Previous 11 - 20 Next
It's actually instructive of how liberals argue to follow and read the article. What you find is massive equivocation, every liberals friend, drafted (excuse the play one words) in a malicious attack on the Weekly Standard, and in particular Ethan Epstein (which I, unfortunately, confused in my reply to "Brigand" with the iconic Bill Kristol.
William Kristol, if anyone bothers to actually read his "article" (I'm not sure a six sentence, three paragraph blurb over a video counts as an "article", but I consider that dilemma taken care of by the scare quotes), but here's the link: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/anti-military-anthem-played-concert-valor_818921.html Now I'm sure "Brigand" and the author of the article (accurate use of the word here) agree that Kristol has made a "serious mistake", and that "mistake" is clearly, in their eyes "being a hypocrite". And the alleged "hypocrisy" is that Kristol, a staunch defender of the First Amendment right to free speech, has written an "article" denouncing Bruce Springsteen's choice of songs to sing in commemoration of all the soldiers who fought and died for their country at the recent "Concert for Valor". What neither Gutilli nor Brigand tell us is that Kristol never denounced Springsteen's RIGHT to sing the song, "Fortunate Son", but rather the appropriateness of his choice. Evidently, Brigand and Gutilli feel the choice as entirely appropriate, in fact so appropriate that to think otherwise is "a serious mistake" in Brigand's mind, and amounts to being "tone deaf" in Gutilli's. Of course, Gutilli doesn't want to frame his complaint this way, so he points out all the hypocrisies Kristol may have committed in expressing his opinion about the quality (or lack thereof) of Springsteen's song choice, ("Nowhere in the song does it encourage anyone to resist the draft, desert the armed forces or head north over the border. Neither does the song denigrate the flag or cheer on the Vietnamese Communists."), none of which makes any appearance in Kristol's actual six sentence blurb. And all this is given as Gutilli's convoluted mental journey from what Kristol actually wrote, to what Gutilli would like you to believe he meant, so that he can then frame his criticism against Kristol as a hypocritical attack on a liberal's right to speak his mind. And that's the thing about liberals and free speech. They think that because everyone has a right to say whatever they want that no one has any right to pass judgment on the content of what they've said. To them "F**K YOU!" and "God bless you" are not only protected expressions under the First Amendment, but their quality of content is equal, and if you condemn the content of the former, you've just eliminated any "right" you have to condemn the content of the latter without being "hypocritical
That's Townhall doing to Hillary what the New York Times, the Atlantic Monthly, and Time do every time they run a picture of a Republican. Turn about is fair play, I guess. Although I'd rather believe conservative outlets are above this sort of juvenile nonsense.
"Hilaryshould have her own podium, chairs, teleprompters, microphones, etc>" You forgot brooms.
I can. "I'm never going to run for political office again."
I wouldn't mind that so much. So long as the math is done right. There are 7.5 times more non-Blacks than Blacks. Therefore, every time a Black person is arrested, the officer should also arrest the next 7.5 non-Blacks he or she encounters. Doesn't matter what the non-Blacks are doing. All that matter is equality.
Isn't there a TV series called "Criminal Minds", about FBI "profilers"? Is Holder going to get rid of them too? My wife loves that show!
Al Sharpton is a widely recognized race hustler. Has been for decades now. That he received an invitation to the presidential discussion table at which issues surrounding events in Ferguson is a national disgrace. It would be a national disgrace even if Obama had invited Frank Ancona, the Imperial Wizard of the Traditionalist American Knights of the Klu Klux Klan of Missouri, but at least it would have balanced the group a bit more.
It's a matter of cost. According to The Sentencing Project (1) there were about 5.85 million ex-felons as of 2010, and I have to assume there are substantially more than that number today. A fair guess would up that number to six million. A good on-officer body camera costs about $400 (2). Putting them on, without taking into consideration the hardware to make sure they stay on, would cost taxpayers about $2,400,000,000. I think Mark was trying to make a point, rather than making a real suggestion. I can't remember the last time I heard Levine suggest the federal government should spend another 2.4 BILLION dollars! (1) http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/fd_State_Level_Estimates_of_Felon_Disen_2010.pdf (2) http://info.taser.com/free-axon-body-trial.html?utm_source=Google&utm_medium=ppc&utm_term=police%20body%20camera&utm_campaign=AXON-Trial&gclid=CISYieH7psICFTFp7AodoW8Azg
The last thing this country needs is to start paying federal agents to review the digital records created by 50,000 body cameras. This is exactly the sort of decision that should be left to every mayor in the USA to make on an individual basis. And there is absolutely no solid evidence that any higher political officials, state, local, or federal, should be getting involved at this point on this issue.
Mr. Ransom, God is clearly limited to what is logically possible in both his knowledge and his power and his goodness. This has been a staple of Christian philosophy for centuries. Saying so doesn't "limit" God's divinity. Rather, if anything, it preserves its possibility. Secondly, there are only two possible meanings within the Pope's context for the word "demiurgo", because if its clear relationship to the Latinized form (demiurge) of the original Greek (demiourgos). It should have been translated "creator of the world" if the philosophical context was Platonic (and the Church owes a good deal to the philosophical musings of Plato!), and "creator of the universe" if Gnosticism is the philosophical context in use. It doesn't mean "divine being", unless the translators wanted to be needlessly and hopelessly ambiguous.
Previous 11 - 20 Next