Oh my...there is a great post up over at American Spectator: Obama's Milky Way.
Excerpt:
The Islamophilia of the Obama administration at this point is well beyond the parodies of The Onion. This week NASA administrator Charles Bolden announced that the space program has adopted a new mission -- to serve as a self-esteem project for global Islam. He informed a reporter with Al Jazeera that when he took the NASA job Obama made it clear to him that "perhaps foremost he wanted to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering."
So, apparently, radical Muslims who consider science intrinsically blasphemous are going to help us get to Mars once their egos are sufficiently massaged. Or perhaps Bolden is saying that NASA has become a kind of learning annex for the scientifically illiterate throughout the world. In any case, the comment is staggering. This is an administration which looks at terrorists and sees misguided peace activists, looks at radical imams who issue death edicts against scholars and sees budding space engineers.
Earth to Bolden and Barack: These imams don't "feel good" about Islam's centuries-back contribution to science; they feel ashamed of it. As Robert R. Reilly chronicles in The Closing of the Muslim Mind, mainstream Islamic theology today views science as impious/useless because it presupposes that God created the world rationally, a presupposition which is an affront to God (under the twisted metaphysics of Islamic theology) since it is seen as a limitation on his freedom and transcendence.
Continue reading HERE.
Even the comments over there are quite educational - and some are hilarious (especially the ones written by ObamaBot "Nate" and the replies made to him)! Some bad language and offensive comments by guess who? (Hint: He's an ObamaBorgBot!) Just thought I'd warn readers who happen to venture over there and read them.
In order to be a supporter of ObaMARXIST anymore, I surmise that one just has to have had his/her mind taken over by a Star Trek - The Next Generation type of Borg mentality. Except in the case of BHO zombies, it's specifically a "Marxist-Islamo-Fascist Borg" mindmeld.
Hat Tip:
The American Spectator
P.S. Do you suffer from ObamaBorgBotitist? There is still hope (the true kind - not the propaganda of the Liar) for you!
From Wikipedia page:
In Star Trek, attempts to resist the Borg become one of the central themes, with many examples of successful resistance to the collective, both from existing or former drones, and assimilation targets. It is also demonstrated that it is possible to survive assimilation (most notably Jean-Luc Picard), and that drones can escape the collective (most notably Seven of Nine), and become individuals, or exist collectively without forced assimilation of others. They are notable for being a main antagonist race in more than one series who never appeared in the original Star Trek.
Posts
60 comments:
Hi Christine,
I don't get it--the Muslims were great scientists in the Medieval world. Their knowledge was used by people in the West. They were responsible for preserving the ancient Greek writings (like Plato and Aristotle), which is what Western society rests on.
What if this statement could be used to show some modern Muslims that their own history is important? It might even lessen the influence of radical Islam if they knew about their history. I don't find those comments 'staggering' at all.
And no, I am not a borg, any more than someone on the right is a borg...
Well, well! Is this the first step in the program to put a Muslim on Mars? If so, don't stop with just one or two, but take a whole colony - and leave them there! After all, Mars was the Roman god of war, which should suit the Muslim jihadic symbolism just fine!
Greetings in Christ again, Christine.
Oh the inanities of this knuckle-headed loon! But a highly dangerous one for all that.
And now we have for a Prime Minster a woman with a radical past (the Socialist Forum in her student days), who could not run teddy bears' picnic any more than her predecessor. She and Obama would make very comfortable fellow-travellers.
O Lord, come, and banish all wickedness from this Your world.
Well Kevin - the following author, a highly educated and respected Christian scholar and author from Australia - Bill Muehlenberg - would disagree with your assessment that Muslims have contributed a lot to science.
Culture Watch: Islam and Science
As for being a part of any descriptive Borg sect, the problem is that many of the adherants don't even realize that they have been assimilated and brainwashed! They think that they are living in a normal mindset world.
Tell me Kevin. Do you like the fact that Obama is instilling Marxist policies here in America? Do you like the fact that he holds Islam above Christianity (and all other religions) here in the U.S.? Do you like the fact that he and his administration are blatantly anti-Israel? Do you like the fact that he is bringing about anti-Capitalism economics and bringing in failed Kenysian (sp?) policies instead? Do you like the fact that Obama lied about the Health Care Bill not adding to the deficit? Do you like the fact that Obama is bringing in Marxists, Communists, and Socialists into his bizCZARo world and bypassing Congress to bring in a radical to oversee Medicare and Medicaid? Are you bothered about the fact that Sarah Palin was right about the death panels and Obama lied about them?
I suggest that you watch Glenn Beck's show for a week. It may not change your ideology, but then you will see what the huge majority of Americans who follow Internet blogs, talk radio, and Fox News think about ObaMARXIST and his terrible policies.
Ah MurrayA! Always a breath of fresh air when you show up and comment!
You will appreciate this - it's good for a chuckle! Read this blogpost and my comment there!
Aww.. Poor Obama Misses Taking Walks
Kevin,
"What if this statement could be used to show some modern Muslims that their own history is important? It might even lessen the influence of radical Islam if they knew about their history. I don't find those comments 'staggering' at all."
I don't think you are a borg, Kevin, but you certainly have a selective grasp of reality. Your "what if" assumes that the people involved don't know about their past and would care if we could make it clear to them. At the same time, your prior statement pretty much blasts the idea out of the water. They developed the science, they preserved the writings, they had access to it all and had every opportunity to use it for their society. They did not. They placed a higher value on war, aggression, and conquest than on the benefit of their own people and certainly on others.
I've heard it said before that at least some Muslims can trace the roots of their society back thousands of years before Christianity. Their culture is mature and has largely decided on its values. To think that our current leadership, or anyone for that matter, can convince them to change is both the height of conceit and idiocy. To throw the resources of NASA at such a project while publicly announcing America's diminished roll in space is tone deaf on so many levels.
'They are notable for being a main antagonist race in more than one series who never appeared in the original Star Trek.'
Good research and I like the use of red and blue.
'ObamaBorgBot!'
Gee, Obama does play politics after all, and wants people to follow the party line.
I hope all is well, Christine.
Hi Christine,
Here are the answers to your questions (some I can't answer because the questions are pretty skewed):
"Do you like the fact that Obama is instilling Marxist policies here in America?" I don't see that he is doing anything 'marxist.'
"Do you like the fact that he holds Islam above Christianity (and all other religions) here in the U.S.? " I don't see any evidence for this at all. Does he go to a mosque instead of a Christian church? Has he made legislation that mades Islam the preferred religion in this country? Besides, so what if Islam is a growing religion in this country--there is, after all, freedom of religion which is what our country is founded on. Will you make the practice of Islam illegal?
"Do you like the fact that he and his administration are blatantly anti-Israel?" Interesting question, considering I read the interviews between the President and the Prime Minister of Israel stating that the bond between the two countries is unbreakable. That doesn't sound 'blatantly anti-Israeli' to me.
"Do you like the fact that he is bringing about anti-Capitalism economics and bringing in failed Kenysian (sp?) policies instead?" Do you mean the policies of John Maynard Keynes? That isn't anti-capitalist. And his policies did not all 'fail.' After WWII nearly all capitalist countries adopted the ideas of Keynes.
"Do you like the fact that Obama lied about the Health Care Bill not adding to the deficit?" Did he really lie about this? Or are you just guessing he lied? I like the fact that many people now have health insurance.
"Do you like the fact that Obama is bringing in Marxists, Communists, and Socialists into his bizCZARo world and bypassing Congress to bring in a radical to oversee Medicare and Medicaid?" Please name these people--and I would like to see their politcal affiliations listed in the resumes. Then I can give you an answer to that. And Ronald Reagan started the whole Czar business...
"Are you bothered about the fact that Sarah Palin was right about the death panels and Obama lied about them?" I don't believe anything Palin has to say. There were no 'death panels' in the legislation. Palin, to me, is a quitter and has no weight with me. She quit her elected position purely to make money.
Hi Christine,
Here are the answers to your questions (some I can't answer because the questions are pretty skewed):
"Do you like the fact that Obama is instilling Marxist policies here in America?" I don't see that he is doing anything 'marxist.'
"Do you like the fact that he holds Islam above Christianity (and all other religions) here in the U.S.? " I don't see any evidence for this at all. Does he go to a mosque instead of a Christian church? Has he made legislation that mades Islam the preferred religion in this country? Besides, so what if Islam is a growing religion in this country--there is, after all, freedom of religion which is what our country is founded on. Will you make the practice of Islam illegal?
"Do you like the fact that he and his administration are blatantly anti-Israel?" Interesting question, considering I read the interviews between the President and the Prime Minister of Israel stating that the bond between the two countries is unbreakable. That doesn't sound 'blatantly anti-Israeli' to me.
"Do you like the fact that he is bringing about anti-Capitalism economics and bringing in failed Kenysian (sp?) policies instead?" Do you mean the policies of John Maynard Keynes? That isn't anti-capitalist. And his policies did not all 'fail.' After WWII nearly all capitalist countries adopted the ideas of Keynes.
"Do you like the fact that Obama lied about the Health Care Bill not adding to the deficit?" Did he really lie about this? Or are you just guessing he lied? I like the fact that many people now have health insurance.
"Do you like the fact that Obama is bringing in Marxists, Communists, and Socialists into his bizCZARo world and bypassing Congress to bring in a radical to oversee Medicare and Medicaid?" Please name these people--and I would like to see their politcal affiliations listed in the resumes. Then I can give you an answer to that. And Ronald Reagan started the whole Czar business...
"Are you bothered about the fact that Sarah Palin was right about the death panels and Obama lied about them?" I don't believe anything Palin has to say. There were no 'death panels' in the legislation. Palin, to me, is a quitter and has no weight with me. She quit her elected position purely to make money.
Hi Gary,
You said "They placed a higher value on war, aggression, and conquest than on the benefit of their own people and certainly on others." But what culture did not do this? Do you believe that the Christian west was all about peace??? European Christianity was all about aggression, war and conquest. So I don't see the difference between them and the Muslims.
I like to think that knowing history can change the current world. However, I am not naive enough to totally believe the phrase that 'those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it." Violence is part of human nature, unfortunately. There is at least 5,000 years of human history to prove that we don't really get along with each other. However, it would be nice to think that at some point we will all be able to get along.
And I believe that all of us have a'selective grasp' of reality. There is no person alive who can see everything and understand every single thing that happens on this earth.
Kevin,
You are taking the very typical liberal path of ignoring the points and facts and substituting rhetoric. I can understand that, because it's all that you have, but to finish by saying that you "don't see the difference between them and Muslims" shows you as ignorant, which you continually deny, or as openly dishonest. Which is it?
To wit: Clergy and politicians and most everyone else have used religions of all stripes to justify violence. However, at least one major difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christ forbade the use of violence. Mohammed declared that all non-Muslims must be either killed, converted, or enslaved. The longer that Christianity was around, the more progress the citizens living under Christendom, the greater progress there was in charity, education, human rights, etc. Islamic culture, which is older, has decayed in higher levels of violence, repression, and personal poverty despite the great resources of the land they occupy. So even as Christianity has progressed toward peace and life, Islam has destroyed much of the culture they ever had and is continuing toward barbarism, with each country they spread to continuing down a path to savagery.
You claim that you don't see a difference? Fine. Prove me wrong. Take a trip to Iran and announce your homosexuality in a public square and see how you fare. Why, I would even contribute to the ticket to help you prove your point! And if that seems to be an unkind statement to you, then I must assume that you have been saying what you know to be untrue, that there really is a difference, and that difference allows you to live a good and productive life.
More of Kevin's ignorance and/or dishonesty:
"I don't see that he is doing anything 'marxist."
Illegally seizing assets belonging to stockholders from GM that should have been assigned to stockholders via existing bankruptcy. Taking government control of financial institutions, particularly with regard to student loans, thereby giving government control of the majority of access to higher education. Eschewing open press conferences in favor of White House prepared media statements that allow neither examination nor rebuttal. There are more, but you get the picture, and so does anyone else who is looking at the situation honestly.
"I don't see any evidence for this at all. (with regards to elevation of Islam.)"
Tasked the head of NASA with special outreach to Muslim countries even as our technical space capability degrades. Repeated refusal to acknowledge that radical Islam has anything to do with terrorism across the world.
"Besides, so what if Islam is a growing religion in this country--there is, after all, freedom of religion which is what our country is founded on."
Technically inaccurate, though arguable. However, I definitely applaud the sentiment of "Freedom of religion." However, when the government begins actively favoring Islam over any other religion, then freedom goes out the window, doesn't it? For example, when the government of NY funds Islamic charter schools, when California insists that public school students participate in Muslim prayers, etc.
"Interesting question, considering I read the interviews between the President and the Prime Minister of Israel stating that the bond between the two countries is unbreakable."
Talk is cheap, especially for a president who's word has a shelf life in the neighborhood of seconds.
"And his policies did not all 'fail.' After WWII nearly all capitalist countries adopted the ideas of Keynes."
Which leads us to the current state of world economics. It amazes me how liberals can point to the destruction their policies have brought about and claim success.
"Did he really lie about this? Or are you just guessing he lied? I like the fact that many people now have health insurance. "
Well, he claimed the health care program would be deficit neutral even though they had to shift the costs to other bills to create that illusion. This also allows for the fact that there will be ten years of taxes to pay for six years of the program, assuming that it really does pay for the program. As for people now having health insurance, that may be, but not because of the healthcare bill because the "benefits" don't kick in for several more years. We can take a look at Massachusetts, however, that has a state version of Obamacare, the highest health insurance rates in the country, massive fraud, and is going broke.
"There were no 'death panels' in the legislation."
Off course there are, Kevin. Just like every country that has socialized medicine. There are bureaucrats that decide what things are covered and what aren't and for how long. Eventually, we all fall on the "not" side of the list. As for not believing Palin, that says far more about your character than about hers.
So Kevin. Are you afraid to watch the Glenn Beck show so that you could view actual videos of the radicals that Obama has placed in the czar positions describe their Marxist/Socialist/anti-Capitalism views? A lot of your response questions would be answered if you did.
Good thing that Gary has responded in his usual eloquent way.
You see Kevin. We are on to you. We are on to your same Alinsky-type methods that Obama has used. (See my new post!)
When you wrote that President Ronald Reagan had czars in his adminstration as a response to the radical czar choices that Obama has made, you used a fallacy known as a faulty analogy. The czars that Reagan chose were mainstream individuals; whereas, the czars that Obama picked are all straight out of the Marxist manual of "fundamental transformation."
Obama was very sneaky during the election of 2008 because he didn't define what he meant by "change." Conservatives knew and were screaming from the rooftops of the blogosphere warning everyone, but those who appealed to ignorance - with an attitude of "I'm right because you can't prove me wrong" -are now admitting in droves that they were duped by Alinsky-Obama and the Dems.
You are also wrong about Sarah Palin's intentions. However, you are obviously of the mindset that no one could convince you otherwise. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Thanks Gary - well said - all of it!
We can only hope and pray that Obama-supporting ideologues like Kevin will one day wake up and put the Kool-Aid down for good.
Hi Russ!
"Main antagonist race" - that certainly describes our Alinsky-Borg pResident and his minions who are doing such damage to our beloved America.
*sigh*
November elections of 2010 and then 2012 can't get here soon enough!
Christine,
If you are in the market for a good secular read right now, may I recommend "Intellectuals and Society" by Thomas Sowell. It's a masterwork of research and logic that painstakingly explains how the liberal emperors really do have no cloths. It's a bit thick at some points, but I'm only a quarter through and it's already blasted through the pseudo-arguments Kevin, John, Obama, and all of our other good friends on the left employ to distract from their lack of facts, data, and evidence.
