Previous 11 - 20 Next
Considering that you couldn't point out anything that Reaganite actually got wrong, instead resorting to ad hominem, it looks a lot more likely that you're just swallowing whatever swill Ted Cruz slops up without bothering to run it by your brain. Great politics there.
In response to:

What Can We Expect From the New Senate?

jwilliams Wrote: Nov 12, 2014 8:44 AM
"Jesus NEVER advocated giving by force - which is also known as theft" Also known as taxes. As long as we're paying taxes - and Jesus, you'll recall, was a taxpayer - do you really think Jesus would disapprove of using taxpayer money to ease suffering? Do you think he'd approve more of using ever more taxpayer money on guns, tanks, and rockets?
In response to:

What Can We Expect From the New Senate?

jwilliams Wrote: Nov 11, 2014 12:53 PM
Correct, there are many who wish to fight the disease, and they all come back with stories of how ill-prepared these countries are to fight the diseases themselves and how pitiful their resources are. This is a problem that needs intervention on a much bigger scale than well-meaning individuals can provide. The way I see it, we can either spend $6 billion to stop the spread of ebola in Africa now, or we can sit back on our haunches, wait for it to spread wildly and destabilize the region, then spend even more money later on combating the extremist groups that always capitalize on such instability.
In response to:

What Can We Expect From the New Senate?

jwilliams Wrote: Nov 11, 2014 12:04 PM
"Instead of issuing an order that people coming from Ebola-infected countries will not be allowed to deplane in the United States (which Obama could easily do and would cost nothing), he is now asking Congress to appropriate $6 billion to combat Ebola in West Africa! That's so offensive that it's hard to believe he said it, but if the New York Times reported it, he must have said it." This quote sums up why I believe the Republican party as we know it can't possibly persist much longer. Increasingly, conservatives are asked to accept statements like this - that it is wrong to use our country's tremendous resources to combat poverty, sickness, and suffering - while at the same time being told that theirs is the party that champions Christian ideals. I believe Christ's stance on helping the poor, sick, and suffering was pretty clear, and to act like He would have found the idea of spending taxpayer money to combat a devastating disease "offensive" requires a level of doublethink that Orwell never dreamed of.
I think you miss Anon's point. Corn IS sugar, essentially. Take a look at the ingredients in any candy or any soda or sugary ceral and see what sweetener they use; overwhelmingly, you'll only see corn sugar, to the point that the few products that do use cane sugar will advertise it on the box like it's some kind of drawing point. Part of the reason no one cares about international sugar subsidies is that we've got a tremendous and VERY heavily subsidized sweetener market here - it's just grown as corn instead of sugar cane.
As a left-leaning libertarian who thinks abortion has more benefits overall for society than costs, I think you're missing the point on abortion. You say women deserve the right to rid their bodies of undesired "people," but surely you can see how it's not that simple for folks who believe the fetus is a human being too. In that case, what about the fetus's rights? If it's a human being, isn't its destruction infanticide? And surely you can understand why conservatives, then, are unwilling to compromise on infanticide.
In response to:

Goodbye, Columbus

jwilliams Wrote: Oct 15, 2014 11:51 AM
I believe that it is irresponsible historical revisionism with far-reaching negative consequences to characterize native americans as uniformly peace-loving, spiritual, and innocent of all evil, and that this characterization does exist in abundance. I also believe it is irresponsible revisionism with far-reaching negative consequences to characterize Columbus as a saintly pioneer who did no wrong and who embodies only the best virtues of the West, and that this misrepresentation also abounds. I also believe that people get weirdly prickly when this misrepresentation of Columbus is challenged, writing Columbus a pass that one could just as easily write for Hitler, who also believed in the superiority of his own people and who also acted according to the recent examples of his own time (Armenia, specifically).
In response to:

Goodbye, Columbus

jwilliams Wrote: Oct 15, 2014 6:22 AM
And just going to copy/paste from my own words below: My liberal Massachusetts history professor was highly critical of Columbus, but also held that Cortez's primary weapon against the Aztecs was the fact that everyone else in Central America hated the Aztecs. There is no inconsistency in thinking Columbus was a monster and that the Aztecs deserved everything they had coming to them.
In response to:

Goodbye, Columbus

jwilliams Wrote: Oct 15, 2014 6:21 AM
Why do you say I have no idea what I'm talking about? I was arguing in response to the ignorant claim that he enslaved no one. I said that he plainly did. You're saying that he plainly did. Hurray. We agree. I also say that his crimes were not limited to his slaving. You do not respond to that bit. Truth is, if it was just slaving, I think we could all turn the blind eye we afford so many of the founding fathers. It wasn't just slaves, though. In the words of Bartolome de las Casas, an eyewitness to Columbus's reign as governor on Hispaniola: ""there were 60,000 people living on this island, including the Indians; so that from 1494 to 1508, over three million people had perished from war, slavery, and the mines. Who in future generations will believe this? I myself writing it as a knowledgeable eyewitness can hardly believe it....""
In response to:

Goodbye, Columbus

jwilliams Wrote: Oct 14, 2014 4:11 PM
Well said, but the traditional image of Columbus that we grow up with is a saintly and noble explorer who dared to believe the world was round and who more or less got along with the natives he encountered. One can't help but think the anti-anti-Columbus crowd wants us to return to this image, and we've got to acknowledge that that is itself revisionist history.
In response to:

Goodbye, Columbus

jwilliams Wrote: Oct 14, 2014 4:05 PM
My liberal Massachusetts history professor was highly critical of Columbus, but also held that Cortez's primary weapon against the Aztecs was the fact that everyone else in Central America hated the Aztecs. There is no inconsistency in thinking Columbus was a monster and that the Aztecs deserved everything they had coming to them.
Previous 11 - 20 Next