Right from the Right: A word from the troops

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

A word from the troops

10 comments:

jhbowden said...: Classic image. Hopefully the troops, who got into Iraq because they were too stupid according to John Kerry (D-France) will make up some of our deficits in the polls.; November 01, 2006 9:23 PM
Jim said...: As KO said tonight, there is nothing Bush won't do to maintain power. He will lie about anything.

And you would accuse Democrats of doing anything for power. What a hypocrite!; November 01, 2006 10:37 PM
Marshal Art said...: How exactly did he lie? And are you still relying on Olberman for validation? Try someone with more on the ball, say, Homer Simpson.; November 01, 2006 11:43 PM
Jim said...: I seek no validation from Keith Olberman. I listen to his opinion which I find more reasoned, fair, honest, and "on the ball" than O'Reilly's, Hannity's, Coulter's, Limbaugh's, or yours.; November 02, 2006 12:08 AM
Jim said...: And as far as Bush lying...every non-partisan commentator or reporter that I have heard or read has said that it is obvious that Kerry was not insulting the troops.

So either Bush is a moron or a liar. Take your pick.; November 02, 2006 12:11 AM
blamin said...: Jim

So all your “non-partisan” commentators told you to believe it’s “obvious” what he meant, and of course you swallowed it – after all - they’re non-partisan, why would they purposely mislead you!

You’re kidding right? Would you be so kind, and provide a list of those you consider “non-partisan”? This should be very illuminating.

Here’s another question for you. Don’t you think it’s legitimate to consider ones past actions/comments/beliefs/lunacy when interpreting the meaning of a statement they’ve made?; November 02, 2006 7:46 AM
jhbowden said...: blamin--

"Would you be so kind, and provide a list of those you consider “non-partisan”?"

Jim: Kos, Chomsky, Atrios, Arriana Huffington, Eleanor Clift, Howard Zinn David Schuster, Wolf Blitzer, Dan Rather.....

Many leftists implicitly and explicitly believe in multiculturalism and deconstructionism. Hence, words matter more to them than action, and respecting all choices, no matter how barbaric, is their categorical imperative. Hence, if you disagree with them and support families, businesses, and the military, you'll get called a liar, a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist, a fascist-- all morally charged terms that imply that they think you're a heretic.

But what about truth? Shouldn't that count for something?

O'Reilly was just on Letterman, and the way Letterman objected to O'Reilly is interesting. Letterman said that he doesn't know the truth, but he thinks O'Reilly is wrong for he thinking he does.

I saw Clinton say the same thing on C-SPAN. President Clinton said there is no truth, so we should just keep talking and talking with each other until we reach some consensus. This really is what the left believes today.

This emphasis on feelings (caring, commitment, investing in our future, protect the children, etc.) and the denigration of knowledge comes from this. In previous ages socialists would talk about how objective their agenda was in comparison to its irrationalist, wasteful capitalist counterpart -- socialism was said able to create a heaven on earth. But given its ostensible failures, leftists have embraced a will to non-knowledge --- they don't know what's going on, but they deny that anyone else does.

As a result, socialism is now sold as a solution to a "crisis" to prevent our impending doom. Those who disagree are attacked for having bad feelings for children, the sick, the elderly, and not respecting the "difference" shown in other cultural practices. It is basically the Christian mantra of "we are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves" taken to the next level of self-hatred -- "Cognitve Calvinism" as David Stove once described it -- any morality and knowledge we have must be bad because we have it.; November 02, 2006 8:50 AM
Marshal Art said...: "I seek no validation from Keith Olberman. I listen to his opinion which I find more reasoned, fair, honest, and "on the ball" than O'Reilly's, Hannity's, Coulter's, Limbaugh's, or yours."

Now I understand. You're really a comedian. All your posts have been for humor. They certainly can't be for serious debate, at least not so based on the above quote.; November 02, 2006 10:32 AM
Marshal Art said...: BTW,

Good to see Blamin here. A fine addition.; November 02, 2006 10:34 AM
blamin said...: JHB

Don’t forget one of the left’s most famous (and destructive) “non-partisan” commentators of all – John Dewey.

His insidious philosophy has inundated the schools of this country and much of the world. The effects of his beliefs can be seen in the large amounts of people lacking in even the most basic critical thinking skills.

Another effect of his beliefs can be seen in the growing number of colleges that deny admittance into certain programs if they deem the subject or major does not “fit the applicants nature”. I could go on and on, the examples are legion.

I’ve met teachers that are so indoctrinated; they know nothing of Dewey other than his name. When I point out that the N.E.A. and other educational organizations use and promote methods he championed, and explain the basis in relativism and humanism and the destructiveness of these views, I get a blank stare (half because they have no idea what I’m talking about, the other half from those that can’t believe I would question the validity of their propaganda).

Thank God there are some teachers out there (like the owner of this blog) that have a foundation in reality and a knowledge that there are absolute standards and values that should guide society.

Hey Marshall!; November 02, 2006 11:25 AM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)