Replies

I wrote:
"He refuses to judge minorities by objective standards."
EverFree responded
Please expand on this fascinating concept of judging minorities by objective standards.
Minorities often act against the long term interest of society and themselves because of short-term decisions.
For instance calling for the freedom of Jonathan Pollard will clear up the problem of his disproportionate sentence. However, it undermines America by lessening the punishment of traitors. It hurt Jews in America by making us look disloyal. It hurts Israel by wasting political capital on a traitor rather than on the actual threats to Israel.

"He opposes the nation-state"
Grover is not anarchist. To imply otherwise is paranoia and hysteria.
There is a difference between opposing the nation-state and opposing government. Tranzis support global government, Free-trade, and open immigration. However then support one-world governance through a modified UN. Norquist is no tranzi, but he does not care for the sovereignty of the US because he is a libertarian, not a traditionalist.

"He is ignorant of the charges because he refuses to see them."
Circular logic, begging the question; next.
Not at all; the human ability of self-deception is astounding. Take a look at the spouses of criminals.

Ratner writes that I want to "bring Islamic fundamentalists into the Republican Party without regard to how they feel about terrorism or Americans, let alone Republicans." This is not true. And it is silly. It is, however, a sad lie that a handful of bigots have tried to spread to attack President Bush and others.
A yes "bigots"!
Hiding behind the charge of racism is liberal trait.

"Paleos should disdain the open-border WTO-supporting PC relativistic Norquist. "
America will never abandon free minds and free markets.
The average Paleoconservative has as much disdain for Reason Magazine as they do for the Weekly Standard.
Paleos support tariffs.
You seem rather ignorant of Paleoconservatism. May I suggest that you look up the "Chronicle" symposium on the history and ideological underpinnings of paleoconservatism?

You overuse the Disagreement Is Blindness metaphor. You misspell it on the third use because your hands are as tired of typing it as we are of reading it.
I get tired at 3AM.

"1. Is that Michael or William Lind?"
The particular author has no bearing on the fact of the statement.
1. I do not agree wit the asserted veracity of the statement.
2. Whether the author was a liberal former Neocon or a Paleoconservative does matter.
Michael Lind is a homosexual who makes a living slandering conservatives. William Lind simply dislikes neocons.

Read harder: Lind (objectively) says 1970s. Not 1970 (your strawman).
So we have an unsubstantiated claim of a conspiracy that occured sometime in a decade.
That borders on LaRouches veracity.

(Norquist) refuses to judge minorities by objective standards.
Minorities often act against the long term interest of society and themselves because of short-term decisions.

Assuming you don't advocate prejudging, I'm sure what you meant was this: "Members of minorities often act against the long term interest of society and themselves because of short-term decisions."

But that is meaningless; observe: "(Members of) majorities often act against the long term interest of society and themselves because of short-term decisions.

calling for the freedom of Jonathan Pollard will clear up the problem of his disproportionate sentence.

Oh no! You're a Free Pollardite? There goes the thread! 8*)

Pollard will rot until he fingers MEGA.
The "Disproportionate Sentence" whiners never mention that Pollard remains in possession of info we I want. Why don't you all want Mega-Mole identified, HMMM?

"Disprotionate Sentence" whiners also insult American's intelligence by painting their whines about sentence length as a greater issue than Pollard.
Those whiners only care about Pollard, and have never cared about any other disproportionate sentence "victims," proving them slimy liars.

Where were the Free Pollardists when thousands of people caught with rock cocaine were getting much more jailtime than those caught with powdered cocaine? Did they help get the USSC to strike that "law" down? Hell NO! (Maybe they would have, IF only Prince Pollard had been caught with rock instead of powder.)

it undermines America by lessening the punishment of traitors.

Now you are implying that disproportionate sentencing helps America and traitors should be over-punished. That's wrong, too.

calling for the freedom of Jonathan Pollard...hurt Jews in America by making us look disloyal.

Now you have discovered why "judging minorities by objective standards" is ludicris!
Only individuals of the Free Pollardist type are open to charges of dual loyalty; to blame Jews in general is pre-judgement, puffy "objective standards" notwithstanding.

It hurts Israel by wasting political capital on a traitor rather than on the actual threats to Israel.

I find the amount of resources spent on Free Pollardry *very* telling. Israel must perceive some threat; otherwise they doth protest too much. That means he still has big beans to spill, justifying his long sentence as well as his continued metabolic activity.

"He is ignorant of the charges because he refuses to see them."
the human ability of self-deception is astounding.

You are still using the circular logic of your "Disagreement is (Willfull) Blindness" metaphor.

Take a look at the spouses of criminals.

I will not. We're discussing Norquist, and not your inflammatory, emotionally loaded counterexample of criminals' spouses!

Norquist clearly repeats and refutes the exact charges against him, that's why you must try to muddy the waters by bringing up totally unrelated red herrings:

Ranter writes that I want to "bring Islamic fundamentalists into the Republican Party without regard to how they feel about terrorism or Americans, let alone Republicans." This is not true. And it is silly. It is, however, a sad lie that a handful of bigots have tried to spread to attack President Bush and others.

A yes "bigots"! Hiding behind the charge of racism is liberal trait.

Norquist is talking about anti-Muslim religious bigots, not racial bigots.
Thank you for one again demonstrating the liberal trait of bringing up an unrelated but touchy issue (liberal charges of conservative racism) in a lame attempt to explode the debate.

The average Paleoconservative has as much disdain for Reason Magazine as they do for the Weekly Standard.
Paleos support tariffs.
You seem rather ignorant of Paleoconservatism. May I suggest that you look up the "Chronicle" symposium on the history and ideological underpinnings of paleoconservatism?

I'm not "ignorant of Paleoconservatism," but thanks for at least getting halfway through your post without the previously well-mocked puffery.

I prefer the terms crustycon or crunchycon to Paleo. Calling the left-behind crusties "Paleo" gives them too much historical credibility for sticking by old fashioned ideas now inapplicable in an interdependent world economy.

So we have an unsubstantiated claim of a conspiracy that occurred sometime in a decade.

The "Oh piffle, it's all just crazy talk" defense won't work here. The objective truth in this claim is not subject to who happens to be saying it. EG: For all we know, Lind could be just repeating what the Pope told him.

"The modern conservative brain trust originated in a scheme hatched in the 1970s by William E. Simon, Irving Kristol, and others." The plan was to make conservative intellectuals, hitherto an independent-minded, quirky, and diverse community, a controlled monolith that would function as the reliable tool of the Republican Party. "By the early 1990s, thanks to the success of the Simon-Kristol initiative, almost all major conservative magazines, think tanks, and even individual scholars had become dependent on money from a small number of conservative foundations."

That borders on LaRouches veracity.

Ah yes the larouche red herring, released only in times of great distress. 8*) Let me refute your insinuation:
The veracity is hardly questionable, given publicly known facts you may verify.

Please note that Lind uses the words "scheme" and "initiative" not your sarcastically dismissive term, "conspiracy."

Further note that Lind says that the 1970s scheme became a successful initiative in the early 1990s; this belies your strawman that "we have an unsubstantiated claim of a conspiracy that occurred sometime in a decade. "

PS I think the Linds are both metrosexual. 8*)