Immanuel Kant: History’s Greatest Monster!
Posted on August 18th, 2010 by HTML Mencken
Pointing out Kant’s ultimate EEEEVIL has been the joyous burden of uber-Randroid Leonard Peikoff for years. Now here comes uber-Zionist Daniel Pipes to say: that’s, like, so totally true, man!
I for one am willing to at least listen to their arguments. After all, Mr. Peikoff, who urges the United States to bomb civilians in Afghanistan, and Mr. Pipes, who recommends that America round up Muslims and put them into concentration camps, are surely experts on EEEEVIL.
Incidentally, you know what you get when you cross Peikoff’s Randroidery with Pipes’s Zionism-no-matter-what-the-cost?
Blarg!:
Update: Hanx to Doctorb in comments for reminding us of this classic.
Immanuel Kant: eh, what a pissant.
And just as shloshed as Schlegel, I might add.
Help me…please help me…
Immanuel Kant; that was the guy, wasn’t it, who said “we must always treat human beings as ends in themselves and never as means to an ends?”
Surely the ultimate blasphemy to an Objectivist, who would consider altruism mankind’s original sin.
Yes, we Kant!
The money quote from Gordon’s article on Pelikoff:
Indeed.
I drink, therefore I Kant.
The picture of people falling for Hitler because, owing to Kant’s influence, they doubted the reality of the sensory world is too ridiculous for words.
And they blame Nietzsche…
Does he understand the self-referential zing he puts in with this? How “pundits” tried so desperately to remake America in the neocon image and ended up with George W Bush, whom they had to defend to the death despite his failures on all fronts?
I hear Immanuel Kant was pals with Saul Alinsky.
Maybe Europe is changing their opinion of Israel because Israel has changed from being a young, spoiled brat of a country into an overbearing, obnoxious adult one.
Just my two cents.
We need a pshop of a hoard of enraged pandas closing in on Pammy and gumming her to death.
Dan “Crack” Pipes:
Yeah, saving the world over half a century ago should get us a pass for bombing the fuck out anyone in this century.
We need a pshop of a hoard of enraged pandas closing in on Pammy and gumming her to death.
How about a pack of gummy bears jumping ugly on her implants?
Why, for example, does the United States, which has done so much for human welfare, inspire such hostility?
Maybe because, you know, WE NEVER STOP REMINDING THEM OF THAT?????
Humility: look it up, Pipeboy.
How long has this been up? Am I an idiot?
“we must always treat human beings as ends in themselves and never as means to an ends?”
Of course wingnuts treat human beings as ends! They end us with war, they end us with economic collapse, they end us with natural disaster response, they end us with…
How long has this been up? Am I an idiot?
Twenty two minutes.
And no.
Am I an idiot?
Not by a long shot.
If I had a time machine and went back before Kant and before the Critique to show him what his philosophy led to, and as a result he changed his mind and quit writing, would he still be considered evil?
Philosoraptor? Is that you?
Oh, good to know. I’m just terribly unobservant, then.
. I’m just terribly unobservant, then.
Terribly unobservant = well observant?
But, really, what the fuck IS up with Rand’s ladyboner for hating on Kant’s moldy carcass? There’s some shit about subjectivity or some shit, which makes no fucking sense if you have any basic understanding of philosophy.
Terribly unobservant = well observant?
Sure. Why not?
And when I say “Rand,” I mean, by extension, “Objectivists,” as they have to believe exactly what she did or they’re kicked out of their little circle jerk.
Twenty two minutes.
And no.
Damn, you’re smooth!
The list of people she didn’t hate is very very short and quite possibly does not exist.
But, really, what the fuck IS up with Rand’s ladyboner for hating on Kant’s moldy carcass?
Really. Especially considering he’s the direct intellectual descendant of Hume and Locke, the philosophers who were so influential in this nation’s birth.
All Kant did, really, was put a structure to the old rhetorical question “Can God create a rock so big He can’t move it?” I’m not sure why they hate him for that.
But, really, what the fuck IS up with Rand’s ladyboner for hating on Kant’s moldy carcass?
He once used the word “our.” I think the use of that word is an automatic ticket to Rand-hate-land.
More Pipes nuggets I gotta pick up with an inside-out grocery bag:
To quote Leonard Pinth-Garnell: “Nauseatingly bad.”
Really. Especially considering he’s the direct intellectual descendant of Hume and Locke, the philosophers who were so influential in this nation’s birth.
Right? So, from what I can tell based on what she said, she didn’t understand Kant AT ALL. I mean AT ALLLLLLLLLLLLL.
The Nazis wanted to eliminate nation-states.
So did Napoleon. And the Caesars. And any number of emperors.
So, from what I can tell based on what she said, she didn’t understand Kant AT ALL.
As I understand it, her arguments against Kant stem from his criticism of Daivd Hume’s ridiculous claim that man’s mind was just a collection of thoughts, with no causal connection.
In other words, science didn’t exist. Which would have led to a theocracy. Which, um, would have excluded Rand.
So yea. She’s pretty much a fucking loon, but especially on this point.
They’re right, of course, this is why hardly anyone is a Kantian. Which means their argument is a bit of a straw-man.
But in writing off Kant, they hope to tarnish anyone who’s learned from him. Which is dumb – we should learn from all sorts of things. I learn from Ayn Rand that Objectivism is an empty, evil path as well. Of course, Ayn Rand was evil in her personal life as well, while Kant can’t be said to be so lacking in personal ethics.
Opposing the idea of the nation state and wanting to eliminate specific ones to make another more powerful are exactly the same thing.
And the only way to be an independent thinker is to agree with EVERY WORD Ayn wrote: dissenters are sheep.
Oh, okay, so there’s some crap about the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Whatever. She also has a problem with the Categorical Imperative…
I just find her hatred for him specifically to be very bizarre.
In other words, science didn’t exist. Which would have led to a theocracy. Which, um, would have excluded Rand.
Yeah, I know! And I think she misunderstands the categorical imperative, too, somehow determining that it’s completely subjective, when, in actuality, Kant was trying to make morality as separate from personal feelings and objective as possible. Again, whatever.
If eating baby pandas is wrong, I don’t wanna be right.
I just find her hatred for him specifically to be very bizarre.
I don’t, actually.
As Makhno points out, Rand was very much anti-individual thought (which sort of puts the lie to her claim to fame with respect to individualism). She wanted freedom to do and think as one pleased, sure, but it had to be in the framework of right-thinking and right-doing, else her arguments would fall apart in the classic argument of an anarchist state.
Indeed, that’s the only way a truly Objectivist paradigm could work: where you and I agree inherently on the rules ahead of time and work it all out fro there.
Which, you know, makes sense from one perspective: if you and I have a perfectly level playing field, then its true that you and I should be allowed to compete against each other, bloodily if need be. That’s fair.
It’s also asinine and dystopic. And unrealistic. Which gets back to Kant, who acknolwedges that you and I are a collection of our experiences from which we learn.
You know, science.
If eating baby pandas is wrong, I don’t wanna be right.
*dialing number for Panda Costumes, Inc.*
A spackle of chads?
A packle of nads
A hanging of Chads?
I wonder, too, if Pipes realizes that Kant’s philosophy may have saved Israel, that there’s no logical reason for Israel to exist under a Humean philosophy.
They killed Christ, you know. Organized thinking stopped that trope cold.
“If eating baby pandas is wrong, I don’t wanna be right.
*dialing number for Panda Costumes, Inc.*”
You fit in the baby one?
But, really, what the fuck IS up with Rand’s ladyboner for hating on Kant’s moldy carcass? There’s some shit about subjectivity or some shit, which makes no fucking sense if you have any basic understanding of philosophy.
Asked and answered.
Pam’s just panda-ering for attention. Nothing to see here…
a pickle of nads?
A trickle of nads?
a sparkle of vajazz?
But, really, what the fuck IS up with Rand’s ladyboner for hating on Kant’s moldy carcass? There’s some shit about subjectivity or some shit, which makes no fucking sense if you have any basic understanding of philosophy.
If they had a basic understanding of philosophy, I doubt they’d be reading Ayn Rand.
You fit in the baby one?
Parts of me might.
The Nazis wanted to eliminate nation-states.
Wanting to subjugate all nations under your own is antinationalist.
Parts of me might.
From the makers of Dick In a Box…Dick In a Panda!
Maybe because, you know, WE NEVER STOP REMINDING THEM OF THAT?????
We also like to tell everyone that we did all the work and made all the sacrifices and that the French, well, you know da rest.
“Dick In a Panda!”
Meta-furry
We also like to tell everyone that we did all the work and made all the sacrifices and that the French, well, you know da rest.
That’s right. No one else died in WWII. No one. Except American soldiers. And maybe a couple of Jews.
OT: N__B, Please go to the nearest red phone. Your blog has gone missing.
Asked and answered.
Of course. Silly me.
That’s right. No one else died in WWII. No one. Except American soldiers. And maybe a couple of Jews.
For those of them who read their history, I wonder how much it bites to know that their precious Most Moral War Ever would never have been won without the Soviet Red Army to take the bulk of the sacrifices.
Oh Jeebus.
A crackle of choads.
Maybe because, you know, WE NEVER STOP REMINDING THEM OF THAT?????
Also because, you know, we haven’t. Not nearly as much as we pretend to, at least. We hear every day how generous we are for being the biggest donor of foreign aid; what we never hear is that in terms of foreign aid as percentage of GDP, we consistently rank in the bottom ten.
Bible thumpers should know about the woman who gave from her needs, not from her riches.
And then there’s the fact that we consider having killed over a million Iraqis and other things like that to be “human welfare.” Its recipients have a somewhat different take on it.
And then there’s the fact that we consider having killed over a million Iraqis
THEY WERE SUFFERING (under a dictatorship.) We had to put them out of their misery. It was the only thing we could do to help.
