His point about how "they" tend not to do stuff like this to feared subcultures is spot on...
Fortunately in America,joining a feared subculture is as easy as buying a gun, and more importantly, learning how to use it.
One needn't be bellicose and warlike, but one does need to be...formidable.
The most dangerous men and women I know are modest and quiet, confident and fearless.
It's a natural consequence of knowing, with absolute clarity, that their odds of prevailing against everyone in the room are excellent.
The gun isn't the cause, it is the sign and tool of one's will to formidability.
Folks need to appreciate that the greatest gift of arms comes from within, and travels with you even when you leave your guns locked up at home. This gift is the recognition that one is an autonomous agent of one's own fate, the captain of one's own ship, and not a helpless passenger clinging to some storm tossed jetsam.
A civil society cannot be held together coherently when folks are in a chronic state of impotence, subservience and fear. Such a fear based society is the natural tool of the tyrant.
The a society of formidable individuals opens far more enlightened possibilities, but the choice of formidability is inherently individual, it can only be taken, and fostered, but never given or bestowed.
The darkest truth I know is that humans can be enslaved and beaten into submission, and that those deprived of their right and dignity of arms are most vulnerable to that. Once fully enslaved, body, mind and spirit, the path back is so long and hard that its successful completion is astronomically unlikely. Those who have protected their minds and spirits fare much better in such journeys.
This reminds me of something a Jewish philosopher I used to hang out with once said. (Approx quote from 20 year old memory) "You know Geek, I really suspect the reason G-d lead Moses on a wild goose chase through the desert for forty years while feeding them manna was to let the generation that had been beaten into a submissive, dependent slave mentality die off. Such people never would have been able to prosper or keep the Promised Land, but their toughened children, raised to live by their own hand, could."
I have heard the same notion, Geek. I think there's something to it. There are a number of things in the Bible that have some grounding in common sense, whether or not one is a believer (I am, but that's not the point). Consider the advantage conferred (back then, anyway, if less so now) by the hygiene and dietary laws.
Well, it's good thing that folks here and Steyn don't let their emotions get the better of them.
"Mark Stein is a prophet."
"The Nationalization of Your Children"
"one trivial step after another, into a totalitarian hell."
"The darkest truth...Once fully enslaved, body, mind and spirit..."
Ah, facts and logic.
Actually, it reminds me of that bit from Bruce Almighty in which we see reporter Evan (played by Steve Carrell) delivering a teaser to an upcoming piece on the nightly news.
"Are you children in DIRE JEOPARDY? Find out more after the game!"
Well, it's good thing that folks here and Steyn don't let their emotions get the better of them.
This from someone who subscribes to an ideology so driven by hysterical emotionality that industrial quantities of smelling salts are required just to retain consciousness.
1. Did you actually read either Steyn's article or the Daily Mail piece?
2. If the answer to (1) is yes, do you question the factual accuracy of the article?
3. If the answer to (2) is yes, what is your evidence?
4. Assuming the article is in fact accurate, do you seriously think it is actually possible to overreact to government telling a parent that she has to have a criminal background check to take her own children to the park?
Is any of the above really the argument you want to make, Marshmallow? Seriously?
1. Did you actually read either Steyn's article or the Daily Mail piece?
Not a flipping chance.
In other news, my one-day dream of visiting and touring the British Isles is seeming like less and less of a good idea. At this point, I am hard-pressed to see that as a loss.
I was there in May 2001, Linoge. I stayed up in Buckinghamshire (a high-rent district, to be sure) on a college campus and went daily to London (bus to Chalfont St. Giles or Uxbridge, train to the city) for two weeks. I have to say I didn't see anything terribly out of the ordinary at the time, but on the other hand we were scrambling to catch the last train out of London around ten. There's a great Italian restaurant just off Piccadilly Circus if you do ever go.
2. No. I laugh at the hysterical over reaction of Steyn which, as usual, is not surprising considering he knows his audience and market. And their proclivities to be overly emotional and fearful :)
3. N/A as I answered "no."
4. What I find to be hilarious is that all of you take this article at face value. Is this the whole story? Are their other parks to go to? Will there be enough of an uproar to change this policy? Is there any media bias at all? For a group of people who question the media, why aren't you questioning this media? Could it be because it's the "political porn" that you love so much? You know...the tap into your inner rage and get all excited and stuff about evil gubmint? Nah, couldn't be...
Good thing you all know what critical thinking is...
Britain...Gubmint...eeep...blurp...squonk...coming here soon...hide children...out to get children...blurp...eep...squonk..evil...danger...danger
"2. No. I laugh at the hysterical over reaction of Steyn which, as usual, is not surprising considering he knows his audience and market. And their proclivities to be overly emotional and fearful"
So, no harm no foul when the wolf eats your sheep then, eh? Were there a clue-by-four big enough in this world (or the next), or a man alive strong enough to wield it, it still wouldn't be enough to knock sense into you. By your own choice, of course. Blindness of your caliber is willful and telling.
Is this the whole story? Are their other parks to go to?
Amazing. Mark has started to discover some of the very first things to ask about any news report.
Of course, he doesn't build on it.
Or answer those... Or even to notice the context.
He's just attacking Steyn ... Who's got a lot more accomplishments. And then accuses us of "robotic" thinking.
hysterical over reaction of Steyn
Over reaction? How is that a over-reaction?
Will there be enough of an uproar to change this policy?
Wait, I thought Steyn was hysterically over-reacting? Now you admit that it's worthy of Steyn's hysterical (laughter) and changing?
Damn, Ralph.
the tap into your inner rage and get all excited and stuff about evil gubmint? Nah, couldn't be...
Nah, can't be. See, you can't even attack it effectively, you have to admit that you believe it, then you claim it's not true, is true, not true...
So, is it true, and if it's true, are you supportive or against it? Notice how you kind of totally miss that? Or deal with the implications of it? Or either disprove it's not the case, or... Well, anything, other than just personal attacks, personal rage, and eep boop beep.
Y'know DJ, if that had come from someone who could appreciate that bit of irony it would've been real genius. As it is, M, will dust himself off and hope that no one remembers this pratfall (just like all the others).
"1. Did you actually read either Steyn's article or the Daily Mail piece?
2. If the answer to (1) is yes, do you question the factual accuracy of the article?"
Bill Maher's booty call answered:
"2. No.(emphasis added) I laugh at the hysterical over reaction of Steyn which, as usual, is not surprising considering he knows his audience and market. And their proclivities to be overly emotional and fearful"
Note the answer: No. And the next:
"3. N/A as I answered "no."
And further:
"4. What I find to be hilarious is that all of you take this article at face value.(emphasis added)Is this the whole story?
So you don't deny the accuracy of the article, except...well...you do, in order to advance what you amusingly think of as an argument.
You know, Sta-Punk, it's one thing not to be able to keep your nonsense straight from one comment to the next. Indicative of your utter lack of character and principle, but one thing nonetheless.
However, it opens realms of wretchedness to previously unplumbed to contradict yourself within the space of the same comment.
Worst. Sophist. In. The. HISTORY. Of. All. Wretched. Sophistry.
"Good thing you all know what critical thinking is..."
It sounds like the only reason Marko is bleating about this is that the linked article was written by Mark Steyn. The article in the Daily Mail is fairly balanced. There are quotes from the government officials and quotes from parents. The government officials are not denying the policy. So the article is valid.
Now, let's look at the policy. It presumes that everyone is a pedophile unless they undergo special government training. Parents are included in this.
Now, how can anyone NOT get angry and "overreact" towards this policy. Why would this even be a liberal or even conservative issue?
Hell, it sounds like something a right wing government would do; overreacting to an issue (pedophilia) that has been blown totally out of proportion. A good Liberal should be just as outraged as Steyn and stand up to this fascist government that would dare to institute such an outrageous policy.
But since Steyn leans to the right, Marko can't bring himself to do that. He's not a Liberal, he's a partisan hack.
So, let's review, class, stripping things down to their essentials.
At issue in an article describing circumstances in which access to a public park with your children is conditioned upon government approval and a background check.
Markadelphia:
1) Does not contest the central factual accuracy of the article. Sure, he leaves himself some weasel room, but we're just going to write that off as noise.
2) Does not voice any objection to the phenomena itself.
3) Does voice strident objection to our objection, deeming it to be the product of a laundry list of items including hysteria, over reaction, etc.
--==|==--
In light of all that, I think it's reasonable to conclude that Markadelphia at least tacitly accepts the validity of, if not endorses the phenomena at issue.
--==|==--
While we generally concede that society has delegated to the state the truly extraordinary power to separate parents from children, this is reserved only for the most extraordinary and dire of circumstances, and constrained to use after the full course of all due process has run.
Anything less than that is wildly inconsistent with a free society, and frankly, repugnant on many levels.
Accepting the separation of parent and child by the state as part of the ordinary, everyday operating procedure of the ordinary family joy of playing in the park is a sign of a loss of perspective at best. At worst... well, I guess there's no lower limit to what this could mean at worst in terms of depravity.
--==|==--
There is a great deal more than can, and perhaps should be said on the matter, but at the end of the day, the legitimacy of the state separating parents from children as a matter of ordinary operating procedure, or as a condition of access to any public (or private!) place is summarily rejected.
...the legitimacy of the state separating parents from children as a matter of ordinary operating procedure, or as a condition of access to any public (or private!) place...
You just described what we do with public schooling.
"Good thing you all know what critical thinking is..."
Yes, it is, yet you make this statement after thoroughly contradicting yourself within the space of a few sentences. Oh the irony ...
I'll not fisk your comment further. Others have done so nicely, particularly Ken, which is to be expected given you were answering his questions.
But I think you have given up trying to be taken seriously. That's a good thing, because you have so little to offer. But, it means you are nothing more than a troll. Is that really what you're after here?
>>You just described what we do with public schooling.
No, sir.
I can, at any moment, go to the school, perform a check in at the front office, (which in the state of PA is strictly a courtesy) and go retrieve my child.
In any state, a parent can demand that their child be produced immediately.
In most states, the right of a parent to non disruptively observe class proceedings isn't a matter of dispute.
Those factors make all the difference in the world.
There is a keen difference between "as a parent, you have no right to be here, without government approval and a background check" and "as a parent, you do have the right to be here, but not to make a disruptive ass of yourself."
He gave up expecting to long ago. Only part of his problem is stupidity and that part is overwhelmed by problems of ego, thus he's not blind to why he isn't taken seriously. What appears to be new is that he no longer even tries, i.e. he doesn't even fake it any more.
So it was Steyn who overreacted and not the government? Mark, very, very few people in the grand scheme of things pay attention to the "conservative reaction" to the policy, they will focus on the policy itself.
"What appears to be new is that he no longer even tries, i.e. he doesn't even fake it any more."
Indeed. I think it correlates with his "awakening giant" shtick, wherein he's abandoned all pretense (for surely, he was the only one moronic enough to believe it was anything but) of understanding or thought and has gone full-on Liberal-with-a-capital-L.
I'm pretty used to his inability to distinguish characteristics in others, but he now absolutely, without hesitation, groups anyone who even slightly disagrees with him or any other liberal into the "far right" category.
I don't understand that level of intellectual poisoning.
But since Steyn leans to the right, Marko can't bring himself to do that. He's not a Liberal, he's a partisan whacko.
FTFY
It doesn't happen a lot, but I agreed with something I read in The Nation yesterday on rethinking Afghanistan. Can anyone imagine M agreeing with something in National Review - oh, obviously not.
Hell, it sounds like something a right wing government would do; overreacting to an issue (pedophilia) that has been blown totally out of proportion. A good Liberal should be just as outraged as Steyn and stand up to this fascist government that would dare to institute such an outrageous policy.
An interesting point, Yosemite; and yet consider that this is exactly the same policy liberals have toward gun ownership: everyone is assumed to be a mass-murderer unless credentialed by the state.
I dunno, I think it's a deliberate choice to always demonize their opponents and always defend their allies, regardless of how criminal or insane they may be.
It's all of a piece with him coming over here and saying he doesn't think criminals and corruptocrats should be rewarded for their actions, and then going back to his own blog and defending Nancy Pelosi.
"no harm no foul when the wolf eats your sheep then"
Yeah, because that is what's going on. And pretty soon (gasp!) it's a gonna happen here!!! Because, of course, if it happens in the UK then it MUST happen here.
"So you don't deny the accuracy of the article, except...well...you do, in order to advance what you amusingly think of as an argument."
The information the article presented is accurate but, as is usually the case with the tap into your inner rage crowd, NOT the whole story. Steyn wants readers and he knows his audience. Hence, the reaction he had...political porn mission accomplished.
