society than same sex marriage ever will.
My counterargument would be for you to accept the status quo regarding social issues, forget about turning conservatives progressive on social policies, and vote for economic sanity.
Did you really think that Romney was going to roll social mores back 50 years?
You know why Inga.
Brent. He walks among you.
Disdainful snark is the Sriracha paste.
OK, now I'm hungry.
I don't know Palladian, but you most assuredly are a sinner and will burn for eternity, along with me of course:)
Christ tells me otherwise :)
P-man, better reread that book He wrote; pretty sure you've got it wrong.
Hey how about reading it yourself this time and not taking someone else's word for it?
R chat wrote:
For the "gay is not OK" group out there. Who gets to decide? Only heterosexuals, the majority? What about gay people who believe that they are OK and those who believe that love and commitment to another soul is a spiritual relationship, not necessarily based around sex. What a quaint notion that only people who are married can have sex, and then only if their intention in having intercourse is to procreate.
umm, gays can have sex now despite not being able to marry. Who is denying gays the ability to have sex?
Brent, I bet when we both get to the afterlife, we will be surprised to see those we considered sinners there. Judge not lest ye be judged.
phx said...
You know why Inga.
Brent. He walks among you.
Cool.
OK, Revenant, point me to those leftists who are anti-abortion and oppose Planned Parenthood.
*point*
And I don't mean hell, Brent.
When you IP deny, Meade, do you get to see the comment... I guess not.
It's as if I don't exist, good for your world, right.
Did you really think that Romney was going to roll social mores back 50 years?
No, and neither did a lot of stupid social conservatives. Unfortunately that made me vote for him, and made them stay home. And now we have the Obama show for 4 more years.
P-man, better reread that book He wrote; pretty sure you've got it wrong.
I'm not worried. But perhaps you should be.
Judge not lest ye be judged.
Possibly the most quoted verse in the whole Bible.
Hey - ever heard of the following word? It's a big one -. Here goes:
Context.
look it up and then get back to nme with the definiton (though I would be careful asking any ssm supporter - they're liable to make up a different definition about anything on the drop of a hat!).
I'm not worried.Perhaps you should be.
What is this - "so's your old man?"
thanks for the smile.
Bored - had my say.
Good night all.
Cute, Revenant. And those anti-abortion liberals - all 7 of them - really have the ear of Pelosi and Obama, don't they? Why, I remember how respectfully Bob Casey Sr.was treated by his party. That's why his son is such a staunch pro-life advocate today, isn't that right?
Stop trying to destroy Brent. Remember, focus. Ben Carson.
Brent, I don't believe the Bible to be infallible. It was written by man and translated many times. It can be interpreted in numerous ways.
God bless you Brent.
My counterargument would be for you to accept the status quo regarding social issues, forget about turning conservatives progressive on social policies, and vote for economic sanity.
Yeah, but Gary Johnson only got 1% of the vote.
Oh, you meant "vote for economically sane Republicans". See, that's kind of the problem -- at the national level you can count the economically sane Republican politicians on one hand. You haven't run one for President since 1984, and he turned out to be a big disappointment in that regard anyway.
Every election is a contest between a socially conservative economic dumbass and a socially liberal bigger economic dumbass. Branch out! Try picking someone who isn't an economic dumbass, even if he doesn't hate on gay people enough to please the bible belt. In theory, at least, the majority of Americans would like to see government spending shrink. Try appealing to them?
Ben Carson didn't start off on the right foot with Althouse.
So, Naturally, when he puts his foot in his mouth she is going to be there going... 'See, I told you so.'
Its not helpful for anybody to go on Hannity for anything.
Imus is right... Hannity is insane.
what is it about leftists that make them run and hide from opposing viewpoints? are they afraid they might learn something?
Cute, Revenant.
I thought so. :)
Stop trying to destroy Brent. Remember, focus. Ben Carson.
Mission being accomplished by Carson himself. Must move on to next target. Don't you remember our lessons at Alinsky Summer Camp?