And then there’s the fact that we consider having killed over a million Iraqis and other things like that to be “human welfare.” Its recipients have a somewhat different take on it.
That’s just it.
It would have been one thing if, after WW2, we had pulled back and said “we did a good thing, so let’s build on that” and acted as if we were a part of a larger world.
But look at what we did, from helping ram Israel down the throats of the Arab world to invading Southeast Asia like we owned it, and abusing South America like it was a wife in a tube top.
We should have been a part of NATO. Period. We should have stopped trying to put a veil of purity over our actions and just acted right.
“OT: N__B, Please go to the nearest red phone. Your blog has gone missing.”
Quit looking at me!
We need no more indication that our worthless politicians are out of touch with mainstream America than the illegal immigration issue. These leftwing asshats will support any and every policy that is harmful to American soveringty and culture, including not just illegal immigration but also free trade, globalization, gay rights, gun control, and big government just to name a few. All of these harmful policies are strongly opposed by the vast majority of Americans and yet they have been championed by our ivory tower pols for decades.
I am a conservatve living in one of the bluest of blue states, and everyone I have talked to including liberals and lifelong Democrats, are vehemently opposed to illegal immigration and they are fed up with it. And they are equally fed up with the corrupt politicians who support these third world criminals non-existent right to come and live here. I have yet to meet one person face to face who has had anything positive to say about illegal immigration or illegal aliens in general.
However, some of the viewpoints I have run across include people who woulld like to see landmines deployed along the southern border or the illegal aliens shot on sight while attempting to cross the border. All of these sound like good ideas to me.
Contrast this to our current cesspool of career politicians who either turn a blind eye to the illegal immigration issue or otherwise actively support these third world invaders. Americans are fed up with the left! Expect to see a conservative housecleaning this November.
Face the facts libs, Your socialist regime is toast!
We need no more indication that our worthless politicians are out of touch with mainstream America than the illegal immigration issue.
You’re off topic, Steve. We’re talking about the destruction of the right wing. Please try to keep up.
Quit looking at me!
Quit looking at me!
Why is there an echo?
A crackle of choads.
A mango of boats.
Pammy eats a panda? Worst Replacements song EVAR!
“Face the facts libs, Your socialist regime is toast!”
Actually it’s crostini.
It would have been one thing if, after WW2, we had pulled back and said “we did a good thing, so let’s build on that” and acted as if we were a part of a larger world.
My fondest source of alternate history fantasy; what if, while we were rebuilding strong, sustainable, democratic and friendly nations in Western Europe, we’d bothered to stop and encourage the same thing in the third world?
The money would never have been there for another Marshall Plan, and true, the third world overall had far more problems to deal with than Europe did (being a country for the first time in history, in many cases).
But there were some democracies emerging, and we could have built the same kind of friendly relations with them that we were with Western Europe. Mossadegh’s Iran, Arbenz’ Guatemala and Lumumba’s Zaire are the three that come to mind: if we’d supported them and the popular will that had elected them, third world democracy could have gotten off the ground as early as the fifties. And provided a countermodel to the thugocracies like Nasser’s or Castro’s that would emerge later in the decade.
Can you imagine the benefits just if Iran had been allowed to stay democratic this entire time?
Minty fresh!
I have yet to meet one person face to face who has had anything positive to say about illegal immigration or illegal aliens in general.
Well at least we know Steve’s not a CEO.
“Expect to see a conservative housecleaning this November.”
Mitch McConnell in a French maid’s uniform? No, thank you!
Can you imagine the benefits just if Iran had been allowed to stay democratic this entire time?
There would have been a nexus of Jordan and Iran front and center in the Middle East. Moderates friendly to the western interests. Likely Iraq would have settled down and who knows? Perhaps the abortion that was the European resettlement of the area would have been overturned.
What I could never figure out was why the Marshall Plan didn’t make a frontspiece that all the European powers had to give up their colonies, right off the bat. Imagine Africa rebuilding sixty years ago, with the resources of Nigeria available (among other nations) instead of funneling money upstream to England and France and Belgium.
” I have yet to meet one person face to face who has had anything positive to say about illegal immigration or illegal aliens in general. ”
TELL me about it.
I am a conservatve living in one of the bluest of blue states, and everyone I have talked to including liberals and lifelong Democrats, are vehemently opposed to illegal immigration and they are fed up with it.
Obviously, you haven’t spoken to me, who believes not only is the current trend racist and idiotic, but thinks we ought to open the borders, full stop. It’s what made this nation great in the first place, you fucking idjit.
And oh by the way, if you want to close the borders, can we make it retroactive?
Cuz you’re on MY lawn, bitch!
I have yet to meet one person face to face who has had anything positive to say about illegal immigration or illegal aliens in general.
Well, I’ve never had the displeasure of meeting you face-to-face, but I have several nice things to say about “illegal aliens.”
Enjoy your 99 cent a pound grapes, fucker.
Tell ’em, Steve-Dave!
And oh by the way, if you want to close the borders, can we make it retroactive?
But how will I deport 7/8s of myself???
Well, honey, that depends on if you consider “OH! HARDER, DEEPER, YOU FUCKER!” “something positive”, per se.
“Face the facts libs, Your socialist regime is toast!”
Actually it’s crostini.
Does it have the stripes from the panini press?
I love those.
Why, for example, does the United States, which has done so much for human welfare, inspire such hostility?
This would be a better question if it were directed at the non-US world.
The Nazis wanted to eliminate nation-states.
So did Napoleon. And the Caesars. And any number of emperors.
If anything, Napoleon started the idea of nation-states. Popper argues (reasonably convincingly) that prior to Napoleon’s empire there was no real idea that the boundaries of states should coincide with the boundaries of ethnic / cultural groups (i.e. ‘nations’). States could be patchworks of multiple nationalities while nationalities could be divided across multiple states and it was no big deal (after all, no-one was under the impression that a state’s government was there to serve the people). Then when the borders were being redrawn post-Napoleon, the idea sprouted up that each nationality was entitled to live within the borders of its own ethnically-pure state.
Nothing but trouble ever since.
What I could never figure out was why the Marshall Plan didn’t make a frontspiece that all the European powers had to give up their colonies, right off the bat. Imagine Africa rebuilding sixty years ago, with the resources of Nigeria available (among other nations) instead of funneling money upstream to England and France and Belgium.
Probably didn’t want to push the Europeans too hard, since our defense against the Soviet depended on their cooperation. Maybe just didn’t want to “humiliate” them. Although decolonization did happen, albeit slowly and not always willingly.
I hope, somewhere, there’s an alternate reality where we did force instant decolonization, without the whole “friendly dictator” thing to screw with the “independent” nations.
If anything, Napoleon started the idea of nation-states. Popper argues (reasonably convincingly) that prior to Napoleon’s empire there was no real idea that the boundaries of states should coincide with the boundaries of ethnic / cultural groups (i.e. ‘nations’). States could be patchworks of multiple nationalities while nationalities could be divided across multiple states and it was no big deal (after all, no-one was under the impression that a state’s government was there to serve the people). Then when the borders were being redrawn post-Napoleon, the idea sprouted up that each nationality was entitled to live within the borders of its own ethnically-pure state.
Kissinger argues that the modern nation-state system started with Richelieu. I’d say the French Revolution is what brought it into the popular consciousness; Napoleon was an extension of revolutionary thought in a lot of ways.
I am a conservatve living in one of the bluest of blue states, and everyone I have talked to …
Oh please. We are supposed to believe now that anyone will talk to you?
Oops, can’t keep the names straight anymore…
MOM! I told you not to tease me when I’m bringing the heat to the libtards.
What kind of self-important jackeen quotes himself on the masthead of his own blog?
Oh, that kind.
Kissinger argues that the modern nation-state system started with Richelieu.
That’s plausible.
But Pipe’s claim that “The Nazis wanted to eliminate nation-states” — not plausible. The Nazis merely wanted to eliminate nations, and turn other ones into vassal states. What part of “Ein Volk, ein Reich” does he not understand?
Oh please. We are supposed to believe now that anyone will talk to you?
Tea hee hee!
Eh! Steve!
I’d say the French Revolution is what brought it into the popular consciousness; Napoleon was an extension of revolutionary thought in a lot of ways.
Considering that less than half of the people we would identify as French actually spoke French, this is probably the origin.
But nation-states like Holland and Portugal pre-date these, by quite a bit, too, and the Treaty of Westphalia, which of course saw Richilieu get out from under the HRE thumb and effectively dismantled the Holy Roman Empire as it was known up to that point is generally acknowledged as laying the groundwork for nation-states. I think it’s safe to say that the late 18th and the 19th centuries saw the real move towards nation-states.
When I referenced Napoleon as trying to destroy nation-states, I was thinking of his campaigns against Russia and England, specifically, in his attempt to extend the French sphere of influence across Europe. Given his tyranny, I think it’s not unfair to claim that he was trying to unify Europe as French territory.
He wouldn’t be the first, of course, or the last. And I neglected to include folks like Xerxes or Alexander in my list, which is a bit of an oversight on my part, but I was typing off the top of my head.
“August 18, 2010 at 22:11
Oops, can’t keep the names straight anymore…”
I’ve been about 5 different people today. I’ve also usEd several different nyms on this site.
But Pipe’s claim that “The Nazis wanted to eliminate nation-states” — not plausible. The Nazis merely wanted to eliminate nations, and turn other ones into vassal states. What part of “Ein Volk, ein Reich” does he not understand?
I always wondered what would have happened to the other states in Europe if the Nazis had won the war. Run them like puppets on strings like the Soviets did to Eastern Europe? Where did the French, the Irish, the Italians figure on Hitler’s racial scale – lesser beings that would be allowed to serve the Great Reich?