"It presumes that everyone is a pedophile unless they undergo special government training. Parents are included in this."
Or they could just not play in that park. Or they could try to change this policy. I'm curious as to what has happened since this article was published. Will the policy be changed? If it is, will Steyn write a column about it? Or will we be on to the next threat? I hear the gubmint is now allowing MOOSE-lims to beat up Santa in front of old ladies at church!!!
Reaction by such people as Steyn and (gasp!) Kevin are how such change often starts, and how it gains momentum, sack boy.
Now, back to Ken's fourth question (emphasis changed):
"Assuming the article is in fact accurate [which you explicitly do not contest], do you seriously think it is actually possible to overreact to government telling a parent that she has to have a criminal background check to take her own children to the park?"
You haven't answered it yet, liar boy. So far, it is just another example of your Standard Response #5, the "I'm drowning in stupidity" response, wherein you simply lay on the blather, slathering on one turgid catch-phrase, slogan, and cliché after another, and then declare, later, "I answered your question."
How was Halloween? Yeah, we didn't get any trick-or-treaters our our way. You?
Don't forget to note on your timecard that Daylight Savings ended if you were working over that.
Because, of course, if it happens in the UK then it MUST happen here.
If you had been honestly paying attention, you would have noted that quite often, yes, what's tried there is suggested for here. England is in many ways the petri dish and we can see the failed experiments there - and then people like you ignore those failures, insist that you've got The One who can do it HARDER and RIGHT, and implement the same policies, or very similar.
Does it mean that it WILL follow here? No, but it is a damn good yardstick to measure where the statists are going to go.
The information the article presented is accurate but, as is usually the case with the tap into your inner rage crowd, NOT the whole story.
Says the man projecting the tapping into his inner rage.
What did he leave out? If it's accurate, it's accurate. If it's inaccurate due to omission then it's not accurate.
I realize that you're now trying to have it both ways, since one of your favorite debating methods is to leave information out, and then insist that you were accurate. But it doesn't work for you, and it doesn't work for Steyn. What did he leave out? At no point have you proven that anything was omitted, you've merely indirectly INSINUATED that maybe there's more to this story, therefore it's incorrect.
I've emailed him with corrections before - that he's promptly acknowledged. What has he omitted in this story, Mark? For you to say that, and base your argument upon it, it is incumbant upon you to prove that.
Either it's accurate or it's not. This is your attempt to have different rules for you and the sources you worship and us and the sources you don't like. This is you advocating the different rules. (Again). Not Us.
Or they could try to change this policy.
And you just contradicted yourself again.
First you said that there was no need to change the policy, because it wasn't as described, then you admitted it was as described, but that anybody bringing attention to it was "tapping into their inner rage and emotions" (nevermind they were factually and logically correct according to you) and now you back off of THAT and say "Well, maybe they'll change the policy".
Critical Thinking, Indeed. (Critical in terms of subatomic mass and matter.)
No, Mark, there's very little chance of that policy changing due to local pressure, due to the makeup of the politics in the UK. International Ridicule has more effect than local demands, since they're in a top-down government with many abstractions and effects that remove the ability of the individual to affect change.
You might take note of why I and others look at that and want to make sure it doesn't happen here (which in large part it has and is.) Why your insistence on a top-down, huge federal government is doomed to follow the same fallacies and ludicrous decisions - because of the identical bureaucratic mindsets.
But when you can't even manage to keep your own argument straight through 3 messages, I think a debate on Parliamentary systems versus our Federalism (framework) isn't one you can participate in.
Markedelphia keeps appealing to some hypothetical future change of policy as if what they *might* do in the future somehow ameliorates an unconscionable present policy.
That's just plain...bizarre.
If you apply it to other objectionable phenomena, you can see the absurdity.
In 1840 Georgia, would the possibility of future emancipation somehow ameliorate the then current policy of slavery?
At the risk of invoking Godwin, in 1942 Germany, would the possibility of a future policy of the non gassing of Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, and other non - Aryans diminish the abhorrence of the then current policy of the final solution?
Would knowing that Japanese society would discover that it was actually pacifists (after having been nuked a couple of times) be of any comfort to the residents of Nanking, in Dec-Jan of 1937?
--==|==--
Equally bizarre is his apparent contention that the potential presence of other parks might somehow excuses the policies of that particular park.
Seriously? The presence of a "Whites Only" bathroom in Jim Crow South Carolina is excused because there was a "separate but equal" "colored" bathroom right down the hall?
And *he* alleges himself to be the one capable of critical thought?
Because, of course, if it happens in the UK then it MUST happen here.
Are you actually unaware of the considerable number of people amongst American liberals that point to the UK as the way we SHOULD do things? How many times have you heard the gun control argument FROM the control side that cite Britain as a shining example? Unlike your typical fare, that is no strawman from the RKBA side. I don't think I even need get into the advocacy for national healthcare and which country is routinely cited as a model.
The information the article presented is accurate but
Markadaffya can't admit error. So while conceding accuracy, he imputes motives that exist only in his mind and therefore justify his rejection of the factual information.
The day I take orders from you, DJ, will be the same day that I begin supporting Sarah Palin.
And what's with the use of the word "boy" all the time? I know it's a real drag that the plantation days are over and you must be bumming hard that I'm not black but I still don't get it.
"considerable number of people amongst American liberals"
Well, there's your problem, juris. You used the word "American" and "liberal" together. That's like saying "big Government Libertarians." There is no such animal. I would think you would be happy that this has been proved in the recent health care debate. The "liberals" can't even pass a public option without shitting themselves in fear.
Markaphasia:"The day I take orders from you, DJ, will be the same day that I begin supporting Sarah Palin."
Read it carefully. "You haven't answered it yet ..." is a statement of fact, not an order.
Sigh ...
And you claim to be a teacher ...
"And what's with the use of the word "boy" all the time?"
I've explained it several times, teacher boy. Weren't you paying attention?
The latest time was here, only six days ago, in the comments to this post by Kevin.
Here; I'll quote it for you, with added emphasis.
"But you just can't admit to being wrong in any significant way, can you?
"You remind me of a little boy, about five years old, who stands on a chair he's pulled up to the kitchen counter, with one hand in a cookie jar and the other pushing a cookie into his mouth. Mommy says, "I told you to stay away from the cookies! "What's in your mouth?" The little boy answers, "It's not a cookie."
"Some little boys outgrow this behavior. Some don't.
