Skip to comments.
Pride Before The Fall (Horowitz Sticks it to the Fundies!)
FrontPage Magazine ^
| 5/20/03
| David Horowitz
Posted on 05/20/2003 8:14:33 AM PDT by theoverseer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460, 461-480, 481-500 ... 661-677 next last
To: eastsider
Thanks for posting your opinions. Please enjoy your Pyrrhic victory in 2004.
Compromise with evil = evil.
461
posted on
05/20/2003 3:34:37 PM PDT
by
B-Chan
(Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
To: tdadams
I can't say for sure, I haven't read the book. You said in post post 437
I did read the book...
So which is it?
But call me crazy, something about the vocabulary of her summary leads me to believe that she's sensationalizing the book a bit.
Something about the results of a search on this book tell me the author is accurately representing the book. And I just ordered a copy from Bolerium Books. I collect similar books so I can demonstrate folks like yourself make statements without any supporting evidence.
You also said
Her summations are, how to say it, a bit propagandistic.
So now we see you have nothing to base that on. You haven't read the book so you just make it up as you go.
To: colorado tanker
"I don't know that we have any big disagreement,..."
I've never let that get in the way of a good argument. ;-)
"...although I look at the present state of affairs with more optimism than you, apparently."
Well, I'm not living in Cuba. So I got that going for me, which is nice. ;-)
"I thought the "social contract" types would have been jolted by the rise of Hitler to power, WWII and the Holocaust, done by proper procedure or agreement of the people, but grossly violative of the natural rights of millions. The only principled way to critique that regime was from a natural rights point of view."
D-oh! Weren't you arguing *for* social contract, versus natural rights? If you weren't, my bad.
To: Trace21230
Thanks to the temper tantrums of some conservatives who insist on 100% purity on certain wedge issues, whole communities have to suffer under the corrupt administrations of RAT politicians such as Parris Glendening, Gray Davis, and Janet Napolitano.
464
posted on
05/20/2003 3:38:52 PM PDT
by
Kuksool
To: BibChr
Horowitz, Tammy Bruce, and Andrew Sullivan are all goofballs that came over from the left.
These people are only 'conservative' when it fits their needs.
Peel back the first layer and you just find a shallow, confused, selfish and hateful person.
465
posted on
05/20/2003 3:39:31 PM PDT
by
CMClay
To: Mark Bahner
D-oh! Weren't you arguing *for* social contract, versus natural rights? If you weren't, my bad. No, I'm a natural rights advocate. Perhaps my computer was not properly expressing my thoughts; it does that sometimes. :)
To: Kuksool
"Thanks to the temper tantrums of some conservatives who insist on 100% purity on certain wedge issues, whole communities have to suffer under the corrupt administrations of RAT politicians such as Parris Glendening, Gray Davis, and Janet Napolitano."
Yup. The same "logic" espoused by the extreme right seems to control their ability to make smart politic decisions.
In other words, it is hopeless idiocy.
Trace
467
posted on
05/20/2003 3:43:10 PM PDT
by
Trace21230
(Ideal MOAB test site: Paris)
To: Mark Bahner
I can work with the baseball analogy, but from the batter's box, not from the on-deck circle. Swinging from the batter's box is always ordered towards making contact with the ball, whether the hitter makes contact or not. Likewise with coitus: it's always ordered toward procreation, whether procreation results or not.
468
posted on
05/20/2003 3:43:20 PM PDT
by
eastsider
(The on-deck circle is foreplay.)
To: colorado tanker
"No, I'm a natural rights advocate."
Oh! Wasn't somebody somewhere advocating for social contract? (Maybe I cut/pasted from your post, quoting someone else's post?)
In any case, maybe the problem is my not having had dinner, yet. So I better sign off.
Best wishes,
Mark
To: B-Chan
What Pyrrhic victory?
To: Mark Bahner
I don't know if this thread did this or not, but I'm going to a steakhouse for my ration of red meat tonight. :)
To: eastsider
"I can work with the baseball analogy, but from the batter's box, not from the on-deck circle."
It can't be the batter's box...it has to be the on-deck circle. Other than in National Enquirer (and one really aggressive fertility clinic), no 60+ year-old woman has ever had a child.
To: B-Chan
"Compromise with evil = evil."
LOL. "Evil," eh?
If you think the Republican party is "evil," why do you post on a site where most people are Republicans?
Is it some sort of religious self-hatred you have going?
I'm curious.
Trace
473
posted on
05/20/2003 3:50:52 PM PDT
by
Trace21230
(Ideal MOAB test site: Paris)
To: scripter
Sorry, make that... "I did read the link"
You weren't just being captious were you?
474
posted on
05/20/2003 3:53:49 PM PDT
by
tdadams
To: scripter
So now we see you have nothing to base that on. You haven't read the book so you just make it up as you go. Are you seriously going to be this obtuse? In your little world, am I not permitted to surmise conclusions based on what I've seen. Do you not think the woman's summations were a bit sensationalistic?
No, you probably don't. You probably think she's completely evenhanded and unbiased, just like you! < /sarcasm>
475
posted on
05/20/2003 3:57:34 PM PDT
by
tdadams
To: Mark Bahner
We're clearly not talking the same language. In my world, coitus is coitus, regardless of whether one of the adults is infertile.
Enjoy your dinner. As for me, I'm off to watch the Yankees beat the Red Sox again. (Thanks for the reminder : )
To: Mike K
David needs to point his attention to the first book of Romans, it will clear up his confusion.
To: Mark Bahner
I doubt if I can convince either you or those with whom you are arguing, but there is no conflict between the concept of Natural Rights and the idea that Government properly involves a social compact. Our
Declaration of Independence makes the points required for clarity. The confusion arises merely because it is endlessly quoted out of context, by those with an axe to grind, but all too seldom actually read. One thing, it most certainly is not, is an argument for egalitarianism, license, majority rule, etc.. On the other hand, its logic clearly implies a doctrine that requires fair administration of the laws, without favoritism for special interests or cronies or militant groups, on behalf of all members of the particular society that is party to the compact.
William Flax
478
posted on
05/20/2003 4:03:38 PM PDT
by
Ohioan
To: Zack Nguyen
"The Human Rights Campaign is not the KKK"
But membership in either will get you a one way ticket to hell.
To: tdadams
Are you seriously going to be this obtuse? In your little world, am I not permitted to surmise conclusions based on what I've seen. Do you not think the woman's summations were a bit sensationalistic? Obviously not and I have good reason for my position. Not only have I searched the internet for other comments on this book, which, btw, none of the search results support your position, I've seen the tactics mentioned in the book right here on FR.
Do I think you're being a bit sensationalistic? You betcha. As I previously stated, I've fallen for the facts, the same facts you try to deny without any evidence whatsoever.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460, 461-480, 481-500 ... 661-677 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson