- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
- Messages
- 28,133
- Reaction score
- 15,017
- Location
- Canada's Capital
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Hey, if one is being intellectuall lazy, especially after one has been warned of doing so, somebody has to take the lazy to task, eh?
I more than partially agree with his premise: why should all of us defend and take responsibility for what the left has, through such methods as the media [ i.e., Hollywood, Television and the music industry] along with its highjacking of our educational system to fulfill its desires to create a depraved and degenerate popular culture then attempt to force feed this decadence to the rest of the globe... why should we all take blame for what the left has done to the formally high morality previously promulgated and shown to the world as a beacon, not the current embarrassment, of this proud nation?
One can easily understand how a prideful religious group might feel threatened by all the debauchery that shows little sign of dwindling and is, instead, gaining momentum in this country as your side barrels full steam ahead at breaking down all the barriers of propriety and decency.
Nah, he is spot on with this practical and insightful extrapolations...
For the love of God, they attacked the World Trade Center.
Another Conservative that criticized Obama gets targetted by the government.
And sometimes you can
In this case, all I would need to know (that is, if I weren't already familiar with his drivel) is that he believes liberals caused 9/11
My initial suggestion to you is that in the future you should state clearly who you mean instead of using the rather ambiguous "they". Are you referencing the left [ it not being just a "playground for hippies" but perhaps you are saying it was a war ground for hippies, is that what you are attempting, albeit quite sloppily, to contend???] or is the "they" you cite supposed to be Al Qaeda... or is it some other amorphous group other than that, maybe even a group, "they", who may even call themselves "they"??? Who knows after your weird reference to hippies and such...For the love of God, they attacked the World Trade Center. Just in case you were not aware, it was not a playground for hippies, for ****'s sake. :roll: :doh
Heaven forbid a nutjob far righty would actually have to follow the law. :doh
Let's don't act as if this is some great, immoral crime.
So, because you happen to support criminality as long as it serves the needs of your rigid ideology, you try to portray anybody who does not support either as engaging in an act?
Duly noted.
That debate was far better than we generally see here, with all three actually having points and establishing them with previously considered thoughts plainly showing their scaffolding ... I did not find it to be the apex of debate by any of the participants, but all three at their very worst are better than most. The fact of the matter is that Hitchens didn't use D'Souza as a pinata as another poster stated erroneously here... and while Hitchens was generally the better overall speaker and debater in whichever venue he attended, I have never seen him just absolutely vanquish DD in any engagement that I have watched.
And I would go further to suggest that just because you may not agree with DD's points in that debate does not make them embarrassing nor does it make them incorrect.
There wouldn't happen to be more than one debate between D'Souza and Hitchens, would there?
Christopher Hitchens vs Dinesh D'Souza - Freedom Fest [2008] - YouTube
Debate: Atheist vs Christian (Christopher Hitchens vs Dinesh D'Souza) - YouTube Notre Dame
Debate - Dinesh D'Souza vs Christopher Hitchens - Is Christianity the Problem? - YouTube King's College
These amongst others, seem to be different occasions when they debated each other... having a hard time with your youtube search function, are ya?
What did you expect from President "Pick 'n Choose?"
So, to turn the tables, are you saying he is guilty of something? I think he has only be accused, right? That does not equate to guilt to you, does it? And yes, this could very well be a wild goose chase serving only the purpose of punishing DD for having the gall to tell the truth about the big zer O.You saying he's not guilty of anything? He's just a victim of a witch hunt?
As you are well aware, calling something BS is not debate, it is just a lazy opinion without substance... thanks for confirming for me that I am right through your positioning on the topic, yet wasting my time once again.
Besides which, liberals don't have to step down due to failing to meet the left's standards as that standard is so low as to be nonexistent [ i.e., Clinton, Barney Frank, Gerry Studs ]. Kind of like the standards some hold around here with regards to actual debating. Dinesh, indeed, stepped down as we do, over on this side, have high standards and even the left expects us to uphold and live up to those standards.
So, then, if money does not influence voting, why do candidates even bother to go through the trouble to raising money?
Do you vote according to campaign funding?
Far too many vote according to the propaganda that spews forth during every election season - that "propaganda" which is paid for with "campaign funding". More money - more negative ads is the way it has played out.
That is harsh. Don't you know that the President twice said these words: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” ?
If the President were picking and choosing which laws to enforce, then he would not be faithfully executing the Office of President of the United States.
...and if Dinesh did what he was accused, then he should be tried. Then a jury can decide whether he is guilty, not guilty, or not guilty due to an unjust law (jury nullification).
Straw-donor cases have been brought against prominnent individuals from time to time. For example, in 2011, a prominent Los Angeles attorney, Pierce O’Donnell, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor chargest of making $20,000 in donations to the presidential campaign of former Sen. John Edwards and reimbursing straw donors.
Conservative author and pundit Dinesh D’Souza charged in campaign finance case - The Washington Post
That debate was far better than we generally see here, with all three actually having points and establishing them with previously considered thoughts plainly showing their scaffolding ... I did not find it to be the apex of debate by any of the participants, but all three at their very worst are better than most. The fact of the matter is that Hitchens didn't use D'Souza as a pinata as another poster stated erroneously here... and while Hitchens was generally the better overall speaker and debater in whichever venue he attended, I have never seen him just absolutely vanquish DD in any engagement that I have watched.
And I would go further to suggest that just because you may not agree with DD's points in that debate does not make them embarrassing nor does it make them incorrect.
ACORN doesn't exist and hasn't since 2010. Get some new material.
INCORRECT... color me shocked..
Scandal-tainted ACORN is disbanding, a spokesman for the national community activist group says, although its housing division will continue, according to two news reports.
...
The Wall Street Journal says ACORN Housing, which has a separate budget and board, would remain open.
I do not want to be accused of derailing the thread and so will be brief as to your well written and well meaning, but [ unfortunately ]off topic post. The Jews did have laws against usury depending upon how one defines usury. But, whether charging interest or what some might term excessive interest, it was considered a sin. And as regards Prager, being completely void of the OP, I will only say that we would have to agree to disagree. If you want to start a thread on this video debate, I will be happy to debate all these points with you in further detail.Continuing the debate again (42 minutes in), and while Hitchens hasn't yet used D'Souza as a pinata (he got off to a bit of a shaky start, admittedly), he definitely steamrolled the ever loving bejeezus out of Prager.
With concerns to D'Souza it was unclear where he was trying to take his Cafeteria Christian theme and how it was supposed to apply to the context of the debate. Also, he trips when he claims that antisemitism has no secular roots, when in fact it does. Well, when I mean "secular" here, I merely mean that the roots are not necessarily based in Christian dogma, per se, but rather mixed in together. The Jews, having no laws against usury, were allowed to be money lenders, and did in fact finance many a royal and noble family's expenditures, not the least of which were the very Crusades themselves. And so of course those families would find themselves in great debt, but good news though: with the death or exile of the lender, the debt was cleared. You can probably see where this is going. Jews in England were forcibly baptized, upon which their usury was illegal. And if they continued as Jews then they were exiled, with all their belongings confiscated of course. Debt cleared, huzzah!
With concern to Prager, yeah, Hitchens used him as Pinata alright. Prager asked Hitchens who he would turn to for help if he were a Jew during the Holocaust, the assumption being that the church (or just religious people in general) could be relied upon to have the morality to do the right thing in this regard. Big, big mistake. Hitchens was highly informed of the facts surrounding the Catholic church and the Holocaust, and he utterly decimated that assumption, notably pointing out that not one Nazi was excommunicated except for Goebbels, and that was only because he had married a Protestant. There was more, but point is, if I had to choose a moment to be Prager, that moment in time would not be it.
Nice to see Hitchens not drunk, btw.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?