Hi Christine,
You say: "You see Kevin. We are on to you." I find that pretty funny! You are so hyped up about conspiracy theories and you can't even see your own way out of them.
You also state: "you used a fallacy known as a faulty analogy. The czars that Reagan chose were mainstream individuals..." They are mainstream individuals by your own (conservative) definition. No one that President Obama picks will satisfy you. It just isn't possible.
You state: "Obama was very sneaky during the election of 2008 because he didn't define what he meant by "change."" Not true--he and millions of others (we are The People too!) wanted a change from 8 years of George W. Bush. He delivered that change.
By the way, I absolutely hate Kool-Aid. I don't drink it and haven't had a sip since I was little.
So exactly why did Sarah Palin quit her elected position half-way through? And why exactly is she charging enormous sums to speak? I watched Sarah Palin give her convention speech. I was pretty impressed. I was also worried that she would be a threat to the democrats. However, she failed to live up to they hype. That isn't blindness.
Hi Gary,
You would be much more convincing to me if you would stop saying that I am lying. Lying means that I am actively trying to mislead someone. Explain to me why I would want to do that to a perfectly rational person who can look up information on a topic just as easily as I can???
I am not ignorant of Muslim history either since I teach it in my World Civ. I and II courses. Of course, as I tell me students, I don't know everything. If you do know everything, then it is time to start your own religion.
You state: "The longer that Christianity was around, the more progress the citizens living under Christendom, the greater progress there was in charity, education, human rights, etc." This did not happen because of Christianity. This all happened because people were pushing to change Christianity. Christianity had to make itself modern or risk being obsolete. Islamic cultures will have to do the same and have done the same in the past (see Turkey).
By the way, Islamic culture is NOT older than Christianity. Mohammed wasn't born until around 570 AD--nearly 600 years after Christ. Now who is being deceitful or ignorant? I believe you mean Arabic culture.
You also state: "Take a trip to Iran and announce your homosexuality in a public square and see how you fare." You have stated this many times. How about if I go to Alabama or even Central California and announce my homosexuality--do you really think the outcome will be all that different? Yes, the Iranian government has the death penalty for this, but as you well know, gays and lesbians are killed and beaten all the time in this country for making this announcement. We haven't progressed quickly enough in this country, and it is primarily because of the so-called Christian right movement. Would I rather live under a Muslim government? No, because I am used to living in the U.S. You can ask me that question if and when I convert to Islam.
"Illegally seizing assets belonging to stockholders from GM that should have been assigned to stockholders via existing bankruptcy." Well, if it was illegal where are the court cases seeking to drive GM into non-existence? If something is illegal, then I expect the courts to be working on this. And the outcome will determine whether it was illegal or not. Until then, it is purely speculation.
"Repeated refusal to acknowledge that radical Islam has anything to do with terrorism across the world." Where on earth have I ever stated that radical Islam was a good thing? You show me, in my own words. Or show me, in my own words, where I have refused to say that there are Islamic terrorists. I eagerly await to see your response to this.
"Talk is cheap, especially for a president who's word has a shelf life in the neighborhood of seconds." And the words of the Israeli Prime Minister? Are they cheap as well?
" There are bureaucrats that decide what things are covered and what aren't and for how long." Ah, I get it now. Insurance companies really have death panels since they decide what will be covered and for how long. O.k., I now admit that! And tell me, how are the U.S. insurance companies any different from the socialized medicine countries that you dislike so much?
"As for not believing Palin, that says far more about your character than about hers." Well, so my character is bad because I don't believe a Republican, but your character is bright and shiny because you don't believe a Democrat? Speaking of having a 'selective grasp' of reality! This is the nature of politics. I am a liberal Democrat. I don't usually like conservative Republican stances. However, I am happy to live under a Republican-led government, knowing all the while that at some point the Democrats will be back in control.
One more thing, Gary about your comments that Christian progession with regards to 'peace and life': why exactly did the founding fathers of this country not make the new country a Christian country (such as a Catholic one or an Anglican one)? What kept them from doing this?
Thomas Sowell? I am not surprised to hear that he is a resident at the Hoover Institute. If you don't know about the Hoover Institue, it is a bastion of conservatism at Stanford University. The funny thing is that Prof. Sowell is an intellectual! I would expect nothing less from someone at the Hoover Institute...
And More...
We haven't progressed quickly enough in this country, and it is primarily because of the so-called Christian right movement. Would I rather live under a Muslim government? No, because I am used to living in the U.S. You can ask me that question if and when I convert to Islam.
I guess that’s the reason why it also still illegal in Cuba and was in Russia, and who knows where else. Catch a clue. You stay here because it’s safe for you to whine about how persecuted you are and only liberal countries will pay you to teach the useless bilge you put out.
"Illegally seizing assets belonging to stockholders from GM that should have been assigned to stockholders via existing bankruptcy." Well, if it was illegal where are the court cases seeking to drive GM into non-existence? If something is illegal, then I expect the courts to be working on this. And the outcome will determine whether it was illegal or not. Until then, it is purely speculation.
No. It’s sovereign immunity. The government made the deal. Suing GM would do no good since the government allocated most of the assets.
"Repeated refusal to acknowledge that radical Islam has anything to do with terrorism across the world." Where on earth have I ever stated that radical Islam was a good thing? You show me, in my own words. Or show me, in my own words, where I have refused to say that there are Islamic terrorists. I eagerly await to see your response to this.
That response was with regards to how Obama is favoring Islam, not to your words. Again, get over yourself.
"Talk is cheap, especially for a president who's word has a shelf life in the neighborhood of seconds." And the words of the Israeli Prime Minister? Are they cheap as well?
I imagine the Israeli Prime Minister’s words are calculated. As big a liar as Obama is, the US is still the only powerful ally that Israel has. He has nothing to gain by antagonizing the President and giving him any cover. Prezbo has been cool enough to him.
Hi Kevin,
You state: "The longer that Christianity was around, the more progress the citizens living under Christendom, the greater progress there was in charity, education, human rights, etc." This did not happen because of Christianity. This all happened because people were pushing to change Christianity. Christianity had to make itself modern or risk being obsolete.
If that were true, then similar advances in other countries and regions that did not have Christianity or abandoned Christianity. That is not the case. With few exceptions, the countries that accepted Christianity had the greatest progress toward human rights and equality. By contrast, countries that abandoned all religion decayed into virtual Marxist slave states. And they were not pushing to change Christianity. They were pushing to realize Christianity in the sense of equality that Christ advocated. There were certainly problems in the Christian church caused by the church leaders having all the same flaws as everyone else. Regardless of those imperfections, social structures in Christian countries far outpaced the other regions in general.
By the way, Islamic culture is NOT older than Christianity. Mohammed wasn't born until around 570 AD--nearly 600 years after Christ. Now who is being deceitful or ignorant? I believe you mean Arabic culture.
You are correct. I confess my error.
You also state: "Take a trip to Iran and announce your homosexuality in a public square and see how you fare." You have stated this many times. How about if I go to Alabama or even Central California and announce my homosexuality--do you really think the outcome will be all that different?
Yes. Depending on where you go in the states, some will applaud. Some will scowl. Many will just shrug.
Yes, the Iranian government has the death penalty for this, but as you well know, gays and lesbians are killed and beaten all the time in this country for making this announcement.
Bull. You would face more danger as a convenience store operator. Get over your persecution complex.
" There are bureaucrats that decide what things are covered and what aren't and for how long." Ah, I get it now. Insurance companies really have death panels since they decide what will be covered and for how long. O.k., I now admit that! And tell me, how are the U.S. insurance companies any different from the socialized medicine countries that you dislike so much?
Glad to. As long as there are many insurance companies and many plans, people have a large number of choices as to what plans they choose, what they cover, how long they cover, etc. When the government takes over, they decide what the options are for everyone without regard to individual need or particular case. When that happens, you get cases like the one in England with the premature baby: It was borne in reasonably good shape, but it was borne something like a week before the minimum time considered “viable” by the British National Health Service. Because of that, the doctors and nurse refused to treat the child while the mother watched it die for three hours. It didn’t matter whether the parents were rich or poor, or what the particular shape of the child was. The bureaucrats said it wasn’t viable, so they let it die.
"As for not believing Palin, that says far more about your character than about hers." Well, so my character is bad because I don't believe a Republican, but your character is bright and shiny because you don't believe a Democrat?
No, your character is bad because you said you don’t believe a thing Palin says with no regard to factual content. Like your “show me something Marxist Obama has done” stuff, you ignore facts that you don’t like or want to deal with. I do my best to make a good faith check of the facts. You’ve shown little interest or willingness to do the same, instead sticking with snarky rhetoric.
Speaking of having a 'selective grasp' of reality! This is the nature of politics. I am a liberal Democrat. I don't usually like conservative Republican stances.
I honestly don’t care what stances you like or dislike. You are certainly entitled to your opinions. The problem is that you, and many liberal Democrats, have a habit of equating your opinions with facts when the data shows a completely different picture.
One more thing, Gary about your comments that Christian progession with regards to 'peace and life': why exactly did the founding fathers of this country not make the new country a Christian country (such as a Catholic one or an Anglican one)? What kept them from doing this?
Based on what I have read and the history I know, they realized that any religious structure codified into law had the capacity to become a tyranny, much the way the Catholic church and Church of England had wielded too much power in Europe. Regardless of this, there was general agreement among most of them that without the involvement of a moral (and by this they meant Christian) people, the republic would eventually fail. We are seeing that come to fruition.
Speaking of having a 'selective grasp' of reality! This is the nature of politics. I am a liberal Democrat. I don't usually like conservative Republican stances.
I honestly don’t care what stances you like or dislike. You are certainly entitled to your opinions. The problem is that you, and many liberal Democrats, have a habit of equating your opinions with facts when the data shows a completely different picture.
One more thing, Gary about your comments that Christian progession with regards to 'peace and life': why exactly did the founding fathers of this country not make the new country a Christian country (such as a Catholic one or an Anglican one)? What kept them from doing this?
Based on what I have read and the history I know, they realized that any religious structure codified into law had the capacity to become a tyranny, much the way the Catholic church and Church of England had wielded too much power in Europe. Regardless of this, there was general agreement among most of them that without the involvement of a moral (and by this they meant Christian) people, the republic would eventually fail. We are seeing that come to fruition.
Thomas Sowell? I am not surprised to hear that he is a resident at the Hoover Institute. If you don't know about the Hoover Institue, it is a bastion of conservatism at Stanford University. The funny thing is that Prof. Sowell is an intellectual! I would expect nothing less from someone at the Hoover Institute...
I’m assuming that you have read little or none of his work, could refute none of it if you did, but still see no problem with trying to discredit him simply by associating him with an organization that you don’t like. He discusses these methods, among others, in his section titled “Arguments without Arguments.” It’s a nice little trick that lazy liberals such as yourself use frequently to dismiss the points without countering them. You really are quite a stereotype, Kevin.
And I know you asked these of Christine, but this is just so gosh-darned fun:
So exactly why did Sarah Palin quit her elected position half-way through?
The ethics laws in Alaska allow individuals to bring suit against public officials for just about anything regardless of how valid the charge is. Sarah Palin was repeatedly targeted with ethics charges by Democrats. None of the charges was ever found valid, but defending herself was using up great amounts of time and costing the state great amounts of money, as well as making it near impossible for her to do business as governor.
And why exactly is she charging enormous sums to speak?
For the same reason you get as much as you do when you get up in front of a class to speak: Because she can. God Bless America!
I watched Sarah Palin give her convention speech. I was pretty impressed. I was also worried that she would be a threat to the democrats. However, she failed to live up to they hype. That isn't blindness.
Considering how things are going in the White House right now, I would say that Sarah Palin is pretty far down on the list as far as “not living up to the hype.”
Hi Gary,
You said: "With few exceptions, the countries that accepted Christianity had the greatest progress toward human rights and equality." This sounds dangerously close to the 'social justice' theory that Christine really hates. So what do you think about this, Christine?
Sorry Gary--no bull here when it comes to being yelled at for being a 'fag.' This happened many times when I was out protesting in a sea of Yes on 8 people. Why don't you pretend to be a gay male where you live and see what happens to you. I can even give you tips on that.
You state: "only liberal countries will pay you to teach the useless bilge you put out..." I see that my 'useless bilge' actually taught you that Islamic culture was younger that Christian culture. I guess some 'bilge' is more useful than other 'bilge.'
You state: "I’m assuming that you have read little or none of his work, could refute none of it if you did, but still see no problem with trying to discredit him simply by associating him with an organization that you don’t like." Now why on earth would I read something that you told Christine would expose all of my 'pseudo-arguments'? I don't read crap from liberal-biased authors either. I am fully capable of making decisions all on my own. But I am not going to read a book by a Stanford professor about 'intellectual elitists'!
That is so sweet that Sarah Palin sacrificed herself in order to preserve Alaska! I guess she will make a good savior figure if she gets to the White House.
By the way, Gary--where did you hear all this about Sarah Palin?
Kevin,
Gary has been doing a great job of countering your arguments, so I thought that there was no need for me to add more commentary. However, you wrote and asked:
Hi Gary,
You said: "With few exceptions, the countries that accepted Christianity had the greatest progress toward human rights and equality." This sounds dangerously close to the 'social justice' theory that Christine really hates. So what do you think about this, Christine?
The "social justice" that Jim Wallis and other progressive/liberal/Marxist leaders ascribe to isn't in the gospel. Neither is redistribution of wealth. As Glenn Beck stated today:
Jesus never said, "Take from the rich and let the government redistribute it." Take the parable of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritan chose to take it upon himself to help. The government never told him to do it. Anything else is a perversion of Christianity and the perversion of the principles of God.
I agree. Charity, in the Christian sense, is an individual choice that is made by the giver - to those who are in need. Christian churches that aren't involved in the skewing of the government type of "social justice" deception of liberalism and Marxism give charitable donations via those who donate for such purposes.
I have been donating money to the San Diego food bank because I have heard that the need is even greater now that we are in this terrible economic downturn. In a newsletter I received today, The Rock Church (where I attend) had donated 30,000 pounds of food for the summer food drive. This was as a result of the church hosting a major food drive at the church services.
This is just one example to demonstrate that government need not be involved in social justice causes in order for a Food Bank to get donations to help the needy.
About Sarah Palin and her decision to step down from the governorship in Alaska. We know why she did what she did (and Gary was correct) because Sarah said it herself. She left the state in the good hands of her lieutenant governor - who believed in the same principles, policies, ethics, and governing style - as Sarah. Her move allowed her state the freedom from the frivolous lawsuits that were coming from YOUR political party, Kevin, and thus saved the state from spending time, effort, and expense to counter such ridiculousness. The Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for what they did! But of course - they aren't. However, now that Sarah is just an ordinary citizen, she can counter all of Obama's dangerous and anti-American policies on her FaceBook page, at Fox News, at TEA Party rallies, and other venues. I think that her move was brilliant.
Kevin,
"This sounds dangerously close to the 'social justice' theory that Christine really hates."
Not at all. Christ was the official representative for loving justice and mercy, and walking humbly before our God. "Social justice" is fashioned to extract vengeance on all of those deemed to have somehow unfairly profited at any time past regardless of facts.
"Why don't you pretend to be a gay male where you live and see what happens to you. I can even give you tips on that."
No need. I get all of the bigotry I can handle from liberals just for speaking up for equal rights for all instead of special rights for protected groups. And you're wading in bull. Someone called you names. The same thing happens to millions every day. Not nice, but hardly the stoning you would rate in the Muslim countries you seek to equivicate. And not that I excuse the name calling, but I recall seeing videos of the Yes on 8 people invading Mormon churches and using racial epithets on blacks that voted to deny marriage privileges to gays, so it's not exactly as though the innocent victim label fits. Your experience is not unique. You just like to whine as though it was.
"I see that my 'useless bilge' actually taught you that Islamic culture was younger that Christian culture. I guess some 'bilge' is more useful than other 'bilge."
Yep, and even a broken clock is right twice a day. A pity that you can't face facts about the results of your liberal policies and the misery they bring to the poor oppressed.
"I am fully capable of making decisions all on my own. But I am not going to read a book by a Stanford professor about 'intellectual elitists'!"
That's right! Stay proud in your ignorance. It's so much easier to comment that way, right?
Here's a tip: If you are getting tired of being called out on being ignorant and dishonest, then stop being ignorant and dishonest. Can anyone who has the slightest inkling of what Marxism involves doubt that Obama's health care bill is Marxist? That his talk of "spreading the wealth" during the campaign was Marxist? And you keep playing the same sad song about how Christianity is the major reason that gay people are so discriminated against when non-Christian and Communist countries are the ones that are locking them up and stoning them. If higher education wasn't so overwhelmingly liberal and socialist minded, and actually had to survive on quality, you would probably be able to make more working at McDonald's then the value your course is likely to add to any respectable degree, and if you weren't such an arrogant schmuck you'd be down on your knees thanking God for letting you be born in a country that does just that instead of a place where burying you up to your neck in stones is just the beginning. If there is one bright spot to the Obama administration, it's that the destruction he's raining down on the economy is even effecting education and low-end losers in non-earning degrees are bound to be targeted sooner than later. Better polish up the resume.
And have a nice day!
"I am fully capable of making decisions all on my own. But I am not going to read a book by a Stanford professor about 'intellectual elitists'!"
That's right! Stay proud in your ignorance. It's so much easier to comment that way, right?
Here's a tip: If you are getting tired of being called out on being ignorant and dishonest, then stop being ignorant and dishonest. Can anyone who has the slightest inkling of what Marxism involves doubt that Obama's health care bill is Marxist? That his talk of "spreading the wealth" during the campaign was Marxist? And you keep playing the same sad song about how Christianity is the major reason that gay people are so discriminated against when non-Christian and Communist countries are the ones that are locking them up and stoning them. If higher education wasn't so overwhelmingly liberal and socialist minded, and actually had to survive on quality, you would probably be able to make more working at McDonald's then the value your course is likely to add to any respectable degree, and if you weren't such an arrogant schmuck you'd be down on your knees thanking God for letting you be born in a country that does just that instead of a place where burying you up to your neck in stones is just the beginning. If there is one bright spot to the Obama administration, it's that the destruction he's raining down on the economy is even effecting education and low-end losers in non-earning degrees are bound to be targeted sooner than later. Better polish up the resume.
And have a nice day!
P.S. to Kevin -
I thought that we already had a conversation about where the "Kool-Aid" reference is from. Recall the Jim Jones Guana massacre? It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you drink the Kool-Aid brand drink. In case you forgot, it is often used as a euphemism to describe what Obama & cohorts feed their unthinking minions.
Hi Christine,
As you state: "We know why she did what she did (and Gary was correct) because Sarah said it herself." So why is it that you can believe the words of Sarah Palin, but yet you scold me for believing the words of President Obama?
And I think giving to charity is a good cause. Jesus also did not say to give money to the church, which will then pass it around either, but that is what some people do.
Hi Gary, This is probably more useless bilge to you, but you say: " but I recall seeing videos of the Yes on 8 people invading Mormon churches and using racial epithets on blacks that voted to deny marriage privileges to gays." Actually, it was the No on 8 people (the Yes on 8 people took the right to marry away, the No on 8 tried to preserve the right).
You state: 'Your experience is not unique. You just like to whine as though it was." Jeez Gary, I keep forgettting that you are all-knowing! Please remind me where I state that my experience is unique? I'll wait patiently.
Actually Gary, I am not tired of being called "ignorant and dishonest" because I expect that of you. It doesn't matter one bit what reply I give, you will claim I am not answering your questions. I could say the sky is blue, but you would say I am ignorant and lying!
You say: "That his talk of "spreading the wealth" during the campaign was Marxist." Hmm. What exactly happens when we pay taxes (both rich and poor)? The government collects it, then spreads it around. I'm sure you'll have some reason to say it doesn't really do that, so I'll wait to hear what the 'correct' answer is.
You state: "non-Christian and Communist countries are the ones that are locking them up and stoning them." Here is some more useless 'bilge' as you call it: it wasn't so long ago in this 'Christian' country when gay and lesbian people could be locked up and sent off to mental hospitals for a cure. The platform of the Republican Party of the State of Texas STILL wants people who are dare to marry gay people to be sent off to prison. Isn't Texas a Christian state? And there are still 'Christian' countries in the Eastern European block of countries where being gay is still outlawed. Oh, and don't forget the center of Christianity--the Vatican. What exactly is their policy on gays and lesbians?
You also say: "and if you weren't such an arrogant schmuck you'd be down on your knees thanking God for letting you be born in a country that does just that instead of a place where burying you up to your neck in stones is just the beginning." I could live in most places in the world and not worry about being stoned. It has nothing to do with thanking God. It has everything to do with people who force governments to realize that all people are equal, including our own.
Hi Gary, This is probably more useless bilge to you, but you say: " but I recall seeing videos of the Yes on 8 people invading Mormon churches and using racial epithets on blacks that voted to deny marriage privileges to gays." Actually, it was the No on 8 people (the Yes on 8 people took the right to marry away, the No on 8 tried to preserve the right). (What's that? Is that a clock chiming?)
You state: 'Your experience is not unique. You just like to whine as though it was." Jeez Gary, I keep forgettting that you are all-knowing! Please remind me where I state that my experience is unique? I'll wait patiently.
Actually Gary, I am not tired of being called "ignorant and dishonest" because I expect that of you. It doesn't matter one bit what reply I give, you will claim I am not answering your questions. I could say the sky is blue, but you would say I am ignorant and lying!
You say: "That his talk of "spreading the wealth" during the campaign was Marxist." Hmm. What exactly happens when we pay taxes (both rich and poor)? The government collects it, then spreads it around. I'm sure you'll have some reason to say it doesn't really do that, so I'll wait to hear what the 'correct' answer is.
Hi Christine,
I do know where the Kool-Aid reference comes from. I was saying that I don't drink Kool-aid (any kind, real or not real).
Gary (cont.):
You state: "non-Christian and Communist countries are the ones that are locking them up and stoning them." Here is some more useless 'bilge' as you call it: it wasn't so long ago in this 'Christian' country when gay and lesbian people could be locked up and sent off to mental hospitals for a cure. The platform of the Republican Party of the State of Texas STILL wants people who are dare to marry gay people to be sent off to prison. Isn't Texas a Christian state? And there are still 'Christian' countries in the Eastern European block of countries where being gay is still outlawed. Oh, and don't forget the center of Christianity--the Vatican. What exactly is their policy on gays and lesbians?
You also say: "and if you weren't such an arrogant schmuck you'd be down on your knees thanking God for letting you be born in a country that does just that instead of a place where burying you up to your neck in stones is just the beginning." I could live in most places in the world and not worry about being stoned. It has nothing to do with thanking God. It has everything to do with people who force governments to realize that all people are equal, including our own.
Gary, I find it highly ironic that you would say this to me: "That's right! Stay proud in your ignorance. It's so much easier to comment that way, right?" but yet you totally reject anything to do with getting an education at a college that teaches liberal studies!
Well, I am off to teach about democracy in Ancient Greece. This is probably more useless bilge to you, but to me and my students, it will be an interesting look at how this country was set up.
