tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post4469429736364766153..comments2023-11-02T03:10:39.674-07:00Comments on GeeeeeZ!: How to Destroy a Society...but Jeane Kirkpatrick; Quite an eye openerZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15989573357446569262noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-8093003121496569462011-03-08T20:28:58.047-08:002011-03-08T20:28:58.047-08:00C'est vous qui avez tort, Madame, et vous le s...C'est vous qui avez tort, Madame, et vous le savez tres bien. Vous n'etes pas raison. Je pense, peut etre, que vous etes un peux derangé ces jours. Je me vous ne comprends plus. Vous etais m'amie bien beaucoup des ans. Je ne vous fais pas mal. J'aime ecrire -- c'etait toutes. Je crois que vous etes une aveugleuse maintenant. Quel dommage!<br /><br />Au revoir.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-90864177801466936272011-03-08T11:56:46.186-08:002011-03-08T11:56:46.186-08:00FT, maybe you can take this deletion better since ...FT, maybe you can take this deletion better since it's not on the faith blog, I hope?Zhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15989573357446569262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-7843959121414952292011-03-08T09:00:10.727-08:002011-03-08T09:00:10.727-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-7002754989398872662011-03-06T22:29:24.510-08:002011-03-06T22:29:24.510-08:00Well let me put it sweetly then.
According to you...Well let me put it sweetly then.<br /><br />According to your blithe implications thus far, it's either "immoral" for the Constitution to have economically and politically hamstrung the institution of slavery by legal means, or it's "extra-legal" to enforce laws against insurrection and civil rights abuses driven by the immoral cause of perpetuating slavery and those nostalgic for refighting that fundamental aspect of the Founding Father's intent to end slavery.<br /><br />In your Ron Paulian delusional regard, the Confederates warring to keep slaves in bondage and servitude were really making a "principled libertarian and patriotic" stand against the tyranny of... the US Constitution.<br /><br />Seriously, FeebThinky. You don't have the grasp of logic required to be a conservative. And certainly not a free-thinker. <br /><br />None of you leftists do. You'd reap a lot more respect from me if you'd just admit that you're a left-wing idiot. <br /><br />I mean, you're not even trying to hide your incapacity for rational thought.(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-55862342450919456052011-03-06T21:18:39.972-08:002011-03-06T21:18:39.972-08:00Roses are red.
Violets are blue.
Sugar is sweet,
B...<i>Roses are red.<br />Violets are blue.<br />Sugar is sweet,<br />But it's not true of you.</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-44553075798192623392011-03-06T19:44:41.440-08:002011-03-06T19:44:41.440-08:00No one wants to take away your right to be an anti...No one wants to take away your right to be an anti-Semitic racist twit, FeebThinky.<br /><br />I just caution that someone such as yourself, with your history of linking to white supremacist / neo-Nazi / Holocaust denial websites and your obvious zeal for aping their mealymouthed content in the form of obsession with seeing conspiracy everywhere, ought not bandy about <a rel="nofollow">"one could make a pretty good case for defining the position of the South as inherently Conservative in that it was rooted in a desire to maintain the established order, economic underpinnings and traditional mores of the region, which is basically what conservatism is all about"</a> and expect not to be called on it.<br /><br />That statement alone reeks even without the pathological history of your anti-Semitic, racist comments and links around here prefacing it.<br /><br />Anti-semitic, racist, and a romanticizer of Confederate war objectives in defense of the institution of slavery. You're a freakin' profile of cognitive dissonance, man. A caricature incarnate.<br /><br />Do you romanticize the cause of Pancho Villa too? Che Guevara's? Emma Goldman's? Mao Tse Tung's? Oh? You do have standards? Do tell.<br /><br />Take us back to the place you last saw your mind. Where'd you put it?(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-48559799361714985622011-03-06T16:07:31.883-08:002011-03-06T16:07:31.883-08:00Let not those who love the power of the welfare
