Comrade Liberals: Respect Satanism as Culture and Myth

Posted: May 18, 2014 12:01 AM
Comrade Liberals: Respect Satanism as Culture and Myth

Von wrote: Here's a clue, John, about the cost for climate change in the near future: PUBLIC WORKS! I should thank you since I'm going to be really busy. Unfortunately many places won't be able to pay for the costs so lots of people will die. --Settled Science Brakes Into Cold Sweat

Dear Comrade Von,

Wow, it's a wonder that I'm not deaf.


Truthfully, it looks like you have nothing but time since you’re writing here arguing with a guy who's never going to agree with you anyway.

Part of it is ideological. And part of it is neurological.

I think there's something wrong with your brain.

Because I'm not exactly sure what public works has to do with climate change; but then I'm not sure what climate change has to do with global warming. Tell me: are they still the same thing?

I missed the last UN report on climate change, so I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean these days.

On the other hand, let's talk about your brain damage: you could have some rare form of Tourette's where you shout out civil phrases like: POLICE CAR! Or AMBULANCE! Or CITY HALL!

Many places won't be able to pay for the cost of what? Climate change? Public works?

Many places can't pay for the costs of public works now.

But here's the thing: After 30 years of doomsday predictions about people dying from global warming, I don't think you can point to one documented death from so-called warming.

People die every year from heat prostration. But fewer people die from it than they did 100 years ago. And you want to give up all of that progress that we've made, just at a time when developing economies need the same amenities that developed economies have.

I can guarantee you that denying these developing economies cheap and reliable sources of energy have already led to deaths.

How many people you think die every day because certain countries don't have enough police officers, police cars or ambulances? If you were truly worried about the people you say you worry about you would address that problem today, rather than worrying about some mythical future that's always 30 years away.

Wendal wrote: Just shows we need to get rid of oil period and just have renewables. Then we wouldn't have to worry about derailments or leaking pipe lines.-- Another Oil Train Explodes in Town; River Contaminated: Who Wants Keystone Now?

Dear Comrade Wendal,

Yes and we wouldn't have to worry about hospitals, or keeping lights on after dark on public streets, or adequate food distribution to urban centers. And since people wouldn't be able to go to doctors offices, or schools, or grocery stores, think of all the time that we'd save-- so that we could just stay home and cook dinner! Over a wood fire, history's number one renewable fuel-- and Europe's also.

Sheldon wrote: I must say off the top that I had always been an admirer of your writing, and to some extent, your abilities as a fellow financial advisor. Imagine my having been surprised by your comment about the Pharisees being distinguishable from their stench.-- Better Hurry

Dear Sheldon,

The other definition of Pharisee is a hypocrite, self righteous, sanctimonious. I'm sorry that you think I meant Jews in general, or Pharisees as representatives of Jews. I'm not anti-Semetic. It's akin to me using the term Jesuitical, as in sly, crafty, equivocation.

I have a great deal of respect for Jews, grew up in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood. My first serious girlfriend was Jewish as have been several others, I've been been to Temple and Seder dinner several times.

You misunderstand my meaning. I just recently wrote a piece about arming Jews in Ukraine. I'm a friend of Israel's, etc, etc.

Don't paint me as an anti-Semite, because that's not what I meant. I think the causal way in which people look for offense is a terrible tragedy of the modern world.

Van1man wrote: Well, not really. Bush's war was Iraq. Afghanistan, which Bush chose to mostly ignore, is America's war. Remember we went there to retaliate for 9-11? We went to Iraq, well the list is of reasons too long for this forum, it changed a lot, sometimes daily. And before you call me a lefty, pinko, peacenik, my solution to Afghanistan all those years ago? Nuke em, discourage the next guy from messing with us. -- Geithner Confirms Obama's a Liar, Again, and Again, and Again

Dear Comrade Crazy,

Nuke ‘em, huh?

We didn't go to Afghanistan to retaliate for 9/11.

We went to Afghanistan in order to deny Al Qaeda operating bases with which they can launch attacks on the United States and other countries.

While to simple minds, like Pres. Obama's, it might've seemed that Bush was ignoring Afghanistan, the truth is that Bush was sticking to the original mission of keeping the US footprint as small as possible, while maintaining the capability of denying the enemy room to operate.

We were very successful in this.

Since Obama has taken over they've widen the war. Over 70% of the U.S. casualties have happened since Obama surged troops into Afghanistan.

I agree that Iraq was Bush's war. But it was my war too. And yes the administration didn't often do the best job explaining why we were there, but it's hard to take criticism seriously from a guy who truly believes that we should've nuked Afghanistan as a better policy alternative to what we did.

I would never call you a lefty, pinko, peacenik; but I might seriously call you Comrade Crazy.

Gmallest wrote: Want to really understand Barack Obama? "Google" Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The main psychological diagnostic manual, DSM-IV posits nine personality traits for diagnosing NPD. Five out of nine are enough for a diagnosis. Obama scores a perfect nine out of nine. -- Geithner Confirms Obama's a Liar, Again, and Again, and Again

Dear GM.

Yes, but doesn't this apply to other politicians just as well? There's something about staying in the political game, especially at the candidate level, that either warps a person's ego, or contributes to a person's already warped ego.

Jeff_Georgia wrote: If Buffet made trades on insider information he should be in jail. Do you have the proof, Ransom? If so, take it to the white collar crime unit of the FBI. The too big to fail concept is ridiculous. However, it still seems to be government policy. Why no requirement to pay the money back to the Treasury (or better yet, use it to fund an across the board tax refund)?Further, they should not only have to pay the money back, but at a representative interest rate as well. I suggest a maximum term of 10 years at the average credit card rate in the US, updated quarterly beginning one year after money is received. That way if financial institutions try to play with credit card rates to lower their rate, we get lower rates on our credit cards. Further, the entire top level management of every corporation who takes bail out money MUST immediately resign, with no " golden parachutes" allowed, PERIOD. In addition, they may not go to work for any other firm that took bail out money for at least five years. -- Crony King Buffett Praises His Jester Tim Geithner as Courtesans Applaud

Dear Comrade Jeff,

Yes, I'm sure that the Department of Justice is very anxious to go after Warren Buffett, regardless of the evidence.

Because they seem so anxious to be a fair arbiter of justice.

Obama, you remember, gave Buffett a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Here's a concept: Instead of writing terrible laws like Dodd-Frank that don't even pretend to solve the problem of Too-Big-to-Fail, why don't we just let businesses fail when they, um, fail?

AlanfromBigEasy wrote: Your mis-characterization of your political opponents is just plain wrong - and your lying about your opponents just shows that the Radical Right is the morally inferior side. That is the side closer to evil. -- Harvard Celebrates Satanism Like It's a Costume Party

Dear Comrade EZ,

Ah, spoken like a true progressive.

So we are to believe that your mischaracterizations are somehow better than my mischaracterizations?

The point that I made in the article was that Satanism is not an expression of culture. It's an expression of moral inversion. All of the things that the world holds dear are things that are denigrated under Satanism.

And somehow you believe that my pointing that out is 1) a mischaracterization and 2) evil.

Just as every cop is a criminal

And all the sinners saints

As heads is tails

Just call me Lucifer

Cause I'm in need of some restraint

Pleased to meet you, I think I guessed your name.

Merrbock wrote: I really like your writing most of the time, but this one is worthy of one of the polemicists of the Renaissance! Excellent piece! I can't offer you any further acclaim. -- Harvard Celebrates Satanism Like It's a Costume Party

Dear Merrbock,

Well, you could offer more. Really. Go ahead and offer more. I won’t stop you.

Ericynot1 wrote: Satanism is mythology. So is Catholicism. It's all, largely harmless, gibberish. Do you really think seeing a black mass performed is likely to somehow turn any significant number of student into Satanists any more than viewing a Catholic mass is likely to turn them into Catholics? Do you think that seeing a bunch of murders on TV shows turns people into murderers? -- Harvard Celebrates Satanism Like It's a Costume Party

Dear Comrade Y,

I want you to know that I was this close to agreeing with you on a previous comment. But then I read this one, which might be the stupidest thing you’ve ever said, and so I deleted the comment I agree with.

Neither Catholicism, nor Satanism is mythology, although each has mythical elements to it.

What both are is a system of thought.

Catholicism--as with Judeo-Christianity in general--is one of the most successful thought systems ever devised to guide men towards right living. And secularists like you have never yet come up with a system to compete with Christianity. Don't count Satanism as a legitimate alternative, although some secular alternatives like Stalinism and Nazism certainly qualify as satanic.

I can tell you one thing that’s an actual fact, and not a myth: were it not for Judeo-Christianity, you and I would likely not even be having this conversation right now. It is almost impossible to describe it to people as ignorant as you how brutal the world was before Judeo-Christianity gave man a system of right living.

H13 wrote: Actually, much of religious ceremony IS a costume party! Look at how the Priests and Ministers, and Rabis, and Witch Doctors dress up for the ceremony. For sure, the one thing they all have in common is the mythical basis for their religious beliefs and practices. So why not view them as "Costume Parties?" -- Harvard Celebrates Satanism Like It's a Costume Party

Dear Comrade H,

Yeah. And look at how those doctors dress. Medicine is so mythical. Oh and you know what really bothers me? The way astronauts dress. Talk about mythical! Soldiers dress mythically too.

And clowns, let's not forget how clowns dress. Very mythical.

Which would explain the myth that our current commander-in-clown is always the smartest guy in the room.

Must be a small room.

There are actually valid reasons for rabbis, priest, ministers and witch doctors to dress the way they do.

And if you weren't so ignorant you'd look it up.

Brent171 wrote: Oh boy, you lot aught to lighten up, let people say and dance however they want but strictly enforce abolute nonviolence, then everything will be ok. sound waves of peoples voices cant hurt you. Just calm down. -- Harvard Celebrates Satanism Like It's a Costume Party

Dear Comrade 171,

Okay, as I said above, Christianity is a thought system, not a costume party. Satanism is a thought system, not a costume party.

I know liberals would like to believe that there are no consequences to misguided thought systems-- their whole ideology is based on the premise-- but Satanism isn't just a misguided thought system, it's a deviant one. Purposefully deviant; one that celebrates murder and death and destruction.

I don't know which is worse: embracing the celebration of evil, or just being ambivalent about it.

Harold206 wrote: Unless it was intended as a play on words, John, and I fail to read that into the text, you have once again succeeded in using the wrong word in your title for the piece. -- Settled Science Brakes Into Cold Sweat

Dear Harold,

Lame word play, I admit.

Ericynot1 wrote: Why does Ransom opine so often about climate change? He's a sports/finance writer with no, so far as I can tell, scientific training. Can Townhall not find any actual scientists to discuss this issue? -- Settled Science Brakes Into Cold Sweat

Dear Comrade Y,

Yes, the old liberal ploy of attacking the writer as “unqualified.”

Here's a better question for you Y: Can't liberals find actual scientists who can come up with actual models of global warming that work?

That's really the only relevant question.

We’ve had scientists come on and write about it.

You write about it.

Maybe I should just delete every comment you make that I feel that you are unqualified to make as a scientist.

“No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts,” said the Marquis of Salisbury. “If you believe doctors, nothing is wholesome: if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent: if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe. They all require their strong wine diluted by a very large admixture of insipid common sense.”

Scott s wrote: Unfortunately this column is marred by the flawed "analysis" of Gen McClellan. It isn't even germane to this issue of exploiting unconventional oil, but seems to be a favorite straw-man among some conservatives. I note that as an "old Whig", McClellan would be viewed as a conservative today (many Whigs were uncomfortable with Radical (liberal) Republicanism and for that reason shifted to the Democracy). -- Dear Comrade Obama: You're Wrong on Energy and Here's Why

Dear Comrade Scott,

Sorry, wrong.

McClellan was a coward, McClellan was a traitor, McClellan was a fake.

You can try to rewrite history, but Gen. McClellan had the best chance prior to the grinding strategy instituted by Grant, to win the Civil War without the “remorseless revolutionary struggle” that Lincoln warned about.

If McClellan had truly been a conservative he would’ve gotten on with the war, and won it.

He was just a fake.

Hillinger wrote: Blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada. – It could be every column

Dear Comrade Hills,


That’s it for this week,