Dear Kevin, Christine, and anyone else who might be interested: I am aware that several more postings have been made. My schedule at the end of this week has been so nasty that I haven't even had time to read them, much less form a reply. I will take care of both issues sometime this weekend.
Hi Kevin,
Your are correct that I mistyped when I claimed it was the "Yes on 8" people that invaded churches and used racial epithets. It was indeed the "No on 8" people. They are the liberal types who cannot accept representative democracy and try to threaten and intimidate people who actually dare to lawfully vote against them. And there was no "right" for the "No on 8" people to preserve. Activist judges repeatedly overrode the will of the people as expressed in the democratic process, and the liberals responded as usual: Disregard for rights, property, and all of the "tolerance" the supposedly espouse.
"Actually Gary, I am not tired of being called "ignorant and dishonest" because I expect that of you. It doesn't matter one bit what reply I give, you will claim I am not answering your questions. I could say the sky is blue, but you would say I am ignorant and lying!"
Well, I could, but you say enough true lies (such as your comments about how you don't see anything Marxist about Obama or his policies).
" You say "That his talk of "spreading the wealth" during the campaign was Marxist."
Quite so, and in typical dishonest liberal fashion you give no reason why it does not fit the description of Marxism and try to substitute a different question instead. If your observation was not dishonest, then show me how what you describe is not Marxist.
Kevin, (Continued)
Still avoiding the questions as posed and continuing your dishonesty. You expressed doubt that it would be much different announcing your homosexuality in a Muslim country like Iran than it would be in Alabama. Substantiate that, or confess your dishonesty and retract it.
"it wasn't so long ago in this 'Christian' country"
It's interesting that you most commonly refer to this as a "Christian" country when it is doing decidedly unChristian things. What is your real complaint? Is it that the country is too Christian or not Christian enough?
Gay people weren't sent away and locked up for attitudes that went against Christianity. They were sent to mental hospitals for embracing a lifestyle that has been acknowledged as perverse for thousands of years.
"What exactly is their policy on gays and lesbians? "
Far more gentle than you get from the atheists, the Muslims, etc. India officially decriminalized it in 2009, again far behind most Christian based societies. And the Eastern Block countries that you mention where it is still a crime: Those wouldn't happen to be former soviet block countries that were controlled by atheists for decades and therefore had their social progress retarded, would they?
Kevin,
"It has everything to do with people who force governments to realize that all people are equal, including our own."
And in that regard, no societies have matched the progress of majority Christian societies. Certainly not Muslims or atheists. And the secular liberals are some of the worst of the lot. They were the big apologists for Hitler, Stalin, Mao. They provided the intellectual cover as these dictators were killing millions of their own people.
"but yet you totally reject anything to do with getting an education at a college that teaches liberal studies!"
And in typical dishonest fashion you substitute your own words for mine. You are the one that claimed you needed no additional facts, refusing to even consider the case being made by Thomas Sowell based on his views and where he worked. Whenever anyone provides information to me purporting to be factual, I research and verify. That's one of many differences between us. I seek the truth. You avoid even reviewing anything that might disagree with your worldview.
Enjoy teaching your class and pray (as much as you can) that few people bother to check your facts. It seems likely that such curiosity will hasten the day when even California society discovers how useless you are.
Christine,
It took a while, but I found some evidence of that discrimination Kevin was talking about. When Mathew Shepherd was killed by a couple of men it was national news. I agree that it should have been. The crime was horrific, and it was right that justice was swiftly accomplished, as little comfort as that is to the family and friends. However, when homosexuals commit a rape-murder of a 13 year old boy, you really have to go looking for the story. See the link below:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/wcva/gays.htm
Obviously, the national media doesn't want to give gay people their due in the national media, and that's a tragedy. I think the best way to fight unfounded prejudice is to give people a complete picture of the culture involved.
And Kevin was right about the Catholic Church as well. Very little of the aspect is covered of how much of the child abuse by priests was men on boys.
Hi Gary,
You said: "They are the liberal types who cannot accept representative democracy and try to threaten and intimidate people who actually dare to lawfully vote against them." So does this go for all people who don't accept the results of representative democracy (like Christine not accepting the outcome of the election)?
You also said: "No need. I get all of the bigotry I can handle from liberals just for speaking up for equal rights for all instead of special rights for protected groups." Is that when you call them dishonest or lacking integrity? I can understand the feeling. However, my integrity levels are pretty high and I would rather try to understand someone than call them names. Next time you are debating with liberals you might think about doing the same!
Let's see: you state: "You expressed doubt that it would be much different announcing your homosexuality in a Muslim country like Iran than it would be in Alabama. Substantiate that, or confess your dishonesty and retract it."
We can look at the case of Scotty Joe Weaver. He was 18 and lived in Alabama (in 2004). He was tied to his chair, beaten, strangled, stabbed, mutilated and partially decapitated--all over the course of a few hours. His body was then dumped in the woods and set on fire.
Or how about Billy Jack Gaither. He was living in Alabama and murdered in 1999. He was slashed with a knife, beaten with an ax and then his body was burned all because he 'was queer.'
So much for my 'dishonesty'!
Sorry Gary--most gay people know about the horrible thing that happened to Jessie Dirkhising. You may have had to search for that news, but most people already knew about it.
And you seem to be wildly misinformed about the Catholic Church and pedophilia. Most people know (and it is widely reported all over the world) that there are pedophile priests who prey on boys. That may be news to you, but it isn't to most people who keep up with the news. We could also look at the huge majority of straight males who molest children, but we can leave that for another post.
So Gary--what exactly do you do for a living? You now have my curiosity up. I would like to know how productive you are in this society, since you think you know all about me.
Gary,
You said: "Enjoy teaching your class and pray (as much as you can) that few people bother to check your facts." EXACTLY! Now I see you understand what getting an education is all about.
You also say: "It seems likely that such curiosity will hasten the day when even California society discovers how useless you are." Possibly--and since I believe that there is a market for education, when that market goes away, then so will I. However, there will never be a time when history is not part of a valid education.
And I will be happy with whatever happens. There are lots of other things I can do to keep myself occupied, employed and satisfied.
By the way, I took the information about the two killings from websites.
Kevin,
“So much for my 'dishonesty'!”
We’ve barely scratched the surface, much less disposed of the issue.
“So does this go for all people who don't accept the results of representative democracy (like Christine not accepting the outcome of the election)?”
You have my word: As soon as Christine starts destroying property, invading people’s homes, threatening voters with racial slurs and violence, invading people’s places of worship, and attempting to block putting resolutions on ballots by harassing people signing and collecting signatures (all things people did to block prop 8 and in retaliation for it passing) I will condemn her big time! As long as it is a matter of people exercising lawful freedom of speech and assembly, I will support their right to do so regardless of how I feel about their positions on issues. That’s one of the big differences between you and me: I believe in a lawful, Constitutional government. In the meantime, trying to equate the two vastly different cases just provides another example of your using dishonest rhetoric.
“Sorry Gary--most gay people know about the horrible thing that happened to Jessie Dirkhising. You may have had to search for that news, but most people already knew about it.”
As with most things liberals assert, it is either outright wrong or impossible to prove. At any rate, I think it unlikely. Compare coverage. Mathew Shepherd got over 3000 stories, coverage on all major networks, and massive calls for protective legislation inside and out of Congress. Jessie, bless him, got around 50 stories. The tracks in Google are so small it’s almost impossible to tell it happened. Several major networks ignored the story altogether. This seems like a lot of soft-pedaling of the story, considering your basic position that gays are so discriminated against.
“We could also look at the huge majority of straight males who molest children, but we can leave that for another post.”