Palladian wrote:
No, and neither did a lot of stupid social conservatives. Unfortunately that made me vote for him, and made them stay home. And now we have the Obama show for 4 more years.
wow you voted for Romney?
Anyway, it wasn't the social conservatives that stayed away from Romney, surprisingly. It was the libertarians.
Phi:How would we have reacted if someone declared
"a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they the Catholic Church, be they Fred Phelps, be they people who believe in wives should cloaked and sileced — it doesn’t matter what they are. They don’t get to deny equality.”
I don't think it would bother me very much because every day I see similar things said in the mainstream about conservatives and I still manage to make it though the day without losing my equilibrium.
I would suggest to the students at Johns Hopkins who want to disinvite Dr. Carson that the proper response to speech with which they disagree is more speech, not silencing the opposition. Students who don't like Dr. Carson's views should argue for the establishment of a commencement rebuttal speaker to make sure no conservative views go unrebutted and no weak minded fellow students get grievously led astray.
Ooooo yes! When we roasted Christians over the campfire?
Ooooo yes! When we roasted Christians over the campfire?
Nero Environmentalism Day! How could one forget?
Anyway, it wasn't the social conservatives that stayed away from Romney, surprisingly. It was the libertarians.
I'm a small-"L" libertarian, but yes, I am used to voting for the least-worst candidate.
Lem said...
Ben Carson didn't start off on the right foot with Althouse.
I rather enjoy seeing someone like Carson step on Althouse's toes. I gives me a feeling of...Schattenfreude.
Of course you did,Revenant.
You can't refute my point, though.
How much influence do those people have among other liberals?
"a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they the Catholic Church, be they Fred Phelps, be they people who believe in wives should cloaked and sileced — it doesn’t matter what they are. They don’t get to deny equality.”
in so much as you think they are all denying equality what would be wrong in lumping them together as groups trying to deny equality?
I would suggest to the students at Johns Hopkins who want to disinvite Dr. Carson that the proper response to speech with which they disagree is more speech, not silencing the opposition. Students who don't like Dr. Carson's views should argue for the establishment of a commencement rebuttal speaker to make sure no conservative views go unrebutted and no weak minded fellow students get grievously led astray.
That just makes too much sense to be practical.
Inga said...
God bless you Brent.
Of course we'll never know if Inga meant "bless" in that French/German code (bless = injure) or not.
Of course we'll never know if Inga meant "bless" in that French/German code (bless = injure) or not.
Oh yes we do.
Keep guessing, it's more fun.
Of course you did,Revenant. You can't refute my point, though.
I simply pointed out that your original claim, which relied on 100% of leftists being pro-baby-killing, was logically fallacious.
If you would like to move the goalposts to "all politically powerful leftists are pro-abortion", go right ahead. It is a banal and obvious observation, no?
These students do not believe in equal protection. They discriminate against minorities who do not possess sufficient democratic leverage or emotional appeal. They do not recognize equal standing of all unions, irrespective of kind, number, and combinations of individuals.
Liberals support selective liberty following standards that are expedient and convenient. They favor redistributive and retributive change, and simple acts of fraud. They tolerate or support human and civil rights violations in exchange for promises of material, physical, and ego instant gratification. That is their choice.
Progressives believe that traditional resistance, whether derived from instinct or indoctrination, can be overcome through incremental decay. They exploits differentials and gradients in order to advance the political, economic, and social standing of minority interests through establishment of monopolies and monopolistic practices enforced through deception, indoctrination, and coercion by a central authority.
Conservatives have a right not to have petitions circulated against them.
They're a little defenseless these days and we have to give them a hand and some special consideration until they can stand on their own again.
You know what I predict? Libertarians will get sick of the social conservative dumbassery and join up with leftists. I won't say how long it'll take, but I feel it coming.