With Israel being the epitome of nation-state thinking — “We are a nation so we are entitled to our own state, with no-one else living there” — I can see why Pipe is motivated to claim that the Nazis were on the opposite side (ignoring things like, you know, annexing the Sudetenland in order to integrate Czech-born ethnic Germans within the borders of Germany).
What part of “Ein Volk, ein Reich” does he not understand?
In this, I give Pipes the benefit of the doubt. The subjugation of a nation into a state under one Reich is an effective dismantling of that nation-state. It’s like how we re-incorporated after our Civil War.
Kissinger argues that the modern nation-state system started with Richelieu. I’d say the French Revolution is what brought it into the popular consciousness; Napoleon was an extension of revolutionary thought in a lot of ways.
I am unfamiliar with this debate, but it seems to me that once people made the transition from subject to citizen, which is to say, when they began to belong more to democracies than autocracies is when this trend would start. Think about it, if you have no say in your leadership, your co-citizens are who your leadership says they are, period. If you get a say in electing your leadership and defining your countries laws, suddenly these appeals to national ethnic purity have traction.
Where did the French, the Irish, the Italians figure on Hitler’s racial scale – lesser beings that would be allowed to serve the Great Reich?
I’d use Vichy France as a model for that. Effectively, matters that German law covered were automatically under German command, anything else was left to the local governors.
The Gordon review link:What is so bad about Kant? According to Peikoff, Kant downgraded the physical world to which we gain access through our senses as a mere “phenomenal” realm. It was nothing but an appearance as compared with the “noumenal” world, which only faith, not logic, could grasp. In ethics, Kant spurned individual happiness as a matter of no moral worth; instead, persons were to subordinate themselves entirely to a duty that bore no relation to their interests as human beings.
IF any of that were true, it would simply mean Kant subscribed to what was the dominant paradigm for most of European history, so why would he and he alone be to blame?
IF any of that were true, it would simply mean Kant subscribed to what was the dominant paradigm for most of European history, so why would he and he alone be to blame?
Because he is EVIL. Get it together, tigris.
But nation-states like Holland
Pre-1795, I assume you are talking about the United Netherlands, which was neither a nation nor a state.
I have yet to meet one person face to face who has had anything positive to say about illegal immigration or illegal aliens in general.
I’d be willing to say that, in retrospect, it wasn’t the most annoying song that Sting ever did? That’s kinda positive.
“I’m proud to be an ignorant fuck and I think everyone is stupider than me, therefore you must be wrong even though you act like you know things” arguing strategy never gets old, though. Nobody I know voted for Nixon, therefore he was never president! Nobody I know thinks the world is round, therefore global warming is a myth!
I have yet to see any credible statistics that illegal aliens commit crimes at a greater rate than other people, or do more harm to the economy. So maybe the solution to the illegal alien problem is quit making it against the law.
Aren’t illegal aliens just “going Galt”? This whole “illegal aliens are going to bankrupt our social services!” argument would be waaaay more convincing coming from people who don’t themselves want to bankrupt our social services.
Pre-1795, I assume you are talking about the United Netherlands, which was neither a nation nor a state.
No, I meant Holland as in a current…ok, TWO current states of The Netherlands.
The subjugation of a nation into a state under one Reich is an effective dismantling of that nation-state
That one Reich meant the German state and the German nation. Other nations were not worthy to be part of it. The borders of Greater Germany might grow at the expense of neighbouring states, but that did not mean that the erstwhile occupants of that land would be allowed to stay living there.
Face the facts, Steve. You are stupid and have no idea what you’re talking about. A 3rd grader makes more compelling arguments than you do. You probably have to tie a steak around your neck to get your dog to play with you. Your mom keeps clinging to the idea that someday you won’t be an utter embarrassment to her and whoever your father is, but she’s clinging to the mast of a sinking ship. You are mentally ill and in serious need of sex. Face your insecurities and realize that you’re no better than anyone else and you’ll stop being a dumbfuck conservative. I know it’s taxing, but thinking really does enrich your life.
” wrong even though you act like you know things” arguing strategy never gets old, though. Nobody I know voted for Nixon, therefore he was never president! Nobody I know thinks the world is round, therefore global warm”
When I put my hands over my eyes you cease to exist.
What part of “Ein Volk, ein Reich” does he not understand?
He just wants to add “Ein Rand”.
I’d use Vichy France as a model for that. Effectively, matters that German law covered were automatically under German command, anything else was left to the local governors.
Right, but that was in the middle of a war, during which I imagine they didn’t want to spend too many resources controlling France if they didn’t have to. After the war, I always thought they might have gotten more greedy. (Actually, I think they even seized control of Vichy towards the end).
Your mom keeps clinging to the idea that someday you won’t be an utter embarrassment to her and whoever your father is, but she’s clinging to the mast of a sinking ship.
Her last hopes are that he goes on a crime spree and ends up on Cops or America’s Most Wanted.
The subjugation of a nation into a state under one Reich is an effective dismantling of that nation-state
The objectification of the hirereichical state nations is an effective disengagement of that state into nation saint.
Her last hopes are that he goes on a crime spree and ends up on Cops or America’s Most Wanted.
Aim high, Ms. Douchnozzle. Aim high, my sister!
So, rejecting Kant, okay sure, but it makes my head hurt to imagine a glibertard embracing any part of J.S. Mill’s utilitarianism. What exactly does that leave as a possible Foundation for the Metaphysics of Morals?
Oh…what? It’s All About Me, yeah sorry. Good luck with that answer on the final essay, dude.
The objectification of the hirereichical state nations is an effective disengagement of that state into nation saint.
I refudiate your augumentation.
“And then there’s the fact that we consider having killed over a million Iraqis and other things like that to be “human welfare.” Its recipients have a somewhat different take on it.”
Don’t you know “The war in Iraq is a blessing”?
The war in Iraq is a blessing
“While discussing the overblown “ground zero mosque” fake controversy on CNN’s The Situation Room over the Cordoba House which as John noted started with wingnut extremist Pam “Atlas Shrugs” Geller, Bill Bennett decided to let America know that he thinks our illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq is “going nifty” and a “blessing for the people of Iraq”.”
Bolton: Can’t Trust Those Russkies
“Straight from the Cold War, former ambassador John Bolton attacks Russia’s decision to provide low-enriched uranium fuel to Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor. Unsurprisingly, he uses the situation to suggest that Israel (or the United States) should attack Iran’s nuclear energy infrastructure prior to the insertion of the fuel rods into the reactor. ”
Annnnnnnnnd with that… Pam Geller to Daniel Pipes to Bill Bennett to John Bolton and then back to Pammy…. the Neocon circle jerk is complete.
I am unfamiliar with this debate, but it seems to me that once people made the transition from subject to citizen, which is to say, when they began to belong more to democracies than autocracies is when this trend would start
Yeah, I think so too.
Around the time of Richelieu is when the nation state system started existing. Around the time of the Revolution and afterwards (when people were making the “subject”/”citizen” transition) is when the nation state system became ingrained in the public consciousness as the way things were and ought to be – as opposed to just the upper classes shuffling things around.
What exactly does that leave as a possible Foundation for the Metaphysics of Morals?
See those puffy things in the sky overhead…?
Straight from the Cold War, former ambassador John Bolton attacks Russia’s decision to provide low-enriched uranium fuel to Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor.
I love it! The people who think America should always do whatever the fuck it wants with no restraints because suck it, that’s why, are always the most morally outraged when they discover that other countries can act the same way too.
Kind of like the people who scream loudest in defense of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are also the people who scream loudest in protest when other countries start stockpiling nukes.
Hah! I have already been on Cops. No one recognized me because I was in drag, er, disguise on an ‘undercover’ assignment.
I have yet to meet one person face to face who has had anything positive to say about illegal immigration or illegal aliens in general.
The three people he sees when he leaves the basement to resupplly the Cheetos and Mountain Dew had nothing positive to say about illegal immigration. Of course, the subject never actually came up. But that’s central to his point.
However, some of the viewpoints I have run across include people who woulld like to see landmines deployed along the southern border or the illegal aliens shot on sight while attempting to cross the border. All of these sound like good ideas to me.
Fuck you. Go to hell and die you fucking atrocious war criminal. When a bunch of little kids lose their legs, eyes, arms and lives to these land mines, what will you be doing? Giggling like a fucking psychotic maniac?
Anyone who advocates for the use of indiscriminate weapons needs to fucking die, immediately.
“do. You probably have to tie a steak around your neck to get your dog to play with you”
Make it filet mignon!
I have already been on Cops
On the SHOW, not raping drugged cops, you fucking stupid asshole. Jesus–figure it out, dummy.
Right, but that was in the middle of a war, during which I imagine they didn’t want to spend too many resources controlling France if they didn’t have to.
True, but the gamble in taking over most of Europe was exhausting their supplies and resources. It would have taken a while to tool up to actual administer what they had kept. I suspect there would have been a strong sentiment to create Vichy-like states, at least temporarily, across Europe.
“What exactly does that leave as a possible Foundation for the Metaphysics of Morals?”
PENIS! (has there ever been any other?)
Kind of like the people who scream loudest in defense of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are also the people who scream loudest in protest when other countries start stockpiling nukes.
Also too, is this also.
Please be sure your clocks are set to Double Standard Time. That is all. Thank you.
From what little I remember about Kant, he set forth in The Critique of Pure Reason that God’s existence was manifest because all morality must have a point of origin. Leaving aside the strength or weakness of that argument, you’d think someone like that would be a wingnut hero.
Fuck you. Go to hell and die you fucking atrocious war criminal. When a bunch of little kids lose their legs, eyes, arms and lives to these land mines, what will you be doing? Giggling like a fucking psychotic maniac?
Why not? They already do with regards to Iraq and Nicaragua.
you’d think someone like that would be a wingnut hero
Eggzactly. Especially since the leading contender involves maximizing the good for all mankind, which is straight up dirty fucking hippie patchouli shit.
True, but the gamble in taking over most of Europe was exhausting their supplies and resources. It would have taken a while to tool up to actual administer what they had kept. I suspect there would have been a strong sentiment to create Vichy-like states, at least temporarily, across Europe.
True. And Sir Oswald Mosley would have been more than happy to go along with it.
And Sir Oswald Mosley would have been more than happy to go along with it.
I wonder how many Americans would be quick to go all Vichy if another country successfully invaded us?
How many Teabaggers are there, again?
PENIS! (has there ever been any other?)
POOP?
“you’d think someone like that would be a wingnut hero.”
There was a time when conservatives read books, this is not that time.
I wonder how many Americans would be quick to go all Vichy if another country successfully invaded us?
Depends if The Browns invaded us or not. And probably the French.
There was a time when conservatives read books, this is not that time.
Books…those are those kind of squarish things that we use to balance the coffee table, right?
I wonder how many Americans would be quick to go all Vichy if another country successfully invaded us?
Trick question, as no one would ever invade America. And it’s all because of the Second Amendment.
Depends if The Browns invaded us or not. And probably the French.
Go read a brief history of Oswald Mosley. Wiki has a pretty good one. Fascinating. It’s like the Arianna Huffington story only he actually held office. Only in reverse. And probably gave Jonah the idea for his ridiculous book.
Why not? They already do with regards to Iraq and Nicaragua.
OH I HATE THEM SO MUCH
How many Teabaggers are there, again?
About 600, I think, but they keep showing them over and over to make it look like more.
What I could never figure out was why the Marshall Plan didn’t make a frontspiece that all the European powers had to give up their colonies, right off the bat. Imagine Africa rebuilding sixty years ago, with the resources of Nigeria available (among other nations) instead of funneling money upstream to England and France and Belgium.
I’ve read that there was a movement in the US for the federal government to use the money it obtained from settlers moving into the new territories to buy slaves and free them, kind of a compensated abolition. I guess it’s always the case that doing the right thing is tough when it costs you money, even if the wrong thing costs you more in the long run.
Of course, the “Otto West: Apes don’t read philosophy. Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don’t understand it.” fits in nicely here too. That one never gets old for me.
OT, OT, OT:
Blogger has, for the second time in two months, deleted my blog because it was automatically detected as spam by a shit-for-brains algorithm written by a shit-for brains Googler. Assuming that I can get the content back, I’m moving it. Besides WP – which I’m not ruling out – does anyone have any recommendations for blog hosting?
“Expect to see a conservative housecleaning”…
What, cleaning *their own* house? Not while there’s an immigrant to do it, they won’t.
Besides WP – which I’m not ruling out – does anyone have any recommendations for blog hosting?
Some people swear by Typepad.
Of course, you could always go Pajamas Media…*ducking*
Conservatives don’t need books now — they have the Noise Machine to help them stand with their heads up the asses of the Great Conservative Thinkers who have gone before them. Besides, if you call them on their ignorance of conservative principles you’ll learn that That Guy Wasn’t a Real Conservative. Also, he was probably Misquoted Out Of Context just like the Founding Fathers. Also, too, 911 Changed Everything and JUST SHUT UP.
OH I HATE THEM SO MUCH
I remember reading something about Reagan aloud once that happened to touch on his supplying arms to the contras, and right when I reach that point, sure enough, the one yellow-dog Republican in the room goes “As well he should have!” with this big, beaming, idiotic grin on her face like every time Saint Ronnie comes up in conversation.
I’ve never wanted to bitch-slap anyone so badly in my life. Especially since she was a New York suburbanite who every time the 9/11 trials come up, freaks out about how they’re terrorists and should be killed regardless of due process.
Of course, you could always go Pajamas Media…*ducking*
How much do they pay?
N_B, my designer had her choice of software and chose WP. just throwing that out there.
“I wonder how many Americans would be quick to go all Vichy if another country successfully invaded us?”
23 percent…. and we all know exactly who would betray us. They wouldn’t even blink.
See those puffy things in the sky overhead…?
OK, who put sheep in the trebuchet?
How much do they pay?
Hey! I thought *I* was the shameless sellout around here!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
Kant developed what would become the Categorical Imperative over the course of three works: Groundworks of the Metaphysic of Morals, Critique of Practical Reason and Metaphysics of Morals (published in 1785, 1788 and 1797, respectively). Within these works, Kant developed a system of three questions (formulations, he called them), which should be asked of any action before it is taken in order to decide upon the morality of the action.
According to Kant, in order to determine the morality of any situation we must:
1.Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.
2.Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.
3.So act as though you were, through your maxims, a law making member of a kingdom of ends.
[Commie bastard or is that Nazi bastard?]
Kant asserted that lying, or deception of any kind, would be forbidden under any interpretation and in any circumstance.
[Perhaps this is the crux of their beef?]
[Or is it this?]
This atheist attack is based on a fallacy – the Fallacy of the Enlightenment. It was pointed out by the great Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant erected a sturdy intellectual bulwark against atheism that hasn’t been breached since. His defense doesn’t draw on sacred texts or any other sources of authority to which people of faith might naturally and rightfully turn when confronted with atheist arguments. Instead, it relies on the only framework that today’s atheist proselytizers say is valid: reason. The Fallacy of the Enlightenment is the glib assumption that there is only one limit to what human beings can know – reality itself. This view says we can find out more and more until eventually there is nothing more to discover. It holds that human reason and science can, in principle, unmask the whole of reality.
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=25681
[I always considered Kant to be somewhat rigid in his thinking, “conservative” if you will. He argued against utilitarianism and the philosophy of John Stuart Mill for example. He is the main philosophical advocate AGAINST moral reletivism. Don’t take my word for it, ask your local preist or minister.]
Ever since Sam’s dog told me to KILL THEM ALL KILL THEM ALL I don’t listen to what dogs tell me to do.
Also,
Go read a brief history of Oswald Mosley. Wiki has a pretty good one. Fascinating.
And if reading that makes you depressed, look up “Battle of Cable Street” and it’ll cheer you up (no joke). One of many uplifting moments in the history of British anti-fascism.
Shorter gocart: This Leonard Peikoff is a douche hat.
Even if the political will had existed to pony up the money, the South flat-out rejected emancipation under any circumstances, no matter how lavish the compensation.
Maybe the right combination of stick-and-carrot would have worked, but given how virulent the South was on the subject, I tend to doubt it.
I remember reading something about Reagan aloud once that happened to touch on his supplying arms to the contras, and right when I reach that point, sure enough, the one yellow-dog Republican in the room goes “As well he should have!” with this big, beaming, idiotic grin on her face like every time Saint Ronnie comes up in conversation.
The difference between freedom fighters and roving death squads depends on their purported political ideology, Chris. Don’t you know that by now?
He is the main philosophical advocate AGAINST moral reletivism.
I KNOW!!! And Randies don’t get that!!! WTF?
I mean, goddamn, I’ve only taken a Western Civ course at a public university and I understand this basic shit. People who are supposedly well-versed in philosophy don’t get it?
Plus, you need to consider the creeping influence of Kantian Nihilism. Which is very important and smart.
The difference between freedom fighters and roving death squads depends on their purported political ideology, Chris. Don’t you know that by now?
How could I? I’m a liberal fascist. Double standards prevent me from seeing that the conservative way is the true and just one.
“Ever since Sam’s dog told me to KILL THEM ALL KILL THEM ALL I don’t listen to what dogs tell me to do.”
Listen I’ve urged you to go on a killing spree several times and you’ve never objected. Why the double standard?
Maybe the right combination of stick-and-carrot would have worked, but given how virulent the South was on the subject, I tend to doubt it.
When your answer to everything is to swing the stick, not much else motivates you. The South was dominated by the same kind of assholes that make up the GOP today. It’s about tradition, and a foot stomp and whiny declaration: “You’re not the boss of me! Nyah.”
Plus, you need to consider the creeping influence of Kantian Nihilism. Which is very important and smart.
Does that have anything to do with that redheaded chick’s oddly-shaped ass? Because if not, I don’t want to hear about it.
I vill cut off your chonson, Lewbowski.
“What I could never figure out was why the Marshall Plan didn’t make a frontspiece that all the European powers had to give up their colonies, right off the bat.”
Cuz the empires were still too influential to piss off.
The Big Five on the UN Security Council were originally supposed to be just a Big Three – USA, UK, USSR. When China was brought on board, the British govt got frightened that a US-Chinese axis would push decolonisation, so insisted that France should be included too, so that there was another voice defending imperialism.
“How much do they pay?”
If you’ll recall Pajamas Media’s recent history, they don’t. When Pajamas Media became what it is now they just unceremoniously dumped all the bloggers who had previously contributed to them.
The tendency is to think that the Right, for all it’s faults, is at least fair when it comes to making money. They aren’t. They screw over their own every time.
Well, that’s disappointing.
Besides, fatass hillbillies in the trailer park don’t have much use for carrots.
If you’ll recall Pajamas Media’s recent history, they don’t.
Ah. I don’t whore for free. I leave that to D-KW’s mom.
Well, that’s disappointing.
People I respect:
Dave Grohl
My parents
My daughters
Howard DeanBernie Sanders
…..
Ah. I don’t whore for free. I leave that to D-KW’s mom.
She doesn’t charge you??? What’s your secret?
OH I HATE THEM SO MUCH
Word.
What’s your secret?
I lick the part in my hair into place without using my hands or a comb.
OK, who put sheep in the trebuchet?
Notice they do not so much fly as plummet. One thing is for sure, the sheep is not a creature of the air.
When your answer to everything is to swing the stick, not much else motivates you. The South was dominated by the same kind of assholes that make up the GOP today. It’s about tradition, and a foot stomp and whiny declaration: “You’re not the boss of me! Nyah.”
It’s about a massive superiority complex, which no one else in the country will validate. Even the most conservative hicks outside of the South will point and laugh at how dumb and backwards the conservative hicks in the South are.
but they could be made safer for civilians.
By not making them cluster bombs? I’m not ordnance expert, but, um that stinks of appeasement right there.
Sheep do not inspire laminar flow.
The Big Five on the UN Security Council were originally supposed to be just a Big Three – USA, UK, USSR. When China was brought on board, the British govt got frightened that a US-Chinese axis would push decolonisation, so insisted that France should be included too, so that there was another voice defending imperialism.
I did not know that, thanks! Another thing I’ve often wondered is how France made it onto the Council.
Even the most conservative hicks outside of the South will point and laugh at how dumb and backwards the conservative hicks in the South are.
Hyell, a fella could even make a respectable livin’ by makin’ fun of dumbshit rednecks! YeeHaw!
“Maybe the right combination of stick-and-carrot would have worked, but given how virulent the South was on the subject, I tend to doubt it.”
We should have let Gen. Sherman make a couple more passes. That might have changed their attitude a bit.
Re; the community center…
Can’t they even take the fucking coward’s way out and call it a built in human shield against further attacks or some shit? Fuck. Howard Dean now? Where do you propose the project relocate to, Howard? Fucking asshole.
Hyell, a fella could even make a respectable livin’ by makin’ fun of dumbshit rednecks! YeeHaw!
Yer tellin’ me!
The key thing is that US cluster munitions are never, ever “improvised” cause that would make them evil and wrong and cowardly.
I lick the part in my hair into place without using my hands or a comb.
Dammit. Are there stretching exercises? I can only get to my eyeball…
N__B said:
“I lick the part in my hair into place without using my hands or a comb.”
You mean like Paul Wolfowitz?
Uh, that was me. Although it may have actually been funnier coming from Larry the Cable Guy.
Fair! WHO’S THE FUCKING NIHILIST HERE! WHAT ARE YOU, A BUNCH OF FUCKING CRYBABIES?
Where do you propose the project relocate to, Howard?
GO BACK TO MEXICO!!!!
You mean like Paul Wolfowitz?
He used both hands and a comb, so no.
“Fair! WHO’S THE FUCKING NIHILIST HERE! WHAT ARE YOU, A BUNCH OF FUCKING CRYBABIES?”
At least it’s an ethos.
You’re out of your element, Donnie.
Even the most conservative hicks outside of the South will point and laugh at how dumb and backwards the conservative hicks in the South are.
I live in a hotbed of conservative droolers here in Western Idaho (Eastern WA, officially). I routinely see confederate flags plastered all over giant trucks driven by losers decked out with Nascar gear, Wrangler jeans so tight that one would think (erroneously, sadly) would destroy their chances of reproduction, a chew-can ring worn into the back pocket, work boots out to the bar, tucked in t-shirts with logos from only the best of beers (like Budweiser). Even here, they think southerners are dumb. Pot, meet kettle.
Fuck it, Howard. For all these fucksticks, what the fuck is so difficult about the phrase “freedom of religion”? Huh? Someone tell me, because I apparently missed the fucking memo.
I always thought it was an inferiority complex.
Also, TPM has a front-page interview with Pammycakes. Yes, she trips over her own tits in an attempt to craft a lucid argument. No, I didn’t read it.
The key thing is that US cluster munitions are never, ever “improvised” cause that would make them evil and wrong and cowardly.
We use them surgically, with top notch intel on the targets. Regrettable though collateral damage is, it’s part of war. We regret any deaths or maiming that might occur. If they convert to Christianity, they’ll get their reward in the afterlife.
By not making them cluster bombs?
Well, they can start by not making them look like toys.
Well, they can start by not making them look like toys.
🙁
Yes, she trips over her own tits in an attempt to craft a lucid argument.
Those aren’t her own tits.
“they’ll get their reward in the afterlife.”
Where there will, of course, be hell to pay
It’s like my worst nightmare. The incomprehensible Kant (oh the migraines that Prussian asshole inspired as in my undergrad years) combined with unreadable neo-cons.
Why I’m voting Tea Party.
The “Obama won’t let me hunt the homeless for sport” especially cracked me up.
Doctorb said,
“Plus, you need to consider the creeping influence of Kantian Nihilism. Which is very important and smart”
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/07/my_head_she_exp.html
Great find from Hilzoy in July 06 Herr Doctor. I’m gonna quote a big chunk because it is directly on point. I mean EXACTLY on point and funny to boot.
“My Head, She Explodes!
by hilzoy
Via Lawyers, Guns, and Money, Chris Muir takes a stab at intellectual history: [go to link for cartoon if you can stand the stoopid.]
Apparently, ‘later’ in this last one used to read ‘Locke’, but someone clued Muir in to the fact that Locke was, in fact, Christian, and based his theory of property on our duties to God. But that, of course, isn’t the real howler, nor is the bizarre idea that this country was in any serious way “based on” Kant, let alone Schopenhauer, who was just one year old when the Constitution was adopted. What actually makes my head explode is this:
KANTIAN NIHILISM???!!!
Yeeeaaarghh!!!
The usual complaint about Kant is that he was too inflexible. (He thought, for instance, that if a murderer comes to the door and asks where to find the person he wants to kill, it’s wrong to lie.) To call him a nihilist, or a relativist, or someone who doesn’t believe in objective truth, is like — well, one of LG&M’s analogies is “command economy Hayekianism”. Since truth is one but error is infinite, there’s no shortage of further subjects for Chris Muir’s strips: Leninist anarchism, Kierkegaardian rationalism, Thomist atheism, Nazi Judaism, cautious and sober Maoism, Britney Spearsian profundity, Caligulan propriety and decency, Robespierrian restraint, Mozartian lugubriousness, and of course Muirian thoughtful, well-informed commentary.
Commenters at LG&M googled the phrase ‘Kantian nihilism, and found that most of the pages using it had gotten it from Ayn Rand. See, for instance, here:
“Among noted thinkers of the day, Ayn Rand alone stood firm against the tide of Kantian nihilism and in support of reason, individualism, and laissez-faire capitalism – the philosophic ideals that are the foundation of American achievement and progress. Three decades later, despite a seemingly different sociopolitical climate, the intellectual essence of the “New Left” endures. Its continued influence – manifested in such ideologies as environmentalism and multiculturalism – renders Rand’s observations and warnings as relevant, and as urgently needed, as when they were first written.”
And here:
“Another case in point was the behavior of the crowds at Woodstock (I will admit that I liked the music and the movie) which, she said, served as a definitive paradigm of Kantian Nihilism; prevalent were wild sex orgies among strangers, drug overdoses, continual wallowings in mud and feces, riotous behavior resulting in varying levels of destruction to others’ property (thus property rights), and the need for food and water by those who ended up starving and dehydrated because they did not plan ahead and consider potential troubles that could and would lie ahead, all of which, figuratively speaking, amassed one big festival of animals ready to be sacrificed to the gods of Nihilism.”
Because we all know how firmly Kant supported wild sex orgies, continual wallowings in mud and feces, and not needing food and water.
Note to Chris Muir: it’s fine not to know anything about Kant. Most of humanity doesn’t know anything about him, and that’s OK. But if you don’t know anything about him, why pretend that you do? Note to world: Ayn Rand is not a reliable guide to anything the history of philosophy. Note to self: time to go pick up those pieces of my head.”
“Metaphysics, poo!” — Wonder Wart Hog
Also: It’s entertaining! No, it’s irritating.
Chris Muir, Pipes, Peikoff and Rand are intellectual equals. Heh!
Voting Tea Party: “Obama is right-handed, just like Hitler.”
Not so. But now I’m wondering how Hilter was handed.
Go read a brief history of Oswald Mosley.
Better still, read The Code of the Woosters.
Chris Muir, Pipes, Peikoff and Rand are anti-intellectual equals. Heh!
If I may. (Note how I “ask” after I’ve done it.)
Roderick Spode, Bt, 7th Earl of Sidcup
Ruh-roh, I think Sipp E. Cupp is an heir to the Earldom.
I lick the part in my hair into place without using my hands or a comb.
Dammit. Are there stretching exercises?
It is easier when the hair is removable. Or so I hear from a friend.
“Apparently, ‘later’ in this last one used to read ‘Locke’, but someone clued Muir in to the fact that Locke was, in fact, Christian, and based his theory of property on our duties to God. ”
I take issue with this paragraph. Locke was perhaps a closet athiest but that being a hanging offense in England at the time, everyone gave lip service to God. My philosophy prof related an anectdote whereby Locke fled England to the colonies when he heard that the authorities were looking for a John Locke for heresy. Turns out it was a different John Locke. Don’t know if this story is true but a college prof told me this and he gave me a B+ in the class so I trust his judgment.
From Smut’s Wack entry:
Truer words never typed. Take your shorts, your shaved heads & your face-mullets & GET THE FUCK OFF MY LAWN BEFORE I GIVE YOU SOMETHING TO WHINE ABOUT!!!!!!
Via Brad’s new crib:
Every poll says the majority of Americans believe the proposed mosque is simply not a good idea. Nobody I know wants to violate religious freedom. Nobody wants to persecute Muslims. Nobody wants to cause trouble. What we do want is a sane country. Again, I don’t know how the far left continues to survive in the USA. And that’s the Memo.
Looks like Billo’s got some serious fatwah envy.
M. Bouffant said,
Chris Muir, Pipes, Peikoff and Rand are anti-intellectual equals. Heh!
If I may. (Note how I “ask” after I’ve done it.)
Not good enough! My lawyers will be contacting you shortly. Harumpf!
Take your shorts, your shaved heads & your face-mullets & GET THE FUCK OFF MY LAWN BEFORE I GIVE YOU SOMETHING TO WHINE ABOUT!!!!!!
I don’t have a face-mullet! My muscular calves will not be constrained by fabric.
Should have put a conjunction in there- reads like a non-sequitur.
Over at Bouffant’s new hangout Thers found someone equally cranky.
It is easier when the hair is removable. Or so I hear from a friend.
Oh, I snortlaughed. Or laughsnorted. Depending on how you look at it.
Let’s just say I guffawed, okay?
Speaking of Ray Bradbury, have you guys seen this? I can’t decide if it’s funny or not, but that chick has a nice rack.
Another (literally) cranky feller, spotted by J.C. at B.J.
What the fuck is a face mullet?
Saw that, T&U, but was put off by their pronouncing Bradbury as “Brad-berry.” Cretins.
I believe it is funny, yet I am puzzled by her judgment.
But SCI-FI, ha ha Bradbury you’ve been burned.
M., Thers is still letting you post over there? That’s mighty thoughty of him…
Sadly, No! » Police Blotter
Aug 9, 2007 … Perhaps it should henceforth be known as the Wingnut Face Mullet. …. In the case of the wingnut face mullet, the hair *is* growing around …
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/6699.html – Cached – Similar
Will not be arsed to search the comment itself.
Saw that, T&U, but was put off by their pronouncing Bradbury as “Brad-berry.” Cretins.
Oh, god, I thought the same thing. Am I an Official Nerd?
If she’d pronounced it properly she’d have had to rhyme it with “furry” and nobody wants that.
Gotcha re: face mullet.
More importantly, I waaaaaaaaaay overcooked my gf pasta and it may be the most disgusting thing on the planet. Like eating paste. I’d rather order a pizza and be in pain and hivey for three days.
But SCI-FI, ha ha Bradbury you’ve been burned.
I noticed that, too. I was like, “Hmmm, I don’t think she’s *actually* a Bradbury fan!”
She should have wanted to fuck Thomas Pynchon so she’d have to imagine what he looks like.
That’s mighty thoughty of him…
Or he forgot, as I suggested:
Guess he lets almost anyone use the place; there are several other typists, but they’re probably constrained from non-stop spewing by jobs, lives, families, outside interests & other sad bourgeois affectations, none of which curse me.
Still confused & amazed by the whole thing., but it proves what Stu Boy King said so many yrs. ago: “For me, quantity is quality!”
Eh, oui. I sure deed zat theeng.
Eh, Steve!
, I waaaaaaaaaay overcooked my gf pasta and it may be the most disgusting thing on the planet
Melt some cheese in water then pour the resultant mess over the pasta. I heard right here on Sadly, No! that this is a delicious recipe! (BTW, “gf” pasta? I can haz longhand plz?)
I’m late to the party but I must comment. I once had an online wingnut explain near me (not to me, just near me; I was lurking, as I often do) the problem with Kant. What it boils down to is that he thought that in order to act morally, people sometimes had obligations to help others. Since A is A, that means he wanted everybody to be a slave of the state. Or something. The wingnut in question was asked repeatedly if he acknowledged that people at least had an obligation to feed their own children. To date, to the best of my knowledge, the wingnut has not responded to this question.
On Daniel (crack) Pipes…well, let’s say his argument makes the objectivist bullshit above look like an ironclad argument. It’s just a big giant strawman argument, with no relation to the cognition of any human who has ever lived, except possibly Daniel (crack) Pipes.
Or he forgot, as I suggested:
I saw that, but assumed you were being falsely modest.
“GF”=”gluten free.” It’s already bad enough as it is.
Am I an Official Nerd?
Not unless I am, & I like to think of myself as more of an informed-by-50+-yrs.-of-memory & entirely too much reading misanthrope (I don’t know where people get this crank thing, I’m not angry about anything that doesn’t deserve my ire. Thanks, McG.!) than nerd or geek.
The current Bouffant masthead:
She should have wanted to fuck Thomas Pynchon so she’d have to imagine what he looks like.
I thought I had a CNN clip that alleges to show T.P. walking on a street (w/ many other people) in NYC. He isn’t singled out, but I had a suspicion.
Con’t find it in the web log though.
The current Bouffant masthead:
Does it make you a crank if it’s the truth?
Hey, stole that quote from someone here (who no doubt stole it from H.L. Mencken or whomever).
The Truth is not cranky!
Actually, I think that quote is originally attributed to Jesus.
Thank you, T&U.
Am I cranky because I resent people who can type?
Am I cranky because I resent people who can type?
Maybe, but I only think that because I fall into that category.
Actually, I think that quote is originally attributed to Jesus.
I know I’ve heard (and seen) George Carlin say it, but he might have stolen it from H.L. Mencken or Jesus, too.
Front page fuck count, Bouffant?
Maybe. Maybe not. Probably.
Guess who twitted this:
And this:
Dr.Laura=even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles, so watch out Constitutional obstructionists. And b thankful 4 her voice,America!
Oh, god, I can even hear it in her obnoxious fucking voice.
Guess who twitted this:
Mulkin?
2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence
What the fuck is this shit?!
Merkin?
I keep saying this all over social media, but DAMN the cicadas are LOUD this year.
It can’t be. Yet it must be. I’m not even going to check.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38744453?GT1=43001
It’s official; the Iraq war is over.
CNN has been violating my First Amendment rights for nearly 38 years. But do you see Sarah Palin tweeting about me? NOOOOOO. That’s because she’s a reverse-sexist who hates white people. Especially Canadians.
Back to the Palin-drone.
~
2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence
What the fuck is this shit?!
Wasn’t that an MC Hammer song?
Men’s underwear?
It’s official; the Iraq war is over.
Depends on how you define “war.”
Mackerel of fads.
Depends on how you define “war.”
And “over”.
And “is”.
It can’t be. Yet it must be. I’m not even going to check.
There are things we were not meant to know.
Depends on how you define “war.”
And “over”.
And “is”.
Hell, let’s throw in “Iraq” while we’re at it…
Depends on how you define “war.”
True; if a lot of the observers are right, it’s going to get worse. (Hell, it’s been getting quietly worse for a while now).
But American combat involvement in the war is over, according to this, which is a hell of a milestone. Let’s pray to God the Iraqis somehow manage to keep it together.
Annals of Great Ideas:
As the United States military prepares to leave Iraq by the end of 2011, the Obama administration is planning a remarkable civilian effort, buttressed by a small army of contractors, to fill the void.
Please tell me that doesn’t mean Blackwater & co.
They’re still fucking things up in Afghanistan, hence Karzai’s recent request that we rein them in or get rid of them.
To protect the civilians…
Protecting the civilians with mercenaries?
Are they going to do that by killing the civies before “Al Qaeda” can get to them?
~
M. Bouffant said,
August 19, 2010 at 2:56
I’m sorry, what? I couldn’t get past “annals” and “pullout.”
Mackerel of fads.I believe that should be “Cackle of fads.”
Verbs, how the fuck do they work?
Yeah, re the whole “cackle of rads” bit:
Did anybody of me think about the “Rad Lords” from The Difference Engine?
Wingnuts hating Kant?
Srsly?
“Categorical Imperative” Kant? The same guy who put up possibly the best reasoned defense of religion in modern times? Stodgy old “pay no attention to these newfangled pragmatist & utilitarian whippersnappers” Kant? THAT Kant?
Odd … I mean, his name doesn’t even sound Arabic.
AHA!
Verbs, how the fuck do they work?
thus!
jim:
No, but given the actual value of the short “a” in German, it sounds a lot like something else. But, as usual, warmth, depth….
you liberals have still not faced facts or addressed my points or engaged me in debate, just childish, fact free insults that are biased toward the hard left. Which is why Most Americans think you are all dumb and Obsama will be impeeched next year when the Tea Party runs things!
Which is why Most Americans think you are all dumb and Obsama will be impeeched next year when the Tea Party runs things!
First of all, Steve, I strongly doubt that “Most Americans” give one single solitary shit what anybody on Sadly, No! says, despite the brilliance of its many commenters. Incidentally, I am absolutely certain that nobody, including the people of Sadly, No!, gives a shit what you say.
Second of all…For fuck’s sake, dude, it is a cardinal rule of the Internet that if you are planning to call somebody else “dumb”, USE YOUR FUCKING SPELLCHECK. The word is I-M-P-E-A-C-H. You’re welcome.
even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles, so watch out Constitutional obstructionists
Constitutional obstructionists??!?!? Does she know what either of those words mean?
But seriously, who’s going to stand in Dr. Laura’s way now that she can talk like a small-town southern sheriff from the 50’s whenever she wants without some microphone picking it up? She’s like Captain Marvel. She just says that magic word and it transforms her into some kind of unstoppable racist superhero. Shazam!
I strongly doubt that “Most Americans” give one single solitary shit what anybody on Sadly, No! says, despite the brilliance of its many commenters.
Come the revolution, Comrade, all Americans will give large and multiple shits about what we say on Sadly, No!
Sarah Palin’s just kicking it old school with the textspeak, like Shakespeare:
Textspeak explaining what Palin’s think about while she speaks:
%===> O
“Palin’s fans” too.
Come the revolution, Comrade, all Americans will give large and multiple shits about what we say on Sadly, No!
Um, that’s okay. You can have my share.
Percent is very equal to greater than zero? Is this some sort of engineer math? I don’t get it.
Percent is very equal to greater than zero? Is this some sort of engineer math? I don’t get it.
It’s a picture. Of two portions of anatomy.
Textspeak explaining what Palin’s think about while she speaks:
CDB? CDC! C Russia!
It’s a picture. Of two portions of anatomy.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/awesomer/3-invisible-dicks
Thank you, AG. I was afraid I was going to have to explain what it feels like to have blue percentages.
*sigh*
It was a joke. So literal sometimes, you people.
It was a joke. So literal sometimes, you people.
We assumed you are an innocent flower, still a virgin because of your husband’s great respect for you.
I bet you wouldn’t have the sack to watch them if I did….would you?>
Well, a) I don’t have any “sack” to speak of, so I guess not, and b) I, unlike you, don’t fap to human suffering and cruelty, so I’d rather avoid watching it if I can.
We assumed you are an innocent flower, still a virgin because of your husband’s great respect for you.
I guffawed so loudly I woke the cat up, which is difficult to do. She was snoring.
I don’t have any “sack” to speak of
Seeeeexeeeee.
I know, right?
My lack of sack brings all the boyz to the yard…
Meanwhile, I’m sitting around waiting to see if the Goog cube-monkey reinstates my blog so I can copy the content to WP.
maybe you knew on September 12th, but had forgotten.
I really wish you assholes would stop invoking my birthday like that. I really don’t want to have to change it. It’s a nice, round number in a lovely month. Plus, I am *such* a Virgo.
N__B, I just need to go to sleep.
I think a move to WP is wise. You can do a lot more with WP, too.
I am *such* a Virgo.
Ahem
So, my lieutenant governor tweets:
“Let’s name names on #DeathPanels : #FDA ‘s #WyndhamWilson and #RichardPazdur , FDA cancer chief. Can u name others? (Cont.) #HCRFallout #”
“RT @gerfingerpoken: @PeterKinder IBD – #DeathPanels Begin – #Berwick, #FDA and #Medicare to ration breast and (cont)”
(Berwick is a FUCKING GOD in the healthcare improvement community, btw, and this shit is patently ridiculous).
“More #DeathPanel members: #NatalieCompagniPortis and #JeanGrem . — via #Instapundit , HT Ann Althouse #HCRFallout #tcot #pdk”
Dude has even made up his own trending topic with his initials.
Ahem
Totally different!
And, really, I’m kind of a slob, so that may be a lie.
Why is Peter Kinder wasting my tax dollars lollygagging on the twitter machine?
Also, I’m totally for rationing breasts. I feel like I’ve never gotten my fair share.
Why is Peter Kinder wasting my tax dollars lollygagging on the twitter machine?
Oh, dude, his tweets are fucking classic. And they fill me with RAGE.
I mean, I waste tax dollars lollygagging on the twitter machine, too, but I don’t get paid that much.
Al Franken claims to be opposed to astral monster detainment but what about that astral monster sandwich I saw at Big Hollywood?
Barbra Streisand claims to be opposed to brine shrimp consumption but what about that brine shrimp-burning Hummer in those emails the university was hiding?
Joe Biden claims to be opposed to giant oyster worship but what about that giant oyster-burning Hummer mentioned in the vault copy?
Harry Reid claims to be opposed to giant death watch beetle fuel but what about that giant death watch beetle haircut in those emails the university was hiding?
Al Gore claims to be opposed to werespider fuel but what about that werespider mistress I saw on the Drudge site?
Chris Dodd claims to be opposed to radiant spirit consumption but what about that radiant spirit sandwich in those emails the university was hiding?
Al Franken claims to be opposed to giant sea bass worship but what about that giant sea bass mistress I saw at Big Hollywood?
Needs work.
Hey, that’s handy.
what about that werespider mistress I saw on the Drudge site?
Well, even Ann Coulter’s gotta work somewhere.
Famous people from Cape Girardeau:
Peter Kinder
Fatass Limbaugh
Chic Hecht
Some army guy who led the WMD search and supports DADT
Sheesh. Poor town.
Aug 9, 2007 … Perhaps it should henceforth be known as the Wingnut Face Mullet. …. In the case of the wingnut face mullet, the hair *is* growing around …
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/6699.html – Cached – Similar
Sadly, I’ve only recently come into compliance with the no-face-mullet rule. I feel strangely liberated and far less douchey.
Well, even Ann Coulter’s gotta work somewhere.
Form model for the new Teabagger Barbie version, Tranny Teabagger Barbie. She can’t talk so much with a big boner and her mouth full of teabag.
Religion of Peace? said,
August 19, 2010 at 5:11
Go fuck yourself you stupid asshole. How about if we hold all Christians accountable for child raping priests? Religion of Christ? I don’t think so, stupid. Shut the fuck up, idiot. Every religion has an insane element within it.
i braked the thred.
Why is Al Gore wasting my tax dollars sailing spider wyrmlings inside a federal sphere?
Al Franken claims to be opposed to dusky shark abuse but what about that dusky shark haircut I saw at Big Hollywood?
Barack Hussein Obama claims to be opposed to spectral troll fuel but what about that spectral troll-burning Hummer found after that guy killed himself?
Why is Chris Dodd wasting my tax dollars answering flamescorched kobolds over a federal recorder?
Why is Al Franken wasting my tax dollars identifying lesser wights under a federal policeman’s helmet?
Why is Bill Clinton wasting my tax dollars spotting manifestations of evils over a federal chair?
Barbra Streisand claims to be opposed to wild stag detainment but what about that wild stag mistress I saw at Big Hollywood?
“Religion of Peace’s” secret sex fantasy photos.
http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444
http://middleeast.about.com/od/iraq/tp/abu-ghraib-complete-guide.htm
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/multimedia/2008/02/gallery_abu_ghraib
Well tsam, just because someone has the “right” to do something doesn’t mean that they ought to. [See Kant’s categorical imperitive] For example, Catholics can build a church near a playground but it doesn’t mean they should. It’s too soon!
above joke courtesy of the Daily Show. I aint no joke stealer.
I really wish you assholes would stop invoking my birthday like that. I really don’t want to have to change it. It’s a nice, round number in a lovely month. Plus, I am *such* a Virgo.
Hey, I’m Sept 13. And I’m a bigger Virgo than you. Nyah!
Watch the videos, then ask yourself if this is the kind of religion we want practicing near Ground Zero?
You mean the same religion that immediately condemned the attackers on 9/11 as apostate murderers who just punched their “Stay Out Of Heaven Forever” cards? The one that constantly damns terrorism in the name of Islam as both barbaric & sinful? The religion that worships exactly the same God Of Abraham that Jews & Christians worship under different names?
PROTIP: the guy trying to set up the “mosque” in Manhattan is a Sufi, & folks like Bin Laden hate Sufis at least as much as they hate everyone else. Not to mention the vast majority of victims of “Islamic” terrorism being, yep, real Muslims. All the “MUSLIN FACES OF DETH” video-nasties it takes to pave hell will never change that.
PROTIP JUNIOR: Your butthurt, no matter how acute, does not have legal merit. The US Constitution is clear as a bell – it doesn’t fucking matter worth a wet fart in a wind-tunnel when OR where you want anyone practicing ANY religion. If it’s on their own property, you have the right to keep baaaawing like a heartbroken schoolgirl, & THAT IS ALL. America’s very existence is due to the Puritans’ & others’ desire for the exact same liberty you’re chomping at the bit to desecrate … damn – talk about spitting on the flag.
Well, even Ann Coulter’s gotta work somewhere.
Plenty of wide-open streetcorners are available, 24/7.
Ann “Skeletor Is My Role-Model” Coulter hasn’t “worked” since she was lawyer-whoring for Ken Starr back in the 90s.
Yes Saint Jim, Bin Laden hates the Sufis a hell of a lot more than he hates us. We are infidels, they are apostates in his eyes which are much worse.
Ignorant trolls please consult google or dictionary.com for defenitions.
The religion that worships exactly the same God Of Abraham that Jews & Christians worship under different names?
Unless the Jews and Christians are also Arabs, in which case not even the name distinction applies.
If it’s on their own property, you have the right to keep baaaawing like a heartbroken schoolgirl, & THAT IS ALL.
And because that is all, damned if they aren’t going to exercise it till hell freezes over, or till Glenn Beck reads them the next chapter in the Protocols of the Elders of Mecca thus giving them a new focus for their butthurt, whichever comes first.
“Abu Gharaib looks like cheap fraternity hijinx compared to the videos I posted.”
I figured you belonged to that type of fraternity. Were you a bottom or a top?
There is NO moral equivalence between the West and the radical Islamic jihadists we are fighting. NONE.
Correct.
9/11 = 3,000 dead, give or take. Iraq war = 1,000,000 dead, give or take, and still climbing. And the latter was undertaken with the approval and cheers of an entire nation, while the former was plotted by a handful of men in a cave.
“Cheap fraternity hijinx”: Straight (so to speak) from Rush’s anus, to your mouth, and regurgitated on to this thread. I find you kind of gross and this is a family blog no less!!
Speaking of Ray Bradbury, have you guys seen this? I can’t decide if it’s funny or not, but that chick has a nice rack.
By the thumbing of my prick, something wicked comes here quick.
“Cheap fraternity hijinx”: Straight (so to speak) from Rush’s anus, to your mouth, and regurgitated on to this thread. I find you kind of gross and this is a family blog no less!!
Hell, even his fucking name is that of a right wing website. A parrot to end all parrots, ROP.
Worse of all derivitive, unimaginative and boring: Have you ever had an original thought in your life R.O.P?
you liberals have still not faced facts or addressed my points or engaged me in debate, just childish, fact free insults that are biased toward the hard left. Which is why Most Americans think you are all dumb and Obsama will be impeeched next year when the Tea Party runs things!
1) Ok, the admonishment to face facts, coming from a complete dope like you, is actually pretty funny. Around here, we offer martini’s for a darn good zinger such as that. You’re not getting one.
2) In order to address a point, an actual valid point must first be presented. Your fact free and stupid sockpuppet theater is not giving us much to deal with here. Even if you had a valid point, your admonishment to face facts, when you have no facts, doesn’t do a good job of inviting discussion, now, does it?
3) Most Americans? You mind telling me how you arrived at this figure, “most” meaning more than half? I think you pulled that right out of your fist enhanced asshole. Am I right or am I right? No, you still can’t have that martini.
4) The Teabag Party will be running exactly nothing next year. That’s a fact I can face, since you’re so concerned about what I’m facing. I’m going to do you great big super favor and explain an actual fact to you. Impeachment (please take note of the correct spelling) requires the approval of the majority of the House and conviction by trial in the Senate. (that’s a super majority in the Senate, by the way–67 votes) Only 1/3 of the Senate is up for election. Do you have 218 teabagger candidates running for the House? Do you think you have a chance of getting more than a handful of new teabaggers elected? Sadly, No!
Again, if you’d like to debate some sort of point, please feel free to present one. I’ll warn you however, the community center argument is a dead loser for you. Your own land-use crying since the Reagan days pretty much dismantle your own argument. Then there’s that pesky First Amendment with it’s stupid free practice clause that humps the corpse long into that cold cold night…
Tro-lo-lo-lo-lo, I bet if I posted some videos about Sufism, you wouldn’t have the stones to watch them…would you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81ugp2lVX4M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHu4FKeC6I0
Extremist Muslims *hate* the Sufis. They don’t think they’re “real Muslims” because they basically just dance and party instead of doing boring church stuff and advocating killing people.
Well tsam, just because someone has the “right” to do something doesn’t mean that they ought to. [See Kant’s categorical imperitive] For example, Catholics can build a church near a playground but it doesn’t mean they should. It’s too soon!
Aside from Back in Black, this was the best Daily Show piece I’ve seen in a long time. I was laughing so hard I nearly split my side. That would have required medical treatment.
People who don’t want to change the constitution to hate on brown people are dangerous radicals who hate America. People who do want to change what has been the law of the land for 235 years are good conservatives who love America.
Are we really to believe Muslims were outraged by black hoods and nudie pryamids in a part of the world where beheading and stoning is common place? Nothing more than crocodile tears for gullible, useful idiots in the west.
Commonplace? I think you should stop using comic books for cultural reference. It is not, in fact, commonplace. Even IF it were commonplace, that doesn’t justify a nation that claims to value ideals of freedom and justice to treat people in such a shameful way–you know, the way a fucking mentally ill dictator would treat his political enemies.
Beheading, lethal injection, firing squad, hanging, gas chamber…kindly explain what the difference between any of these forms of killing is.
There is NO moral equivalence between the West and the radical Islamic jihadists we are fighting. NONE.
Which jihadist is trying to open a community center in NYC?
R.I.P., R.O.P.
By the thumbing of my prick, something wicked comes here quick.
HA!
There is NO moral equivalence between the West and the radical Islamic jihadists we are fighting. NONE.
Addendum: that’s not much of a comparison, is it? The West is a culture encompassing hundreds of millions of human beings, with a civilization going back several thousand years. Islamic jihadists are a modern political movement, made up of a limited number of people acting on a specific and restricted ideology.
It’s like saying “there is no moral equivalence between Australia and the Ku Klux Klan.” Well, maybe not, but there’s not usually much equivalence between apples and oranges.
If you’re just comparing the two sides of the war and how each side has fought, which is what I assume you meant, then you’re still on shaky ground at the very least. But either way, your phraseology sucks.
Hanx to Doctorb in comments for reminding us of this classic.
Late, but holy haddock, that comment thread was epic while it lasted…
“It’s like saying “there is no moral equivalence between Australia and the Ku Klux Klan.” ”
Oh, I dunno.
I think ROP had to leave. Fraternity hijinx event or something.
I think ROP had to leave. Fraternity hijinx event or something.
You suppose these trolls, AChance, Gary, Steve and ROP might all be the same 15 year old, pasty white kid spraying this shit out between levels of Warcraft?
T. Sam, I ‘d guess yes, or maybe two of them, otherwise friendless. It’s also possible he/they/it are 35-yr. olds.
Just isn’t worth responding, not a one of them have anything but recycled bullshit.
Maybe if it’s pointed out how they’re recycling (like dirty fucking hippies) rather than using their Galtian genius to create new wealth (or just stupider claims & ideas) they’ll stop.
otherwise friendless. It’s also possible he/they/it are 35-yr. olds.
I am given to understand that friendlessness is a condition that can linger until well into one’s 50s.
Angry Geometer, I just clicked your links. Very enlightening and I think it proves the anti-Sufi Cultural Center people are ignorant, but I guess we already knew that.
Are you a newbie?
Were you a bottom or a top?
Given the level of butthurt, I’d say an unlubed bottom.
Whitehead and Hegel and Russell and Kant,
Maybe I shall and maybe I shan’t;
Maybe I shan’t and maybe I shall,
Kant, Russell, Whitehead, Hegel, et al.
from Frederick Winsor’s masterful “A Space Child’s Mother Goose.”
I should post some videos about what radical Islamists do, do you want to see them, liberals?
Wehn you get a chance, could you post some Skinhead videos? How about some Klansmen? Those would be the moral equivalent of the terrorists you’re on about.
And Whitesnake! Post some Whitesnake videos. Now that is an outrage!
I should post some videos about what radical Islamists do, do you want to see them, liberals?
Say what you will about radical Islamists, at least they would never form Creed.
I haz a sad – nobody has dragged Monty Python into this
Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable.
Heideggar, Heideggar was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel.
And Whittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.
There’s nothing Nieizsche couldn’t teach ‘ya ’bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.
John Stewart Mill, of his own free will, after half a pint of shanty was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day!
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
And Hobbes was fond of his Dram.
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
“I drink, therefore I am.”
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he’s pissed.
See comment #1.
By the thumbing of my prick, something wicked comes here quick.
Something sticky this way comes.
Wehn you get a chance, could you post some Skinhead videos? How about some Klansmen? Those would be the moral equivalent of the terrorists you’re on about.
Operation Rescue et al, too.
Having seen Dr. Laura in a dog collar, I think she’d be reasonably effective in shackles. Or some sort of leather restraints, or whatever. The important thing is: ball gag.
Also too, no awful spelling errors were in that (I’m 4giving the txt abrvs and ignoring the question of what a “Constitutional obstructionist” is), even with the big words. I guess that after the whole thing with “refudiate” someone else is typing in her twits for her.
So … we even yet?
Immanuel Kant is a phil-oso-pher? But he doesn’t have an “S” in his name?
Sorry this is late, computer boo boo at the last second last night.
ARRGH! Moose-o-lini is using quotation marks for “emphasis.” Sometimes I wonder if she has handlers and consultants who dummy up her prose for her, based on demographics and market research, and then I think, NAAWWWWWW.
Constitutional obstructionists, are they anything like 5th Amendment Communists? I’ve always called it the Nice China Theory of Constitutional Rights. The Sam the American Eagle crowd always loves to bellow about how we in Amurrica have FREEDOM, unlike those people in (insert this week’s hate-week country), but these are the same people who get mad when anybody uses the actual freedoms on the books. Don’t eat dinner on that fine china plate! Keep it in the cupboard behind glass. Isn’t it nice to look at and know that it’s there? Just don’t use it. Eat off a paper plate in the TV room for now.
T&U wrote:
“(Berwick is a FUCKING GOD in the healthcare improvement community, btw, and this shit is patently ridiculous).”
Then, T&U, that’s exactly why they’re making shit up about this person. Maybe they don’t like healthcare improvement? That’s one thing that irks me during things like the healthcare debate — the presumption by MSM namby pambies that everybody is pulling on the rope in the same direction, like everybody agrees that all Americans should have access to health care and good health care when they get access to it, and just have different ideas about how to get there. It’s just not true. Some people are pulling on the rope in the opposite direction. Some people really do want other people to suffer. Some people really do like war.
And some people are further right than “conservative”, and some Randroids are anarchists.
“You must agree that, in the realm of reason, there can be no proof of God’s existence.”
“Bravo!” cried the foreigner. “Bravo! These are exactly the words of the restless old Immanuel on this subject. But curiously enough, he demolished all five arguments and then. as if to mock himself, constructed his own sixth one.”
“Kant’s argument,” the educated editor countered with a subtle smile, “is equally unconvincing. No wonder Schiller said that only slaves could find Kant’s reasoning on this subject satisfactory. And Strauss simply laughed at his proof.”
As Berlioz spoke, he thought to himself, “But still, who is he? And why does he speak Russian so well?”
“This Kant ought to be sent to Solovki for three years for such arguments!” Ivan Nikolayevich burst out suddenly.
“Ivan!” Berliox whispered with embarassment.
But the suggestion that Kant be sent to Solovlki not only did not shock the foreigner, but pleased him immensely.
“Exactly, exactly,” he cried, and his green left eye, turned to Berlioz, glittered. “That’s just the place for him. I told him that day at breakfast, ‘Say what you will, Professor, but you have thought up something that makes no sense. It may be clever, but it’s altogether too abstruse. People will laugh at you.'”
Berlioz gaped at him. “At breakfast? … Told Kant? … What is he babbling about?” he wondered.
“No,” continued the stranger, undeterred by the editor’s astonishment and addressing the poet, “It is impossible to send him to Solovki for the simple reason for the simple reason that he has resided for the past hundred-odd years in places considerably more remote than Solovki, and, I assure you, it is quite impossible to get him out of there.”
from. Mikhail Bulgakov, M. Ginsburg (trans.), “The Master and Margarita,” Chapter One, ‘Never Talk to Strangers’