Got it now? It's always been for that reason. Long ago, you behaved continuously like a little boy so I began calling you one. You still do, so I still do.
Perhaps you remember what I stated earlier today? You get the respect you earn, no more and no less.
Oh, and thanks for bring it up again. Perhaps the quiet readers needed reminding.
"I know it's a real drag that the plantation days are over and you must be bumming hard that I'm not black ..."
Mark, doesn't it bother you that you aren't even the intellectual equal of our last President. Seriously, at his worst, W could sustain a line of thought better than you do. You obviously couldn't refute that Britain IS often cited as what the US should do in any number of areas (which is why it is of interest to those of us not of a statist-liberal persuasion), so you run off about something else. You do this so often that it even has a standard number.
You concede accuracy in a backhanded way, jump to another "argument" and then whine, whine, whine about how the rules are different for you. At times like this I wonder if you actually are a decent person - or if the rot evident in your "arguments" doesn't run deeper.
The "liberals" can't even pass a public option without shitting themselves in fear.
That is because Rahm Emmanuel wanted the Dems to be a majority, which meant running candidates in the center, not the left. The assumption was that they would do as told by the liberal leadership. Hasn't worked out too well, has it?
And remember M, not a SINGLE Republican vote is needed to pass ANY piece of legislation in this Congress. Not ONE.
Linoge, great link. Thanks! That's why I refuse to call leftists like Marky "liberal". That's like calling a kid who's an expert at video games an "athlete".
I also refuse to call them "lefties" because that's a physical attribute, not a political one. My youngest daughter is a lefty, even though Marky would probably call her a "right-wing monster."
'Course, that won't stop Marky from using his mashed word soup.
No worries, Ed. I actually had some fun writing that post, and was genuinely surprised that your Mark 1 Mod 0 American "Liberal" failed to live up to his or her moniker at every available opportunity.
Leftist is about the only good title left for them, though, especially given that they appear to be "progressing" nowhere quickly...
I'll grant you that it doesn't have the 'snap' of a one-word label like "leftist", but I think a more accurate description is "people who can't do simple arithmetic".
Well, I don't think "Progressive" fits either. Their ideas don't make forward progress. Rather, they return to the mistakes of the past. That means that a more accurate term would be "Regressives". And in many cases, simply "Luddities".
I've noticed that they update their preferred label every decade or so. I don't think it's because the new label is more accurate. I think the reason is that the old label has become sullied by long association with their actual beliefs.
(It's kind of like the word "gay". It used to mean "having or showing a merry, lively mood: bright or showy: given to or abounding in social or other pleasures". Then the homosexuals adopted it to mean, well, homosexual. And after long association with homosexuality, it has come to mean "lame", as in "That is so gay.")
So if we can stick them with an accurate label and reject their attempts to put lipstick on a pig, we should be able to put an end to the revolving labels. "Leftist" works well because it's well understood even though they're running away from it because it's become too accurate for them. "Socialist" is accurate too, but it seems almost like sunlight to a vampire. I like "Regressive" because of it's accuracy, sonic similarity and responsiveness to their new shade of lipstick.
Or we could just go with "L", which stands for leftist, liars, losers, lame, and others which I'm sure we could come up with. ;)
I think the term "statist" would be most accurate, actually.
I've been thinking about this for a while. "Progressive" thinking, at times, resembles both Marxism-Leninism and fascism, with a host of other "-isms" - merchantilism, corporatism (two sides of the same coin), etc. thrown in for good measure. The real connection between these themes is the role of the state as the godhead, the provider and the protector of humanity.
They are essentially putting together a mish-mash of various policies of authoritarian regimes and repackaging it into a less threatening platform that can be more easily served to the unwary. In this, they aren't truly believers of any one of the various ideologies they stole their policies from; rather, their only true belief is that government is the solution for everything, and the bits and pieces of ideology they steal only serve to implement their final solution.
The particular poster I linked to, though.... that's a close competition between "funny as hell" and "really creepy".
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/10/quote-of-day-totalitarianism-edition.html (73 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
The present steps don't seem so trivial.
His point about how "they" tend not to do stuff like this to feared subcultures is spot on...
Fortunately in America,joining a feared subculture is as easy as buying a gun, and more importantly, learning how to use it.
One needn't be bellicose and warlike, but one does need to be...formidable.
The most dangerous men and women I know are modest and quiet, confident and fearless.
It's a natural consequence of knowing, with absolute clarity, that their odds of prevailing against everyone in the room are excellent.
The gun isn't the cause, it is the sign and tool of one's will to formidability.
Folks need to appreciate that the greatest gift of arms comes from within, and travels with you even when you leave your guns locked up at home. This gift is the recognition that one is an autonomous agent of one's own fate, the captain of one's own ship, and not a helpless passenger clinging to some storm tossed jetsam.
A civil society cannot be held together coherently when folks are in a chronic state of impotence, subservience and fear. Such a fear based society is the natural tool of the tyrant.
The a society of formidable individuals opens far more enlightened possibilities, but the choice of formidability is inherently individual, it can only be taken, and fostered, but never given or bestowed.
The darkest truth I know is that humans can be enslaved and beaten into submission, and that those deprived of their right and dignity of arms are most vulnerable to that. Once fully enslaved, body, mind and spirit, the path back is so long and hard that its successful completion is astronomically unlikely. Those who have protected their minds and spirits fare much better in such journeys.
This reminds me of something a Jewish philosopher I used to hang out with once said. (Approx quote from 20 year old memory) "You know Geek, I really suspect the reason G-d lead Moses on a wild goose chase through the desert for forty years while feeding them manna was to let the generation that had been beaten into a submissive, dependent slave mentality die off. Such people never would have been able to prosper or keep the Promised Land, but their toughened children, raised to live by their own hand, could."
I have heard the same notion, Geek. I think there's something to it. There are a number of things in the Bible that have some grounding in common sense, whether or not one is a believer (I am, but that's not the point). Consider the advantage conferred (back then, anyway, if less so now) by the hygiene and dietary laws.
Geek you should have your own blog ;). Just kidding, I've been reading yours and Kevin's for years.
Mark Stein is a prophet.
The whole O-T is all about lessons learned. The challenge was that those same lessons kept getting forgotten.
Well, it's good thing that folks here and Steyn don't let their emotions get the better of them.
"Mark Stein is a prophet."
"The Nationalization of Your Children"
"one trivial step after another, into a totalitarian hell."
"The darkest truth...Once fully enslaved, body, mind and spirit..."
Ah, facts and logic.
Actually, it reminds me of that bit from Bruce Almighty in which we see reporter Evan (played by Steve Carrell) delivering a teaser to an upcoming piece on the nightly news.
"Are you children in DIRE JEOPARDY? Find out more after the game!"
"Ah, facts and logic."
And then you quote Hollywood.
This blog is good for my self-esteem; all I have to do is read Markadephia's comments to feel like a genius.
Mornin', Ralph.
Ah, facts and logic.
Yes. Totally unlike your piece, which was ... fill.. wait, you had none!
That's twice since I got back Monday that you've done that - made a snide comment that described your own comment more than ours..
it's good thing that folks here and Steyn don't let their emotions get the better of them.
Yep, it is.
Well, it's good thing that folks here and Steyn don't let their emotions get the better of them.
This from someone who subscribes to an ideology so driven by hysterical emotionality that industrial quantities of smelling salts are required just to retain consciousness.
Couple of questions for you, Sta-Puft.
1. Did you actually read either Steyn's article or the Daily Mail piece?
2. If the answer to (1) is yes, do you question the factual accuracy of the article?
3. If the answer to (2) is yes, what is your evidence?
4. Assuming the article is in fact accurate, do you seriously think it is actually possible to overreact to government telling a parent that she has to have a criminal background check to take her own children to the park?
Is any of the above really the argument you want to make, Marshmallow? Seriously?
>>Is any of the above really the argument you want to make, Marshmallow? Seriously?
Naw. He already got what he came for: a daily drive by confirmation of his bias, and the consequent boost to his ego.
"Ah, facts and logic."
Mark, I think you've pretty well proven your inability to recognize either
Ken, it's just his routine drive-by-farting.
He has become just another troll.
Speaking of British Guns...
I really wonder how many real guns they got in that raid...
The pictures I'm seeing are of airsofts!
When the population is not educated in such matters, the shadows on the cave are down right frightening.
1. Did you actually read either Steyn's article or the Daily Mail piece?
Not a flipping chance.
In other news, my one-day dream of visiting and touring the British Isles is seeming like less and less of a good idea. At this point, I am hard-pressed to see that as a loss.
I was there in May 2001, Linoge. I stayed up in Buckinghamshire (a high-rent district, to be sure) on a college campus and went daily to London (bus to Chalfont St. Giles or Uxbridge, train to the city) for two weeks. I have to say I didn't see anything terribly out of the ordinary at the time, but on the other hand we were scrambling to catch the last train out of London around ten. There's a great Italian restaurant just off Piccadilly Circus if you do ever go.
1. I read both.
2. No. I laugh at the hysterical over reaction of Steyn which, as usual, is not surprising considering he knows his audience and market. And their proclivities to be overly emotional and fearful :)
3. N/A as I answered "no."
4. What I find to be hilarious is that all of you take this article at face value. Is this the whole story? Are their other parks to go to? Will there be enough of an uproar to change this policy? Is there any media bias at all? For a group of people who question the media, why aren't you questioning this media? Could it be because it's the "political porn" that you love so much? You know...the tap into your inner rage and get all excited and stuff about evil gubmint? Nah, couldn't be...
Good thing you all know what critical thinking is...
Britain...Gubmint...eeep...blurp...squonk...coming here soon...hide children...out to get children...blurp...eep...squonk..evil...danger...danger
By the stubbing of my thumbs, something stupid this way comes.
Quick! Gather around the stupid and we can warm our hands from the burning strawmen!
"2. No. I laugh at the hysterical over reaction of Steyn which, as usual, is not surprising considering he knows his audience and market. And their proclivities to be overly emotional and fearful"
So, no harm no foul when the wolf eats your sheep then, eh? Were there a clue-by-four big enough in this world (or the next), or a man alive strong enough to wield it, it still wouldn't be enough to knock sense into you. By your own choice, of course. Blindness of your caliber is willful and telling.
Is this the whole story? Are their other parks to go to?
Amazing. Mark has started to discover some of the very first things to ask about any news report.
Of course, he doesn't build on it.
Or answer those... Or even to notice the context.
He's just attacking Steyn ... Who's got a lot more accomplishments. And then accuses us of "robotic" thinking.
hysterical over reaction of Steyn
Over reaction? How is that a over-reaction?
Will there be enough of an uproar to change this policy?
Wait, I thought Steyn was hysterically over-reacting? Now you admit that it's worthy of Steyn's hysterical (laughter) and changing?
Damn, Ralph.
the tap into your inner rage and get all excited and stuff about evil gubmint? Nah, couldn't be...
Nah, can't be. See, you can't even attack it effectively, you have to admit that you believe it, then you claim it's not true, is true, not true...
So, is it true, and if it's true, are you supportive or against it? Notice how you kind of totally miss that? Or deal with the implications of it? Or either disprove it's not the case, or... Well, anything, other than just personal attacks, personal rage, and eep boop beep.
Night, Ralph.
"Ah, facts and logic."
And then you quote Hollywood.
Y'know DJ, if that had come from someone who could appreciate that bit of irony it would've been real genius. As it is, M, will dust himself off and hope that no one remembers this pratfall (just like all the others).
Okay, class. Comprehension time.
I asked:
"1. Did you actually read either Steyn's article or the Daily Mail piece?
2. If the answer to (1) is yes, do you question the factual accuracy of the article?"
Bill Maher's booty call answered:
"2. No. (emphasis added) I laugh at the hysterical over reaction of Steyn which, as usual, is not surprising considering he knows his audience and market. And their proclivities to be overly emotional and fearful"
Note the answer: No. And the next:
"3. N/A as I answered "no."
And further:
"4. What I find to be hilarious is that all of you take this article at face value. (emphasis added)Is this the whole story?
So you don't deny the accuracy of the article, except...well...you do, in order to advance what you amusingly think of as an argument.
You know, Sta-Punk, it's one thing not to be able to keep your nonsense straight from one comment to the next. Indicative of your utter lack of character and principle, but one thing nonetheless.
However, it opens realms of wretchedness to previously unplumbed to contradict yourself within the space of the same comment.
Worst. Sophist. In. The. HISTORY. Of. All. Wretched. Sophistry.
"Good thing you all know what critical thinking is..."
Quod erat demonstrandum...
...and class dismissed, jack-off.
"Critical thinking", like "reasoned discourse" or "open a dialogue", is what a lefty says when he means "shut up and agree with me".
It sounds like the only reason Marko is bleating about this is that the linked article was written by Mark Steyn. The article in the Daily Mail is fairly balanced. There are quotes from the government officials and quotes from parents. The government officials are not denying the policy. So the article is valid.
Now, let's look at the policy. It presumes that everyone is a pedophile unless they undergo special government training. Parents are included in this.
Now, how can anyone NOT get angry and "overreact" towards this policy. Why would this even be a liberal or even conservative issue?
Hell, it sounds like something a right wing government would do; overreacting to an issue (pedophilia) that has been blown totally out of proportion. A good Liberal should be just as outraged as Steyn and stand up to this fascist government that would dare to institute such an outrageous policy.
But since Steyn leans to the right, Marko can't bring himself to do that. He's not a Liberal, he's a partisan hack.
So, let's review, class, stripping things down to their essentials.
At issue in an article describing circumstances in which access to a public park with your children is conditioned upon government approval and a background check.
Markadelphia:
1) Does not contest the central factual accuracy of the article. Sure, he leaves himself some weasel room, but we're just going to write that off as noise.
2) Does not voice any objection to the phenomena itself.
3) Does voice strident objection to our objection, deeming it to be the product of a laundry list of items including hysteria, over reaction, etc.
--==|==--
In light of all that, I think it's reasonable to conclude that Markadelphia at least tacitly accepts the validity of, if not endorses the phenomena at issue.
--==|==--
While we generally concede that society has delegated to the state the truly extraordinary power to separate parents from children, this is reserved only for the most extraordinary and dire of circumstances, and constrained to use after the full course of all due process has run.
Anything less than that is wildly inconsistent with a free society, and frankly, repugnant on many levels.
Accepting the separation of parent and child by the state as part of the ordinary, everyday operating procedure of the ordinary family joy of playing in the park is a sign of a loss of perspective at best. At worst... well, I guess there's no lower limit to what this could mean at worst in terms of depravity.
--==|==--
There is a great deal more than can, and perhaps should be said on the matter, but at the end of the day, the legitimacy of the state separating parents from children as a matter of ordinary operating procedure, or as a condition of access to any public (or private!) place is summarily rejected.
Period, full stop.
...the legitimacy of the state separating parents from children as a matter of ordinary operating procedure, or as a condition of access to any public (or private!) place...
You just described what we do with public schooling.
Just sayin'.
"Good thing you all know what critical thinking is..."
Yes, it is, yet you make this statement after thoroughly contradicting yourself within the space of a few sentences. Oh the irony ...
I'll not fisk your comment further. Others have done so nicely, particularly Ken, which is to be expected given you were answering his questions.
But I think you have given up trying to be taken seriously. That's a good thing, because you have so little to offer. But, it means you are nothing more than a troll. Is that really what you're after here?
I say, Marky really doesn't seem to be arguing in good faith now, does he?
Now?
Er, ever?
>>You just described what we do with public schooling.
No, sir.
I can, at any moment, go to the school, perform a check in at the front office, (which in the state of PA is strictly a courtesy) and go retrieve my child.
In any state, a parent can demand that their child be produced immediately.
In most states, the right of a parent to non disruptively observe class proceedings isn't a matter of dispute.
Those factors make all the difference in the world.
There is a keen difference between "as a parent, you have no right to be here, without government approval and a background check" and "as a parent, you do have the right to be here, but not to make a disruptive ass of yourself."
>>But I think you have given up trying to be taken seriously.
Didn't *that* Rubicon get crossed a few *years* ago?
He gave up expecting to long ago. Only part of his problem is stupidity and that part is overwhelmed by problems of ego, thus he's not blind to why he isn't taken seriously. What appears to be new is that he no longer even tries, i.e. he doesn't even fake it any more.
So it was Steyn who overreacted and not the government? Mark, very, very few people in the grand scheme of things pay attention to the "conservative reaction" to the policy, they will focus on the policy itself.
"What appears to be new is that he no longer even tries, i.e. he doesn't even fake it any more."
Indeed. I think it correlates with his "awakening giant" shtick, wherein he's abandoned all pretense (for surely, he was the only one moronic enough to believe it was anything but) of understanding or thought and has gone full-on Liberal-with-a-capital-L.
I'm pretty used to his inability to distinguish characteristics in others, but he now absolutely, without hesitation, groups anyone who even slightly disagrees with him or any other liberal into the "far right" category.
I don't understand that level of intellectual poisoning.
But since Steyn leans to the right, Marko can't bring himself to do that. He's not a Liberal, he's a partisan whacko.
FTFY
It doesn't happen a lot, but I agreed with something I read in The Nation yesterday on rethinking Afghanistan. Can anyone imagine M agreeing with something in National Review - oh, obviously not.
Hell, it sounds like something a right wing government would do; overreacting to an issue (pedophilia) that has been blown totally out of proportion. A good Liberal should be just as outraged as Steyn and stand up to this fascist government that would dare to institute such an outrageous policy.
An interesting point, Yosemite; and yet consider that this is exactly the same policy liberals have toward gun ownership: everyone is assumed to be a mass-murderer unless credentialed by the state.
I dunno, I think it's a deliberate choice to always demonize their opponents and always defend their allies, regardless of how criminal or insane they may be.
It's all of a piece with him coming over here and saying he doesn't think criminals and corruptocrats should be rewarded for their actions, and then going back to his own blog and defending Nancy Pelosi.
"no harm no foul when the wolf eats your sheep then"
Yeah, because that is what's going on. And pretty soon (gasp!) it's a gonna happen here!!! Because, of course, if it happens in the UK then it MUST happen here.
"So you don't deny the accuracy of the article, except...well...you do, in order to advance what you amusingly think of as an argument."
The information the article presented is accurate but, as is usually the case with the tap into your inner rage crowd, NOT the whole story. Steyn wants readers and he knows his audience. Hence, the reaction he had...political porn mission accomplished.
"It presumes that everyone is a pedophile unless they undergo special government training. Parents are included in this."
Or they could just not play in that park. Or they could try to change this policy. I'm curious as to what has happened since this article was published. Will the policy be changed? If it is, will Steyn write a column about it? Or will we be on to the next threat? I hear the gubmint is now allowing MOOSE-lims to beat up Santa in front of old ladies at church!!!
"Or they could try to change this policy."
Reaction by such people as Steyn and (gasp!) Kevin are how such change often starts, and how it gains momentum, sack boy.
Now, back to Ken's fourth question (emphasis changed):
"Assuming the article is in fact accurate [which you explicitly do not contest], do you seriously think it is actually possible to overreact to government telling a parent that she has to have a criminal background check to take her own children to the park?"
You haven't answered it yet, liar boy. So far, it is just another example of your Standard Response #5, the "I'm drowning in stupidity" response, wherein you simply lay on the blather, slathering on one turgid catch-phrase, slogan, and cliché after another, and then declare, later, "I answered your question."
Mornin', Ralph.
How was Halloween? Yeah, we didn't get any trick-or-treaters our our way. You?
Don't forget to note on your timecard that Daylight Savings ended if you were working over that.
Because, of course, if it happens in the UK then it MUST happen here.
If you had been honestly paying attention, you would have noted that quite often, yes, what's tried there is suggested for here. England is in many ways the petri dish and we can see the failed experiments there - and then people like you ignore those failures, insist that you've got The One who can do it HARDER and RIGHT, and implement the same policies, or very similar.
Does it mean that it WILL follow here? No, but it is a damn good yardstick to measure where the statists are going to go.
The information the article presented is accurate but, as is usually the case with the tap into your inner rage crowd, NOT the whole story.
Says the man projecting the tapping into his inner rage.
What did he leave out? If it's accurate, it's accurate. If it's inaccurate due to omission then it's not accurate.
I realize that you're now trying to have it both ways, since one of your favorite debating methods is to leave information out, and then insist that you were accurate. But it doesn't work for you, and it doesn't work for Steyn. What did he leave out? At no point have you proven that anything was omitted, you've merely indirectly INSINUATED that maybe there's more to this story, therefore it's incorrect.
I've emailed him with corrections before - that he's promptly acknowledged. What has he omitted in this story, Mark? For you to say that, and base your argument upon it, it is incumbant upon you to prove that.
Either it's accurate or it's not. This is your attempt to have different rules for you and the sources you worship and us and the sources you don't like. This is you advocating the different rules. (Again). Not Us.
Or they could try to change this policy.
And you just contradicted yourself again.
First you said that there was no need to change the policy, because it wasn't as described, then you admitted it was as described, but that anybody bringing attention to it was "tapping into their inner rage and emotions" (nevermind they were factually and logically correct according to you) and now you back off of THAT and say "Well, maybe they'll change the policy".
Critical Thinking, Indeed. (Critical in terms of subatomic mass and matter.)
No, Mark, there's very little chance of that policy changing due to local pressure, due to the makeup of the politics in the UK. International Ridicule has more effect than local demands, since they're in a top-down government with many abstractions and effects that remove the ability of the individual to affect change.
You might take note of why I and others look at that and want to make sure it doesn't happen here (which in large part it has and is.) Why your insistence on a top-down, huge federal government is doomed to follow the same fallacies and ludicrous decisions - because of the identical bureaucratic mindsets.
But when you can't even manage to keep your own argument straight through 3 messages, I think a debate on Parliamentary systems versus our Federalism (framework) isn't one you can participate in.
Markedelphia keeps appealing to some hypothetical future change of policy as if what they *might* do in the future somehow ameliorates an unconscionable present policy.
That's just plain...bizarre.
If you apply it to other objectionable phenomena, you can see the absurdity.
In 1840 Georgia, would the possibility of future emancipation somehow ameliorate the then current policy of slavery?
At the risk of invoking Godwin, in 1942 Germany, would the possibility of a future policy of the non gassing of Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, and other non - Aryans diminish the abhorrence of the then current policy of the final solution?
Would knowing that Japanese society would discover that it was actually pacifists (after having been nuked a couple of times) be of any comfort to the residents of Nanking, in Dec-Jan of 1937?
--==|==--
Equally bizarre is his apparent contention that the potential presence of other parks might somehow excuses the policies of that particular park.
Seriously? The presence of a "Whites Only" bathroom in Jim Crow South Carolina is excused because there was a "separate but equal" "colored" bathroom right down the hall?
And *he* alleges himself to be the one capable of critical thought?
Because, of course, if it happens in the UK then it MUST happen here.
Are you actually unaware of the considerable number of people amongst American liberals that point to the UK as the way we SHOULD do things? How many times have you heard the gun control argument FROM the control side that cite Britain as a shining example? Unlike your typical fare, that is no strawman from the RKBA side. I don't think I even need get into the advocacy for national healthcare and which country is routinely cited as a model.
The information the article presented is accurate but
Markadaffya can't admit error. So while conceding accuracy, he imputes motives that exist only in his mind and therefore justify his rejection of the factual information.
"You haven't answered it yet, liar boy"
The day I take orders from you, DJ, will be the same day that I begin supporting Sarah Palin.
And what's with the use of the word "boy" all the time? I know it's a real drag that the plantation days are over and you must be bumming hard that I'm not black but I still don't get it.
"considerable number of people amongst American liberals"
Well, there's your problem, juris. You used the word "American" and "liberal" together. That's like saying "big Government Libertarians." There is no such animal. I would think you would be happy that this has been proved in the recent health care debate. The "liberals" can't even pass a public option without shitting themselves in fear.
"The day I take orders from you, DJ, will be the same day that I begin supporting Sarah Palin."
Well, it's official. Mark has gone full-on teacher mode. Now it's a question of *authority*.
I wonder if Marky will start holding his breath and stamping his feet next?
Me: ""You haven't answered it yet, liar boy"
Markaphasia: "The day I take orders from you, DJ, will be the same day that I begin supporting Sarah Palin."
Read it carefully. "You haven't answered it yet ..." is a statement of fact, not an order.
Sigh ...
And you claim to be a teacher ...
"And what's with the use of the word "boy" all the time?"
I've explained it several times, teacher boy. Weren't you paying attention?
The latest time was here, only six days ago, in the comments to this post by Kevin.
Here; I'll quote it for you, with added emphasis.
"But you just can't admit to being wrong in any significant way, can you?
"You remind me of a little boy, about five years old, who stands on a chair he's pulled up to the kitchen counter, with one hand in a cookie jar and the other pushing a cookie into his mouth. Mommy says, "I told you to stay away from the cookies! "What's in your mouth?" The little boy answers, "It's not a cookie."
"Some little boys outgrow this behavior. Some don't.
Got it now? It's always been for that reason. Long ago, you behaved continuously like a little boy so I began calling you one. You still do, so I still do.
Perhaps you remember what I stated earlier today? You get the respect you earn, no more and no less.
Oh, and thanks for bring it up again. Perhaps the quiet readers needed reminding.
"I know it's a real drag that the plantation days are over and you must be bumming hard that I'm not black ..."
There you go again, just making shit up.
"... but I still don't get it."
You wouldn't admit getting it even if you did.
Credibility, teacher boy. You haven't any.
Critical Thinking, Indeed. (Critical in terms of subatomic mass and matter.)
Ah, okay. Good thing you defined it, I had it wrong. I was thinking "critical" as in "The patient is in critical condition."
Well, there's your problem, juris.
Mark, doesn't it bother you that you aren't even the intellectual equal of our last President. Seriously, at his worst, W could sustain a line of thought better than you do. You obviously couldn't refute that Britain IS often cited as what the US should do in any number of areas (which is why it is of interest to those of us not of a statist-liberal persuasion), so you run off about something else. You do this so often that it even has a standard number.
You concede accuracy in a backhanded way, jump to another "argument" and then whine, whine, whine about how the rules are different for you. At times like this I wonder if you actually are a decent person - or if the rot evident in your "arguments" doesn't run deeper.
The "liberals" can't even pass a public option without shitting themselves in fear.
That is because Rahm Emmanuel wanted the Dems to be a majority, which meant running candidates in the center, not the left. The assumption was that they would do as told by the liberal leadership. Hasn't worked out too well, has it?
And remember M, not a SINGLE Republican vote is needed to pass ANY piece of legislation in this Congress. Not ONE.
"You used the word "American" and "liberal" together. That's like saying "big Government Libertarians." There is no such animal."
Another HUGE belly laugh line from Marky. The stupidity is almost worth it just for the sheer entertainment value.
Though after rereading this line a few times, I'm wondering if Marky made a Freudian slip, finally admitting that those on the left aren't Americans.
Maybe Sta-Punk means American liberals aren't liberal enough for him, Ed. Still a Freudian slip either way. ;)
He's saying he considers Valerie Jarret, Anita Dunn, Van Jones and Bill Ayers to be moderate.
Kinda says it all, doesn't it?
This link
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6898212.ece
articulates it well ...
If the State wanted to destroy society and become "Big Brother/Mother/father" then this would be an excellent way of going about it.
Of course Markdelphia will not see anything wrong in it - you can always go and live in a different country ... which I have done.
To be perfectly fair to the resident half-wit, American "liberals" are not.
That said, neither are his idyllic European ones, either...
Linoge, great link. Thanks! That's why I refuse to call leftists like Marky "liberal". That's like calling a kid who's an expert at video games an "athlete".
I also refuse to call them "lefties" because that's a physical attribute, not a political one. My youngest daughter is a lefty, even though Marky would probably call her a "right-wing monster."
'Course, that won't stop Marky from using his mashed word soup.
Ed: Being a southpaw myself, the term describing political inclination is leftist, which is distinct from the term lefty.
Maybe Sta-Punk means American liberals aren't liberal enough for him, Ed.
Almost. That's what Bill Maher believes; Mark just swallowed it whole. Vurr-bait'em.
Think about this one, it gets more amusing still.
Let's see.... if "there are no American liberals", then Valerie Jarrett, Van Jones, Anita Dunn and Bill Ayers must be moderate, right?
Now take that one step further: Doesn't that make someone like Joe Lieberman a "right-wing extremist"?
And then someone like Ron Paul becomes what? Is he pushed all around to the left and becomes an American liberal?
It all makes sense! There are no liberals except for the so-called right wing extremists!
I've been saying that for years, Russ :)
No worries, Ed. I actually had some fun writing that post, and was genuinely surprised that your Mark 1 Mod 0 American "Liberal" failed to live up to his or her moniker at every available opportunity.
Leftist is about the only good title left for them, though, especially given that they appear to be "progressing" nowhere quickly...
I'll grant you that it doesn't have the 'snap' of a one-word label like "leftist", but I think a more accurate description is "people who can't do simple arithmetic".
Well, I don't think "Progressive" fits either. Their ideas don't make forward progress. Rather, they return to the mistakes of the past. That means that a more accurate term would be "Regressives". And in many cases, simply "Luddities".
I've noticed that they update their preferred label every decade or so. I don't think it's because the new label is more accurate. I think the reason is that the old label has become sullied by long association with their actual beliefs.
(It's kind of like the word "gay". It used to mean "having or showing a merry, lively mood: bright or showy: given to or abounding in social or other pleasures". Then the homosexuals adopted it to mean, well, homosexual. And after long association with homosexuality, it has come to mean "lame", as in "That is so gay.")
So if we can stick them with an accurate label and reject their attempts to put lipstick on a pig, we should be able to put an end to the revolving labels. "Leftist" works well because it's well understood even though they're running away from it because it's become too accurate for them. "Socialist" is accurate too, but it seems almost like sunlight to a vampire. I like "Regressive" because of it's accuracy, sonic similarity and responsiveness to their new shade of lipstick.
Or we could just go with "L", which stands for leftist, liars, losers, lame, and others which I'm sure we could come up with. ;)
I think the term "statist" would be most accurate, actually.
I've been thinking about this for a while. "Progressive" thinking, at times, resembles both Marxism-Leninism and fascism, with a host of other "-isms" - merchantilism, corporatism (two sides of the same coin), etc. thrown in for good measure. The real connection between these themes is the role of the state as the godhead, the provider and the protector of humanity.
They are essentially putting together a mish-mash of various policies of authoritarian regimes and repackaging it into a less threatening platform that can be more easily served to the unwary. In this, they aren't truly believers of any one of the various ideologies they stole their policies from; rather, their only true belief is that government is the solution for everything, and the bits and pieces of ideology they steal only serve to implement their final solution.
I think the term "statist" would be most accurate, actually.
I don't. There are Statists on the Right as well, and most of that type are the ones who run for public office.
And after long association with homosexuality, it has come to mean "lame", as in "That is so gay."
http://www.onesixthwarriors.com/forum/loose-bits-off-topic/91754-vaguely-military-demotivational-poster-thread.html#post1004540
I LOVE that thread, GoF!
The particular poster I linked to, though.... that's a close competition between "funny as hell" and "really creepy".
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>