That’s part of the problem: We really can’t. Stories unflattering to gays are suppressed so much by the media that it’s impossible to make a realistic comparison. As you say, the atrocities of gay priests have finally come out, but the Catholic church suppressed the info for generations for reasons of their own. Liberals in general suppress and high information that might be damaging to their pet causes. The dearth of stories about gays is one aspect. Another prime example is the hiding of graduation rates for people admitted to colleges under affirmative action programs, particularly law schools. Liberals are scared to death of accurate information getting out. But as you say, that’s a subject for another day.
“We can look at the case of Scotty Joe Weaver.”
We can, but the presence of any small sampling is hardly representative data. Let’s go back to your assertion:
“"You expressed doubt that it would be much different announcing your homosexuality in a Muslim country like Iran than it would be in Alabama.”
As horrible as the example you cite in your post, a little research still shows the difference in the areas. Scotty had a lot of friends, so the story says. He was a regular participant at drag shows in at least one local club. Doesn’t sound like the kind of thing I would consider likely in Iran. There is also the case of the murder itself. While the prosecutor stated, probably correctly that hate was “a factor” in the killing, it hardly seems to be the sole or even major motivation. The killers were roommates of the man for a while. It seems to me that if they really hated someone badly enough to kill them just for being gay, they wouldn’t have bothered to move in and live with him for a while. So, we have a man that was horribly murdered and being gay was probably a factor.
This is simply another tactic liberal whiners use to mislead people into thinking there is a huge problem when the real story is quite different. Even when you bother to look up facts, which is seldom enough, you ignore context. For example, a better context is shown that in 2008, the most recent year that statistics are available on the FBI website, there were a total of approximately 16000 murders. Of these, 7 were designated hate crimes. Also, this included all categories of hate crimes: gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, and ethnicity. That would make murders related to hate crimes approximately 0.05 percent of all murders. I can see why you quake in fear at the thought of approaching the Alabama border! They may not like gays, but they positively despise dishonest folk.
Why murdering someone with them being gay as factor seems more horrible than murdering someone because they happen to have a nice watch or some money or are in the wrong place at the wrong time is still a mystery for me. I guess they find the idea of equal protection under law abominable. That’s another difference between you and me: I consider any attack on anyone for any reason unacceptable.
“You also said: "No need. I get all of the bigotry I can handle from liberals just for speaking up for equal rights for all instead of special rights for protected groups." Is that when you call them dishonest or lacking integrity?”
No. I generally wait for the slam dunk. A liberal speaking up for special rights for protected groups merely shows that they are still breathing, and consequently are worth relatively little attention. I go for the dishonesty angle for people like you who have an aversion to facts and context, or the ones that banded together to smear anyone who gave Obama a hard question during the campaign regardless of how much stuff they had to make up, or Bill Clinton who perjured himself, or Obama who seems to lie more than tell the truth, and…well, there are really too many examples to cite.
“However, my integrity levels are pretty high”
As with most liberals, your estimates of your ability far exceed the actual.
“and I would rather try to understand someone than call them names.”
That’s difficult for me to tell one way or the other. I’ve seldom read you “calling anyone names” directly. Generally you simply imply your malice, as when you tried to discredit Thomas Sowell not by discrediting any of his reasoning or positions but simply mentioned an association that you didn’t like. Which brings us to the second part: I’ve seldom if ever seen you give an even moderate shot at trying to understand someone that you disagreed with.
“However, there will never be a time when history is not part of a valid education.”
Kind of depends on what history you are pushing. The spin you put on it, at least as demonstrated by historical comments on this blog, is the kind lapped up by dictators and dictator want-a-be’s looking to dumb down and stir up a population into voting away their rights in favor of a “Great Leader.” Ironically, such professors are generally the first to get killed off when the takeover is complete, providing the closest thing to a bright side there is in such circumstances.
“And I will be happy with whatever happens. There are lots of other things I can do to keep myself occupied, employed and satisfied.”
As long as unions have the power to protect ideological hacks, I am certain you are correct.
As for my occupation, I am an engineer, currently working in structures. My tasks include evaluating real world conditions and designing and recommending equipment to meet the requirements. Analysis is key to my livelihood. If I were underqualified but passed through because a teacher gave me A’s and B’s when I should have gotten D’s and F’s, planes begin falling out of the sky, bridges collapse, ships sink. Needless to say, I consider a good education essential. And that’s why I barely have words to show my contempt for liberals that will gladly substitute competence (forget about excellence) and integrity for ideology. They happily condemn generations of kids to “whole language”, “everyday math”, “bilingual education,” and any other number of theories that fail while rejecting proven methods of drill and phonics. I positively despise their boards that reject people not because of lack of ability, but for failure to accept the “right” view of homosexuality, corporal punishment, the military, Israel, and any other number of things. Far from being undesirable to many liberals, grade inflation and social promotion have swelled their ranks due to the number of people they pass through uneducated, unskilled, and unable to fend for themselves without union protection. It’s a constant losing battle within myself to try to extend Christian love toward those who actively support such abuses. I confess my guilt and failure, though I will keep trying.
Gary--you are so predictable! You say: "This is simply another tactic liberal whiners use to mislead people into thinking there is a huge problem when the real story is quite different." You ask for proof and I give it to you. You say it isn't proof. Remember what I said earlier--I could say the sky is blue but you would accuse me of lying!
Besides, you clearly stopped looking for information about the media and this poor kid when you found what you wanted to hear. Here is a bit from Wikipedia on the media bias: "In the month after Shepard's murder, LexisNexis recorded 3,007 stories about his death compared to only 46 in the month after the Dirkhising murder.[24] However, once the media seized on the story, this count rapidly rose into the thousands.[25]" So what you think is 'unlikely' isn't the case at all. Many people knew about this horrible crime, but you did not, thus you believed that most people had never heard of it.
It is also funny that someone like yourself would say to me: "As with most liberals, your estimates of your ability far exceed the actual" but yet say about themselves: "..planes begin falling out of the sky, bridges collapse, ships sink."
You say: "I’ve seldom if ever seen you give an even moderate shot at trying to understand someone that you disagreed with." You and Christine are cases--I come to Christine's little corner of the web to try and understand her point of view (and yours, since this is nearly your blog as well). To try to understand something isn't just swallowing material without thinking about it. When I think about something I ask questions. If the answers are unclear, then I ask more (or respond more). You seem to think that I have to agree with you to understand you. That isn't the case at all.
And how about yourself? Where have you tried to understand someone who disagrees with you? You don't want to hear an answer to your question--you want your own words repeated back to you.
You say: "while rejecting proven methods of drill..." I am not sure what you mean by 'drill'--maybe it is something like memorizing words or repeating material to memorize it?
You state: "Ironically, such professors are generally the first to get killed off when the takeover is complete, providing the closest thing to a bright side there is in such circumstances." The 'bright side' is killing off professors? Wow. It sounds like you would make a great member of the Chinese Communist society...And see what happens to the world when all the intelligent people who question such leaders are killed off--you get Communist regimes where people are scared to death to say anything against their goverment. You should thank your lucky stars that there are some brave people out there. I don't think you have a clue about Communist history. But hearing your view of history, I am not surprised.
Gary--you are so predictable! You say: "This is simply another tactic liberal whiners use to mislead people into thinking there is a huge problem when the real story is quite different." You ask for proof and I give it to you. You say it isn't proof. Remember what I said earlier--I could say the sky is blue but you would accuse me of lying!
Besides, you clearly stopped looking for information about the media and this poor kid when you found what you wanted to hear. Here is a bit from Wikipedia on the media bias: "In the month after Shepard's murder, LexisNexis recorded 3,007 stories about his death compared to only 46 in the month after the Dirkhising murder.[24] However, once the media seized on the story, this count rapidly rose into the thousands.[25]" So what you think is 'unlikely' isn't the case at all. Many people knew about this horrible crime, but you did not, thus you believed that most people had never heard of it.
It is also funny that someone like yourself would say to me: "As with most liberals, your estimates of your ability far exceed the actual" but yet say about themselves: "..planes begin falling out of the sky, bridges collapse, ships sink."