wa...Let not those who love the power of the welfare<br />warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unashamed in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty.<br /> <br />~ Ron Paul - <i>In the Name of Patriotism (Who are the Patriots?)</i>, May 22, 2007Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-74938910583490744002011-03-06T15:46:10.250-08:002011-03-06T15:46:10.250-08:00"This is his first punishment, that by the ve..."This is his first punishment, that by the verdict of his own heart no guilty man is acquitted." <br />- Juvenal<br /><br />"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." - Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 2<br /><br />=====<br /><br />Got any more pathetic attempts to deflect attention from the fact that your anti-Semitic, racist, mendacious cryptoleftist tendencies have been caught red-handed time and again, FeebThinky?<br /><br />Keep them to yourself. Remember, you're the unwanted left-wing racist imbecile here overstaying his welcome.<br /><br />Your linking to neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers to plead your mendacious case destroyed your credibility more that your infantile squirming from scrutiny ever could.<br /><br />Go cry to the ACLU, you dipshit moron.(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-2800215711623902592011-03-06T12:30:40.807-08:002011-03-06T12:30:40.807-08:00"The partisan, when he is engaged in a disput...<i>"The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions."</i> <br /><br />~ Socrates (470-399 B. C. )<br /><br /><i>Facts are ventriloquists’ dummies. Sitting on a wise man’s knee they may be made to utter words of wisdom; elsewhere, they say nothing, or talk nonsense, or indulge in sheer diabolism</i>.<br /><br />~ Karl Kraus (1874–1936), Austrian satirist. First published in Die Fackel (1902). Morality and Criminal Justice, title essay (1908).<br /><br /><i>Name calling is the refuge of him who has no claim to legitimacy or substance in the premise of his argument.</i><br /><br />~ A. MagusAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-80629163555071583612011-03-06T01:43:15.639-08:002011-03-06T01:43:15.639-08:00Yes, yes, the goverment we can trust is the govern...Yes, yes, the goverment we can trust is the government that Ron Paul's put in charge of. <br /><br />::rolls eyes::<br /><br />And so, pointing out the immorality and illegality of the Confederacy's insurrection against the Constitution of the United States, and it's lack of legitimacy whatsoever as a cause for freedom or natural law is now conflated to "obedience to the state."<br /><br />You forgot to mention the massive Zionist media efforts to make slavery seem bad.<br /><br />Get the fuck out of here you simpering moron.(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-16109839664870151422011-03-05T22:22:20.252-08:002011-03-05T22:22:20.252-08:00The original American patriots were those individu...<i>The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power. The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility, and out<br />of self interest -- for himself, his family, and the future of his country -- to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. ... Resistance to illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of our rights is required. Each of us must choose which course of action we should take:education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing.</i><br /><br />Ron PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-66953170094543993502011-03-05T21:59:15.079-08:002011-03-05T21:59:15.079-08:00What am I misunderstanding, FeebThinky? In the pas...What am I misunderstanding, FeebThinky? In the past few months:<br /><br />- you've cited white supremacist websites to try to smear Martin Luther King.<br /><br />- you've cited anti-Semitic Holocaust denial websites to try to construct a spot-the-Jew "New World Order" conspiracy theory smear on "neo-conservatives"<br /><br />- you continuously quote or cite Ron Paul, from even white supremacist / neo-Nazi websites that financially back him, and try to play coy that you know nothing about him or his history of support from neo-Nazi groups<br /><br />- you now try to paint the Confederate insurrection as having some noble cause (of enslaving blacks) trampled on by a President (Lincoln) that you try to paint as a Constitution-shredding tyrant, while trying to deny that you're doing so.<br /> <br />If you think I find it incredulous that you're even trying to pretend to be intellectually honest with your past and present history of being a mendaciously lying pest (not even counting the fact that you remain here after being asked and demanded to depart by the blog's owner) then perhaps you're the one with the misunderstanding. <br /><br />I welcome honest debate, but that is not possible with leftists, such as yourself.<br /><br />Goodbye, shitbag.(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-11531575466261841862011-03-05T21:03:05.975-08:002011-03-05T21:03:05.975-08:00"When misunderstanding serves others as an ad...<b>"When misunderstanding serves others as an advantage, one is helpless to make oneself understood."</b> <br /><br />-Lionel TrillingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-49124018274779512572011-03-05T19:42:01.501-08:002011-03-05T19:42:01.501-08:00Beamish, I think you may be trying to have an argu...<i>Beamish, I think you may be trying to have an argument I had no intention of initiating, and have no intention of joining. I did not come here either to defend slavery or to champion the Confederacy.</i><br /><br />Oh? Why would these statements - <i>"Also, one could make a pretty good case for defining the position of the South as inherently Conservative in that it was rooted in a desire to maintain the established order, economic underpinnings and traditional mores of the region, which is basically what conservatism is all about"</i> and <i>"Just because "the Law is the Law," doesn't mean the Law is necessarily MORAL.</i> [in response to pointing on the legal constraints on slavery the Confederate insurrectionists were seeking to violently overthrow] - why would those statements lead me to believe you're not trying to initiate an argument in defense of slavery or championing the Confederacy? <br /><br />Clearly you're not doing that. My bad. You're just engaging in heartfelt masturbation. My mistake.<br /><br /><i>I merely wanted to draw the considerable distinction that exists between morality and legality.</i><br /><br />No one has morality and legality mixed up or confused with each other, and it's supposedly "not your intent" to present either a moral argument or a legal argument for the legitimacy of grievances proffered by Confederate insurrectionists who couldn't themselves make those arguments coherent, sound, relevant, or persuasive and thusly took up violence instead, so what is your point? Do you have one?<br /><br /><i>While I may agree with that aims and objectives of Abolitionists and later the Civil Rights Activists were highly moral even laudable, I take exception with some justification, I believe, to the extra-legal means by which these admirable objectives were implemented. That's all.</i><br /><br />That's weasel talk, and you know it. There was nothing "extra-legal" about the calling forth the militia to put down an insurrection. It's one of the powers vested in the Presidency by the Constitution the Confederate insurrectionists tried to subvert.<br /><br />Conspicuously missing from your linked "Legality of Secession" essay are the parts of the Constititution ratified by the states which explicitly make secession illegal.<br /><br />Why would the President be given power to put down insurrections, if secession were legal? <br /><br />Why would the states be forbidden from the things forbidden them in Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution, if secession were legal?<br /><br />No, FeebThinky, the only "extra-legal" action in the Civil War was the insurrection and the formation of the Confederacy itself. Their claim and pretention to forming a seperate government sovereign from that of the US government had no more legitimacy than some meth lab "republic" of white nationalists in Montana filing mispelled and fraudulent property liens to declare their backyard as another country.<br /><br />Please, steer clear of Ron Paul and get some learnin' in you from someone familiar with the Constitution.(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-54004488503165921152011-03-05T18:28:33.469-08:002011-03-05T18:28:33.469-08:00Beamish, I think you may be trying to have an argu...Beamish, I think you may be trying to have an argument I had no intention of initiating, and have no intention of joining. I did not come here either to defend slavery or to champion the Confederacy.<br /><br />I merely wanted to draw the considerable distinction that exists between morality and legality.<br /><br />While I may agree with that aims and objectives of Abolitionists and later the Civil Rights Activists were highly moral even laudable, I take exception with some justification, I believe, to the extra-legal means by which these admirable objectives were implemented. That's all. <br /><br />Though reason may be the slave of passion, it's a jolly good thing we are not supposed to be ruled by whatever passion may prevail at a given moment. Or, as my father was fond of quoting when tempers flared, "The sober second thought is seldom wrong."<br /><br />Here's the link to a pretty good dissertation of the legality of secession under the Constitution. The Founders were in deep disagreement over many vital issues, as I'm sure you know better than I. Out of honest, sober, respectful, well-reasoned disagreement better policies may be discovered.<br /><br />http://www.etymonline.com/cw/secession2.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-4140719865466333162011-03-05T17:24:45.151-08:002011-03-05T17:24:45.151-08:00A Sprinkling of Burke Quotations apropos of nothin...A Sprinkling of Burke Quotations apropos of nothing in particular on this thread, nevertheless give ample food for worthwhile thought:<br /><br /><br />“All human laws are, properly speaking, only declaratory; they have no power over the substance of original justice.”<br /><br /><br />“The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.”<br /><br /><br />“Circumstances give in reality to every political principle its distinguishing color and discriminating effect. The circumstances are what render every civil and political scheme beneficial or noxious to mankind.”<br /><br /><br />“But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint.” <br /><br /><br />“A spirit of innovation is generally the result of a selfish temper and confined views. People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors.” <br /><br /><br />“By gnawing through a dike, even a rat may drown a nation.”<br /><br /><br />“The person who grieves suffers his passion to grow upon him; he indulges it, he loves it; but this never happens in the case of actual pain, which no man ever willingly endured for any considerable time.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-44608541538920856602011-03-05T17:08:50.637-08:002011-03-05T17:08:50.637-08:00Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in Fr...Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France may be found at this link:<br /><br />http://www.constitution.org/eb/rev_fran.htm<br /><br />Like most documents of the period it’s a pretty thorny piece of writing -- possibly one of the most reticent, elegant, elaborate, and circumlocutory bits of condemnatory rhetoric ever penned.<br /><br />Burke supported the American Revolution, but not the French. His reasons for this are presented in Reflections in stupefying detail. If, like me, you’re too tired or too lazy to wade through Reflections on the Revolution in France, Wikipedia seems to do a pretty good job summing up it’s salient points.<br /><br />Too bad Burke wasn’t around to give us his thoughts on the American Civil War! Like most truly brilliant and penetrating thinkers he could never be accused of being obvious, dogmatic or simplistic.<br /><br />A favorite Burke quotation:<br /><br /><i>"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."</i><br /><br />~ Edmund Burke (1729-1797)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-57619723047768462372011-03-05T16:57:03.751-08:002011-03-05T16:57:03.751-08:00Just because "the Law is the Law," doesn...<i>Just because "the Law is the Law," doesn't mean the Law is necessarily MORAL.</i><br /><br />What is immoral about banning slavery importation, making it prohibitively expensive to export and import domestically bred slaves in interstate commerce, illegal to possess and work slaves in federal territory, and not allowing slaveholders to count their slaves towards the enumeration of representatives empowered to create and vote upon tax legislation?<br /><br />Was the Constitution framers' clear intent to make slaveholding economically and politically unviable and all laws subsequently passed toward that end "immoral?"<br /><br />Was the ability to purchase (or kidnap) another human being and enjoin him to slave labor "moral?"<br /><br />"Just because..." nothing. You're either a conservative, or a mendacious, bifurcated, semantics-wielding, red herring tossing goofball psuedo-intelluctual twit, er Ron Paul supporter, er, a delusional cryptoleftist.<br /><br />Just because some laws aren't moral doesn't mean abolishing slavery was immoral or even that a case for it being immoral can be made.<br /><br />Stupid people are leftists for a reason, the main one being that they cling to amorphous ideological flights of fancy rather than good ol' fashioned reality.(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-50792875312186271682011-03-05T15:52:10.996-08:002011-03-05T15:52:10.996-08:00While many would heartily endorse the sentiments o...<i>While many would heartily endorse the sentiments of Edmund Burke as given above, many would also differ in their opinion as to how those thoughts might or might not apply to the way they've been applied to the confederacy.</i><br /><br />Let's give it a whirl.<br /><br /><b>1.) A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;</b><br /><br />The violent South Carolinian insurrection that started the Civil War began over President Lincoln legally winning an election via the Constitutional means of holding a Presidential election. They were shooting at US soldiers before he even took office. They were in rejection of the traditions of civil government, as established by that Constitution. Don't even try to make a delusional natural law defense for slavery. <br /><br /><b>2.) An affection for the "variety and mystery" of human existence; </b><br /><br />Which basically means, "racists need not apply."<br /><br /><b>3.) A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize "natural" distinctions;</b><br /><br />Not exactly a cause for rebellion there... <br /><br /><b>4.) A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;</b><br /><br />Nor a defense of enslaving someone or making them to be "property" there... <br /><br /><b>5.) A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and</b><br /><br />Filing a grievance in court or supporting a candidate for election and accepting the outcome no matter what, is faith in custom, convention, and prescription. Firing cannons at US soldiers because your boy lost the election is not. <br /><br /><b>6.) A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.</b><br /><br />The Confederacy needed to make a persuasive case for enslaving people, a persuasive case for why others should respect their cause and course of enslaving people, and a persuasive case for inflicting their barbaric beliefs in perpetuating slavery upon others and in communities were slavery was already outlawed. <br /><br />Because they couldn't do these things, they took up guns instead.<br /><br />They were not conservatives. They were radical leftists.(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-65485149155601408822011-03-05T14:35:42.527-08:002011-03-05T14:35:42.527-08:00You know, FT, you can put quotes around the word L...You know, FT, you can put quotes around the word LOST all you want but I have not deleted any of your posts. Others are losing posts they've published here, too, as you so well have seen by their comments so there is no need to infer anything again.<br />However, I have been tempted to delete all of your comments, frankly, since I asked you so specifically and in earnest to leave geeeeZ after the horrid things you'd said, so it's all I can do not to delete, but here you are again, after only a couple of days you'd returned and I'm holding my breath before the comments disintegrate again. <br />I hope they don't.<br />This gives me absolutely no pleasure to write but I built this blog and enjoy my readers, they enjoy it here, and I want the problems not to return.Zhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15989573357446569262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-79413524509403321122011-03-05T12:18:37.217-08:002011-03-05T12:18:37.217-08:00Just because "the Law is the Law," doesn...Just because "the Law is the Law," doesn't mean the Law is necessarily MORAL.<br /><br />Equating Law with Morality may be an appealing idea, but anyone who thinks that is probably a tad naive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-6825774135148299312011-03-05T12:14:36.192-08:002011-03-05T12:14:36.192-08:00I think, by the way, that there may be a tendency ...I think, by the way, that there may be a tendency to equate morality, decency and principled behavior with conservatism and vice versa. <br /><br />I'm not sure it's as simple as that. Just as you find various sorts of individuals with diverse temperaments and personalities in all ethnic, racial and religious groups, so do you likewise in all religious, political and philosophical persuasions.<br /><br />It's pretty much a given that wherever two or three are gathered together for ANY purpose you're bound to fid disagreement and dissension.<br /><br />While many would heartily endorse the sentiments of Edmund Burke as given above, many would also differ in their opinion as to how those thoughts might or might not apply to the way they've been applied to the confederacy.<br /><br />As I tried to say in the "lost" post, how we tend to interpret events and advice all depends on whose ox is being gored.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-31225227273581162462011-03-05T08:02:30.927-08:002011-03-05T08:02:30.927-08:00The mentality represented by Jesse Jackson's s...The mentality represented by Jesse Jackson's son is as pitiful as it is alarming.<br /><br />This is what happens when you let ignoramuses vote.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-53071928833509742052011-03-05T08:00:12.675-08:002011-03-05T08:00:12.675-08:00SHUCKS! I left an answer (of sorts) to the post be...SHUCKS! I left an answer (of sorts) to the post before Russell's list on Burke, and it DISAPPEARED. <br /><br />Too bad! No time to reconstruct now. I guess we've got to write everything in Word first and save it, because this blogger medium is definitely becoming less and less stable. <br /><br />Later - perhaps ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-23087754666656840272011-03-05T04:28:47.231-08:002011-03-05T04:28:47.231-08:00http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/03/jess...http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/03/jesse-jackson-jr-wants-to-add-right-to-economic-security-to-constitution-just-like-the-soviets-video/<br /><br />Your wish is Jesse Jackson, Jr's command!Kathy Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07885368789081914581noreply@blogger.com