Of course I could be wrong, as the little philosopher boy said. :)
You know what I predict? Libertarians will get sick of the social conservative dumbassery and join up with leftists
As predictions go, that ranks with "she'll get sick of her boyfriend hitting her and move in with that HIV-positive rapist up the street". She might, were she dumb enough, but it wouldn't be very sensible. :)
The modern left has no redeeming qualities, from a libertarian perspective. You differ from right-wingers only in the *kinds* of censorship you favor, in the kinds of victimless crimes you want prosecuted, et al.
"It is a banal and obvious observation, no?"
As is the one you made.
"Gee, not every single liberal on the face of the earth is pro-abortion! See, look at these people! Sure they have no influence, but hey, I gotcha!! Ha, ha!"
It's funny that glibertarians, with their ridiculous "it's bad if any publicly accountable body acts compassionately toward you" philosophy, can't get anywhere without what amounts to political welfare. They essentially have to mooch off the other parties to gain any public traction.
Glibbies seem to have this glitch in their brain that blinds them to the fact that one likes an asshole, no matter how much they sugar-coat it with philosophically esoteric gobbledygook. "I got mine so screw you" might be a great credo for winning a diaper derby, but not for leading a responsible, mature society.
Glibbies are the epitome of American immaturity, and yet they wonder why we can't see past our urge for empire. Lol! Every toddler thinks he's entitled to rule the world, because in his own mind he is the world. Such is the glibbie. The Glibbies' way of conceptualizing other people's needs, hopes and desires is so abstract that it practically borders on infantile.
No wonder they don't care that no one is ignorant enough to vote for them. A toddler doesn't care if he follows his dad into work, either. Or maybe he does, but he'd prefer not to and sure as hell wouldn't want to get the job done.
Or else he might follow Dad around and do symbolic little "workman-like" acts, like dropping the mail off. Or pushing a button on the telephone. Enough to give him the sense that he's "going through the motions" of the job, without really doing much good.
Glibbies must not mind being used.
I simply pointed out that your original claim, which relied on 100% of leftists being pro-baby-killing, was logically fallacious.
Lessons in logic from someone too empirically blinded to know the difference between a baby and a fertilized egg.
Keep it up.
You know what I predict? Libertarians will get sick of the social conservative dumbassery and join up with leftists. I won't say how long it'll take, but I feel it coming.
Been tried, so far hasn't faired well.
Revenant got what's his, Inga. So screw you. ;-)
phx: Conservatives have a right not to have petitions circulated against them.
No, but they do have a right to expect people who disagree with them to debate them on the merits, rather than to try to stop them from speaking at all.
Brent, I don't believe the Bible to be infallible. It was written by man and translated many times. It can be interpreted in numerous ways.
"Open to interpretation" ruins the conservative myth of the ONE-TRUTH that transcends and binds us all to eternally true forever myths that need no such thing as context.
Hate. Who can get enough of it?
The irrational among us sure can't seem to get enough of it.
It takes up a place in the brain where normally reason would reside.
I don't hear liberals around here raving about Barack Obama's economics. So why the fuck are they not putting pressure on him to change it?
I don't hear conservatives around here raving about how much their filibustering of Obama policies is doing for the economy.
God damn you are such a dumb-ass sometimes.
Remember, we're a democratic republic not because democracy is synonymous with freedom,
Democracy impedes the concentration of political power by displacing it among as many voters as possible, not that a glibertarian like you would know it.
Read Rummel.
"Indeed, for 51% of a society to force 49% to do something against its will is an affront to freedom."
You mean, like Obamacare?
You mean, like a filibuster?
Responding to a number of different comments:
When I said Carson is a brilliant doctor but what difference is his opinion on marriage -- I meant just that. No "ands." He is entitled to have an opinion on marriage not as a neurosurgeon but as a citizen or what in fact is the case here, as a potential political candidate. If I were graduating from medical school and just beginning a career as a doctor I'd like to hear from a leader in medicine giving an inspiring speech about their experiences as a doctor and some advice for the life ahead for me. I wouldn't particularly like the commencement speaker to be a doctor who is interested in pursuing a career in politics. That would be a bummer. Great for him to have the public platform but how could that possibly inspire me? It wouldn't.
