Posted by Tina
Must read article about the riots in Great Britain:
The British riots, like similar events in any time and place, are a reminder that while the existence of God may be debatable, the existence of the Devil is not. It also reminds us that a society that does not have the will to defend itself is doomed.” “Decent Into Evil” by John Hinderaker, Powerline
I have been trying to warn people for decades of the evils of greed. Unfortunately, many, many ignorant people will regard the failure of the British System as a failure of socialism. The British System is NOT socialism, but a hybrid of greedy capitalism–which as we all know was condemned by Jesus in His gospels. True socialism is non-profit–everyone is EQUAL–no one makes more.
Yeah!
Evil sucks.
THIS is what you get when you let evil run rampant.
So, what else is new?
Nice try Mr Utopia but no human being can deliver what you envision…so what is left?
Capitalism is a thing. A thing cannot be greedy.
Human beings can and will be greedy in any system devised by man.
“Equality for all” has been tried before and in every case laziness, greed, and discontent create a failed system. People are imperfect; there will always be those who take the path of least resistance. There will always be those who feed off of the efforts and largess of others. There will always be those who are more than willing to take their share without contributing, producing, or sharing.
The Utopian system was tried by the first Pilgrims and after the first disasterous year they abandoned it.
Christ speaks to individuals about how they should behave. He said we would always have the poor and we should be considerate and generous toward them. He did not say we should abandon our personal responbsibility and care for them through government systems.
Capitalism, freedom, private property, the rule of law and our republican government create a just atmosphere and means by which human beings can produce and create ample opportunity for each to care for himself and to help others as his own heart dictates.
It is up to each individual to resolve issues of greed, sloth, envy, pride, wrath, lust and gluttony as he answers to God for these sins. Engaging in the capitalist system can be a challenge for any human being who loves God and wishes to follow Christ. Putting love of money before love of God will not end well. But all of life’s systems offer such challenges.
“THIS is what you get when you let evil run rampant.”
We agree on the concept but not the source.
Evil resides and “runs rampant” in the hearts of fallen human beings left to their own devices. The West has chosen to walk away from God. We have also chosen to infect with socialism the Christian system of government that followers conceived based on Biblical principles. That system was not social but republican.
Imagine This:
A young student starts early working toward a perfect record academically and personally to achieve excellent records in science, math and all other subjects before applying to a university.
The student then spends 4 years to 6 years in medical school and internship, 6 years in residency, and 4 years in internship to become a skilled brain surgeon.
That highly trained surgeon makes as much as a fully-baked, tattooed, multiply pierced, medical marijuana abusing, left-wing socialist high-school dropout dork who works as a sorting clerk in a DVD rental store and writes a lame anti-capitalist blog in his spare time.
QUENTIN COLGAN’S UTOPIA!
Honey, yer prom date is here!
http://ugliesttattoos.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/76472469-00f5-4831-8eeb-f6e21aa99ff0.jpg
Tina, that was needed to be said and I absolutely agree 100%! Thank you.
EXCELLENT!!!!
Q. you need to read the bible and understand what Christ said and did. He was not a socialist.
1 Peter 1:7 – He did say, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him his whole life.”
His teaching was for us to care for and love our brothers and ourselves as He loved and cared for us. His teachings were also to care for widows, the disabled and the elderly. No where does he tell us to care for those who choose to sit with their hand out and do nothing to help themselves or others.
Evil is when people take God’s word and try to use it for their own benefit.
Re Peggy’s: “Evil is when people take God’s word and try to use it for their own benefit.”
Spot on. Evil is also when people take God’s word and twist it into incoherence for personal political ends.
By the way, Britain is socialist. In one of the most pernicious and ineffective forms of socialism — the Euro-Socialist way. The Obama way. The Democratic party way. The Progressive way.
Given Quentin Colgan’s most recent remarks, is there ANY question he is a stone cold Marxist? True liberal, true conservative, true founding father revolutionary patriot as he has so often claimed? My donkey. They guy is an stereotype driven, cliche mongering, anti-capitalist, Marxist drone.
“Years of liberal dogma have spawned a generation of amoral, uneducated, welfare dependent, brutalised youngsters
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2024284/UK-riots-2011-Liberal-dogma-spawned-generation-brutalised-youths.html
I was much struck by Cameron’s comments on the situation. There they are, the rioters, no education, no job, no hope of a job (I hadn’t known that Britain has the lowest rate of social mobility in the developed world) … but they’re just supposed to take their $125 a week on the dole and stick it? Burn, Baby … Burn.
Pie: “By the way, Britain is socialist.” Hmmmm. Somebody’s had his head up his butt all through the Thatcher administration … and for some time since, it would seem.
Because I know you didn’t google, and I want so much to further your education.
Mark my words. Riots in England will pave the way for martial law in the United States.
Y’know, if you want to mock Republican by posting retarded stuff to make the Republicans look like retards, I don’t have a problem with that.
I mean, your persona of Poe Guevara is the best spokesman the Democrats could possibly have. But, when you start to post retarded stuff to make Christians look like retards, I take a strong exception to that. I hate it when I tell people I’m a Christian and they ask, “What are you, a tardo?” They then proceed to tell me of some stupid-ass comment made by someone playing a game and out to make Christians look like retards.
Sorry sweetheart, I don’t read Peter to find out what Christ said. I read what Christ said.
Evil also wears a reasonable face and tries to convince us that our principles are unreasonable, or that there’s no socialism in Britain.
Evil always mocks Christians and calls them “tardos”. Sounds like someone is hanging with the wrong crowd.
Oh, come on. You are already panting for it, riots or no riots, anywhere on the planet. Why you think such a state would benefit you is beyond my comprehension. I mean, if you were thinking along the lines of South African apartheid, you is probably out of luck.
Did you know that in Karachi, Pakistan, the Urdu speakers and the Pashtuns coming down from the ravaged north have separated themselves into ghettos and are sniping each other on a daily basis? The civil authorities are seemingly helpless to stop it.
Makes the British thing look quite tame by comparison.
Libby said, “Did you know that in Karachi, Pakistan, the Urdu speakers and the Pashtuns coming down from the ravaged north have separated themselves into ghettos and are sniping each other on a daily basis? The civil authorities are seemingly helpless to stop it.” A good observation Libby, you do have your moments! lol
Quentin, just speaking as an observer of this conversation, you do realize that, there is not a single contemporary historical mention of Jesus during his entire lifetime?
If you want to read what Jesus said, then you have to read the records as passed down by his followers.
Almost everything in the New Testament comes from those who traveled with him and in some cases those recorders were not well acquainted with Jesus. For example, the Apostle Paul said he never really knew the person Jesus, but he had met him once on the road briefly. Instead his faith came to him through the Holy Ghost.
Here’s a little more on this…”Paul did meet Jesus on the road to Damascus, as recorded in Acts chapter nine. Paul was not intimately acquainted with Jesus as were the other apostles. Paul was not an apostle in the traditional sense (Acts 1:21-22). Nevertheless he did claim to receive a special apostleship directly from Jesus and it appears from the book of Acts and 2 Pet 3:16-17 that Paul was accepted by “the twelve” as an apostle, even if not in exactly the same way they were. They entrusted to him the ministry to the Gentiles, which is no small thing!!! (see Acts 15). Paul clearly claimed to receive truth from Jesus, as did the other apostles. Given his acceptance by the apostles and the elders in Jerusalem, all (or virtually all) Christians have accepted his letters as inspired and as part of the New Testament. Peter (2 Pet 3:16-17) clearly considered Paul’s writings inspired.”
I would say the lack of regard for human life is a feature as evil. This seems to be a trait shared not only by many of the rioters, but also some of their critics:
“A few well-placed rifle rounds, and the rioting would end in an instant. A more sustained attack on the rampaging mob might save England from itself, finally removing shaved-head, drunken parasites from the benefits rolls that Britain can’t find the will to abolish on moral or utilitarian grounds. We can be sure there’s no danger of killing off the next Winston Churchill or Edmund Burke in these crowds.” –Ann Coulter, “The Sun Never Sets on the British Welfare System,” Human Events, 08/10/2011. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45446
Some of the more violent thugs involved in these riots may need to be dealt with using force–perhaps even lethal force, although that should always be a last resort. But for Coulter to make light of such a situation, for her to say that the death of human beings would be a POSITIVE thing for British society–not because it would prevent further violence, but primarily because it would remove people from the “benefits rolls”–is the kind of evil usually seen only in the villains of a Charles Dickens novel. As is shrugging off the loss of human life by saying, “We can be sure there’s no danger of killing off the next Winston Churchill or Edmund Burke in these crowds.” It’s hard to imagine a more elitist statement than that; Coulter is literally saying that some human lives are more valuable than others, and since none of the people who might be shot by her “well-placed rifle rounds” will ever amount to anything (hm, didn’t know Coulter was a psychic), it’s no big loss if they are just killed in the streets. Funny how so many of her fans claim to loathe the “media elites,” yet sing the praises of one of the most proudly elitist media figures out there.
Ann’s got it right.
Chris, I’ve always been a strong supporter of what I like to call late term abortion – let’s see how they turn out before we abort em. If they don’t have it together by 30 and they are still being a worthless predator, raping, killin, robbin and stealin – abort em. Some may have to go before that, all depends on their criminal behavior.
Do you think if America one day just eliminated 500,000 dangerous felons/breeders from the prison system and our society, that we’ll somehow be worse off? Who is going to miss em? Who? Some other no count dirt bag low life scum like them? Ask me if I care?
I would much rather whack em based on their overall track record than for just one homicide where maybe there was a slip up in the evidence. You don’t slip up a whole multi-page rap sheet of criminal offenses done over years and years. Now that’s where accountability comes in and then they reap what they have sown. That’s justice and I’m all for it.
Re: Pie: “By the way, Britain is socialist.” Hmmmm. Somebody’s had his head up his butt all through the Thatcher administration … and for some time since, it would seem.
That somebody would be you and ever since, Libby. Thatcher and Reagan rejected the failed Keynesian/socialist economics and turned two of the most significant economies on the planet around from double digit inflation and crippling stagflation in less than 4 years. Governments from all over the world flocked to Britain and the US to learn their formula for economic sucess.
But the Marxists and socialists never went away in Britain and have prevailed in their political causes over the past 20 years. Now Britain is reaping that heritage.
Anyone even remotely suggesting that Britain is not socialist is either remarkably misinformed or an utter idiot.
My bet is that that both apply to our local village idiots.
“Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” Mark Twain
OMG Pie, I almost broke my keyboard. I read your comments and burst out laughing as I slapped my hand down on my desk kinda hard. Unfortunately that slam flipped my keyboard over onto the floor! It still works, but even if it didn’t it would have been worth it.
Re: “OMG Pie, I almost broke my keyboard. I read your comments and burst out laughing as I slapped my hand down on my desk kinda hard. Unfortunately that slam flipped my keyboard over onto the floor! It still works, but even if it didn’t it would have been worth it.”
Careful there, big fella! Especially if you read Ann Coulter’s latest. Check the congruence with the post you made earlier on cellphones (great minds think alike).
Don’t be taking any sips of coffee or you will end up having to hose that keyboard down with isopropyl and setting it out in the sun to dry.
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-08-10.html
Re Chris’: I would say the lack of regard for human life is a feature as evil. This seems to be a trait shared not only by many of the rioters, but also some of their critics …
blah, blah, blah.
Hmmm, rampaging mobs setting fire, storming buildings, looting, beating, maiming, and murdering people and Chris snipes about some people suggesting that a few well aimed rounds might turn things around?
I have no doubt that if the same thing happened here and if Chris were not on the street joining the mob he would at least be in the vanguard of left wing lunatics defending the mayhem.
Tell you what, Chris, you your gang of murderous fire setting mobsters whose lives you find so valuable go ahead and attack some decent, law abiding Americans and see what you get. People have a right to defend themselves, no matter how much any ridiculous, idiotic, moron from left wing pinhead hell may snipe about it.
Jack: “Do you think if America one day just eliminated 500,000 dangerous felons/breeders from the prison system and our society, that we’ll somehow be worse off?”
Morally? Yes, absolutely, we would be much worse off than we are now.
Also, Jack, your question doesn’t really apply to what Coulter was talking about. Not all of the rioters have, as you say, “a whole multi-page rap sheet of criminal offenses done over years and years.” Some of the people caught in the crossfire of Coulter’s recommended “rifle rounds” would have no criminal record to speak of. But judging from her article, it seems that she sees accepting welfare as being a crime in and of itself, one equivalent to violent crimes and deserving of capital punishment.
If I were a shop owner in London, you would find dead malcontents stacked outside my unburned and unlooted store.
Well Placed Rounds
Judging from Chris’ comments he obviously feels more regard for the mob than he does for their hapless victims.
Isn’t that interesting. A classic case of liberal feeling versus conservative thinking.
Ann Coulter simply takes the reverse position. She obviously thinks that the gangs of violent drunken brutes are the problem which could be set back significantly or even stopped with a few well placed rounds. Heaven forbid any low life scum running burning down and destroying a town be met by a force greater or equal to their own. Any truly caring and Christian victim should just lie down and die.
Perhaps if Chris found himself at the business end of a violent gang he might develop more of a sense of compassion and regard for the victims.
Chris, I thought I would never say this to anyone — I hope it happens to YOU. Maybe then you will get a clue and put stop this witless, wretched, holier-than-thou moral posing you so love to put on display in this forum.
It looks to me as if the “community organizers” are working overtime in Philly. A few well placed rounds would end that bullshit fast. Put the flash in flash mob.
Chelsea Ives, 18 is an Olympics ambassador, she was filmed rioting in London. She is charged with two counts of burglary, violent disorder and attacking a police car, she was denied bail. From what I have read and what I have seen she looks like a snooty over privileged punk out to boost a bunch of cell phones.
Chris so for thousands of years, when nations executed violent career criminals to preserved peace and stability, that was all wrong and did no good?
Even right here in America outlaws were hung, all according to the law, for such things as rape, attempted murder, arson, rustling and many other offenses that would not even warrant a 10 year sentence today. And look how many people we are keeping in prison because of this soft attitude and look at the horrendous cost? There is a limit how much of this soft justice we can afford, especially when you consider how that money could be spent on better things like prevention and education.
Your compassion for the predators is misplaced. Better to have an attitude of intolerance for the criminals and compassion for their victims.
Good find Toby and I’m agreeing with you 100% right down the line on everything you have been saying.
Pie to Libby: “Thatcher and Reagan rejected the failed Keynesian/socialist economics and turned two of the most significant economies on the planet around from double digit inflation and crippling stagflation in less than 4 years.”
And they did it despite the fact that they were unable to reform or remove much of the socialist programs that were as time bombs waiting (for today) to explode. Imagine what our country would be like with most of the citizens educated, productive, and contributing rather than dependent, covetous and bitter about what someone else has achieved.
Pie to Chris: “Hmmm, rampaging mobs setting fire, storming buildings, looting, beating, maiming, and murdering people and Chris snipes about some people suggesting that a few well aimed rounds might turn things around?”
A few well placed rounds would begin with warning shots being fired over head…a show of force. Since these children have never been taught to respect others, including anyone in authority, not to mention themselves it would no doubt take more than shots fired overhead to subdue them. If so the responsibility for deaths would lie squarely with them. A civilized society will not remain civilized for long when bad behavior is excused and indulged.
The socialist bred victim mentality always makes those charged with restoring order the bad guys. Yet these teens are in the shape they are in because of this thinking. They have been coddled, indulged and/or left to raise themselves on the streets where anything goes. Class envy thinking ensures that they believe someone else owes them. Special rights thinking gives them permission to take by whatever means. Civil disobedience teaching tells them their destructive actions are honorable.
This incredibly sad state in countries that have a long tradition of morality and the rule of law is a direct result of liberal self established morality, entitlement attitudes and policy, and a failing socialist educational system. The long spiral downward had to come to this. The only question left is what will rise from the ashes?
“A good observation Libby, you do have your moments! lol”
Sweetness … it ain’t funny.
“I would say the lack of regard for human life is a feature as evil.”
Has anybody died in the British riots? … who wasn’t shot by the cops? The “evil” assigned by PS would seem to apply only to property damage. How very upper class.
“Thatcher and Reagan rejected the failed Keynesian/socialist economics and turned two of the most significant economies on the planet around from double digit inflation and crippling stagflation in less than 4 years.”
That’s one way of looking at it, and very comforting to the investor class. Another is that she created a class of Britains possessed of no education, no job and no hope of a job. You remember that stat about social mobility? Care to take a guess from whence it dates?
I didn’t think so.
“If I were a shop owner in London, you would find dead malcontents stacked outside my unburned and unlooted store.”
Tee Hee. I was thinking just the same today, around 4pm, when an email went around the office about the BART. You may have heard that our more unreasonable black folk down here are pissed at the BART, as its officers will shoot rowdy, knife-throwing black fellows dead. (I mean, the Grant shooting was one thing, but this is entirely another.) There seems to be some thought about capitalizing (horrid word) on the British thing. We locals are not, in this instance, sympathetic … and had they attempted to keep us wage slaves from our trains home … oh … it doesn’t bear thinking about.
Libby you just be careful down there. This flash mob thing could spread to Oakland or it could just come from malcontents looking for trouble. Stay alert – in the military we call this situational awareness.
Pie Guevara: “Ann Coulter simply takes the reverse position. She obviously thinks that the gangs of violent drunken brutes are the problem which could be set back significantly or even stopped with a few well placed rounds. Heaven forbid any low life scum running burning down and destroying a town be met by a force greater or equal to their own. Any truly caring and Christian victim should just lie down and die.”
Pie, it would help if for once you actually read my comments before replying to them.
The first thing I wrote after posting Coulter’s quote was:
“Some of the more violent thugs involved in these riots may need to be dealt with using force–perhaps even lethal force, although that should always be a last resort.”
No one with two brain cells to rub together could read that and come away with the impression that I am against the rioters being “met by a force greater or equal to their own.”
Nor could they conclude that I expect anyone to “just lie down and die” when confronted with a violent mob.
Nor could they conclude that I have more sympathy with the rioters than with their victims. I explicitly condemned the rioters for their lack of regard for human life.
You are apparently stuck in such a binary-thinking box that my opposition to Coulter’s statements automatically translates into “Rioters, yay!” For some reason it’s hard for you to grasp–even though I explained in clear English–that I find both the rioters and Coulter repugnant. Sure, Coulter is not out there looting shops; she simply sates her bloodlust through writing about the people she’d like to see killed (and this is not the first, nor anywhere near the worst, time she has done so). That isn’t as bad as actively committing violence, but it comes from the same place.
I would appreciate it if you’d stop making false claims about me, Pie. You seem unable to get through a single reply to me without making a strawman argument, accusing me of positions that I have given zero indication of holding.
And holy crap, I almost missed the comment where you said that I would be either a part of a similar mob here in America, or defending it. Where the hell do you get this stuff from? You know nothing about me and you have no reason to be saying the shit you’re saying.
Jack: “Chris so for thousands of years, when nations executed violent career criminals to preserved peace and stability, that was all wrong and did no good?”
Jack, I am not going to debate capital punishment with you here. As I’ve already pointed out, Coulter said absolutely nothing about “executing violent career criminals.” She’s talking about shooting rioters in the streets.
Which, as I’ve also said but people seem to be ignoring, may at times be absolutely necessary! People who are committing violence against others need to be immediately stopped, and while police should use non-lethal means whenever possible, the sad fact is that sometimes killing is the only option.
My main problem, which no one has addressed, is the way Coulter frames such methods not as merely a way to deal with violent protesters…but as a way to deal with PEOPLE ON WELFARE.
Coulter: “A more sustained attack on the rampaging mob might save England from itself, finally removing shaved-head, drunken parasites from the benefits rolls that Britain can’t find the will to abolish on moral or utilitarian grounds. We can be sure there’s no danger of killing off the next Winston Churchill or Edmund Burke in these crowds.”
If Coulter is primarily concerned about stopping criminals from committing more violent crimes, than this language is completely unnecessary and counter-productive to her argument. There is no reason for her to talk of “removing” people from the “benefits rolls” by killing them, unless she thinks that being on welfare is itself a crime for which the punishment should be death. She genuinely seems more offended by the fact that some of these “parasites” are on public assistance than the fact that they are causing damage to life and property.
Perhaps if Coulter didn’t have a history of violent rhetoric and of demeaning the poor, I would give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is not what she meant. But given that she has also called for the assassination of New York Times journalists and sitting presidents, I have no reason to believe that she draws the line at saying that people deserve to die for being on welfare.
“Your compassion for the predators is misplaced. Better to have an attitude of intolerance for the criminals and compassion for their victims.”
I do have compassion for their victims and I resent the implication that I do not.
Tina: “Civil disobedience teaching tells them their destructive actions are honorable.”
Tina, you don’t seem to know what “civil disobedience” is. Think about the word “civil” for a moment. These rioters are not acting out of “civil disobedience” and I don’t know why you think they have been taught by anyone that rioting would qualify under that term.
Libby: “Has anybody died in the British riots? … who wasn’t shot by the cops?”
Libby, that’s a good question and I should have looked it up before I commented. The only thing I could find was that three people were killed in a car accident, and it is being investigated as a murder related to the riots. Regardless of whether or not this was murder, the fact is that anyone who involves themselves in a riot risks the lives of their neighbors. I do believe one has to have a certain lack of regard for human life in order to partake in something as mindlessly destructive as what’s happening in the U.K. These kids are morons who don’t seem to have any sense of political awareness or agenda for real social change–this is just pure rage, and whatever the root social causes for what’s going on, it is still evil.
Re: Libby: Another [argument] is that she [Thatcher] created a class of Britains possessed of no education, no job and no hope of a job.
Uh nope. She didn’t. And for you ridiculous claim, well, see the quote below. That even isn’t an argument. At least not a realistic one. This “class” (using your tedious Marxist clishe) had already had long existed because of Britain’s socialist policies and continues to persist to this day because of Britain’s socialist policies. But please note: they are not uneducated and they do have not hope.
Blame it on Thatcher? ROTFLMAO!
You might as well blame it on Bush.
“Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” Mark Twain
Re Chris: Pie, it would help if for once you actually read my comments before replying to them.
I read them quite closely. I have your number Chris. I have you exactly.
“Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” Mark Twain
Re Chris’s: “My main problem, which no one has addressed, is the way Coulter frames such methods not as merely a way to deal with violent protesters…but as a way to deal with PEOPLE ON WELFARE.”
Uh, no she doesn’t and yes it has already been addressed. But I understand your deep and abiding need to try and frame (er, twist) it that way, you ela.
Re Chris’s: “Perhaps if Coulter didn’t have a history of violent rhetoric and of demeaning the poor, I would give her the benefit of the doubt …”
Coulter has neither a history of violent rhetoric nor does she have a history of demeaning the poor. Your’s is a perfect example of the violence of left wing rhetoric.
“Never argue with a dyed in the wool liar; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” Not Mark Twain
I thought you were out forging the nails for Jesus’ second coming. Or, were tasked to fetch the wood for His cross?
I don’t mock Christians, Mr. Thompson. I mock YOU–as Jesus did.
Here you are–as the Pharisees before you–hiding behind the cloak of religion while you screw the masses. And when someone comes along and tells the uncomfortable truth . . . well, you just play to type.
The author of Acts, did not personally witness the meeting of Saul and Christ, but was told of it by Saul.
Further, Paul was convinced the Second Coming would be in his lifetime and what he wrote is strongly influenced by Jewish traditions of atonement–hence his echoing of the Old Testament. These “Rules for civilized behavior” are the primary reason that the committee to assemble a “Bible”–cobbled together under the well-known hedonist/hypocrite, Constantine–chose to focus exclusively on Paul’s writings for inclusion in the Bible when they put it together in the fourth century.
One can keep a tighter rein on the rabble if you got God on your side!
Well, Hell! Just look at that crap Thompson wrote!!
The author of Acts, did not personally witness the meeting of Saul and Christ, but was told of it by Saul.
Further, Paul was convinced the Second Coming would be in his lifetime and what he wrote is strongly influenced by Jewish traditions of atonement–hence his echoing of the Old Testament. These “Rules for civilized behavior” are the primary reason that the committee to assemble a “Bible”–cobbled together under the well-known hedonist/hypocrite, Constantine–chose to focus exclusively on Paul’s writings for inclusion in the Bible when they put it together in the fourth century.
One can keep a tighter rein on the rabble if you got God on your side!
Well, Hell! Just look at that crap Thompson wrote!!
Wow you guys have been busy since I got busy!
Libby: “The “evil” assigned by PS would seem to apply only to property damage. How very upper class.”
Class warfare! Class warfare!!! Just shut up!
If these hooligans were moral, productive citizens none of this would be happening, including those who are hurt or dead because of it.
Shop owners did NOTHING to deserve the property damage and loss!
“Another is that she created a class of Britains possessed of no education, no job and no hope of a job. You remember that stat about social mobility? Care to take a guess from whence it dates?”
We know exactly from whence it dates…it dates from the moment that the good citizens of Briton embraced progressive entitlement ideas and quit educating traditionally and morally.
Wow, has Quentin Colgan’s sphincter been set into oscillation or what?
Chris: “Coulter said absolutely nothing about “executing violent career criminals.” She’s talking about shooting rioters in the streets.”
I believe she said (paraphrasing) the first shot would see them scatter…she didn’t say anything about shooting anyone or particularly groups of citizens. You read all of that into her remarks…as she knew you would.
“My main problem, which no one has addressed, is the way Coulter frames such methods not as merely a way to deal with violent protesters…but as a way to deal with PEOPLE ON WELFARE.”
Got your attention! Forces discussion on subjects that are often ignored and mischaracterized as necessary and the only way. Ann is doing us a service and in a very entertaining way (for those who are light enbough to see the balance of absurdity and truth).
“If Coulter is primarily concerned about stopping criminals from committing more violent crimes, than this language is completely unnecessary and counter-productive to her argument.”
You do still have a sense of humor? (Oh right…you are in college where EVERYTHING is about examining the bug ad noseum)
“She genuinely seems more offended by the fact that some of these “parasites” are on public assistance than the fact that they are causing damage to life and property.”
She’s fairly certain that those who may be truly deserving of public assistance are home in their beds, peacefully passing time in front of the telly, or taking care of their children.
” But given that she has also called for the assassination of New York Times journalists and sitting presidents, I have no reason to believe that she draws the line at saying that people deserve to die for being on welfare.”
That you take all of her statements literally and so seriously gives rise to worrisome questions about your sanity or maturity. Ann is a decent, law abiding person…think about it. Think of it as (politcal/social) speech noir…and lighten up!
“Tina, you don’t seem to know what “civil disobedience” is…I don’t know why you think they have been taught by anyone that rioting would qualify under that term.”
I lived through the sixties and seventies; I know very well how and when it has been taught and practiced! (The exception was MLK) It is the very term students used to describe their terrorist ways. Saul Alinsky wrote a book…Bill Ayers and others took it seriously. Today ACORN thugs showing up at banks, town halls, state capitals, and on the doorsteps of executive homes threatening violence (and lawsuits) is the method of choice and it was taught by our president!
We already have a system for civil redress and it isn’t civil “disobedience”…breaking laws. It’s called speech, the press, the petition, the ballot box, and the legal system.
“These kids are morons who don’t seem to have any sense of political awareness or agenda for real social change–this is just pure rage, and whatever the root social causes for what’s going on, it is still evil.”
Very nicely said!
Quentin bases his arguments on the words of Jesus Christ. As he often does when he reads here he misses key words in the sentences. From Mathew 19 (words of Christ in bold print)
Jesus was speaking to a man who asked what good he must do to have eternal life. Jesus said:
Verse 17 “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”
The young man asked which ones and Jesus said:
Verse 19-19 “You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness.
Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
The man then said he had done these and asked what he still lacked. Jesus said:
Verse 21 “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
(perfectif you would be perfect! This word is important. Without it the message isnt the same.)
The young man had family and many possessions and so went away because he was unwilling to give up his possessions and leave his family to join the disciples and follow Jesus.
Jesus then said to the disciples:
Verse 23 “Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
(HARD for a rich mannot impossible)
Verse 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
(Once againvery difficult, but not impossibleand the next verse illuminates the human perspective)
Verse 25 When the disciples heard this they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?”
Verse 26: But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
(With God ALL things are possible!)
Can the rich man put God before his wealth and possessions? Some dosome dont.
(Only God knows for sure who his lambs are)
The lesson is that putting money and possessions above your love of the Lord will make obtaining the treasures promised in heaven very difficult.
The lesson is for anyone regardless the size or worth of their possessions.
The lesson is not that if you have money or seek wealth you will not have a chance at eternal life nor is it that a socialist/Marxist form of government should be adopted so that every individual will be forced to conformity and have an equal proportion.
The lesson is not that wealthy men are evil. God granted free will and each man walks his path, encounters his challenges, and confronts his demons before God. Ultimately each must do this within himself alone.
A related lesson: judge not, that ye be not judged
(Its not our place)
God bless; go in peace and may the people of Briton and here at home find peace in Him…it’s the only true way out of this mess!
Re Tina Answering Quentin Colgan: Verse 19-19 “You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness.
Hmmmm. Maybe clearing 1 out of 4 is a pass in Colgan’s book.
Pie: “Uh, no she doesn’t”
Well, if you say it, then it must be true!
Coulter clearly frames her solution (“rifle rounds”) as a way to deal with people on welfare. Here is the quote again:
“A more sustained attack on the rampaging mob might save England from itself, finally removing shaved-head, drunken parasites from the benefits rolls that Britain can’t find the will to abolish on moral or utilitarian grounds.”
When she says that “a more sustained attack on the rampaging mob might save England from itself,” she isn’t talking about saving England from current or future violence; she’s talking about saving England from the “parasites” on the “benefits rolls.”
It’s clear as day; I don’t know why you are trying to deny the obvious, literal meaning of Coulter’s words here.
It’s not as bad as when Tina tried to pretend that she had never heard of stereotypes associating Muslims and Arabs with camels and magic carpets, and then told me that Coulter’s “take a camel/magic carpet” remarks could actually have been intended as a COMPLIMENT because Coulter likes to look at camels at the zoo, but it’s still pretty dumb.
“But I understand your deep and abiding need to try and frame (er, twist) it that way, you ela.”
No twisting necessary, Pie. The only person guilty of twisting words so far has been you.
“Coulter has neither a history of violent rhetoric nor does she have a history of demeaning the poor.”
Pie, I already pointed out instances where Coulter called for the assassination of New York Times journalists and Bill Clinton. Here are the quotes to which I am referring to:
“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.”
“In this recurring nightmare of a presidency, we have a national debate about whether he “did it,” even though all sentient people know he did. Otherwise there would be debates only about whether to impeach or assassinate.”
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter
In what universe are these quotes not “violent rhetoric?”
Your assertion that she has no history of demeaning the poor is even more ridiculous. She has an entire chapter in one of her books titled “Victim of a Crime? Thank a Single Mother,” and that’s just one of the more egregious examples.
“Your’s is a perfect example of the violence of left wing rhetoric.”
What are you talking about, Pie? What did I say that is even remotely violent? You aren’t making any sense.
“Never argue with a dyed in the wool liar; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” Not Mark Twain
Is this your way of saying that it’s pointless for me to continue arguing with you? You have already proven yourself to be a liar, accusing me of condoning the riots in the U.K. and being against those who would meet them with force, even though I quite clearly expressed the exact opposite of those positions before your accusation. When I confronted you with this fact, you completely ignored it. You also, in two separate threads, failed to respond to my challenge to erroneous statements you made regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act. You’ve accused me of denying the threat posed to our country by radical Islamists, even though I have acknowledged this threat several times. You’ve claimed that Islam is a “complete civilization,” which is absurdly false on it’s face. And now you are accusing me of violent rhetoric when you have no ability to back this accusation up with evidence, because such evidence doesn’t exist.
You are a liar, Pie Guevara.
Re: You are a liar, Pie Guevara.
Nope, you are.
Chris: I suggest you read that chapter again.
Next, I suggest you join the mob instead of trying to pose as someone outside of it.
Lastly if you are so much a coward as to defend the mob and assail the victims and others like Coulter who condenm it, why not join that mob?
Ooops, silly me. You already have.
Tina: “I believe she said (paraphrasing) the first shot would see them scatter…she didn’t say anything about shooting anyone or particularly groups of citizens. You read all of that into her remarks…as she knew you would.”
Tina, think about it: how would warning shots manage to “remove” people from the benefits rolls? Her statement only makes sense if she is talking about shooting to kill.
“Got your attention! Forces discussion on subjects that are often ignored and mischaracterized as necessary and the only way. Ann is doing us a service and in a very entertaining way (for those who are light enbough to see the balance of absurdity and truth).”
Tina, I learned at an early age that not all attention is good attention. Ann Coulter apparently still hasn’t learned this lesson. She says shocking things to keep her name in the news, but her words don’t manage to sway anyone to her opinion; if anything, they only manage to heighten the impression that conservatives are hateful and bloodthirsty. If you’re worried about anyone mischaracterizing your positions, then you have the likes of Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck to thank for making all conservatives look like extremists. These people are divisive and only serve to further polarize the nation. Good comedy, good entertainment, doesn’t do that.
“You do still have a sense of humor?”
I have a great sense of humor, which is why I can recognize that saying we should kill people in order to take them off of welfare just isn’t a good joke. At least not when the speaker genuinely hates people on welfare. Conservatives don’t seem to understand that good satire has to be aimed at people in power, not the poor and lower class. If Stephen Colbert had made this same statement, the joke would have been on those like Coulter who demean the poor. But a wealthy political pundit who makes her living by disparaging the poor making jokes at the expense of the poor just doesn’t hit the same comedic notes, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone with a good sense of humor.
“(Oh right…you are in college where EVERYTHING is about examining the bug ad noseum)”
I don’t know what this sentence means, nor am I sure why you seem to think constantly expressing disdain for higher education reflects well on you.
“That you take all of her statements literally…”
Why shouldn’t I? Whenever she is questioned about her positions she doubles down on them. She has been asked about these comments multiple times and she has defended them every time. Whenever someone publicly wishes death on someone, I think we should take that seriously.
“I lived through the sixties and seventies; I know very well how and when it has been taught and practiced! (The exception was MLK)”
You may have been alive during this time, but you really DON’T know what you’re talking about. Very few people believe that violence is consistent with the principle of civil disobedience, and the term is more associated with Ghandi than with MLK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience#Violent_vs._nonviolent
“It is the very term students used to describe their terrorist ways. Saul Alinsky wrote a book…Bill Ayers and others took it seriously. Today ACORN thugs showing up at banks, town halls, state capitals, and on the doorsteps of executive homes threatening violence (and lawsuits) is the method of choice and it was taught by our president!”
This all sounds like a bunch of nonsense. You will have to provide some evidence for your claims, especially regarding these so-called “ACORN thugs.” (You do know ACORN doesn’t exist anymore, right?)
The last time conservatives made a stink about “thugs” it had to do with baseless charges of a “savage beating” by a member of the SEIU…this turned out to be a load of rubbish.
“We already have a system for civil redress and it isn’t civil “disobedience”…breaking laws. It’s called speech, the press, the petition, the ballot box, and the legal system.”
We had those in the ’60s too, but civil disobedience was still a valid (and necessary) option. Not that I am contemplating any acts of civil disobedience myself any time soon.
1) A rampaging mob is a rampaging mob.
2) Britain needs to be save from the left, the socialist/Marxist left that created the parasitic rampaging mob, not Ann Coulter.
3) Coulter is suggesting that the mob be met with a force that can stop it. For that you condemn her. No surprise there.
4) Coulter was not really writing about zoo animals. She was writing about twits like you. Try that for nuance, chump.
5) As for Islam, I suggest you get informed and take a good look at the links I have already posted on that matter.
6) Yes, you do condone the riots by attacking those who condemn them and trying to make them into an equivalent evil the rioters are committing.
I have your number. I know whose side you are on.
I just read that three Pakistani guys were guarding their shop from the rioters when they were murdered in a hit and run. I wonder how it would have played out if the shop owners could own firearms? Just FYI the violent crime rate in London is something like 6 x that of NYC. I read that a few years ago, I have no idea how it is now but I bet it has not gotten better.
Tina, Chris is bound and determined to try and beat you and me up with a couple statements (out of context) that Ann Coulter made ages ago.
In his mind that makes for a long history of violent rhetoric. Sheesh. Anyone who actually thinks Coulter was seriously advocating assassination and blowing up the NYT is wound a bit too tight. That’s Chris for you.
In any case, this is not about Ann Coulter.
It is about low life, socialist welfare state born and bred thugs in Britain burning down London.
Evidently Chris has some trouble focusing on the real issues at hand.
Ann Coulter has never looted and burned a storefront in her life and I seriously doubt she will doing such or encouraging anyone else to do so in the future. Those sort of activities are the specialty of a class of welfare thugs created by the progressive socialist “utopia”.
On a side note: The more the left hates Coulter, the more I love her. God bless that woman.
Chris: “…Tina tried to pretend that she had never heard of stereotypes associating Muslims and Arabs with camels and magic carpets…”
Chris I did no such thing! I simply asserted that her comments don’t have to be taken in that context.
You refuse to be responsible for your own experience of Ann Coulter which is heavily imbrued with politically correct stereotyping. You could use a time out from the constant yammerings of the victim culture.
“In what universe are these quotes not “violent rhetoric?”
In a universe that appreciates absurd humor to make a point…in a universe that is willing to judge a person by his entire make up and actions and not a few outrageous things he says to make a point…in a universe of sanity that is not so obsessed with making and protecting victims that it is easily duped…in a universe that has some common sense to go along with all that progressive indoctrination…in a universe that can think in terms that include many points of view!
Chris: “Tina, think about it: how would warning shots manage to “remove” people from the benefits rolls? Her statement only makes sense if she is talking about shooting to kill.”
Have you ever heard of consequences? Coulter is using symbolism eloquently to say that what these kids have lacked in their lives is consequences…consequences that teach and instruct toward a more positive outcome. Self-discipline and morality would cause these kids remove themselves from the benefits rolls.
“She says shocking things to keep her name in the news, but her words don’t manage to sway anyone to her opinion; if anything, they only manage to heighten the impression that conservatives are hateful and bloodthirsty.”
Is that right? And you know this because you have traveled the earth to interview everyone?
From my perspective you have to already believe that conservatives are “bloodthirsty and hateful” to come to such a conclusion. An open minded person would find what she says curious and they would be intrigued enough to examine what she is saying to extract the meat.
“…you have the likes of Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck to thank for making all conservatives look like extremists…”
“These people are divisive and only serve to further polarize the nation.”
Those of us who are more than 2 minutes old know that the polarization of the nation began with progressives in the 1960’s. The people you name have responded to progressive divisive policy and rhetoric to the point of becoming exceedingly popular, well-received, and admired by an ever growing number of people.
“…saying we should kill people in order to take them off of welfare just isn’t a good joke.”
It wouldn’t be a good joke…however since that is not what she said…ah well…like talking to a wall.
“At least not when the speaker genuinely hates people on welfare.”
Oh brother. You have to be an idiot, or taking this very personally, to think that’s true and I know you aren’t an idiot so I have to surmise you take it personally. If that’s what floats your boat go ahead and believe what those balled up emotions dictate.
“Conservatives don’t seem to understand that good satire has to be aimed at people in power, not the poor and lower class.”
And good little progressives like yourself have got to let go of preconceived ideas and listen or read with the intention of hearing what a person actually says, rather than what you expect or believe they are saying. when conservatives talk about such things we are always talking about the policies that have led to such a deplorable reality. If you had a brain in your head that wasn’t preprogrammed with progressive pap you would recognize that conservatives think more highly of human beings in general and think the less fortunate among us have been ripped off by progressive policies…effectively sold into another brand of slavery! (And sadly turning many into nothing more than the feral animal types we have been discussing…what an incredible waste of humanity! There is no honest way to avoid describing them in negative terms. Conversely, describing them in positive or sympathetic terms is a lie that only helps to perpetuate the bad policy!
“…nor am I sure why you seem to think constantly expressing disdain for higher education reflects well on you.”
I don’t disdain higher education but what passes for higher education.
“Very few people believe that violence is consistent with the principle of civil disobedience, and the term is more associated with Ghandi than with MLK.”
Oh I see. We are back to the things that are written in books. I was telling you what was real. I was talking about the things that are and have been done in the streets in the name of civil disobedience:
http://www.daniellazar.com/category/ush-justice-movements-of-the-60s-and-70s/
http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/07/08/leftist-groups-plan-a-riot-as-oakland-boards-up-downtown/
Civil disobedience on the streets often leads to violence and property destruction…beyond the human damage it ALWAYS costs the citizenry in terms of police and court costs.
“You will have to provide some evidence for your claims, especially regarding these so-called “ACORN thugs.”
http://www.examiner.com/orange-county-conservative-in-orlando/seiu-acorn-thugs-manhandle-town-hall-participants-tampa#ixzz1UxUVS8o8
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/21/seiu-protesters-descend-on-bank-execs-home-terrifying-his-son/
(You do know ACORN doesn’t exist anymore, right?)
Progressives organizations not existing anymorenow thats funny!
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/11/unmasking-acorn-former-leaders-reorganize-with-new-groups/
The last time conservatives made a stink about “thugs” it had to do with baseless charges of a “savage beating” by a member of the SEIU…this turned out to be a load of rubbish.
Not according to Kenneth Gladney, the police, and the hospital where he was treated.
http://www.examiner.com/city-hall-in-louisville/white-union-thugs-beat-black-man-at-obamacare-rally
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/08/interview-with-kenneth-gladney-man-assaulted-by-union-thugs-at-town-hall/
We had those in the ’60s too, but civil disobedience was still a valid (and necessary) option.
We will never really know how necessary it was. In any case, I have no problem with the peaceful dignified protests by MLK. Most of the disobedient were not interested in bringing justice as much as they were interested in furthering Marxism and violence was considered a justifiable means to that end. I dont think you are one of those but I have to tell you, Chris, there are plenty of people who have literally resorted to violence that are using the remnants of the Democrat Party to transform America.
Not that I am contemplating any acts of civil disobedience myself any time soon.
LOLnor Am I, Chris, nor am I.
Toby: “Just FYI the violent crime rate in London is something like 6 x that of NYC. I read that a few years ago, I have no idea how it is now but I bet it has not gotten better.”
Worse according to tis site that goes back to 2009:
http://sleepny.lefora.com/2009/07/12/london-v-new-york-crime/
People seem to have missed the point that children have to be taught to respect authority and the law or they are likely to turn into beasts.
Pie, I agree. Coulter is doing a great service and taking a lot of lumps in the process…such is life in a world where we find ourselves enured by progressive thinking and activism.
Once again, Pie Guevara proves himself a liar. He writes:
“3) Coulter is suggesting that the mob be met with a force that can stop it. For that you condemn her. No surprise there.”
I did not condemn Coulter for “suggesting that the mob be met with a force that can stop it.” In fact, I said multiple times that I AGREED that a mob SHOULD be met with a force that can stop it. I condemned Coulter for saying that killing rioters would save England by removing them from the benefits rolls. You obviously have the ability to read, so you already know all this; you are simply lying about me, even though the proof that you are lying can be viewed by anyone who bothers to read my comments. Why do you do this, Pie? What is the point? Is this the conservative version of taquiyya?
You remind me of my brother when he was a teenager; he would tell the most transparent of lies in order to get out of trouble, even when there was no chance he would be believed.
You also wrote:
“6) Yes, you do condone the riots by attacking those who condemn them”
This is nonsense. So even if I explicitly condemn the riots, I am still condoning them, just because I also take issue with some of the things their critics have said? That proves the accuracy of my earlier observation, that you are stuck in a black-and-white, binary thinking box, where nuance and complexity go to die.
You also wrote:
“and trying to make them into an equivalent evil the rioters are committing.”
This is another lie; I did not make Coulter’s words equivalent to the riots. On the contrary, I wrote:
“Sure, Coulter is not out there looting shops; she simply sates her bloodlust through writing about the people she’d like to see killed (and this is not the first, nor anywhere near the worst, time she has done so). That isn’t as bad as actively committing violence, but it comes from the same place.”
I’m really sick of having to post the same comment multiple times because you keep accusing me of saying things I never said. That’s the last time I’m gonna do so. Anyone interested in the truth can scroll back up and see what I wrote, and if they have a brain they can discern the massive differences between what I have said and the strawman positions you keep attributing to me.
“Tina, Chris is bound and determined to try and beat you and me up with a couple statements (out of context) that Ann Coulter made ages ago.”
Uh, the column I brought up in the first place was written THIS WEEK, Pie.
“On a side note: The more the left hates Coulter, the more I love her.”
And the shallowness and pettiness of your personal political philosophy rears it’s ugly head once again.
“God bless that woman.”
Hate to break it to you, but God doesn’t bless liars, bigots and those who advocate violence, at least not in the long run.
Chris some of your rhetoric can be very dramatic…bloodlust for instance?
I demostrated to you that Coulter could have been speaking symbolically or she could have been referring to shots fired overhead, yet you willfully choose to ignore or dismiss the possibility simply because you believe she meant literally shoot people.
The president of the United States has used similar language instructing his followers and supporters to visit violence upon the opposition which he has called “the enemy”, yet you continue to support him. I don’t see that our support of Coulter is any different from your continued support of the President. Based on your stated yardstick, you should have turned your back on him long ago.
“…God doesn’t bless liars, bigots and those who advocate violence, at least not in the long run.”
I think it’s time to reitterate:
Fair enough, Chris did not do any of the above by making Ann Coulter his scapegoat.
He merely suggested it.
Me shallow? Hah!
Re Chris’ never ending obnoxious rant on Ann Coulter and his snot nosed attacks against my character:
Chris, go blow your tedious self righteous smoke up some else’s flue. Now you would have me believe you agree with Coulter??? Wow! What a reversal! I am simply stunned. (Yet happy you finally see the light.)
This last bit is friggin’ hilarious “I did not condemn Coulter for “suggesting that the mob be met with a force that can stop it.” In fact, I said multiple times that I AGREED that a mob SHOULD be met with a force that can stop it.”
Evidently we have come full circle. Chris agrees with Coulter.
I agree with Coulter too, the rioters should be removed from the welfare rolls. One way or another. End of subject.
(Frankly, I have been having way too much fun playing Chris’ own game against him. How do you like it so far, Chris? It is time for me to give it a rest and let Chris cool off a bit before he blows a gasket. Evidently he gets a bit testy when he gets treated the way he likes to treat others. Funny how that works.)
Tina,
Chris speaks for God. You heard it here first, in the Post Scripts comments section. We are truly blessed.
Chris,
Far be it for me to argue with the mouthpiece of God. (tremble) Chris, do me a favor. (tremble) Since you are God’s mouthpiece it only stands to reason that you must have his ear. Tell God I was just teasing. (tremble) Just making a little joke, OK? You understand, right? Oh great mouthpiece, forgive this poor sinner and put in a good word for me. While you are at it, I could use some good lottery numbers too.
Tina: “Chris: “…Tina tried to pretend that she had never heard of stereotypes associating Muslims and Arabs with camels and magic carpets…”
Chris I did no such thing!”
Amazingly, you did, Tina. You wrote:
“Camels and flying carpets are not associated in any way with the Muslim religion, or any religion of which I’m aware.”
http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/2011/07/maher-uses-false-heat-ind.html
Tina: “Have you ever heard of consequences? Coulter is using symbolism eloquently to say that what these kids have lacked in their lives is consequences…consequences that teach and instruct toward a more positive outcome. Self-discipline and morality would cause these kids remove themselves from the benefits rolls.”
That interpretation seems…quite convoluted, to say the least. It’s possible, but the more simple and obvious interpretation is that Coulter was advocating shooting the rioters in order to get them off of welfare. I have a hard time believing that wasn’t your first thought upon reading that portion of the article. If Coulter does mean what you’re saying, she certainly didn’t express it “eloquently,” since both Jack and Pie Guevara thought she was talking about literally shooting the rioters.
“From my perspective you have to already believe that conservatives are “bloodthirsty and hateful” to come to such a conclusion.”
Tina, when I was growing up I considered myself a conservative. I was not very politically aware, but I rooted for Bush to win the first time simply because my mom told me he was a “good Christian man.” It wasn’t until I started seeing people like Coulter on TV that I started to turn against conservatism. I found her vicious statements about the 9/11 widows revolting, and after that I started to become more politically aware and realized that she was not the only conservative who believed things like this. Coulter’s comments ARE bloodthirsty and hateful, and one does not have to have any preconceived political ideology in order to see that.
“An open minded person would find what she says curious and they would be intrigued enough to examine what she is saying to extract the meat.”
Sorry, but the fact is that people don’t respond well to being attacked. Coulter attacks almost everyone: gays, blacks, latinos, single mothers, Muslims…she’s even said the country would be better off if women didn’t vote. This kind of talk just isn’t conducive to opening people’s minds. It puts people on the defensive and makes them not want to listen any further. That’s just human nature.
“Oh I see. We are back to the things that are written in books. I was telling you what was real. I was talking about the things that are and have been done in the streets in the name of civil disobedience:”
You go on to cite certain instances, but you don’t show that the people involved consider them examples of “civil disobedience.” That’s a specific term and I don’t think you are using it correctly.
As for Kenneth Gladney, he simply didn’t have a case. His version of events didn’t match with the evidence, it didn’t match with the video, and was even inconsistent with itself. Ultimately, the court agreed and found the two union members accused of beating Gladney not guilty. It’s funny that you brought up victimhood in your comment, because no case quite captures the current victim complex of the right wing better than how a minor altercation somehow morphed into a “savage beating by union thugs” that in some circles was believed to have been ordered by the president himself.
“I demostrated to you that Coulter could have been speaking symbolically or she could have been referring to shots fired overhead, yet you willfully choose to ignore or dismiss the possibility simply because you believe she meant literally shoot people.”
I didn’t ignore your interpretation, Tina, I explained why I don’t think it makes as much sense as the more logical interpretation. And since Coulter has advocated killing others in the past, even people who were not guilty of the same kinds of crimes as the rioters, I don’t see why your interpretation is more reasonable than mine.
“The president of the United States has used similar language instructing his followers and supporters to visit violence upon the opposition which he has called “the enemy”, yet you continue to support him. I don’t see that our support of Coulter is any different from your continued support of the President.”
I’ve said before that I don’t approve of political figures using metaphors which contain violent imagery, whether it’s Palin or Obama doing it. But Coulter’s statement does not sound symbolic to me, it sounds literal. Jack and Pie took it literally, as they defended the idea that the rioters may need to be shot; I don’t even disagree with this basic principle, I simply took umbrage to the social Darwinist idea that this was a good solution to the problem of too many people being on welfare. “Two birds with one stone” is essentially what Coulter is saying here; get rid of the violent mob, but more importantly, less people on the public dole!
Another difference is that even though I continue to support the president (and only because there aren’t a whole lot of other viable options) I have no trouble calling him out whenever I think he says or does something wrong. I’ve criticized him numerous times for his “they bring a knife, you bring a gun” comment, which was deeply irresponsible and stupid, and I’ve criticized him many more times for actual policy decisions he’s made that I find abhorrent. But you seem to have the need to defend anything Coulter says, no matter how many logical pretzels you have to twist in order to do so. And it’s not just Coulter; you seem to be following that old adage, “Never criticize another Republican.” Perhaps you’ve found that this works politically, but it isn’t very principled.
Re: Chris: “…Tina tried to pretend that she had never heard of stereotypes associating Muslims and Arabs with camels and magic carpets…”
Chris I did no such thing!
“Amazingly, you did, Tina. You wrote:”
Camels and flying carpets are not associated in any way with the Muslim religion, or any religion of which I’m aware.
I wasn’t “trying to pretend” anything! I have never associated camels or flying carpets with religion…PERIOD! And I have never heard of anyone else associating them with religion. Perhaps you have…I HAVE NOT!!!!!!!!!
“…the more simple and obvious interpretation is that Coulter was advocating shooting the rioters in order to get them off of welfare.”
Only because of your deep hatred of her. You hear what you want to hear and your attitude toward her disallows any other possibility. (including that she is a very smart woman)
” It wasn’t until I started seeing people like Coulter on TV that I started to turn against conservatism.”
If you would let one person or even a few, who obviously turn your crank, change your political opinion all I can say is that it isn’t based on solid ideals and principles but on issues. You may be a one issue voter…an agenda voter. We all get caught up quite a bit in drama…I’m not sure that isn’t part of a grand plan in my more paranoid moments. Division and envy in this country is causing a lot of folk to lose sight of the original vision for America and that is very troubling to me.
” people don’t respond well to being attacked”
You don’t seem to get that Coulter responding as “one who doesn’t respond well” (or at least nicely anymore) to being attacked. Same with Limbaugh, Palin and a whole raft of other people and entities (Christianity, marriage) that have been under democrat attack for decades. George and Laura Bush represent the old way of dealing with attack…notice how they haven’t hit back and don’t comment on the viscious and nasty and mean way that they have been treated. They were brought up to rise above it. Most conservatives were brought up that way, Hell, most Americans were brought up that way at least to some degree. You know who isn’t that way? Marxists. The communists had a big hand in starting the unions here (thug methods and coercion) and they had a big hand in the (nonpeaceful/violent) unrest and civil disobedience on campuses in the sixties and seventies. They have calmed down the violence some and resorted to propaganda more heavily in recent years. They made their home in the Democrat Party and the green movement, the educational and judicial systems. They use issues as a means to an end politically. (Live and let live is not on the agenda…activism and stirring up trouble is) They attack those who wish to preserve our constitution and who believe in freedom (rather than redistribution and equal outcomes). A lot of us just refuse to play nice anymore and we are willing to say outrageous things to make a point, to invoke controversy and discussion.
“It puts people on the defensive and makes them not want to listen any further…”
Some people yes. Who among us can please all of the people? What about the people on your side who say and do outrageous things? What exactly do you want or expect?
I realize you personally make an effort to condemn all such language…and good for you. I can’t quite buy that the other side gets an equal share of your disdain, however. I’ve seen you jump on the yahoo wagon when someone from the left nails someone like Coulter…you dig it and you know it.
“That’s a specific term and I don’t think you are using it correctly.”
Yes I’m sure the good professors have given it a perfectly good definition but as I said…it is the term the violent protesters used in the sixties and that is what I meant.
“As for Kenneth Gladney, he simply didn’t have a case. His version of events didn’t match with the evidence, it didn’t match with the video, and was even inconsistent with itself. Ultimately, the court agreed and found the two union members accused of beating Gladney not guilty.”
His version? His version matters…he wasn’t arrested he was sent to the hospital! The video only recorded the end of the attack. It’s amazing to me that you dismiss this, especially on moral grounds, so easily…you a civil rights warrior! I guess the left version is good enough for you…moral case dimissed!
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/07/seiu-thugs-lied-justice-died-witness-to-gladney-beating-speaks-out-after-controversial-verdict/
Kenneth Gladney spent the night in the hospital. He was kicked and slugged in the face and body. He was being intimidated by two very large men one of whom made a racist remark. (He eventually needed neck sugery) Pastor Himes was one of three impartial witnesses to the crime. The prosecution did not call him to testify in the trial because he is an activist on the right:
The pastor was not called to tesitify because he was an activist for the right. The SEIU guys were activists too….their version was heard in court. Gladney, if my reading is right, was only there to sell flags and was bothering no one. The verdict was either rigged (some claim SEIU members were on the jury) or the trial was just handled very badly by the inexperienced defense. The official verdict may have been not guilty but the moral verdict is indisputable to anyone who saw just the taped portion. Gladney was clearly attacked while quietly selling flags.
“It’s funny that you brought up victimhood in your comment, because no case quite captures the current victim complex of the right wing better than how a minor altercation somehow morphed into a “savage beating by union thugs” that in some circles was believed to have been ordered by the president himself.”
Altercations that include racial slurs are only “minor” when the thugs are left wing activists…just as it was a minor thing when the Black Panthers intimidated voters and made racial comments. As for the president I wouldn’t say he ordered it but I will say thatPas a person who trained in activism, quite possibly some of these same people, and who publically called the opposition “the enemy” and told activists to “get in their face” and to “bring a knife” I would say that he certainly showed leadership in the matter.
” But you seem to have the need to defend anything Coulter says, no matter how many logical pretzels you have to twist in order to do so.”
What I defend is her use of outrageous statements to make a point. I don’t believe she actually would kill or condone the killing, or vote for killing people as a method of social change or random justice. I don’t take her statements literally; I look at what they might mean in the larger context of her point.
The point I’m making is you hate Coulter but still find the President just a little wrong sometimes. You don’t see anything sinister behind his tactics, his methods, or his demeanor. is it because he smiles and says “You guys” a lot? That smarmy face don’t fool me…I’ll take Coulters honest cynicism any day over this man who, from my perspective, pretends so much.
” Perhaps you’ve found that this works politically, but it isn’t very principled.”
As Jack has often said, I call them as I see them. I have stated what I thin is is possible. I have not made absolute statements as you have. I’d have to be Ann to know for sure about anything. I’m a bit put off by your certainty.
One thing for sure…I am done talking about what she has said or done. I don’t know her personally and I don’t really have the right to imagine what she is thinking when she speaks. I would rather you take these issues up with her directly if they continue to bother you. That would be the more principled thing to do in my book.
Tina: “Chris: “…the more simple and obvious interpretation is that Coulter was advocating shooting the rioters in order to get them off of welfare.”
Only because of your deep hatred of her.”
Really, Tina? So why did Jack and Pie Guevara also come to the conclusion that she was talking about literally shooting the rioters? Is that because they harbor a deep hatred of Ann Coulter as well? Pie Guevara certainly doesn’t, and I can’t recall ever hearing Jack say a bad word about her.
The only person who has said that Coulter wasn’t being literal so far is you. Even your fellow conservatives on this blog don’t seem to agree with you on this point. So why are you accusing only me of drawing a radical interpretation from Coulter’s words?
“Yes I’m sure the good professors have given it a perfectly good definition but as I said…it is the term the violent protesters used in the sixties and that is what I meant.”
I know what you meant, the problem is that you’ve shown me no evidence that this is true.
I will not read your link to the Gateway Pundit. Jim Hoft gets caught in a lie at least once a day, and twice on Sundays. His blog is worthless to all thinking human beings.
The court found the two union members accused of beating Kenneth Gladney not guilty. No “beating” ever occurred.
Speaking only for myself (Jack), I don’t think Ann meant it literally. My guess is, if she was in charge she would never give the order to shoot rioters. When push comes to shoot – we civilized people have our bluff called and we cave. Chris, we really wouldn’t shoot – but it feels good to openly threaten those thugs! We don’t like them and so we like to use words to attack them, but not bullets. Chris, you are sometimes being way too literal, but as you mature these things and more will all come into focus and some day you can explain this stuff to somebody else just like I’m doing now. ; )
Chris: “So why are you accusing only me of drawing a radical interpretation from Coulter’s words?”
Oh, I don’t know…perhaps because you turn purple at the mention of her name…or because you will not let it go but continue to chew to the marrow even though your point has been made and everyone knows where you stand. Are you denying you hate her? If so, it soesn’t show.
“I know what you meant, the problem is that you’ve shown me no evidence that this is true.”
I’m not sure how to allow you to crawl through my memory bank. Civil disobedience has broad, sometimes vague meaning:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/civil_disobedience.aspx
http://www3.niu.edu/~td0raf1/1960s/Nixon%20on%20mob%20rule.htm
Nixon used “public disobedience” rather than “civil disobedience” but he was talking about the same thing when describing the violent extremes taking place due to calls for civil disobedience.
The late sixties were extremely violent and destructive. MLK often tried to get people to demonstrate peacefully but there were plenty of people stirring people to violence instead.
“I will not read your link to the Gateway Pundit. Jim Hoft gets caught in a lie at least once a day, and twice on Sundays. His blog is worthless to all thinking human beings.”
Well thank you Chris. Liars and damn liars, How the hell do we know that those who supposedly “caught him in a lie” aren’t lying? Because you say so? This “thinking human being” isn’t buying it.
The person who witnessed this event was willing to testify in court. His wife did. His testimony, not used in court, was simply POSTED on gateway pundit. I didn’t quote Jim Hoft. I quoted the witness.
The problem is that the thugs attacked this man…part of the attack is clearly caugh on tape and cannot be denied. He did spend a night in the hospital. A desparaging racial remark was overheard. You are not being honest about this Chris. Dismissing the place where the witness account was posted is just a way to avoid the uncomfortable truth.
Jack, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Your earlier comments definitely gave the impression that you saw nothing wrong with meeting the rioters with force, even deadly force, and that this is what Coulter was suggesting. As I’ve said, even this wooly-headed liberal thinks that deadly force might sometimes be necessary in dealing with mob violence, but what isn’t necessary is using this as an excuse to justify social Darwinism and dehumanize welfare recipients. Given Coulter’s talk of “well-placed rounds” I think it’s logical to conclude that she is referring to deadly force, and I don’t believe she’s merely joking. Clearly you and Tina disagree; there’s no point in debating it further.
Tina: “Are you denying you hate her?”
No, I admit I hate her for the awful things she’s said about family members of 9/11 victims, single mothers, women, Muslims, gays, blacks, latinos, journalists, welfare recipients, and a whole slew of other groups she is bigoted against. I have good reason to hate her. She spreads hatred toward others, she’s gonna get hated in return.
“Nixon used “public disobedience” rather than “civil disobedience” but he was talking about the same thing when describing the violent extremes taking place due to calls for civil disobedience.”
OK, Tina. We will have to agree to disagree on this point.
As for Jim Hoft, just Google “Jim Hoft liar” and you will find tons of results. The man makes the most embarrassing factual errors and never admits or apologizes for them. In one particularly absurd case, he claimed that people gathered for the memorial service for those killed in Tucson were “instructed” to applaud President Obama numerous times by a Jumbotron. In fact, the Jumbotron was merely providing a closed captioning service, and showed the word “applause” in order to document the fact that people were already applauding.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201101150004
He’s been called “the dumbest man on the Internet,” and with good reason. He has no shame about constantly posting lies and fabrications. He’s claimed that the president was trying to ban sports fishing, which was not true. He’s claimed that the president gave back “major swaths” of Arizona back to Mexico, which was not true. He’s claimed the president skipped the Easter breakfast, which was not true. He has even been fooled by “news” stories that were obvious pieces of satire and posted them as if they were factual.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201106080018
Here’s a few other handy guides to the lies of Jim Hoft:
http://thinkingmeat.net/?s=hoft+liar
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201009210034
If Jim Hoft weren’t influential among conservatives, I wouldn’t waste time linking to the many lies he’s told. But he enjoys a position of prominence among conservative bloggers, and his work is often referenced by Fox News. I’ve said it before, but I really don’t understand why you don’t have more of a problem with the fact that your movement is getting much of it’s information directly from discredited crazy people who lie all the time.
I’m not going to argue over the Gladney case again. The ruling was justified and the case is settled.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23079
Media Matters is also now funded by Goerge Soros, a discredited ultra left wing extremist and indited manipulator of financial markets.
Any thinking human being would never visit such a crazy discredited site.
Gladney was an innocent bystander selling an iconic American flag when he was punched by two activist SEIU union thugs; one used racist terms to demean him. He was then subjected to further injustice when the court let these thugs off the hook. Chris your version is BS as is the source of your information.
I don’t read blogs other than this one much. I’m kept pretty busy on Post Scripts. I simply re-posted what was the written testimony of a witness to the incident. It was not an opinion about what might be discernable in the video.
Tina, I actually agree with some of that Human Events article, namely this part:
“Brocks own past casts a shadow over his current self-proclaimed dedication to truth-telling.”
But the point you miss is that it’s his past as a right-wing fabricator that casts this shadow. And this is a past he has disowned, apologized for, and sought to redeem himself from.
Do I know if David Brock’s “conversion” is genuine, and that he is now fully committed to the truth? No, but I do know that his website, Media Matters, has a fairly impeccable record. So spotless, in fact, that not once does the Human Events article accuse the site of posting a factual error. There are criticisms of the site’s author, it’s associations, and even it’s tactics, criticisms which may be justified. But I didn’t see any charges that the website has ever been caught in a lie. Now, of course no source is perfect, and a site that updates as often as MM, on issues that are so controversial, is bound to slip up every once in a while. But even though the goal of the Human Events piece seems to be to show why MM is untrustworthy, the author can’t come up with any instances of information being posted there that is not correct.
When I explained why the Gateway Pundit is unreliable, I pointed out numerous instances where the site posted information that was not only false, but ludicrously, insanely false. Media Matters doesn’t have anywhere close to that kind of bad history.
You’ll also find that Media Matters gives a large amount of context for all of the claims made on the site. They always provide links to the original source, transcripts, and full audio and video.
Like I said, I don’t know for sure if I can trust David Brock due to his past. He was at one time very much like Jim Hoft, fabricating stories to suit his political agenda. But Brock, for whatever reason, seems to be trying to put that behind him. He’s admitted that he was wrong in the past. Jim Hoft never has. Nor have Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Glenn Beck, all of whom are guilty of the same things Brock has apologized for. I know you like to think that neither side has the moral high ground, but this is a fairly crucial difference.
George Soros has funded many different causes, including groups dedicated to toppling communism in Eastern Europe. I don’t agree with all of his views but he is not the bogeyman the right wing makes him out to be, and there is no evidence that he has any editorial control or input in the content of Media Matters.
I’m amazed, I have to admit. Seldom do I encounter a blog that’s equally educative and entertaining, and let me tell
you, you have hit the nail on the head. The problem is something which too few people are speaking intelligently
about. I’m very happy I came across this in my search for something regarding this.
Hi there! I know this is kinda off topic but I was wondering if you knew where I
could get a captcha plugin for my comment form? I’m using the same blog platform as yours and I’m having trouble finding one?
Thanks a lot!
Nope, sorry. We don’t handle that part the newspaper does.