Jim Wallis, Sojourners editor and evangelical progressive, has rightly characterized Republican plans to dismantle the filibuster as “a declaration of religious war.” But the central issue in this war between the Christian right and the rest of America is not the ultimate confirmation of a handful of reactionary judges. What’s at stake is ownership of the U.S. Constitution: Who controls… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (221)Two typos in my comments above:
MLK’s speech was on April 4, 1967, not 1976.
Arabisn should be Arabian.
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 19, 2005 at 9:54 AM Folks, on a much more important note than trying
to reason with the Maggies of this world, did
anyone see George Galloway kick Norm Coleman’s
ass yesterday in that Senate hearing ?
It was great ! And oh, the Demo Party Hack and
fellow Zionist Levin of Michigan (about two blocks
from where I live in South Bend)tried to protect
Norm’s tush but failed miserably.
No, these particular “Jews” didn’t win but came
out smelling like excrement.
Galloway got booted out of Tory Blair’s UnLabor
Party for his opposition to Tory’s illegal war
and generally stupid Mideast policies.
Wish we had some politicians like him here.
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 19, 2005 at 10:27 AM Barnes or??
Your use of insults and gutter vocabulary identify you as being a very small minded, arrogant piece of trash.
That attitude makes you wrong even when you are right.
Why would a person want to create such an undesirable picture of themself?
What would motivate a person to become a social quadraplegic?
Why don’t you clean up your act so people can communicate with you instead of regarding you as an undesirable?
Posted by Rich Warren on May 19, 2005 at 10:40 AM Rich,
Have you been drinking ? I had thought you might
be intelligent from your last response to me but
I presumed too much.
I was very appropriately replying to Margaret’s
insults and spurious nonarguments.
Excrement is not gutter language , it’s a physical fact.
I have never used profanity here, so your comments
are just off the wall and since you have never
bothered to censure Margaret for her slanders of
calling critics of Israel’s fascist-nazi policies
“anti-semitic” or her frequent anti-Arab & anti-
Asian racism, then spare your phony hypocritical
moralizing !!!!!
Who the hell do you think you are ?
Are you honestly so utterly demented that you think anyone would take seriously your extreme
double-standards as a point of departure ????
And I’m so sorry, prissy little “man” if I’ve
upset your decorum.
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 19, 2005 at 11:05 AM Now, back to the issues, let’s see if anyone here
can deal with the points I have raised here this morning.
Not only is substance over style any day but the
sad little Richies & Maggies on this board have
no style either.
So stop evading the issues, and start using your
reasoning powers.
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 19, 2005 at 11:08 AM Richie, where are you, dudess ? Still hiding under
that rock ?
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 19, 2005 at 3:49 PM Jack Barnes,
Lenny Bruce once said something like, “No matter how good my argument is with you, if I pick my nose, I am going to lose the debate.” You have been figuratively picking your nose since you entered this discussion. Although you once decried the fact that not many people were posting in this discussion, it apparently never occurred to you that you were the reason why: You seem overly impressed with what I gather you take to be your own cleverness, and frankly, you’re boring. I can’t read more than a line or two into one of your diatribes without my eyes glazing over. You actually have a thing or two of substance to say, but it hardly seems worth the effort to wade through the excrement to extract whatever pearls might be hidden there.
Even you can’t believe, at bottom, that your brand of mindless ad-hominem vitriol is of interest to anyone but you or that it is persuasive. I don’t know if you think it is intimidating (it’s not) or clever (ditto); what it is, is predictable and boring.
I have heretofore stayed out of the back and forth between you and Margaret, and now you and Rich, because I could tell there was no point: You seem much less concerned with engaging in debate than with scoring insult points. Who cares? The purpose, it seems to me, of these posting opportunities (or better, the opportunity they present) is to teach and learn, not to wallow in the virtual sound of your own virtual voice. That, frankly, is a waste of the technology and everyone’s time, including your own.And just to get to a specific point you made earlier: I hardly think Bin Laden’s willingness to take American money and munitions in order to drive the Russian invaders from Afghanistan makes him “pro-American,” just opportunistic; he would today take Russian money to drive us from Iraq. Several commentators who have spent a lot more time studying Bin Laden than you or I have (including some Arab writers) have made the same point, placing it within a context of the longer timeframe of Bin Laden’s vision and ambition. There is no doubt our policies have exacerbated his hostility, but I think Al Qaeda would be functioning in much the same way without our presence in Saudi Arabia and alliance with Israel.
Posted by Mitch on May 19, 2005 at 5:18 PM Mitch
Thanks, but I’ve decided he is a sick cookie who will always make an ass of himself so he can be the center of attention. That’s sad since he does bring up a topic worthy of discussion now and then.
Back to the filibuster: I don’t much like the nuclear option label since Bush is providing us with a real nuclear problem.
Now the Democrats are trying to cut a deal that more or less says, “we won’t use the filibuster if you don’t take it away from us”. They have enough Republican support to out vote the Bush puppets but still act like wimps.
They need to accept the challenge and win a decisive battle. Criminals cut deals and it’s not a good impression to make with the voters.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 19, 2005 at 6:33 PM Mitch,
Frankly I really don’t accept Miss Manners lessons from the people I’ve engaged here. I’m satisfied that I’ve made points and that I have referred to sources so people can further check out what I post. You should spare other people your unsolicited advise so as not to find out the
exact worth of it to others. I’m embarrassed
for you that you have to resort to juvenile
tactics such as this.
The difference between us is that I never let
a personal characterization stand by itself.
I always give reasons for concluding that someone
is an ass, such as yourself for instance.
Bin Laden was and is anti-Communist, that has never changed, he would never take Communist
money to use against Islam nor did he ever take
Communist money to use against the West.
It is obvious to everyone in the whole world
except a very small group of US Likudnik nuts
like you that the US support of Israel has been
the motivating force driving Arab fundamentalism
now as it did Arab Nationalism in the 50s and 60s. Mecca is the holiest spot in Islam and if
you can’t see the connection between the US
stationing troops on what they regard as sacred
Saudi soil and the growth of Al Queda then your
prefrontal lobotomy has been successful beyond
all expectations.
Bin Laden has never had any plans for world conquest and no Arab commentator not on the CIA
payroll has ever so claimed that he has.
If you can’t see the obvious cause and effect here,little man, I feel sorry for you.
Please, Mitchie, no more butt dumps in public.
Rich, again you are reduced to personal ad hominems because you can’t deal with the issues.
Sad little fellow but must the rest of us have
to suffer your personal problems in living ?
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 20, 2005 at 9:29 AM QED, Little Jackie: you just can’t listen, as you are too fascinated with the sound of your own rant. I wasn’t talking about manners, just effectiveness. I didn’t say US actions had no effect on Bin Laden, just that it wasn’t necesarily the primary motivation. The truest thing you said in your last post was, “I’m satisfied...” And, as is true of most American Leftists, you will have to learn to be satisfied with sound of your own voice and being on the outskirts of power, because neither your values nor your style have much appeal, and your perceptions and beliefs are generally askew from reality. So long.
Posted by Mitch on May 20, 2005 at 10:24 AM Thanks, Mitch, for the dimestore psychoanalysis
and the great prophetic insight.
Please send the bill for a dime for your services.
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 20, 2005 at 10:57 AM I guess Jack Barnes finally couldn’t get his fist out of his ass fast enough to type anymore. Hallelujah!
Posted by Margaret on May 22, 2005 at 4:08 PM Margaret,
Looks like Tuesday is the day we see who’s interested in supporting America and who has more sinister desires.
I kind of think some of the Republicans will do the right thing. I kope there’s enough of them to overcome the two democrates who support Bush.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 22, 2005 at 5:30 PM Oh, Margaret, you emerged again from your rathole.
How lovely ! I didn’t know you were into fistfrigging.
Rich, who are the two democrates ? Is this a new
third party ?
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 23, 2005 at 9:20 AM Rich,
Here’s an interesting link about Cheney (the real “man behind the curtain"-that was confirmed for me last week when the Secret Service left GWB out in the cold during the Capitol evacuation, but rushed Cheney into the bunker)and his dictatorial aspirations.
I hadn’t heard of any Dems voting for the “nuclear option”. I was in on a phone conference with Senator Harry Reid last week and he stated they had 100% assurance of a Democratic block on that vote. What did you read and where to suggest otherwise? Let me know.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address s=104x3705274
Posted by Margaret on May 23, 2005 at 9:44 AM Margaret,
Hope you didn’t just figure out that Cheney is
the brains behind Bush !!! Everyone else has
known this for five years..................
On wavering Dems, Nelson of Nebraska and Nelson
of Florida vote more conservative than not.
Landrieu of Louisiana is another rightist Dem.
There are at least two others who names escape
me at the moment that I’d put in the wavering
Dem category.
Next time you talk with Harry, ask him how come he represented that sleazy Commie Hank Greenspun
of that Las Vegas rag for many years ?
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 23, 2005 at 1:54 PM Lieberman (sp) and a Bush supporter from one of the Carolinas, or somewhere around there, are the two I had in mind.
Nelson of florida also kisses up quite a bit.Cheny is the corporate president, Rumdum is the war president, Bush is the “Christian Crusader” and Rove is the brain and mouth.
Rice spends a lot of time at “the ranch”.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 23, 2005 at 2:10 PM Margaret
Tell Harry Reid to suggest that the Democrats take lessons from George Galloway (British MP).
That man has a mouth like a chin saw and really knows how to use it.
Americans want a leader with convictions and guts instead of a big “0” like Kerry.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 23, 2005 at 2:26 PM For once, I agree with Rich.
Galloway was fantastic, heard he even decked
Hitchens ! Great !
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 23, 2005 at 4:09 PM Couldn’t agree more with you, Rich. Have made that opinion know several times before, and am now kavetching about Hillary as the ‘08 candidate.
Posted by Margaret on May 23, 2005 at 5:40 PM Well they made a deal - A deal to sit back and watch the house burn rather than fight for what they believe in.
Deal cutting has destroyed the integrity of our congress and that is what should be outlawed.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 23, 2005 at 7:22 PM This is sickening. It’s hard to watch your country fall over the precipice. All the Libertarians and neocons will be well-pleased that corporations will always win, the average-Joe will always lose, girls will be forced to have babies they don’t want and the government will make sure they can get no financial help raisiing the baby they forced on them. What a piece of crap this country has become. Thank goodness I’m going to Thailand (but will continue to vote absentee and to blog). I’m putting my money in their Social Security.
Posted by Margaret on May 23, 2005 at 7:49 PM Margaret
I disagree with your abortion stance. As I see it pregnancy by rape can be aborted, Health reasons or baby deformities are ok reasons for abortion but babies are people and we don’t have the right to kill people just because we don’t want them.
Also, the government doesn’t make people pregnant and shouldn’t be required to support anyone who is capable of holding a job.
The state government should, however, be responsible for seeing to it that wages are enough to live on and that there is work for everyone.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 23, 2005 at 8:21 PM I’ve been away for awhile,my students had their exams a few days ago.Nonetheless,I was able to read Mitch’s 5/11 post.My,how fiendishly clever.He took my argument,substituted the variables,and illustrated how democrats are the evil ones.Bravo!I am in awe of such sublime writing and debating style.Clearly,a muse touched him as he was posting.
The fact missed by Mitch is that it’s not Democrats trying to subvert democracy.If this new scheme of the far-right was not some method of grabbing even more power to do what they want,it would be a non-issue to them.I can only imagine how they would have screamed if Democrats had suggested this option in 1993 when,curiously,Republicans used a filibuster to shoot down national health-care and further benefit medical corporations instead of the citizenry.I don’t want to know what the right will do if there is no way to oppose them.The first thing,I imagine,will be to get out those black shirts and armbands they been saving for the occasion.
Regarding Mitch’s,and mostly my,argument,when the left says let’s be tolerant of difference,let’s allow choice in personal matters and keep private matters private,let’s give aid to the poor,there is always some self-appointed,authoritarian(nearly always a right-winger and a christian)to tell us we can’t.that would be wrong...evil.Certainly not what Jesus would do.Instead we must adhere to the preachings of an outdated code of behavior written three millenia ago,and there will be no discussion of any matter because that book which contains it is supposedly divinely inspired.Divinely inspired:an invisible super-being that no one has ever seen and offers no proof of existence because you just have to believe told you to write this.O.K.,now take your pills.
It’s odd,but in all the years I attended “christian"church,rarely did they quote Jesus.Instead they quoted the books of Genesis,Leviticus,Deuteronomy,Exodus,Romans I,and Revelations,as do nearly every one of these churches.Why?Probably because Jesus taught peace,love,and forgiveness.
Genesis preaches irrevocable wrath when you anger God. Leviticus,Deuteronomy,and Exodus are books of law,with more wrath thrown in,just in case you forgot about it.Romans I is an admonition of a"decadent"society,which did pretty well up until Emperor Constantine(guess what religion he made the state’s religion).Revelations is either divinely inspired(see above)or the poetic ravings of a lunatic.Yet,it is the undeniable truth.
Do we really want people with that perspective controlling our government?When thought of carefully,the answer should be no.How did these people ever get into power?Republicans used them for their money and gave them a taste of power in the 80’s.Bad judgment there.
In parting for the fundamentalists who believe in strict,literal interpretation of the bible,consider this.Jesus said clearly,in your own infallible book,that Peter was to be rock of his,meaning Christ’s,church.Peter was the first pope;the head of the Catholic church.So if you aren’t Catholic,that means you are,and have been,disobeying the word of Christ himself.Funny feeling to be wrong,isn’t it?Kind of makes you humble like Christ said you should be.
By the way,Lin Biao,when you talk like a fortune cookie,you do not sound like Confucius,you sound like a three year old.
Posted by wwoods on May 24, 2005 at 8:11 AM One last thing.Now that this compromise has been reached,watch Republicans again try to subvert the process to get their way.
Posted by wwoods on May 24, 2005 at 8:36 AM wwoods, you sound like a racist. I’d like to
see how you handled mandarin or cantonese or
whatever Biao’s native language is..........
The rest of your word salad I’ll leave to the
shrinks to make out..........
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 24, 2005 at 9:01 AM wwoods,
It wasn’t my point that Democrats are “the evil ones”; it’s that the notion that there are “the evil ones” is misguided. Neither side is evil and neither side is angelic, either. My rewrite of your post merely sought to illustrate that both sides can cite the values, actions, and methods of the other to sustain a charge that the other side is bad and our side is good. My version of the argument is what the Right believed for decades; your version is what the Left is coming to believe now and for as long as they are out of power. Maybe that vision is just a manifestation of the frustration that comes from being in the opposition. Maybe it is what our political culture has devolved to in an era of narcissism and entitlement. But neither side has a monopoly on goodness or good intentions or or intelligence or morality. Everyone needs to get over that sense of moral superiority (from connections to God on the Right and from greater intelligence and purer motivations on the Left) that informs so much of current polemics.
Posted by Mitch on May 24, 2005 at 9:53 AM Rich,
I am not pro-abortion. I think it is something, as Clinton said,that should be safe, legal and rare. People make mistakes, especially young women. While I would counsel a young woman to consider having the baby and putting it up for adoption if she didn’t want the responsibility, I also know that we live in a democracy. I should not be able to dictate her decision. I know that, as a born-again Christian, I am a complete anomaly on this point.
I just don’t buy that any of us know when the soul is infused into the cluster of cells. The Right says it’s at the point of conception. It would seem more logical to me that it’s when there is the first split-second occurence of conginition, not in the sense we think of but when the baby has a sense of itself and surroundings. Like when they start moving a part because they feel cramped or sticking their tongue in and out. I don’t believe at all that a baby before 13 weeks “feels pain” at abortion. They aren’t even wired neurologically yet at that point, and I think that the Right does themselves a great disservice by disseminating false information. Like in the 60’s when they told us to smoke pot would automatically lead to heroin addiction.
I do, however, believe that after 12 weeks, tough luck for the new mom unless her life is threatened by the baby.
But the current Administration pulls every rug out from under the women in this position. Yes, people capable of working should and must work, but if you can’t afford child care, how are you going to do that? There were less abortions under Clinton because women felt they could survive with some help from the government. Now they don’t and abortions are up significantly.
If you want abortions to go away, enforce the 12 week rule and do DNA testing on the father to prove paternity, then slap him with half the financial responsibility and keep the 1% we pay of our federal taxes involved in Women with Dependent Children program. If they know that they will have help, they will not feel as compelled to have abortions.
Posted by Margaret on May 24, 2005 at 11:27 AM To clarify, I mean keep paying out the 1% of our Federal Budget to keep that program alive, not to stop it the program.
Posted by Margaret on May 24, 2005 at 11:32 AM OK Margaret, I’m pretty much in agreement with you there. I could go with abortions in the first two months being the girls choice. From then on though it’s becoming a cognitive being, a person.
Sometimes I wonder if the government should just go away and let people do whatever they want to do short of killing each other.
I have a philosophy that actions taken by man are not good or evil unless the motive for taking that action is good or evil. But who is to judge that?? Judgement by the society of man is usually a matter of opinion or pressure, not fact.
I don’t quite see that a few convenience abortions are any worse than a few convenience bombings.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 24, 2005 at 11:55 AM Jack,
Racism?Please.If anything,try chauvinism.
In case you hadn’t noticed,Lin’s writing shifts from complex and grammatically correct structures and syntax when he wishes to make a point to simple and broken when insulting people.As an english teacher,I did.That’s why I commented on his “fortune cookie english”.
Frankly,he writes more like someone playing a childish game than someone learning a second language.Word salad?Next time make an effort to insult me.You sound like someone who poked through a copy of Psychology Today in the waiting room,or took Psychology 110 a few days then left before drop/add ran out.
Mitch,
I agree.Both sides do need to get over their sense of moral superiority.Unfortunately,not only are the right-wingers not doing so,they are getting even worse.That the Christian right has discovered it doesn’t need the G.O.P.,means the discourse of politics is only going to get worse.
These people won’t compromise ever.They believe they are following God’s orders.How do you argue,or even reason,with that?
Posted by wwoods on May 24, 2005 at 12:11 PM wwoods,
I certainly cannot defend extremists at either end of the spectrum. But there is a danger in assuming that the extremists are representative of their side of the spectrum or that even the extremes are monolithic. Jack Barnes and his ilk on the Left won’t compromise ever, either, but there are, from my own experience, a great many born-again Christians who are open and willing and able to listen. It is when one side dismisses the other in its totality that the conversation stops. Both sides are currently doing so.
Posted by Mitch on May 24, 2005 at 12:35 PM wwoods, you still read like a bad wordsalad if
that’s not redundant. You’re an expert on learning
second languages ? Hmmmm. Maybe you should try to learn english first............
Abortion should be totally legal at all stages of pregnancy. I’m with the libertarians and objectivists with this one. No one has a right
to be born, anyone inside the body of another
against that person’s will is aggressing regardless of intent or lack of and the carrier
has the absolute right to expel the fetal aggressor. See Murray N. Rothbard’s The Ethics of
Liberty, the chapter on childrens’ rights for the
best argument here. Ayn Rand was good here, so,
see, Mitch, I’m willing to acknowledge intelligent
rightwingers and criticize ignorant liberals like
Margaret who parrot Billy Ball’s slick rationalizations. The Clinton cliche is typically stupid precisely because it is none of the state’s business HOW MANY abortions we have.
Rich, if you don’t like abortion, then don’t have one !
Oh, you say you can’t, well, precisely my point.
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 24, 2005 at 2:09 PM The only ignorant person on this site is clearly Jack Barnes.
Posted by Margaret on May 24, 2005 at 8:18 PM Gee, Margaret, ONCE AGAIN, your sole response is
to call names...........pathetic.
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 25, 2005 at 9:29 AM Jack,
Still on the term"word salad"I see.Oh,well.
If you had read my last posting,you would see that I teach English.While you’re responding, check your punctaution and structure.Not only are your arguments simple-minded,but your writing is
bush league.My ninth graders write better.While I’m not an expert on the process of language acquisition,I’ve studied enough to know the process,as well as having taught several students who were learning English
at various stages of proficiency and who spoke different languages from each other:Korean,Chinese(say it ain’t so,Jack!),Spanish,and Russian.It’s my job to examine how my students speak and write:to analyze their process of learning the language.
What academic,or even practical,experience do you have with teaching,English or linguistics?Probably none,I’ll bet,or you would have mentioned it.That’s another reason why you didn’t notice Lin Biao’s inconsistencies,if he isn’t just a poseur.Again typical right-wing tactics from Jack,attack with generalizations,offer no counterargument,and anchor his statements with a tag phrase that is displays a sense of wit-well,at least half of one.
Margaret,
What was the name of that guy on the other post who was fixated on the term"ass-hat"?If you’ve noticed,like I have,trolls all seem to argue the same way.Has Frank Luntz’s book being sold at Barnes and Noble,or somehing?Mitch,
Again,I see your point.Frankly,I hate extremists.Having known a few I’ve learned they are completely dreary ,fixating on one point,drawing everything to that point like gravity,and reinforcing their beliefs with an always flawed,usually dogmatic,never whole,system of reason.
I’m not saying that all Born-Again Christians behave and think a certain way.I hope not.Yet,I’ve seen enough that would allow one to theorize,especially about the appeal to authority and tradition arguments used by their faction.Also,the desire to simplify one’s philosophy into aphoristic dogmatism is a common trait.God said it.
I believe it.
That settles it.
The potential behind that syllogism,if put into various forms of action,is too terrible,Christian or otherwise.
I was a"Christian" for three years,before I left.I spent enough time around them to get to know them.Which is exactly why I left.Of course,maybe that’s just Mid-Western Christians;although I’ve seen similar traits here in North Carolina where I currently live.
I think that one of the other problems many people,not only on the left, have with the Christian Right is their desire to impose their beliefs on everyone else,regardless if they agree.Because of this we get the abortion debate.I don’t like abortion and wouldn’t make anyone get one if they didn’t want to.However,I also realize that there are times when death is necessary,horrible as that may be.For that reason,I think abortion should be legal without blanket rules,but,rather examined case by case.Christians say no(not all,but enough to make it a point of doctine),you can’t have one period.furthermore they will prevent you every way they can.
This is becoming their dominant trait:we don’t approve,we don’t want anyone to do it either,and we’ll make sure no one else can,PERIOD.Why?God said so(at least their view of God).This method is being applied to every issue that has not only spiritual,but also political impact on them as well.
Posted by wwoods on May 25, 2005 at 10:43 AM Crap! Typo!Should be"Is"rather than"Has".Verb tense disagreement and bad proof-reading.My apologies.
Posted by wwoods on May 25, 2005 at 10:49 AM Margaret,
You are strictly following your own drummer,
there is nothing remotely similar in our postings,
I may label someone a nutcase but it never stands
in and of itself, I always precede it with strong
reasons, you simply call names and that has been
a pattern througout your many postings on forums
at ITT. You’re a bad advertisement for the Democratic cause.
“wwoods” or whatever you are,please spare us the
english lectures, you are not fit to be teaching
anyone judging by your postings here.
Wordsalad is appropriate in your case, no need to
reinvent the wheel here.
I have offered solid counterarguments AND refs on
everything that I have written on this board.
It’s not just your english as a second language
skills that are lacking but your thinking processes.
Maybe you should learn english before giving unsolicited advice to Lin.
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 25, 2005 at 11:50 AM Jack,
Yeah,yeah,yeah.
I’ve heard all the unfit teaching comments before from every other right-wing yahoo who’s had their delicate and ridiculous sensibilities offended with refutation.You reactionaries all make the same arguments.It’s why I wasn’t really surprised to find out about the Frank Luntz Playbook.Too bad my state offered me tenure.Deal with it.
BUHUHUWUHAHAHAHA!Today tenure!Tomorrow...THE WORLD!!
While you’re sitting thereperusing the Frank l;untz Handbook,trying to find a stock response that you assume to be dazzlingly brilliant,consider the following:
What solid arguments have you offered?All we’ve heard from you are Fox News talking points and the Hannity method of argument,which is an oxymoron at best.
If you’ll recall,my little international busybody of mystery,I was addressing Lin Biao.Why you stepped in is puzzling unless you’re double-posting as Jack and Lin.It’s “word salad”,by the way,not wordsalad.It’s two words not a compound word.Not only haven’t you re-invented the wheel,you got the shape wrong.
Also,you need to get a writing handbook and study it.You last posting indicated that apparently don’t know when to use a period and when to use a comma.Your run-on sentences are what my students write until they get tired of seeing their papers covered in red ink.
Now,little troll,go back under your bridge, fume,gnash your teeth,sulk for a while,and peruse the right-wing playbook.Perhaps,in the meantime, some billy goats will pass overhead.
Posted by wwoods on May 26, 2005 at 12:05 PM Mitch,
I’m waiting to hear from you.Did you read my last post?Your thoughts about extremism looked interesting.Perhaps we can discuss how extremism orignates.
Posted by wwoods on May 26, 2005 at 12:27 PM Good god, what state are you in, woods ?
They are now rewarding illiterates with tenure ?
Another good reason to abolish government education (so-called).
I never watch Fox News, Hannity or listen to
Limbaugh, neocon talk radio and never even
heard of the Frank Luntz playbook.
Afraid your stereotype doesn’t fit.
If you have read my many posts you would see the
utter idiocy of your own comments.
You’re wrong on wordsalad, it can be used
both ways.
I’ve read Fowler’s and more handbooks than you could even count. Do not require lessons from imbeciles who cannot read, write or think, such as yourself “wwoods” (or Rich or Mitch or Gordon or any one of the half-dozen aliases you use).
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 26, 2005 at 1:37 PM “WWoods” is a troller who regularly uses aliases
in his agent provocateur mission.
He’s no teacher and never will be.
FBI, maybe. But a three dollar phony.
Posted by Paul Malloy on May 26, 2005 at 1:41 PM “wwoods"is my only posting name.The other names are other people.For that reason,they identify themselves with other names.Paranoid right-wingers,once again, accusing others of their own worst crimes.
F.B.I.?Please,Paul Malloy,you really have an over-active imagination.As for being a troller,well,I am a regular poster.The term “troll"is applied to right wingers who regularly post and disrupt left wing sites.Perhaps you could call me an anti-troll.By the way,the phrase is"phony as a three- dollar bill”.Calling someone a"three-dollar phony” is to say they are a phony that costs three dollars.That makes no sense.Cost is not analogous to sincerity.Put your best foot forward and fell flat on your face,huh?
Talk about word salad.
Go get him,Jack!If that’s not you posting under another alias.
You right-wingers have no idea how much fun it is to watch you have an E-fit.
Unfortunately,typing does not allow us to watch you sputter in anger.Where’s a web cam when you need one?
“Agent Provocateur”!Mmm...That sounds so exotic.No,I’m simply arguing with stupid right-wingers who’ve come to believe that they have a lock on truth and further believe that the way to deal with a complicated world is to make it simple through abolition and elimination.
I’m sorry.I was being politically incorrect when I called you right-wingers stupid.How about,instead,we call you"the hard-of-thinking”?
Troller,troller,troller…
The right-wingers missed out on a good insult which dehumanizes opposition,deservedly so in this case,though,and are now trying to use it themselves.Obviously,your faction does not have a monopoly on insults.Sorry about that.Why not try to make"fetch"happen?
Frankly,I’m amazed that reactionary rantings could evolve outside the Fox News media.Most of its disciples are directionless by nature.Hence the need for an authoritarian figure to dictate.That highly disciplined stupidity could be spontaneously generated will give behavioral scientists something new to study.Perhaps there is an archangel of simple-mindedness or a muse of delusionary political philosophy that visits?Perhaps,even,Queen Mab drives over the foreheads of right-wing posters as they sleep who straight on of blackshirts dream.
Jack,
You can tell me about how many style manuals you’ve read.It won’t impress me.Certainly not if you don’t apply the information.You still write like an adolescent.Hmm,there might be something to that.
You can call me an unfit teacher and belittle my education.It won’t insult me.You can post under as many aliases as you wish.It doesn’t baffle me,or any other poster for that matter.Really you are about as slick as a gravel road.
At the heart of it all,you are still a silly,little person who has come to believe the half-truths of a party that is conning you and stealing from you as you are even now trying to find another zinger in your pre-packaged arsenal.Now,I’m going to go off and enjoy my weekend and maybe I’ll think about what I might find in furstrated response here on Monday.As for you..
Hey,wait a minute!It just occurred to me.You’re supposed to be under your bridge!Who told you to come out?Honestly,troll,if you’re not under your bridge,how will you catch your billy goat?
Posted by wwoods on May 27, 2005 at 11:22 AM wwoods,
I’ve bowed out of the slings-and-arrows fest that has been going on; it seems pointless to me. How extremism originates would be an interesting investigation. If I had to bet, I would bet that the processes that lead one to move toward extremism on either end of the political spectrum vary less between Left and Right than they do within the Left and within the Right. A corollary might be that extremists at either end are more like each other than they are like their putative spectrum-mates: not, perhaps, in positions held, but in the rigidity of their positions, the emotionalism of their talking points, and the volume of their conversation.
Posted by Mitch on May 27, 2005 at 11:52 AM Mitch, Margaret, WWoods
I’ve been watching you play games with that half wit kid. Mitch is wondering hjow extremism originates.
I think it comes upon one sometime between puberty and adulthood. It’s a product of self inflicted ignorance, lack or worldly experience and a search for friends who can’t communicate on a broader spectrum of probabilities and possibilities. Having an inflexible idea of what’s right or wrong is about as small minded as one can get and completely ignores the fact that the results of todays actions may not be what we want them to be.
The Bush gang could about that before too much longer.
Newton’s law of equal and opposite reactions applies to social and political actions as well as mechanical actions and the rebound is beginning to accelerate.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 27, 2005 at 1:19 PM “WWoods” or whatever you’re name is, a wordsalad is a wordsalad is a wordsalad..........
Troll is a bipartisan concept, it applies across
the spectrum.
I never belittled your education. I just have
seen no evidence of it.
If you represent the proper writing style, then I’m happy not to be in that category.
“Frusration,” don’t flatter yourself.
Headache, YES.
I’ve been published in publications on the Left
ranging from Z to The Progressive to the old left
National Guardian to the Anderson Valley Advertiser plus The Washington Post, East Bay
Express and other mainstream publications.
Have mastered the necessary writing skills.
One thing is for damn sure. There is nothing
that I could learn from you in this or any other
area.
No wonder we are raising up a generations of
morons with “teachers” like you !
Pheeeeewwwwww ! Arkansas has low standards
I guess.....................but those trailer
courts are cheap, eh ?
Rich and Mitch, gee, guys, you two are simply too
profound for words........or is it turds ?
You three would make a nice daisy chain.
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 27, 2005 at 4:06 PM “WWoods” is a troll. He has posted under several
different names here plus the Yahoo board.
I recognize him from that old english teacher line.
He might well be some sick fvck who gets his kicks
from deciding when to use “that” or “which.”
Paul, I think the FBI has higher standards.
You have to be reasonably literate to work there
and not write sentences that read like James Joyce
on speed.
Posted by Robbie Hyland on May 27, 2005 at 4:15 PM Actually, Rich, I would argue that Bush and friends, and especially the religious Right, ARE the equal and opposite reaction: to the ‘60s, to the secularization of the public sphere, to the Democrats. I would agree that the pendulum is probably swinging back, as it always does, which is why Hegel is a better antecedent to reference than Newton: any idea generates its opposite, which combines with the original into a new idea (thesis->antithesis->synthesis). Its also why I don’t think Bush et al are going to establish a theocracy or even want to: they are just trying to restore what they see as necessary balance.
Regarding the development of extremism, I suspect no single explanation or even single dimension of explanation (psychological, political, sociological, etc.) will serve to explain all the examples of extremism extant or historical. Lenin was an extremist, and he was certainly not unworldly or limited in his communication. I suspect his extremism was considered and politically tactical, rather than symptomatic of some psychological short-coming.
I would be disinclined to the psycological exegesis generally; those sorts of analyses tend to reflect one’s animus toward the subject under scrutiny rather than actual insight. Your explanation might be convincing and accurate about certain American extremists,but not exhaustively so about the group as a whole.
Posted by Mitch on May 27, 2005 at 9:09 PM Actually, Rich, I would argue that Bush and friends, and especially the religious Right, ARE the equal and opposite reaction: to the ‘60s, to the secularization of the public sphere, to the Democrats. I would agree that the pendulum is probably swinging back, as it always does, which is why Hegel is a better antecedent to reference than Newton: any idea generates its opposite, which combines with the original into a new idea (thesis->antithesis->synthesis). Its also why I don’t think Bush et al are going to establish a theocracy or even want to: they are just trying to restore what they see as necessary balance.
Regarding the development of extremism, I suspect no single explanation or even single dimension of explanation (psychological, political, sociological, etc.) will serve to explain all the examples of extremism extant or historical. Lenin was an extremist, and he was certainly not unworldly or limited in his communication. I suspect his extremism was considered and politically tactical, rather than symptomatic of some psychological short-coming.
I would be disinclined to the psycological exegesis generally; those sorts of analyses tend to reflect one’s animus toward the subject under scrutiny rather than actual insight. Your explanation might be convincing and accurate about certain American extremists,but not exhaustively so about the group as a whole.
((((((((((((((((((((
Mitch
We aren’t communicating too well this time. I see no relationship between the 60’s and now unless it’s personal freedom then vs personal oppression now but the police state syndrome has grown through the years and the growth has accelerated recently.
Hegel vs Newton: Philosophy is open to individual translation vs Action which is a fact, the motivation for which can be argued forever but the action is absolute and I was writing about actions not philosophies.
The actions of the Bush regime are all directed toward theocracy and too many of their objectives have been achieved.
Lenin: I have never seen Lenin as a worldly person. He was insane though and that is a limiter to begin with. Politically tactical, yes and that too limits one from understanding the needs of society.
“animus toward the subject”: Understanding of their all too obvious motives is more accurate. Having seen the actions and the results of the actions allows one to believe that the motives are, and were, not as described by the principles. Adding the statements and events of the last five years to the history of certain military and corporate adventures of the last thirty or so years provides a very clear picture. When it becomes clear that the succession of real actions have been choreographed to achieve one major goal, that being corporate power and wealth instead of the propoganda that has been laid upon the people of the United States and the world.
The only thing new is Bush’s religious extremism that mandates victory over Islam. He’s a Christian Crusader out to conquor and convert the world and that is not our national responsibility.I’m not dealing with philosophy but with fact, with history. There is a major difference in the mental meanderings of man and hard cold fact.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 29, 2005 at 12:16 AM Rich,
I think you are looking at the ‘60s with the same set of ideological perceptual filters as you are looking at the ‘90s and the Bush administration, rather than through either the eyes of those you find yourself having to fight against or a more objective set of filters. In the ‘60s and ‘70s, the assumptions, values, and institutions that many people took for granted as the foundation of the lives they lived and hoped their children would live came under angry and relentless criticism by the Left, by academics, and by the press. Much of this criticism was well-founded and even overdue; much was exaggerated, tendentious, and mendacious; much was supercilious and condescending. At the same time, a series of judicial decisions disrupted patterns of living and overthrew assumptions and values in ways that led to a further sense of threat and social decay. The most imperious, if you will, was Roe v. Wade, which took what had been a gradual transformation that was working its way through the state legislatures, allowing small scale discussion and incremental adjustments to people’s perceptions and opinions, and wrenched it abruptly into a national norm based on extremely dubious constitutional exegesis.
Changes were wrought in the 60’s on many levels (the thesis), and though some were good and necessary, the process of change that supported the transformation did not allow people the time or sense of control over their own destiny to allow them to assimilate and accept those changes. Those changes gave rise to a countervailing movement (the antithesis), one of the manifestations of which is the religious right.
>Philosophy is open to individual translation vs Action
which is a fact, the motivation for which can be argued forever but the action is absolute....The actions of the Bush regime are all directed toward theocracy and too many of their objectives have been achieved.”
With all due respect, the notion that actions are absolute and not subject to interpretation is naive. How many years of argument have the Left and Right indulged in over the meaning of the actions of the Soviet Union? For that matter, how many barroom fights have broken out over the meaning of 9/11, an action if there ever was one? Actions are constantly subject to interpreation, which if you have ever had an argument with your significant other you should recognize.>I’m not dealing with philosophy but with fact, with history.< Historians argue over meaning and events on a daily basis; revisionism is into its second or third wave on any number of supposedly settled historical “facts.” I am not here claiming that you are wrong in your interpretation of the “facts” that form your opinion, but I insist it is only one of several possible interpretations, and that any interpretation is based at least as much on the values and assumptions of the person doing the interpreting as on the “facts” he or she chooses to emphasize (and facts are always selected). That’s why there are political arguments,,, and personal arguments, for that matter.
>I have never seen Lenin as a worldly person.<
Whether Lenin was sane or not is certainly a subject to debate, but I’m pretty sure he doesn’t qualify as having “a lack of wordly experience,” as you argued in your original post on the origins of extremism: he was well-educated, well-read, and well-traveled.
Posted by Mitch on May 29, 2005 at 9:13 PM It’s funny how these forums break down into
personal dialogues rather removed from the
original item at issue.
The thing about the theory/fact dichotomy that
Rich promotes is that you can’t even begin to
evaluate all the raw data of the world, both
physical and social, without benefit of some
theory that prioritizes and classifies.
Otherwise one would simply be overwhelmned with
trillions of raw, unintegrated, unanalyzed data
which would be stultifying without a way to
simplify it, see essentials in the various concretes, and then try to integrate them with
other observations.
As Mitch notes ,we interpret every action and we have to in order to come to any conclusions.
There is no way we can get around philosophy,
philosophy is a necessity which always buries
its would be undertakers. We need philosophy to
evaluate any history or any so-called cold, hard
facts. And Rich does this every day of his life
by his opinions, rather they are valid or not.
All of man’s mental conduct is ultimately derived
from some sort of experience. Even our craziest
dreams have some basis in reality.
How could it be otherwise ?
Rich, the dualism that you post fails.
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 31, 2005 at 11:21 AM Robbie Hyland,
I only use one posting name.By the way,what institute do you trolls work for?I’m curious,is the Cato,Hoover,or American Enterprise Institute?
Not that it matters much,they’re all the same.I know it may be hard to believe,especially with the deceit regularly practiced by the right-wingers,but yes,you are being bested by a rural southern schoolteacher who,unfortunately for the right,pays attention to the news,studies history,and doesn’t believe the sales pitch.
By the way,to whomever used"Lin Biao"as their posting name.Substitute “N” with an “M”,and you get something very much like LIMBAUGH.Vrey cute.Next time,why not just post as LOUIS FRIEND?
Jack,
You’re right.Having blogged here for the past few months,I’ve watched it happen on every post.Unfortunately,that’s what right-wingers do when they lose their argument.
Posted by wwoods on Jun 1, 2005 at 11:19 AM W, thanks for your comments.
Only caveat I have is that I know the losers
are not limited to one political category.
Lin Biao is a famous name in recent Chinese
history. He was Mao’s chosen successor but
fell out with the Gang of Four and tried to
flee to the USSR in 1970 when his plane crashed.
The Limbaugh similarity is funny.
Posted by Jack Barnes on Jun 1, 2005 at 1:47 PM This is probably my last post here, there’s bigger games to play right now.
I need see if I can get Pam Anderson to run for president.>"I think you are looking at the ‘60s with the same set of ideological perceptual filters as you are looking at the ‘90s and the Bush administration, rather than through either the eyes of those you find yourself having to fight against or a more objective set of filters."<
These first two sentences don’t seem relative to anything representative of my thinking processes. The remainder of your first paragraph is acceptable by me as being accurate enough as a general, but weighted in favor of your perception, analysis of some of the events of that period.
The motives of the opposing sides or those of the various judges and legislators aren’t covered though and since we don’t know the individual motives we just have to look into the actions and the results. Bush, Cheny and about a dozen others of that corporate group have stated what their motives are but no one, including the press, seems to have heard them.
For at least 40 years though our government, through Democrat as well as Republican presidents, has had Department of Foreign Affairs meetings with corporate wheels and foreign governments over how to manipulate, or change, other governments so as to get a corporate deal on their oil properties.I believe Lenin felt that dead men don’t argue with you and it appears that the Bush bunch feels the same way. We have bombs so we don’t have to discuss the oil property, we just kill the owners and take over.
In the 60’s I was a good looking young veteran with a good income and I had an endless supply of women to take care of. I either liked or didn’t like the way the way the social situation affected me and that was the end of the thought. I was so removed from reality that I thought politicians were telling the truth and their bad judgement was due to ignorance but they meant well. That was two or three hundred years ago I think and in the interim I’ve learned a few things.
I’ve learned that Bush and company, Lenin, Hitler, etc. saw their actions as being good. They all live or lived with blinders on. Their only close contact is limited to others of their kind. They are not worldly or wise at all, they live in a very small environment and who they are is completely controlled by that small social group of narrow minded egotists.>"With all due respect, the notion that actions are absolute and not subject to interpretation is naive.">
With all due respect back at you, your idea that actions can be interpreted shows a lack of depth of understanding that actions are the result of accidents or plans.
Results can’t be analyzed but the motives that generate plans must be. Actions can be mindlessly reacted to or intelligently dealt with depending on a few things such as the maturity of the people involved.
The action of the towers crashing to earth was absolute, no interpretation required, they are absolutely down.
Very few have made any attempt to analyze the motives behind that action so we are going on reactions instead of intelligent analysis of the whole picture. I said motives instead of motive because there are many actions that came together to set this scenario up and each action was the product of motives, the methods and reasons or purposes behind the action.Your wife doesn’t question your action, that’s a done deal, it’s absolute. She wants to know what caused you to do it. Why, is the point of the argument, what were you thinking - is what she wants to know.
I have done thousands of hours of research on the religions and social interactions involved and I know why the towers were targeted. It’s a long dirty and twisted tale of intrigue and treachery that goes all way back to the cold war.
What are we going to do on the next assault on the filibuster rule???
Posted by Rich Warren on Jun 3, 2005 at 7:18 PM Results can’t be analyzed ? Where did you hear
that, Rich ?
Frankly, I have never read such an unintelligent
statement in all my 60 years, Rich.
You are one of the lighter lightweights of our
time, intellectually speaking. Though probably
not waistline speaking.
Posted by Jack Barnes on Jun 8, 2005 at 3:23 PM Hi Margaret. I’ve just found this particular forum, on a search for Jack Barnes’ other aliases.
Where are all these “Libertarian Brits”?? Are there any? I thought these people were mainly from the Libertarian Party, USA.
I think the reason that the British are rather secular is because a) they industrialized early
b) because of this and other reasons, the religious community, in particular the hierarchy, lost its grip over vast sections of the British populace quite early on, like, during the 19th century. There was a sort of a backlash as far as I can make out (with my limited historical knowledge!), and also an attempt by Nonconformist sects to “cash in”, eg. Wesleyans (Methodists), so on and so forth.
This DID work to quite an extent FOR A WHILE, I think largely because such newer sects were seen as “non-establishment”.
However the largest portion of the British “working class” seems to have gradually but surely given up on (organised) religion as any form of positive support in their lives, probably from around the First World War onwards.
By the way, Brits think soccer is a religion. (Shouldn’t that tell one something?)
Posted by Liz on Jun 19, 2005 at 1:00 PM But make no mistake, Libertarianism is the drooling bastard love child of Hitler and Stalin, Fascism dressed as the Leaderless People, backwoods militants, stockpiling canned food and mercenary magazines while they crumple the constitution and the Bible together, not understanding either and worshipping both as a self-designed paper deity with whatever personality they decide to project upon it.
So, dear reader, be aware that you are dealing with a total fraud when blogging with “Lin Bao”.
Hey Margaret! I DIG!!!
You’re so right!
I’m still trying to follow “Lin Biao” and other incarnations of Jack around the blogs!
As Lefty would say: “Blahhahhahahahahhahha!!”
BTW though: Did you know that I think the Christianity and paganism are so TOTALLY (almost!) compatible?!
(Well, I have read other people on the net saying that Christianity is just the newest pagan religion, and C. S. Lewis, for that matter, another person I was always a big fan of, as GOOD as said as much - that it was the “fulfilment” of pagan myth!)
The only thing Christianity really does wrong to my mind, is that it characterizes God as so exclusively MALE… The only place where this at all gets rectified is in Roman Catholicism, where they elevate Mary, mother of Jesus, into a deity in her own right, or at least a supersaint. (Which is logical when you think about it!)
(She’s a manifestation of the Isis archetype, actually.)
But then, of COURSE, in Roman Catholic theology especially, she IS a perpetual VIRGIN…
All the “world religions” are WRONG, IMHO, because they were all created during a LONG and very patriarchal period of Earth’s history, the fallout of which we are still dealing with now… Feminism and slave emancipation are really very recent concepts. (For a good few millennia, anyway!)
But we KNOW that the original state of mankind (cave dwellers, and their immediate descendants, not to put too fine a point on it) MUST have been matriarchal, because of all those little “big fat momma” carvings archaeologists have turned up from the Neolithic period… To the exclusion of other sorts of worship icons to a large extent. AND there are vestiges of it in Judaism: counting descent from the female line, etc, etc.
Atheism bores me to tears. If Jack Barnes likes it so much he should go and move to China. (They were ALWAYS basically a secular culture anyway, because their main teacher was Confucius, Kung Fu Tse, whatever he was originally called, who was like a Greek philosopher, not a religious teacher.)
Their original religion was probably Animism.
Like the Hindus, anyway, they have a rich mythology, and they believe in things like “The Heavenly Emperor” to this very day.Monkey TV series, anybody? (Does anybody know it over there?)
Based on a sixteenth-century writer’s, Wu Tseng En’s epic about how three animal spirits (Animistic deities, then!) help a (one supposes) fictional monk, Tripitaka, bring back the Buddhist scriptures (the Three Baskets or whatever they are!) from Gandhara, India.
It’s fun, fun, fun!!
It really is. The original novel (of which I have the abridged translation somewhere in paperback - bet it misses all the dirty bits out!)
And the TV series. Educational allegory all the way.
Jack should friggin’ watch it - it might teach him friggin’ manners!!
He could DO with a good dose of Buddhism!
Monkey might make a good libertarian hero, as he always wants to do PRECISELY what he wants and defies the gods non stop - so Buddha puts a little mental straitjacket on him in the form of a band of metal around his head!
Pigsy wants to stuff his face and roger pretty women all the time. Sandy is a kind of - he’s the most difficult to describe actually - depressive, Marvin-the-android like river demon, who wears a necklace of skulls because he used to eat human beings.
I KID YOU NOT, MARGARET! Jack. This is all real literature, if you don’t know it!
They all learn Compassion in the end.
Posted by Liz on Jun 19, 2005 at 1:33 PM Margaret: I’m all for people who do things like Jim Wallis appears to be doing, “tearing the right wing a new one”, from a more leftist Christian perspective. (There ARE liberal Christians - I’ve met them on the net, including those who say they want to talk to pagans and let them on their blogs! Without pressurizing them to convert and stuff.)
Still, I think it must be said: as in the case of Nazi Germany, the Christian opposition IS coming a little bit TOO little, TOO late… They SHOULD have started thinking about it, IMHO, BEFORE… when Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority were being such a pain in the ass; when Anita Bryant started raving about gays, in the early 80s.
OK, so Anita Bryant got laughed out of court, and the “Moral Majority” itself didn’t last too long - but WHAT has it led to!! An election-result-distorting, mindless-bloc-voting MONSTER, is what!!
(Not that we can rely on what the election machines tell us, but.)
And, AGAIN, the Democrats - eg. Air America - SHOULD have been thinking about this BEFORE!!
While the Christian Fascists (Dominionists, Reconstructionists, Imperialists, etc etc) have been busy beavering away behind the scenes, often it must have seemed to them, fruitlessly at first, slowly creating VAST and FORMIDABLE mind-controlling networks, the liberals both religious and non-religious have been sitting with their thumbs up their ass.
But WHAT is all this stuff about GAYS, Margaret? Or at least, telling liberals to “shut up on the gay issue”? As you seem to be?
Why - so they don’t “offend” a few Christians?
Well how do you think that makes the gays feel??
The whole homosexual “issue” is ONLY a big worry, ie an embarrassment, in a patriarchal CULTURE, anyway, religious or not.
In a matriarchy, NO-ONE WOULD MIND ABOUT GAYS, male or female!!
I recently read quite a clever-seeming argument, by prisoner author Jack Henry Abbott (an American Communist), as to WHY it was that rejection of OVERT (ie practising, open) male homosexuality was ESSENTIAL to a militaristic, imperialist culture. It’s too long and literary to go into here!
But anyway, I think he’s right. MILITARISM, imperialism and homosexuality do not mix. That’s why gays (gay MEN in particular - have you noticed, that in most countries, there never were any laws specifically against lesbians? They used to joke that it was because Queen Victoria had no idea what they were!) are so feared.
Posted by Liz on Jun 19, 2005 at 1:50 PM Hey “Lin Biao”, aka Jack Barnes:
HAVE Ayn Rand’s books outsold Tim LeHay’s about the Rapture: the “Left Behind” series of Xtian nut books (well actually I hear they’re based on erroneous 19th century theology, because I KNOW Ratpure (typo, but a good one - I’ll let it stand!) ain’t in the bible, I’ve read it hundreds of times!!)..
Which have, as someone above has said, sold over 60 million copies… and counting??
WHICH nut has sold the most? Anyone tell me?
HAS Ayn Rand sold that much, or proportionally more, seeing that she’s had a few more decades in which to do it??
Posted by Liz on Jun 19, 2005 at 2:01 PM wwoods, you have it in a nutshell!
The Xtian Right ARE damn nutty, influential, mind-numbing, resistance-freezing (among the MANY sectors of the population in various areas, particularly rural)… and very dangerous.
Posted by Liz on Jun 19, 2005 at 2:10 PM Ah, so “Lin Biao” - aka Jack(ass) and I agree on ONE THING!!!
SIN CITY is a CRAP movie!! Absolutely “toilet down”, as our fake Chinaman has it here!!!
It most certainly is, and it bodes ill for the American/Western civilization, that they produce such junk. The World Socialist Web Site think so too you may like to know: see their review of it, here: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/apr2005/sinc-a13.shtml “A Culture At the end of its Rope, continued.”
But you SEE, Lin/Jack, the IRONY is, that Frank Miller (he’s actually the comic book writer/"artist" I said I hated on another post, and I’ve loathed him, as much for his idiotology as anything else, for YEARS...), Frank Miller, the AUTHOR of this “Sin City” crap, both movies and comic books, as the advertisements make such PAINS to indicate, so you can’t have missed it…
Well, one thing he CERTAINLY isn’t, is a Christian/believer in religion; he both indulges in ad hominem attacks on “Christian” characters (mainly Catholics, ie priests) at every opportunity; and to my mind, he shows great contempt for the divine feminine as well…
But one thing he has AVOWED to being… Is not a fascist (though I think he is!! OH I think he is)…
BUT A COMMITTED FAN AND FOLLOWER OF AYN PHUCKING RAND!!!
(In fact his detective character, Dwight, in the movie is meant to be a Randist. Check out “Frank Miller” interviews on the CNN site and prove it to yourself.)
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, “Fu Manchu”, or Ming the merciless from Mongo, or whoever it is you’re posing as next…
I wouldn’t have brought it up, if you hadn’t said about “Sin City”, because I didn’t think a guy like you was interested in anything comic-book-related…
But now you have - there’s a fact for your file!
Anyway, you’re a pretty weird Chinese man, Lin - I mean, Jack… And Jack is a pretty weird Libertarian, supporting (still) authoritarian-Communist China, the way he so slyly (but nevertheless transparently) does, by means of his fake posts from “Shanghai”.
Would that be Shanghai, California, Jack??
Posted by Liz on Jun 19, 2005 at 9:12 PM Hey, Mitch!
“Jack” isn’t a Leftist!
Libertarians AREN’T on the Left… (Well, maybe you could argue about a few of the nicer ones who just want to legalise medical marijuana and stuff like that… I suppose there are a few who are more like leftist anarchists!)
But NOT Barnes…
After all, he supports Ayn Rand, who is the love object of fascist comics scripter/toilet moviemaker Frank Miller…
Posted by Liz on Jun 19, 2005 at 9:54 PM wwoods is right… “Jack” does argue in the manner of Sean Hannity…
I just wonder how he can claim to have been published by SO many publications! When his style is so semi-illiterate, as wwoods has pointed out… A bad speller, gets his metaphors wrong, resorts to phoney fake Chinese (as both I and Margaret have noticed...) all sorts of “cutesy” tactics that might do in some board for minors but which certainly aren’t even funny. (Lefty and a couple of others can be genuinely funny.)
I suppose he MUST have got accepted by those publications simply BECAUSE he is a bargain-basement Hannity with a “Libertarian” twist… Libertarianism just being another trick to snare the American youth from the 1930s onwards, it seems to me… If the CIA didn’t invent Rand they couldn’t have had a better ambassador. So: It’s Robertson and Falwell for the “Christian” nuts who CAN’T do without their own right-wing version of “WWJD"…
And for Jews and people of other religions, or rather none, who can’t swallow all this hypocritical stuff - we have the “RATIONALIST” version of selfish corporatism, namely “Objectivism"… I see, I see.
So it’s one flavor for one group, another for the next… and people think they are being given CHOICES, here? It’s all the same crap, folks! Just different sauces!
The only rational choice is Socialism.
The only true religion is the Divine Feminine.
And as for Jack Barnes being published by left-wing publications, I presume (seeing as he claims to be 60 years of age - AND SHOULD KNOW BETTER THAN TO BE SO BOORISH AS HE IS, AT HIS AGE!) that that was back in the days of “Oz” magazine and such (itself rather a boorish publication) when the entirety of California, it would seem from a younger perspective, must have been zonked out on hash.
Looks like drugs to excess ARE bad for you, after all!
Posted by Liz on Jun 19, 2005 at 10:14 PM Quantity is not quality.
The sure sign of very bad writers
is a blizzard of repetitive and
unnecessary words.
It’s the written equivalent of the
proverbial motor mouth that attempts
to bowl you over with a shiitstorm
of accumulated nothingness.
A disorganized, unstructured and
undisciplined writing style is the
symbol of a disordered mind.
I have never written in chines here
or anyplace else. I did speak with
Lin Biao in Shanghai about some of
the floating excreta on this board.
Posted by Jack Barnes on Jun 20, 2005 at 12:41 PM Yes, you “spoke” with “Lin Biao” in Shanghai - was that directly? How? Via crystal ball, magic mirror, or e-mail? I assume the latter, but then how, as nowhere on these fora does “Lin from Shanghai” post his “Chinese service provider” e-mail address.
Hmm, that’s a mystery… (And that “Chinese accent” was SO fake - it had NOBODY on ITT fooled!! Not for 30 secs!)
I already KNOW why you use the formatting you do and why you can’t read long posts, Jack…
You STILL haven’t explained, though, “Jack”, why you/"Lin" so detest the movie “SIN CITY"… when it’s written by a twitchy fascist whitebread nut so like yourselves (at least like your American multiples, Jack)…
Who WORSHIPS Ayn Rand! And has BASED one of his comics/movie characters, “Dwight”, on her “ideals”. He has been all over CNN telling them so.
Perhaps you should be signing yourself “Dwight”, “Jack”!
Or “Lin” might like to try that alias. I assume “he” likes Ayn Rand as well…
Posted by Liz on Jun 20, 2005 at 6:54 PM He gave me his address privately,
it’s done all the time. Calling
China is not a big deal once you
get the time zones down.
I read long postings all the time but
quantity is not necessarily quality.
Reading and rationally comprehending are
not always identical when the poster, such
as yourself, posts lengthy, rambling, unstructured,incoherent word salads.
All one gets for their efforts is a headache.
Frankly, since your cognitive content is zero,
why bother ?
Never saw Sin City. Another one of your schizoid
fantasies..............
Try feminine hygiene, please.
Posted by Jack Barnes on Jun 21, 2005 at 9:40 AM You didn’t but Lin obviously did…
“Feminine hygiene”, huh?? Another of your porn fantasies??
Posted by Liz on Aug 10, 2005 at 6:09 PM How does one give anyone his address privately on these blogs?
Posted by Liz on Aug 10, 2005 at 6:11 PM -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Joel Bleifuss
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