As far as redefining what marriage is -- so much of that anti-gay marriage argument seems centered around the idea of what is beneficial for society, the upbringing of children, that marriage has to have social value which only exists because of the biological necessity of joining egg and sperm. All that still exists for heterosexuals so why is there a threat to that by expanding the concept to also include same sex couples or elderly heterosexual couples who have no interest or ability for procreation, or even heterosexuals who decide not to have have children and still want to be married? Is this about heterosexuals wanting to maintain a belief in their superiority towards gays?
What happens when you expand rights? Does it change or destroy the original? For instance, when women were given the right to vote that fundamentally changed the definition of who could be vote and the rights of women. Did that alter the right of men to vote? No, not at all. Did it make the votes of men less valid? Perhaps, and that's the rub.
Homosexuals getting the right to marry might mean some loss of power for straights. Like what? Loss of superiority.
"Every religious idea, every idea of God, even flirting with the idea of God, is unutterable vileness ... of the most dangerous kind, 'contagion' of the most abominable kind. Millions of sins, filthy deeds, acts of violence and physical contagions ... are far less dangerous than the subtle, spiritual idea of God decked out in the smartest 'ideological' costumes." — Lenin to Gorky, 1913
Preach it, Comrade Ritmo!
Tokenism doesn't work to convince the left you're not a racist/sexist/sexualist. Just give up, guys.
I entrered Ritmo's statement--
"Revenant got what's his, Inga. So screw you. ;-)"--into Google Translate, and this is what I got: "I made this with my own effort. Please don't steal it from me, Inga."
And Carson's free speech rights aren't being violated.
What freaks people up about the left is how conformist they are, and how willing they are to rewrite the past.
has decided to join forces with the George Wallaces of this generation
for fuck's sake
Fucks:
Conservatives have a right not to have petitions circulated against them.
And liberals have the right of all the conservative principles built up for ages for protection, but not conservatives.
Free though is OK, so long as it's liberal free thought mish-mash, childish dribble. You get a person making sense, in a conservative way, and stamp them out with liberal
How long can this go on?
Seriously, someone has to be that adult. And I would suggest to you that Bush was less intrusive than the Obamao in terms of individual liberties. But, it's OK because the Obamao is a good leftist.
because R Chatt, homosexuals do not have a good track record when it comes to a stable home environment. They have higher rates of drug abuse, depression, suicide, violence in the home, not to mention the crazy promiscuity and STDs.
Cause libertarians are perfect... heh.
No, just better than people like you. You set a low bar. :)
"Revenant got what's his, Inga. So screw you. ;-)"--into Google Translate, and this is what I got: "I made this with my own effort. Please don't steal it from me, Inga."
I *am* kind of amused at the idea of "joining forces" with Inga, though. We provide the productivity, she provides the consumption? :)
Inga said...
You know what I predict? Libertarians will get sick of the social conservative dumbassery and join up with leftists. I won't say how long it'll take, but I feel it coming.
Which only goes to show the She Devil of the SS is more ignorant than any of us thought or willing to take the whole, "Resistance Is Futile", thing to really idiotic heights.
Or depths.
Most Libertarians are Lefties at heart. They just don't feel guilty about hanging onto their money.
I don't hear conservatives around here raving about how much their filibustering of Obama policies is doing for the economy.
Actually growth is up from .1% to .4%.
And the stock market is looking good.
But unless congress goes into a long recess and somebody blows up the mint, in the long run we're still screwed.
0.4% is not even keeping up with inflation.
Most African Americans are against SSM.
African Africans even more so. Just ask The Episcopal Church (tm).
The oldest civilizations on earth have this figured out. We are such noobs.
Consume this Rev...:)
I'm holding up a finger.
Hate. Who can get enough of it?
The irrational among us sure can't seem to get enough of it.
It takes up a place in the brain where normally reason would reside.
That is wisdom.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा