fbpx

The Resistance and Socrates

We have come to the end of this little series of observations and reflections on the Resistance. Perhaps a little retrospect is in order, before concluding with Socrates.

Every so often our politics produces something relatively new, something worth watching and thinking about.  Back in the day it was Ron Paul and the surprising rise of libertarianism to public salience.  Before that, 9/11 brought the Middle East forcefully to Americans’ attention, as well as the fact that we do not live in splendid isolation. Libertarianism’s star has waned in the public domain, but we still live in the post-9/11 era for good and for ill.

Donald Trump’s election merits inclusion in this category. So too does the response to him by his self-declared mortal enemies, the Resistance. Necessarily, and often out of ideological and institutional animus, President Trump gets most of the critical attention these days from the media. But it is worthwhile looking critically at his (again, self-declared) opponents and enemies. Trump will come and go, but the Resistance will continue in some form or another. Further organization and recruitment, and the disqualifying of his, and related points of view, are its agenda and will bear fruit in the next election cycle and beyond.

Of course, how to study the phenomenon of the Resistance is a real question. In my case, political philosophy is at hand, and what we could characterize as a classical (Aristotelian, Socratic) approach. Pay attention to salient, revealing phenomena, including the self-defining speeches of the subject; try to put them into a coherent view of things; articulate that mind’s basic take on God/world/man, on social/moral/and political order. And since I am not the first to attend to the subject, look for guides who can help. In short, one tries to combine a keen sense of the obvious with some more penetrating and capacious vistas.

The basic structure of the considerations was rather straightforward. We began with the Democratic Party, the most visible and organized component of the Resistance. To understand the core, or at least essential features, of its worldview, we turned to an authority, William Voegeli, who identified its identity as adherence to “identity politics.” A conservative, he quoted a liberal, Mark Lilla, echoing this judgment. Since the experts confirmed my observations, I followed their lead.

After some reflections on liberalism’s evolving view of race in America, I made use of two French thinkers, Alexis de Tocqueville and Emile Durkheim, to understand the secular trinity of race, sex, and gender to which the party is devoted. Tocqueville is a penetrating guide to liberal democracy’s essential nature and tendencies, while Durkheim, the father of French sociology, reminded rationalist modern societies that they would still be subject to old social strictures such as the distinction between the sacred and the profane.  Their categories can help make sense of the party’s starkly egalitarian, emancipatory views of sexuality and gender, as well as the tenacity with which they are held.  We are in the presence of radicalized “democratic dogma” (Tocqueville) and the secularly sacred (Durkheim).

In the face of this, I ventured the twin thoughts that such dogmatism is the enemy of reason and that this particular democratic dogmatism occludes rather than illumines its subject, human sexuality, with worrisome consequences for young people. I added the disconcerting recognition that in principle, and increasingly in practice, this secularist commitment is the implacable enemy of traditional sexual and marital views and their supports, traditional religions. Bernie Sanders and Julian Castro, Chai Feldblum and Tim Gill, were quoted to that effect. They also indicated that this commitment to sexual and gender equality seeks a dramatic recasting of democratic legitimacy and hence of democracy itself. Hillary Clinton candidly expressed this binary and exclusionary way of thinking in her famous (or infamous) “basket of deplorables” speech. So, a synthetic conclusion of my analysis would be that the Democratic Party, in these respects, is the enemy of reason, of traditional religious faith, and liberal democracy itself.

Since the Resistance comprehends more than registered Democrats, however, it was necessary to broaden the consideration. “Progressive(s)” is the self-assigned moniker of the next significant component of this broader cohort. Again, I turned to a guide, in this case, to one of the best sociologists in America today, James Davison Hunter. He has the merit of having early on made sense of America’s culture wars with his seminal 1991 book, Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. Relevant to our concern was his analysis of “the Progressive impulse” or pole in American culture and politics.

He provided a key insight that Progressivism’s chief focus is upon Humanity, understood as its own “moral authority” (in contrast to transcendent instances). He likewise noted the Progressive view of History, its commitment to scientific rationality, and to human autonomy. All of these factors can be discerned in Resistance discourse and reaction, starting with the horror that History’s march has been arrested and threatens to be reversed. Hunter’s “cultural” focus, however, did not allow him to engage much with specifically political issues, from immigration to constitutionalism. The political philosopher Pierre Manent is more helpful in these regards.

His analysis of the happy-face humanitarianism at work in the construction of the European Union helps us understand the open-borders insouciance of the American port side, while alerting us to an understanding of human dignity that is a mask for intellectual complacency and moral nihilism. The European “religion of Humanity” believes, against massive evidence to the contrary, that humanity is all but unified. Differences there are, but they are not differences that make a difference—except for those who are judgmental, intolerant, and divisive. So a bit more broadly, the world is divided into those who join in singing “We are the world” and those in the grip of odium unitatis humani generis. Nations and borders, national citizenship and attendant civic privileges and responsibilities, are secondary, even tertiary, to humanitarian rights, needs, and interests. To be sure, this is the ideology of elites, not populations, and of Western elites more than central European. Hence the strictures of political correctness, hence the combination of moral hectoring and political machinations, emanating from the clerics of this secular humanism.

Manent, therefore, is helpful in understanding the deep normative and aspirational humanitarian vision informing the impassioned resistance to “bans” and “–phobias” and “–anti-X, Y, or Z rhetoric,” and, conversely, for “diversity,” but on the cheap, without intellectual investigation or political deliberation or compromise. A special sense of human dignity works that last magic trick, by having “dignity” characterize not just persons but “lifestyles.” John Fonte, however, reminds us that “diversity realized” requires law and policy, not just correct attitudes.

He joins with Manent in recognizing that transnational Progressivism is rather more an elite phenomenon than a mass one. It has an “intelligentsia,” with its “social bases” and “networks.” Trump’s election did not occur in a vacuum, and the extant organs seeking for “radical change” saw in the disaster both an urgent need and, upon reflection, a surprising opportunity. Rahm Emanuel expressed the general attitude well in the face of an earlier opportunity.

Reading Manent and Fonte thus suggests that the Resistance should not be seen merely as an aggregate of various individuals and complaints, nor its analysis only a matter of surveys and preponderance of opinions. It has governing minds that, to an imponderable extent, seek to shape and orient the whole.

Moreover, it is quite telling that the Resistance discourse employed against Trump and his supporters is remarkably similar across the board, consistently binary, excoriating, and delegitimating. It is a net cast far beyond Trump and his administration. There was a brief period after the election when some liberals and Progressives did some soul-searching and sought to discern what in previous left-liberal thought and rhetoric had contributed to the Trump victory. Mark Lilla continues on that lonely path. But in the Resistance, other voices are stronger, more dominant, and more significant, expressing other convictions and commitments.

Following the lead of the classical founders of political philosophy, who declared man a political animal because a logos-animal, and who therefore attended to men’s speeches about community and justice, we set out on something of our own “listening tour,” guided by common observations and assisted by accomplished guides.

One may agree or disagree with the particular path we followed, but, in any event, political philosophy also reminds us that every significant political judgment implies a good deal more than the fact under consideration and its proper characterization. Fully developed, it implies an anthropology, a view of what it is to be human, a view of humanity in our commonalities and differences (and their significance), and of justice or right order among citizens and with all our fellow human beings. The sins, real or imagined, of Donald Trump do not exempt the Resistance from a searching investigation on these, and related, matters. They too are obliged by the Socratic imperative of giving an account of themselves. Sometimes, though, they may need a little help from a gadfly.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on August 30, 2017 at 09:13:59 am

Call me a philistine, but I don't think appeals to Socrates or Aristotle are required to sort out the Resistance. We are facing a cultural divide--a lower case civil war. The only question is, "Which side are you on?" http://www.libertylawsite.org/2016/12/12/looking-at-trump-from-outside-the-bubble/

read full comment
Image of Mark Pulliam
Mark Pulliam
on August 30, 2017 at 09:56:36 am

Mark, I would never call you a philistine. In the midst of our storm and stress, however, I still cling to the duty of reflection. See you at the end of September.

read full comment
Image of Paul Seaton
Paul Seaton
on August 30, 2017 at 10:23:15 am

Excellent series - thanks for setting it down!

I tend to think, there has been a "cold" civil war of sorts raging somewhere just below the surface in the U.S. for maybe the last century, certainly, the past 50 years, much like a dormant volcano; Trump merely the catalyst of an always threatening cataclysmic eruption.

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on August 30, 2017 at 14:32:13 pm

I think it is all about the will to power and authority for its own sake. This seems to be fundamental to the human condition and that it exists must be accepted as an axiom or common notion.

The problem is that if this this will to power is unchecked it will always ultimately expresses itself politically as a tyranny. The tyranny may profess benevolent motives or malevolent motives, as the circumstances may require, and it will always adopt tactics appropriate to the circumstances. But the tactics must not be allowed to obscure the primary motive, which is power and the material rewards that flow naturally from having power over the lives and affairs of others. It is an error to attempt to infer or deduce the primary motive from the tactics being used.

I suggest that this will to power is linked to intelligence and will naturally express itself in elitism, aristocracy and the oppression or exploitation of those not similarly gifted and motivated.

For our present purposes, I think it useful to consider the tools of government that are available to our present crop of Western elites. These tools can be divided into two theories of government.

First, Whiggism, where the institutions of government are sovereign, the governing constitution is plastic and easily shaped by those who gain control the institutions of government and where the great majority of the population are a heard to managed and exploited and not an independent political estate with an effective voice in how they are governed.

The opposing theory of government is democratic republicanism where sovereignty is vest in those being governed, the constitution has a fixed meaning that can be changed only with the express consent of a super majority of the governed and where the governed have a voice in how they are governed by way of regular and frequent elections and effective representation.

I don't think one need go back any further than the philosophies of Machiavelli and Erasmus to understand what is going on. The masses and the elites will always exist and they must interact symbiotically and not parasitically. I think it is also clear that the elites in the West have become parasites and are bleeding their host dry.

read full comment
Image of EK
EK
on August 30, 2017 at 16:23:23 pm

I recently picked up the book "Why Nations Fail." I'm about a quarter of the way through. So far it's an easy read and pretty good for a popular text.

You picked up on some of the thesis of the book. Governments tend to draw towards some kind of oligarchy, which excludes the public from securing private property and participating in government, and occasionally political systems prevent adequate centralization to create a government strong enough to secure private property. Political systems have roots more in history and circumstances and less in philosophy. Since you seem interested in the topic, EK, it might be worth your time if you are looking for a good quick read.

read full comment
Image of Scott Amorian
Scott Amorian
on August 30, 2017 at 16:51:22 pm

You make some interesting points.

"I think it is all about the will to power and authority for its own sake. This seems to be fundamental to the human condition and that it exists must be accepted as an axiom or common notion." - do you think it always begins with the conscious intent of exerting power and authority, or that it maybe begins more often with a more altruistic motive, that in little time, and with the experience of some success, causes a 'power-high' at the sub-conscious level, or chemical level in the form of an endorphin release, to which a whole body quickly becomes addicted?

It seems movements, like Feminism, Civil Rights, LGBTQ, et al, etc. which may start out with good motives, and with often legitimate and just concerns for advancing/ensuring/obtaining equalities where they may be generally conceded as having been unjustly denied, but that the quest for equality quickly devolves into the quest for power and dominance. To where, the "oppressed" becomes the "oppressor", in a manner that makes the participants quite oblivious to the irony and hypocrisy on display as they seek to defend and protect the propriety of such a role-reversal?

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on August 30, 2017 at 18:58:16 pm

Again, l am reminded of the wisdom of Dire Straits: "Philosophy is useless; theology is worse."

To understand "The Resistance," one must first understand what [we!] are resisting. And now, we don't even have to use the term "goose-steppers" metaphorically! l'm not even sure that your Gott Mitt Uns belt-buckles are hidden any more. You can thank ll Douchebag for outing you.

Let us not forget the "Teabaggers," Jerry Falwell's Moron Majority, and their precursors during the FDR Administration. Back in the day, you wore clean white hoodies. You were lead by Robert Byrd, as opposed to the bird-brain in the White House. You were all about blacks, guns, and God, until the gays came out to replace them.

You are virulently anti-science. Anyone who maintains that Job was a real man and AGW, a hoax, is not to be taken seriously. Mother Nature is a strict accountant and CO2, a proven greenhouse gas. While it is not the only problem, even a smallish change precipitates larger ones--e.g., less snow and ice means a lower planetary albedo, resulting in an increase in solar radiation retention and surface temperature. We know where the CO2 went (a lot of it is in the world's oceans, acidifying the water and imperiling the food chain; the oceans used to act as a filter), and it has no place left to go. Even Richard Muller--the Koch brothers' go-to guy--has turned state's evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w But you persist....

And then, there are your persistent efforts to impose your perverted and phantasmagorical religion on the rest of us. Women can't terminate unwanted pregnancies and gays can't marry because you think it would make your Widdle Baby Jesus CWY! You can't even produce enough evidence to get past the editors of the Weekly World News to support your claim that your messiah rose from the dead but yet, you want your malicious, capricious, and avaricious (Jos. 6) god's alleged declarations to be the foundation of a modern society? You can't even get rid of the televangelists and molesters behind your pulpits! No sale.

And then, there is your open war on the environment itself! Every one of you should be required to vacation on the banks of the Kalamazoo River (tar sands spill). Sorry, folks, but fracking chemicals pollute the water supply. l kind-of like clean air and water--l'm actually addicted to them--and it will cost a lot more to clean it up than not foul it in the first place. (A rational capitalist government would find a way to tax the pollution, but we live under the heel of an oligarchy.)

Yours is an open war against humanity. You whinge about "them widdle BAY-BEEEEES" outside the local Planned Parenthood office--that is, the few you haven't closed in your slut-shaming campaign --but in your world, life begins at conception and ends at birth. You won't even spring for disposable diapers, so that welfare mothers can leave their children at day-care while they try to build a better life. One in five American children faces hunger. But Heaven forfend that Oliver Twist should ever have the temerity to ask for more.

And the data is in: all "trickle-down economics" has done is increase our GlNl score to feudal levels. ln many cases, all you have left to cling to is your gays, guns, and god ... and it is ALL your fault.

l could go on, but the point is made. You are more dangerous than the madcap mullahs of the Middle East, and our existence as a species compels us to resist.

read full comment
Image of LawDog
LawDog
on August 30, 2017 at 19:17:27 pm

That last sentence is especially astute. Ravi Batra compared the Western economy to that of the Arctic. lf the wolves become too strong, they eat all the caribou and starve. ln late-stage capitalism, the elites "eat all the caribou"; they stole your pensions ("legally," because they control government and write "laws" for their benefit), and are after your Social Security. This was the state of affairs in France and Russia before their respective revolutions.

The present state of affairs exists because the RW Luddites are too stupid to see what is happening.

Our Constitution lS a thing of plastic, because our RW judges are pro-elite and openly favor them in decision after decision (see e.g., Alden v. Maine, lqbal, Twombley, Breusewitz v. Wyeth, LLC).

read full comment
Image of LawDog
LawDog
on August 30, 2017 at 19:28:22 pm

l'm like Tolkien's Ents: l'm not on anyone's side because no one is really on my side. l oppose a lot of what your side is about but also, oppose a lot of what the other side is about (a "living" Constitution, open borders).

read full comment
Image of LawDog
LawDog
on August 30, 2017 at 19:34:43 pm

l'm mostly interested in why empires fail. While as St. Ronald of Reagan noted, democracies don't start wars, empires always do, as war is a welfare program for oligarchs. Problem is, war tends to be expensive and eventually, hollows out any empire.

read full comment
Image of LawDog
LawDog
on August 30, 2017 at 19:35:03 pm

Mr. Dog,

Such explosiveness can't be good for the old ticker. Breathe. You have abundantly expressed on repeated occasions your distaste for religion and detestation for all persons religious. None of us are perfect, and certainly none of us would be in their right minds if we were to ask from you, 'for more'. America is indeed impoverished, we can agree on at least the diagnosis.

It is maintained that much of the methane endangering our planet emanates from the hind quarters of bovines. Therefore, it must be equally so, that near as much emanates from bullshit.

And, at least the last line makes it abundantly clear why you find it not a risk, but a charitable act to welcome them into your midst. That's at least one thing you have in common with the Pope. Might there not be others? :-)

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on August 30, 2017 at 20:21:49 pm

To accept your conviction, must we also overlook that Blue States seem to be in the most imminent of dire-straits these days over public pension promises that should have been seen to be as empty when they were made as they're accounts now find themselves to be?

Did those who constructed Social Security as a self-sustaining benefit that would rely on current workers to replace if not fully pay for each successive generation of retired worker's benefits, ever have an inkling of a notion that American families would shrink to their present sizes, or that jobs would, by unimaginable automation of labor, or wholesale export of it, largely dry up for large segments of working-class Americans that are required to pay into social security?

Do we not acknowledge that the post-revolutionary United States government, founded on sound if conservative Republican Democracy seems to have faired slightly better in terms of prosperity and longevity than either France's or Russia's post-revolutionary governments, founded on FL pie-in-the-sky principles and utopian ideologies?

I am sure the cases you cite are as notorious as you assert. But, must we, in accepting that they were, also ignore that Norma L. McCorvey (better known as Roe) couldn't exactly be said to have been a member of the elite? Or that Roe and Obergefell, so favored by America's elite, were not exactly carried by the RW majority?

Certainly there is plenty of blame to go around. The bigger question is, are we going to come together to right this ship before it goes completely under the surface, or do we continue to scream accusations at each other until our very last breaths, and until the sucking waters pull us equally under?

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on August 30, 2017 at 23:59:19 pm

PB: "I am sure the cases you cite are as notorious as you assert. But, must we, in accepting that they were, also ignore that Norma L. McCorvey (better known as Roe) couldn’t exactly be said to have been a member of the elite? Or that Roe and Obergefell, so favored by America’s elite, were not exactly carried by the RW majority?"

Must be tough to be a Catholic these days. When l was a kid, the only real controversy was Vat ll, and how we all had to suddenly cope with a Bible that was no longer true. Your Pope Nazl l was still a mere bishop. Now, you have to own the ugly fact that you are enabling the world's largest association of gay pedophiles--even Pope Francis and St. Pope John Paul ll were involved in the coverup--and your new Pontiff's view that borders are not defensible and Western capitalism is sinful.

When Roe was issued, the decision was no big deal. l actually met Sarah Weddington, and discussed the case at length. McCorvey didn't have any problems with being lead plaintiff, and Griswold essentially ensured the outcome. Religious opposition didn't really emerge until the mid-80s.

As for Obergefell, while l understand that the true Catholic teaching is that gay sex should be strictly between a boy and his priest, everyone who was anyone recognized that in the wake of Lawrence v. Texas, SSM was inevitable. All it really required was for one State to recognize the right, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause would essentially force the other 49 to recognize it. The only thing that surprised me is that it took so long.

Though a Kennedy opinion is an adventure in opacity, l can defend both of these outcomes on non-controversial originalist grounds without straining. By contrast, l can't even begin to argue the other position without putting a bag over my head--many state AGs tried and failed miserably. Constitutionally speaking, these aren't controversial cases.

But of course, for you Living Constitution advocates, there ain't no such thing.

read full comment
Image of LawDog
LawDog
on August 31, 2017 at 00:18:43 am

The looting of pension funds is a separate and complex topic. Rather than rule that pension funds were held in trust for employees, someone got the bright idea that they were assets of the entities in question. Mint Rmoney--who should be forced to watch his entire family be fed to packs of live rats, while broadcast on pay-per-view--got the idea that he could pay actuaries to artificially over-value the pensions. permitting him and his Salvadoran oligarch clients to strip them of their value. Some of the states got into the business, as well.

As for Social Security, let's first recognize that 100% of the $15T in excess debt incurred since FY 2001 was DlRECTLY attributable to Republican policies. Furthermore, the US is a tax haven; corporations pay about 6% of the total tax burden, as opposed to over 30% back in 1960. These are all CBO numbers, btw. Another cause of SSl's problems is tax fraud by Republicans in S-corps. This was all part of a larger Republican plan to reduce the middle class to serfdom. Blame it all on Judas Wanniski.

While i concur that SS should have been a superannuation program, and we should never have licensed defined benefit pension plans, my dad was still in short pants when this idea was cooked up. And you are right: we are going to have to adapt to Al. Robots could even take over the sex-for-hire business. :)

read full comment
Image of LawDog
LawDog
on August 31, 2017 at 00:25:38 am

ln legal briefs, l often have to bite my tongue.

DC has more methane alerts than any other place on the planet.

As far as letting illegals in, the numbers speak for themselves. Especially in Germany and France. Your god is a notoriously selfish and uncharitable entity: a cosmic Donald Trump.

With respect to ll Papa, "lf you no playa the game, you no makea da rules."

read full comment
Image of LawDog
LawDog
on August 31, 2017 at 08:04:41 am

You do have a way of making me laugh out loud at some of the things (the God blasphemies not withstanding) you dare even to entertain as thought, no less to lay down in print, Mr. Dog,!

I'm afraid France and Germany, along with most of the rest of at least Western EU, have long since deported and exiled God, (but He hasn't left them, of course, they only need invite Him back), so He's not to blame in this instance. Although I suppose, for those who adhere to the belief that Muslims & Christians (and Jews) believe in the same God, I guess it can be said, that the EU has indeed invited God back, in a big (and most self-destructive) way - the Muslim God often demands the head of those who refuse conversion, and most certainly of those who dare scoff at His existence or at His Prophet.

Too, the Muslim God does not inspire the building of Grand Cathedrals that serve to annually fill the governments till, (and the Governing's foreign bank accounts), and the citizenry's avarice bellies (they have long stopped filling them with babies, or the Holy Eucharist) with billions of tourist euros, but rather, demands that they be torn down.

Il Papa, as you call him, need not be married to know, Mr. Dog, that in Roman households, the gamea they playa, isa dat momma makea da rules, and letta Poppa thinka he do.

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on August 31, 2017 at 08:36:08 am

Such Pay-per-view exclusives, starring politicians, and held widely and often across this great country would likely generate enough revenue to bring the public pension plans into solvency, with perhaps enough left over to cover single-payer healthcare...

Odd, if U.S. is a tax haven, that so many big corporations should find it advantageous to keep so much of their profits stashed safely away off-shore and across the pond...

My dad, a two time purple heart recipient, three time wounded, Nazi prisoner of war, was lucky enough to be a so-called "notch baby" - the reward for his blood and sacrifice, a smaller SS check, (I know it is greatly disputed and the evidence suggests that 'NB's probably weren't short-changed), but it wasn't sold to him that way by a then, as now, dishonest sensationalizing media, and he went to his grave a little embittered by the notion.

It's true what you say about these robots, or so I read. :-)

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on August 31, 2017 at 10:40:56 am

PB: "I’m afraid France and Germany, along with most of the rest of at least Western EU, have long since deported and exiled God, (but He hasn’t left them, of course, they only need invite Him back), so He’s not to blame"

Your god is a cosmic televangelist: takes credit for everything, accepts blame for nothing, and never does a damn thing. Bottom line, your god is indistinguishable from a stone idol.

But let's lay the blame where it belongs. Either your god doesn't exist and deserves to be interred (1 Kings 18) ... or he disinvited himself permanently when he hired his fair-haired boy Adolf to be Reichchancellor. Rom. 13:1-2. As a matter of law and even morality, your god is absolutely responsible for the acts he KNEW Adolf would commit.

Leibniz's theodicy can't save you here.

As this photo, https://iconicphotos.org/2009/08/12/vulture-stalking-a-child/, establishes beyond cavil, your god's only "moral code" is that "might makes right, and the ends justify the means." And like Flash Gordon's Ming the Merciless, your god isn't worthy of the title.

l am mindful of history, and of the fact that, when the Catholic Church was an irresistible force for evil, the Abbasid and Umayyad caliphates preserved the world's accumulated wisdom. (The Renaissance was a revolution against the Church, which has never been a force for good.) Forced conversion was always more of a Catholic thing; the only duty the caliphs required was the dhimmi tax, merely matching the 4% Muslims were expected to pay to care for the poor. But yes, lslam has followed the Catholic Church into darkness.

lf l had written this 500 years ago, l would have been burned at the stake. History will never forgive the Church for what it did to Galileo--nor should it.

read full comment
Image of LawDog
LawDog
on August 31, 2017 at 10:45:49 am

The goal of corporate tax planning is to have the host government subsidize you. But if you must pay tax elsewhere, you want to shift income to the US. Used to do this for large clients, and speak from experience.

read full comment
Image of LawDog
LawDog
on August 31, 2017 at 11:10:44 am

Mr Dog, if you knew anything about Christian theology it would be that Christ's crucifixion was God's way of accepting blame for that which he was totally innocent. God is the ultimate libertarian. He gives mankind complete free will in every choice and every decision they make. He respects our free will so completely that he will even permit Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin and Osama bin Laden to act with impunity for a time of course. If I had been alive 500 years ago when you were writing this I would be only too happy to roast marshmallows off your burning ass. :-)

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on August 31, 2017 at 11:17:38 am

Mr Dog, you must have been in Fiji for the past 44 years while the March for Life occurred in DC to think there was no opposition until the 1980's

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on August 31, 2017 at 11:27:11 am

Dawg:

Better check your history a little closer. Tha Abbasid and the Umayyad were not the savers of the worlds' wisdom as you suggest nor were the Mohammedans the great scientists, thinkers, doctors, etc etc that the received wisdom would have us believe.

Almost without exception, all the Muslim contributions were made by Assyriac, Chaldean and other christian sects of the period - indeed periods, as this Muslim appropriation of "dhimmi" work continued for centuries.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on August 31, 2017 at 11:27:22 am

I was living in Massachusetts at the turn of the century and there was an active movement directed at changing state law to allow same sex marriage. It had failed twice but each time there were more in favor of it than the time before and we all expected that the next time, which would be no later than 2005, either the voters at large or the General Court would amend the state's marriage laws.

Sadly, the Supreme Judicial Court, led by Margaret Marshall, CJ, (a South African civil rights crusader appointed by a Republican governor) leapt in 2003 and discovered the right in Part 1 of the Massachusetts Constitution, a part of the Constitution that had not changed since John Adams wrote it 1779. Marshall's decision exalted the role of the unelected judiciary with life tenure and diminished the role of the electorate and their representatives. It was a naked and completely unnecessary exercise of arbitrary power by the elite; it was an exercise in tyranny and nothing more.

read full comment
Image of EK
EK
on August 31, 2017 at 11:51:03 am

EK:

good take on Ole Niccoli; perhaps, our elite Princes should take to heart Nicci's admonition to take care of the masses!
They seem to have missed that part of his study.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on August 31, 2017 at 11:54:01 am

" war is a welfare program for oligarchs"

You forgot: war is a welfare program for governments - and I might add, a program that appears eternal.
How long did it take to repeal the Spanish american war tax on telegraphy / telephony - not to mention how many silly programs.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on August 31, 2017 at 11:58:15 am

BTW: Dawg:

I will believe in AGW when archaeologists finally dig up all those 10,000 year old Ford Explorers - you know, the ones, the tailpipe emissions from which were responsible for melting the 1.5 to 2 mile thick ICE sheets that covered 60% of the planet.

Yep, keep those tidbits of the "received wisdom" of the day coming hard and fast!

You may also want to cehck sattelite data of "actual" temperatures - it ain't warming. sister!

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on August 31, 2017 at 12:26:10 pm

"Furthermore, the US is a tax haven; corporations pay about 6% of the total tax burden, as opposed to over 30% back in 1960."

That is beside the point and is not sufficient to demonstrate the validity of the claim. There could be (and are) a number of other reasons for the US being a tax haven. Yet, I suppose much of this argument " But if you must pay tax elsewhere, you want to shift income to the US" could be explained if you look at the nature of the business being taxed. A european exporter may welcome setting up a subsidiary in the US, and the consequent tax (which is marginally higher than 6%, of course) because it then receives a considerable refund on the EU's VAT tax, does it not. Hey, who benefits here? - an open question.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on August 31, 2017 at 12:58:18 pm

WOW - I was unaware!

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on August 31, 2017 at 14:51:50 pm

BTW, Dawg:

Your 6% "factoid" may actually argue against your assertion.

One of the reasons for reduction in percentage may very well be that Corpoarations HAVE shifted income overseas thus reducing their share.

And BTW II: Until Iread this little factoid, I was unaware of just how large an influence the unparalleled expansion of certain *enterprises*, i.e., government at Fed, State and Muni level, has impacted our tax base. Of course, the share of corporate taxation will go down when an ever increasing amount of (allegedly) productive activity by that *enterprise* - governance and the Law of Rules - is EXEMPT from taxation. One may take small comofrt in the fact that the enterprises "minions" are at least taxed. -Ha!

BTW III: Clever little qualifier you place on *excess* 15T debt. Does this mean that only such debt for SS as may be found attributable by the Left to the GOP is considered actual debt - which is quite substabntial and has existed for a much longer period than the sixteen years since that knucklehead George W. entered the White House.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on August 31, 2017 at 15:46:52 pm

PB: "Mr Dog, if you knew anything about Christian theology it would be that Christ’s crucifixion was God’s way of accepting blame for that which he was totally innocent. ... He respects our free will so completely that he will even permit Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin and Osama bin Laden to act with impunity for a time of course."

What passes for Christian theology is a delightfully absurd attempt to excuse the inexcusable.

Think about it for a minute. First off, you concede that your god is a breathtakingly incompetent bumbler. He HAS to "sacrifice himself to himself to change a rule he made himself" and especially, when he didn't actually sacrifice anything at all? The priest must have slipped psilocybin into your communion wine (which is the only reason l'd ever consider taking communion again!). A rational and competent god would simply forgive the silly humans he 'made defective at the factory' on his own motion. No need for the absurd theatrics.

And as for your god being innocent, there is no warrant in law for such absurdity. lf you shoot a gun into a crowd of people, the bullet will be the cause of death of those killed. But as you fired the gun, you are seen as the proximate cause of their death, and are liable for depraved heart murder. Your god is a bloodthirsty and genocidal murderer. Three examples should suffice to make the point.

Your god made Hitler Reichchancellor. Rom. 13:1-2. He could have selected Bernie Schwartz, but he didn't. And the problem with omnipotence is that you can't feign ignorance.

But it's not just Hitler. Paul cites the example of Pharoah:

"For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." Rom. 9:17-18.

lf the Egyptians had had free will, they might have elected another Pharaoh, who was less besotted with his own power. But he didn't respect their free will. He wanted THlS Pharaoh, knowing how he would act. l know l'm taking unfair advantage of a Catholic (most are biblically illiterate), but the operative word is exegeirō. Your god raised Pharaoh up, much like Jesus was allegedly raised from the dead. No wiggle-room.

And kiss the silly notion of "free will" goodbye. lf my heart has been hardened, your god applied the cement. (l agree with Calvin here--it's originalist exegesis. :) )

And to make matters worse, your god punished an entire people for the alleged sins of one man that your god actually wanted to sin. To even state the case is to refute it.

And then, there is my favorite act of biblical genocide: Jericho. To the best or our knowledge, they did nothing to deserve their fate. And if your god had wanted to spare them, all he would have had to do was instill in them a burning desire to move to Cleveland.

But your god masturbates to pain and suffering--in between hot man-on-man action with Jesus (at least, the Greek gods had the decency to do human females). He wasn't satisfied just killing people; he had to have cattle eradicated! And like his Chosen One Donald Trump, he had a fetish for shiny objects: "All the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron are sacred to the Lord." Jos. 6;19.

l could go on, but trust that the point is made.

For the life of me, l don't know how you craft a coherent moral code from your Bible. "Might makes right and the ends justify the means" equals no moral code at all, but boy-buggery works within its framework. "Do as l say, not as l do" is equally difficult to work with, as your god's guy Adolf could have honestly believed that he was emulating Mein Fuhrer Who Art ln Himmel!"

You can make an argument in the abstract, but that pesky New Testament gets in your way. "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." Rom. 13:1-2. The Law of Non-Contradiction applies: Either the Apostle Paul lied, or you're making rubbish up because you can't defend your god.

read full comment
Image of LawDog
LawDog
on August 31, 2017 at 15:53:24 pm

gabe: "Better check your history a little closer. Tha Abbasid and the Umayyad were not the savers of the worlds’ wisdom as you suggest nor were the Mohammedans the great scientists, thinkers, doctors, etc etc that the received wisdom would have us believe."

You'll forgive me if l trust what l was taught by a respected Yale history professor on this score over your unsubstantiated assertions. During its Golden Age, Cordoba was a great center of learning, and there were more schools of lslam than books in the Vatican.

My surmise is that, if you got Siddhartha, R. Yeshua, and Mohammed into the same room and showed them what was wrought in their name, they would all commit suicide within two minutes. Yes, there was a time when lslam was respectable.

read full comment
Image of LawDog
LawDog
on August 31, 2017 at 16:03:30 pm

gabe, the data at this point is conclusive; science doesn't care whether you believe in it or not. We studied Sagan's theory regarding Venus back in the '70s. The secondary effects are worse than the triggers.

l have seen the retreat of the glaciers, the cracking of the permafrost, and the murder of the Great Barrier Reef. l've spoken to people doing the actual work in the Great Southern Ocean. This planet is finished as a home for our species, and your great-grandchildren will learn to despise you, unless we have another world war to end it sooner.

This century's wars will be fought over water.

read full comment
Image of LawDog
LawDog
on August 31, 2017 at 16:16:35 pm

Not trying to cook the books at all, Gabe. Most of the blood of the first $5T was on Ronald Reagan's hands (where voodoo economics met JM Keynes), but in 2000, we were actually talking about drawing it down.

Remember when Cheney was saying that deficits didn't matter?

The CBO gave us the analysis on the excess $15T. As they are non-partisan, l tend to take their analyses at face value. l have to qualify in that manner because the numbers demand it.

My idea of cogent tax reform is a flat 25% tax on GAAP income, apportioned on the basis of sales. lf every G20 did that, Dutch-lrish "sandwiches" would go stale overnight.

Tax planning is about changing the timing and/or character of income.

read full comment
Image of LawDog
LawDog
on August 31, 2017 at 16:18:45 pm

l wouldn't say there was no opposition but rather, that there really wasn't enough of it to matter. l remember a solidly pro-choice Republican Party.

read full comment
Image of LawDog
LawDog
on August 31, 2017 at 16:25:27 pm

Mr. Dog:

"lf my heart has been hardened" - of all the postulations you lay down here, this is the only line I accept as true - and I am very much sorry that this so, Mr. Dog. May it not always be so. Please, do not reply that you don't want my prayers, I know that already a head of time; besides, you have no way of stopping me :-)

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on August 31, 2017 at 16:40:05 pm

Dawg:

The claims are not unsubstantiated. Almost without exception, the great advances claimed by Islam were, in fact, made by dhimmi subordinates of various Christian sects, "employed" by the then current Muslim top dog. for that, I suppose one should give them some credit.

see: History of Babylonian Mathematics by Neugebauer for the Islamic claim of "zero" (then again, their contributions may very well amount to zero -Ha)

The Assyrian Christians "exported" their work on science, medicine and philosophy to the Islamic world. The Bakhteesho Assyrian family produced nine genrations of doctors, medical researchers and it was they who founded the great Medical School at Gundeshapur - not the Islamists - as well as authoring one of the most authoritative texts on medicine. One which was in use from 950 A>D until the 1800's.

As for astronomy, many, if not most, of the "Islamist" astronomers were actually Chaldean Christians .

In a book titled " How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs", it is noted that of the 22 scholars listed (as passing on the knowledge), 20 were Assyrian Christians (or Christians forcibly converted to Islam).

Now an interesting little fact re: the forced conversion regime and its effect on a culture, in particular the imposition of Islam upon Assyrian Christian culture.

One author (O'Leary - I cannot recall his first name) knowledgeable in these matters concluded: "The Christian Assyrian community was drained of its population [by the Mohammedans, of course] through forced conversion to Islam (by the Jizzya), and once the community had dwindled below a critical threshold, it ceased producing the scholars that were the imntellectual driving force of the Islamic civilization, and that is when the so-called "Golded Age of Islam" came to an end.

There is a rather interesting letter that was sent to that silly Carly fiorina, then CEO of HP, by a fellow from a now (apparently) defunct website called "nineva on line" in which the writer takes Ms Fiorina to task for her espuosal of the Golden Age of Islam. Suffice it to say - Carly got fried.

There are numerous works available for study that present a slightly more balanced account of what Islam actually contributed. Even Robert Spencer has some nuggets in his writings (although, he may appear a little biased).

For a highly readable account of the actual "benefits" of the Moor / Islamist conquest, I would suggest "Mohammed & Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy" by Emmett Scott from which you may garner a sense of the rapacity and ruthlessness of these bringers of "light and science."

And from a slightly different perspective - one which highlights the contribution of what was then known as Christendom, may I suggest "The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages launched the Scientific Revolution" by James Hannam - highly readable and one that may open even the eyes of one steeped in the received wisdom of the age.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on August 31, 2017 at 17:18:13 pm

l respectfully disagree. When l first read Lawrence v. Texas, l knew that this freight train was unstoppable, and that it would happen in state court--as "state courts are absolutely free to interpret state constitutional provisions to accord greater protection to individual rights than do similar provisions of the United States Constitution." Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 8 (1995). A survey of the ~100 reported decisions since Lawrence on this question reveals that no one could come up with a rational argument as to why Ted and Fred could not be permitted to wed.

And frankly, CJ Marshall had no choice but to hear the case. Art. Xl of Part 1 of the Mass. Const. provides: "Every subject of the commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character. He ought to obtain right and justice freely, and without being obliged to purchase it; completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without delay; conformably to the laws." Ergo, if the plaintiffs had a constitutional right to marry, they didn't have to wait for a vote of the people. Adams lifted this concept from Magna Carta [1215], as did at least half of his contemporaries.

When rights are imperiled, time is of the essence. Period.

The right to marry is not a privilege conferred by the State, but a fundamental right that is protected against unwarranted State interference. See Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978) ("the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals"). Ergo, the only question before the court was whether the statute prohibiting them from marrying was an unwarranted interference.

The three dissents built their arguments on the notion that the right to gay-marry was not "fundamental." But no one has ever articulated where a distinction is drawn in the Constitution between fundamental and non-fundamental rights, or how judges can reliably tell the difference.

James Madison would have found the proposed distinction nonsensical. In introducing his draft of our Bill of Rights to the House of Representatives, he explained that he consciously avoided attempting to enumerate all the rights retained by the people, arguing that

"….by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."

1 Annals of Congress 456 (1789) (remarks of Rep. Madison).

l have little doubt that John Adams would have been mortified by the decision. But there is no place in either the federal or Mass. constitution that draws a distinction between a non-fundamental and a fundamental right. To wit: "It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property, and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws," Mass. Const. Part 1, art. XXlX, and l can't see how a court could get to the dissenters' position.

EK: "It was a naked and completely unnecessary exercise of arbitrary power by the elite; it was an exercise in tyranny and nothing more."

How so? The Court had to hear the case. And l've been waiting for over a decade for ANY coherent argument that it was anything worse than an outcome you don't like. lf you want to join Larry Tribe's Living COTUS team, just say so.

read full comment
Image of LawDog
LawDog
on August 31, 2017 at 18:08:39 pm

gabe, the world's oldest university is is Fez, Morocco. The caliphs sought out the best and brightest, in conscious effort to accumulate and augment the world's store of knowledge. That they would make a home for dhimmis does not change this.

Any time you cite a Robert Spencer or Pamela Al-Mossadi Geller, you lose me. They have less cred than Ahmadinnerjacket.

You needed a bridge between the Greeks and the Enlightenment, and the caliphs served as this bridge. After all, they were in power, and far more enlightened than Catholics of that era.

read full comment
Image of LawDog
LawDog
on August 31, 2017 at 22:55:17 pm

So to summarize, Paul, you are joining the Resistance. You're a morally decent person so I knew you would! LOL

read full comment
Image of Bernard Menard
Bernard Menard
on September 01, 2017 at 00:59:50 am

Cultists are impervious to reason. Hare Krishnas, Hare Christians--no difference. l didn't expect a coherent rebuttal.

Prayer is the rough equivalent of urinating on a cold spark plug. By definition, an omnipotent god knows what she wants to do already, and is secure enough to have no need for worship. But you seen to need a hobby.....

Besides, per the Olivet Discourse, your MlA messiah is 19 centuries late for his curtain call. Facts and religion rarely get along.

read full comment
Image of LawDog
LawDog
on September 01, 2017 at 06:57:50 am

May I take this is a, "Thank you"? :-)

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on September 01, 2017 at 08:51:14 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1g8WCA7mJk

read full comment
Image of LawDog
LawDog
on September 01, 2017 at 10:10:30 am

Ha-ha!! Good one, very good, Mr. Dog. https://youtu.be/2ROK1-VvOQ0?t=4m37s

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on September 02, 2017 at 11:01:04 am

You miss the point (and Sagan was the 1970's eqiuvalent of Bill Nye - the Science, albeit somewhat better credentialed) - the whole issue is whether the "A" in Anthropogenic Global Warming is appropriate. The Earth has cooled and warmed many times over its history - and most of these changes occurred PRIOR to the industrialization of the past several centuries. Indeed many of these "changes" occurred PRIOR to the DAWN of humanity.

So cut the crapola. The Earth may be warming (an arguable hypothesis, at best given the conflicting data, poor measurements and "fudging" of data) but it may simply be just one in a series of earth changes over millennia.

BTW: Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not cite Pamela Geller as I have never read a word she said / wrote. I also characterized Spencer as biased. So don;t play the usual leftists trick of misquoting one in order to cast suspicion upon a) conclusions and b) motivations. There is ample research that indicates the the Golden Age of Islam was actually nothing more than an appropriation of other religious / cultural players.

BTW II: My Goodness, DAWG, talk about a religious disposition / prejudice that you attribute to Paul - check out yoyur own zealotry and count up your own "sacraments" - abortion (the Holiest of Holies now comfortable ensconced in the new Tabernacle of Planned Parenthood, Global Warming currently proselytized by the Master High Priest Gore, Mann, et al; gender fluidity, etc etc. These are the new sacraments to which we owe continuing faith and obeisance. And like the *heretics* of old, all who fail to worship them will be reprimanded.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on September 02, 2017 at 12:03:41 pm

BTW III:

Oh, and speaking of "credible" sources:

Don't use the CBO nor cite it as "non-partisan", a fiction engendered and maintained by our friends in the media; it has not been bi-[artisan for over 40 years.
Moreover, the CBO is unerringly wrong - witness, its 8scoring* (on numerous occassions) of the (UN)Affordable Care Act or on the effect of tax cuts where it steadfastly refused to employ dynamic scoring, instead relying upon "static" scoring. Then again, I suppose that is all that may be expected of an organization "statically" wedded to its general leftist / statist positions.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on September 02, 2017 at 13:04:37 pm

l was persuaded as to AGW long before anyone ever heard of Al Gore. Mother Nature is a strict accountant, and the CO2 had to go somewhere. We actually know where it went. lt is a proven greenhouse gas. Science doesn't care whether you believe in it or not.

gabe: "(and Sagan was the 1970’s eqiuvalent of Bill Nye – the Science, albeit somewhat better credentialed)"

Sagan is more like Neil DeGrasse Tyson--and even Tyson would admit that he's no Sagan. You don't have a single top-drawer scientist who is willing to sign on to your RW babble--you lost your best when Richard Mueller turned state's evidence. Sagan eclipses your best by orders of magnitude.

gabe: "but it may simply be just one in a series of earth changes over millennia. "

When you bring some actual EVlDENCE to support your position, kindly wake me up. The Maunder Minimum theory has been rightly dismissed, as have other crackpot ideas which have been advanced. lf the best argument you have is an ad ignorantiam fallacy, you aren't going to persuade.

gabe: "There is ample research that indicates the the Golden Age of Islam was actually nothing more than an appropriation of other religious / cultural players."

Catholics burned books. The caliphs actually read them.

gabe: "check out yoyur own zealotry and count up your own “sacraments” – abortion"

All l have said on the topic is that an originalist interpretation of COTUS guarantees the right to have one.

gabe: "Global Warming currently proselytized by the Master High Priest Gore"

Gore was persuaded by the science, as opposed to the obverse. As was l, many years ago. There are no sacred cows in the laboratory.

gabe: " gender fluidity, etc etc."

All l have said wrt the topic is that

"[t]he right to contract is an essential corollary of the right to own property, as you must be able to acquire and dispose of it to actually own it. In a secular society, marriage is a mere contract, with default terms drafted by the State. Rights are retained by the individual unless ceded to the State; all that a State can do is abridge rights and then, only in accordance with the authority granted to it. As the right to marry is fundamental, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), the State has to show a compelling interest in preventing two persons from entering into that marriage contract. As the State cannot show that it is in any way harmed when Fred and Ted decide to wed, it has no colorable authority to prevent them from doing so. This must be so as long as ours is a constitutional Republic with limited government powers. I express no opinion on the ultimate wisdom of same-sex marriage, pointing out only that are stuck with the constitutions we have."

Again, Originalism 101. And l have shown you how l get to originalism.

gabe: "And like the *heretics* of old, all who fail to worship them will be reprimanded."

You mean, kind of like your "blood and soil" brothers? lf you hold indefensible positions, you forfeit your right to be taken seriously. Believing that Jesus rose from the dead bodily on the lack of evidence before us requires a level of credulity l can't muster.

gabe: "Don’t use the CBO nor cite it as “non-partisan”

Everyone else has for decades. And l used to have a friend on CBO staff. l'm going to trust people like him who are paid to be neutral over RW kooks with axes to grind. Besides, CBO has been run by a conservative Republican, so if there is any bias, it works against you.

Really, gabe. You are letting your emotion overwhelm your reason.

read full comment
Image of LawDog
LawDog
on September 02, 2017 at 13:52:54 pm

Mr. Gabe & Mr. Dog,

Please forgive me, gentleman, for interjecting into this exchange.

I would only offer, a science that asserts that it is capable of accurately predicting the effects, no less the cause, of GW, would find its conclusions (for this fellow, who happens to now have water-spots on his freshly washed car) more widely embraced as credible if they were to first be able to predict with even the least accuracy, what today's weather (aside from the really big storms (hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.) would be like.

Mr. Dog: "Catholics burned books. The caliphs actually read them." - Catholic Priests were in many instances the scientist who made significant discoveries, or advanced major scientific theory - "The Big-Bang" theory, among them. Catholics, too, wrote most of the books that were ever burned (most likely after they were already committed to memory), and most likely wrote all of the books the Caliphs read. I note, you do not attribute that the Caliphs wrote any, only that the read them.

I have to say (and please take this in the jocular manner in which it is intended), that up until recently, I used to almost pity the Atheist, whose religion espoused no hope in an "after-life". Now, I am given to almost envying this point of view, as it holds out the hope that with Mr. Dogs passing (and I do hope it will not arrive for many, many years to come), that he will finally and with complete finality, shut-up, already! ;-)

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on September 02, 2017 at 16:24:34 pm

Really, Dawg:

And who burned the Library at Alexandria?

You are letting your religious zealotry (of a heathen variety -Ha!) show true. Global warming is not the accepted consensus that you allege. Many top rated scientists - not the journalists. media flacks, biologists, social scientists that comprise the alleged 97% consensus so often touted - do not accept the claims. Additionally, not one SINGLE prediction has come true AND the data has been more than fudged.

No, Dawg - you need to get out more - and read some of the excellent literature that counters the received wisdom of the day. Then again, it is apparent that your are a "receiver" of wisdom" living lazily on borrowed slogans."

P.S. - The "heathen" line is a joke - Ha! (I don;t do modern hieroglyphics, aka, emoji's).

BTW: You know absolutely nothing about me - but typical of your kind, you view all dissenting opinion as being motivated by a crude, uninformed religious disposition. Check carefully, Dawg - have I ever quoted Scripture? Have I ever made any religious argument?

Whether I am "of faith" or not is beside the point. What matters is your sophomoric displays of outrage and intemperance directed at those who are "of faith" while steadfastly asserting your own "faith"
Oh the WIDDLE BABY Gays, the Widdle Baby Trannies are upset and now seek to issue a new edict compelling others to LIKE them. Screw 'em (as Anthony Hopkins said in that great scene from Legends of the Fall) - I could not give a rip about them. Just don't ask me to like the Widdle Baby Gays and Trannys.

You must live under the impression that most people spend time actually thinking about these misfits.

Remember the line from an old Joe Cocker song:

"Do I still figure in your life..."

Sorry to tell you Widdle Baby Gays / Trannies - "You don';t and you never did."

And oh BTW - you ought to read some of the work done on the role of Christian monks, priests, believers in not just advancing science but establishing the its very basis. compare that to your woman hating, homophobic, Koran spouting Islamists over the centuries and the Islamists fail the sniff test.

Hey, question:

Why are not more leftists upset about the Mohammedan practice of female genital mutilation?
Answer: because in this age of gender *diaspora*, it is simply viewed as a quick, convenient means of undergoing gender reassignment surgery - and it does not require the expenditure of government tax dollars. Nope, just call up the local Mohammedan Witch Doctor - and presto, you now have a Stepford Wife (of a sort).

Get real, Dawg, methinks that YOU doth protest (no, actually, proselytize) too much - and must expend significant energy defending the indefensible.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.