You say: "I’ve seldom if ever seen you give an even moderate shot at trying to understand someone that you disagreed with." You and Christine are cases--I come to Christine's little corner of the web to try and understand her point of view (and yours, since this is nearly your blog as well). To try to understand something isn't just swallowing material without thinking about it. When I think about something I ask questions. If the answers are unclear, then I ask more (or respond more). You seem to think that I have to agree with you to understand you. That isn't the case at all.
And how about yourself? Where have you tried to understand someone who disagrees with you? You don't want to hear an answer to your question--you want your own words repeated back to you.
You say: "while rejecting proven methods of drill..." I am not sure what you mean by 'drill'--maybe it is something like memorizing words or repeating material to memorize it?
You state: "Ironically, such professors are generally the first to get killed off when the takeover is complete, providing the closest thing to a bright side there is in such circumstances." The 'bright side' is killing off professors? Wow. It sounds like you would make a great member of the Chinese Communist society...And see what happens to the world when all the intelligent people who question such leaders are killed off--you get Communist regimes where people are scared to death to say anything against their goverment. You should thank your lucky stars that there are some brave people out there. I don't think you have a clue about Communist history. But hearing your view of history, I am not surprised.
Kevin,
"You ask for proof and I give it to you. You say it isn't proof."
I asked you to prove your thesis that the US was anywhere near as intolerant as Muslim or atheist regimes with regard to Homosexuality. You give one incident showing a crime with sexual orientation involved. I also provided evidence that deaths due to hate crimes are so low as to be barely noticeable in overall statistics, so yes, I would say that makes you a whining liberal liar (as redundant as that all is).
Why not try again. Come on - give some compelling proof or evidence that the abuse is as widespread, that there would be "little difference" between announcing your homosexuality in the US and in Iraq.
""but yet say about themselves: "...
Another example of your poor use of context. Since you are a liberal, I'll spell it out for you. If I am incompetent in my job (note the "if"), there will be serious consequences. Chances are, if I was putting out substandard work, I would be fired before I could harm someone.
Liberals tend to gravitate toward education and government and because of unions and their general attitudes, they will allow those who agree with them to do poor work with little or no consequence. Barack Obama is a classic example of the outcome. You can tell the man has never been held responsible for an outcome in his life. If he had, he would realize how much garbage he is pedaling. The same applies with you.
Kevin,
""You seem to think that I have to agree with you to understand you. That isn't the case at all."
Not at all. Your answers and replies simply indicate a rejection of facts and refusal to acknowledge when you are plainly shown to be dishonest and mistaken. The evidence indicates that you come to incite without regard to facts, not to understand. This is hardly surprising considering that the liberal media does a great deal of the same. This is one of the major reasons why it is dying. They don't see anything "anti-business" about Obama most of the time either. Meanwhile, unemployment continues, job creation is low, and he continually whines about the mess he was left. He may actually be more pathetic than you are.
"You don't want to hear an answer to your question--you want your own words repeated back to you."
Your very good at speaking for me. A pity the words you attribute to me make no more sense than the words you speak for yourself. No, I simply want you to cease speaking the same tripe over and over, regardless of how many times Christine and I and others show proof that you are spreading lies.
Yes, by drill I mean repeated exercise in basics, whether by grammar or mathematics. Dull, but effective. It's the same methods that made America a world leader in science, math, and culture.
"I don't think you have a clue about Communist history."
I'm more interested in the history of democratic nations overall. For example, a lot of the leftist intellectuals in the US and in Communist countries supported "revolutionaries" in Russia, China, and other South America. Likewise, Hitler had a great many leftist admirers. In Germany, even many Jews supported his views of facism until he made anti-Semitism a key plank. The "intellectuals" trashed their own countries, and made it unthinkable to oppose the developing war machine in Germany until it was almost too late. When Germany invaded France, the scales were still tipped in favor of the French from a forces standpoint. The unions and the intellectuals hard argued against war and defense for so long they had no will left to defend their country, and they collapsed.
The leftists were rooting for the Marxists all the way. And as soon as the Marxists took over, one of the first things they did was execute or imprison those same leftist intellectuals. That was the bright side I mentioned. They contributed to the murder and enslavement of their own people. They simply had no clue that when the time came, they were even more expendable than the ones they sacrificed.
I have many clues about Communist history. For example the fact that though the czars were considered repressive tyrants, the Marxists executed and imprisoned more Russians in a year than the czars did in a century. I know a good deal, and I am learning more each day, about where your type of philosophy takes us.
I am very thankful to God that there are brave people out there. They serve in the military, the police, many walks of life. But leftists like yourself aren't brave. Neither or you martyrs or a downtrodden minority. You are simply a cowardly fool who likes to sleep with boys. It is you who has no clue. If you did, you would recognize how old-hat your political attitudes are and how much destruction they have already caused. You would also recognize that the worst thing that could happen to you is for those you promote to succeed. Dictators suffer fools in their borders much less often than democracies do.
Hi Gary,
Sorry about the doubling of the posts--Blogger seems to be having trouble lately. It told me there was an error so I tried it again...
As I said, I could say the sky is blue and you would say I am lying or am mistaken!
" You are simply a cowardly fool who likes to sleep with boys." And I could say you are a cowardly fool who likes to sleep with girls, but you know what, I wouldn't say that to anyone. I have a bit of decency, clearly more than you. I see you are getting frustrated with your inability to discuss this material in a rational way. Poor you. But I guess when you don't have a leg to stand on, that is what happens.
Hey guys,
The double postings are most likely my fault. For some reason, I have been getting two to four copies of the same comment in my moderation box on Blogger. I try to determine which ones are repeats so that I don't post them twice. Yesterday, I suspect that an extra copy appeared shortly after I deleted the repeat comments and published the original comment. Sorry about that!
Also, my server was down last evening (after I released some comments) so I wasn't able to get back on and tell you this.
Kevin,
And with typical smugness, the leftist, with no contextual facts to support his statements, wraps himself in a delusional cloak of superiority and simply ignores the arguments presented by his opponents. His snappy repartee fools no one, with the possible exception of himself. That’s fine. I’m satisfied that any reading of the exchange will show who is shooting intellectual blanks. Let me know when you decide to move to Iraq. I’ll send flowers. Or perhaps you could convert to Islam and simply stone yourself to death. That way, at least you could have a small claim to the martyrdom you seem to ascribe to yourself.
I guess I can only blame you so much. It’s likely that if you did accept any conservative principles while living in California, your life would probably be in more danger than it would as a liberal gay in Alabama. We all know what venom libs reserve for their own who leave the faith.
Note to Christine: Be sure to check out that book if you get a chance. It pretty much outlines Kevin’s debate strategy from top to bottom: Appeal to emotion over fact, zero context, presentation of a statistically rare event to demonstrate a sweeping trend, and multiple tactics to simply dismiss arguments and evidence to the contrary with as little acknowledgement as possible. He was right about one thing. It does get kind of frustrating trying to debate with the equivalent of a “pull-string talking doll.” Yank often enough and it always repeats the same lines regardless of what is going on around him.
"It’s likely that if you did accept any conservative principles while living in California, your life would probably be in more danger than it would as a liberal gay in Alabama."
Ah, so would this fall under " presentation of a statistically rare event to demonstrate a sweeping trend", or maybe "zero context", or possibly "multiple tactics to simply dismiss arguments and evidence to the contrary with as little acknowledgement as possible"?
Read above what I said about 'no leg.'
Kevin,
Check out liberal treatment of straying minorities Sarah Palin, Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and the Liberal Press treatment of anyone they thought was a threat to Barrack Obama's campaign.
Beat's me why liberals are so concerned about health care. It can't cost them very much. I mean the have no brain, no spine, no guts...
BTW - Sowell also covers the fact that liberals often have no argument at all except repeating the same thing over and over.
Post a Comment