Forums

Welcome Guest 

Show/Hide Header

Welcome Guest, posting in this forum requires registration.





Pages: First << 13 14 15 [16]
Author Topic: Slippery Goldberg
Timothy-
Lane
Moderator
Posts: 1349
Permalink
Post Re: Slippery Goldberg
on: October 20, 2018, 17:23
Quote

National Review Online had a Weekend Jolt column today that was interesting in many ways, but which would be hard to explain because I couldn't make a link. However, the first part discussed such aspects of Blonde Squaw With Empty Head and what tribe she might be. Here, they included a link to a short piece on youtube that shows Chief Wild Eagle telling Corporal Agarn how the Hekawi Indian tribe got their name. Loads of fun. The link is:

Timothy-
Lane
Moderator
Posts: 1349
Permalink
Post Re: Slippery Goldberg
on: October 26, 2018, 17:26
Quote

Jonah Goldberg has his usual weekend piece today, attacking conspiracy theories and the tribalism that makes them easier to adopt. As usual he has many good points, while slipping up in a few places. For one thing, he targets only conservative conspiracy theorists because those upset him more (for embarrassing his side) than leftists one do. It would be nice, though, if he would remind his readers that there's a lot of this on both sides.

More seriously, he argues that the notion that the Demagogues organized or are funding the invasion of Hondurans (and others) is ridiculous because it's hurting them politically. The idea that they might have shot themselves in the foot with something they thought would help them doesn't occur to him. Someone is certainly organizing and funding them, and that someone is certainly on the left and supports the Demagogues. That's as far as we can go.

He also, in regretting the increasing tribalism of American life, doesn't consider the question of how conservatives should respond to the rampant tribalism of the left over at least the last 30 years. This is a question KFZ and I discussed earlier, and my view is that while it would be better to have no tribalism, it's better to have everyone to be tribal than to have one side fight with bare knuckles and no rules, and the other with boxing gloves and Marquess of Queensberry rules. Goldberg simply can't let himself see this -- perhaps, as one blogger suggested, because he wants to "stand tall in Georgetown" and won't do so if he admits why so many conservatives like Trump's tactics. The link is:

https://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/conspiracy-theories-tribal-appeal-superstition/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=181026_G-File&utm_term=GFile

Kung Fu Zu
Moderator
Posts: 670
Permalink
Kung Fu Zu
Post Re: Slippery Goldberg
on: October 26, 2018, 20:39
Quote

The left enforces political/tribal discipline much better than conservatives who believe in the individual and reasoned discussion. As a result, the left is able to attack individuals and specific policies en masse, something like the way the army ants attacked Charlton Heston's ranch in the movie Tim mentioned a few days back.

In order to survive such assaults, the left has forced conservatives and just regular people to unite into a tribe to counter the red ants.

Timothy-
Lane
Moderator
Posts: 1349
Permalink
Post Re: Slippery Goldberg
on: November 3, 2018, 16:41
Quote

Taylor Millard at Hot Air has a piece on a Trump's suggestion of an executive order to eliminate birthright citizenship that makes Jonah Goldberg at his worst look good. He starts by attacking Trump as opposed to due process of law on the grounds that he would like people sentenced to death to be executed in less than a decade. Obviously Millard is so ignorant of legal history that he doesn't realize that major criminals used to be executed within a year or less. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, despite repeated appeals, was executed about 1 2/3 years after his capture. Leon Czolgosz and Giuseppe Zangara took less than a year. Even Sacco and Vanzetti only took a few years to be executed -- far less than 10. Does Millard think there was no due process then?

Millard accepts the standard interpretation of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as being beyond question, which is truly idiotic. It might require a constitutional amendment (which will never happen) to change it, but it might only require a new judicial interpretation. This is particularly true since SCOTUS has never formally ruled on a case involving birthright citizenship. William Brennan assumed this in a footnote to a decision, and that's it. The other major case, going back 120 years, involved the child of legal Chinese immigrants.

Millard also seems not to understand the difference between changing the interpretation of a phrase and actually editing the amendment. So he gives examples to remind us that we wouldn't want someone to rewrite the 1st or 2nd Amendment by executive fiat. This would be a good point if it were at all relevant. The link is:

A Trump executive order on birthright citizenship would open Pandora’s box

Kung Fu Zu
Moderator
Posts: 670
Permalink
Kung Fu Zu
Post Re: Slippery Goldberg
on: November 3, 2018, 17:23
Quote

Millard sounds like another half-educated libertarian who doesn't let history or facts get in the way of a good bitching.

By the way, if the poorly educated millennial's standard interpretation of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" were correct, the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" would not have been necessary.

It is tiresome for us to have to deal with such analphabets when discussing serious business.

Kung Fu Zu
Moderator
Posts: 670
Permalink
Kung Fu Zu
Post Re: Slippery Goldberg
on: November 7, 2018, 11:25
Quote

The link will take you to a very astute piece about Goldberg's basic dishonesty.

The Most Hated Man in America

Toward the end of the article, the writer gets to the nub of what actually motivates these "anti-nationalist" Never Trumpers.

Timothy-
Lane
Moderator
Posts: 1349
Permalink
Post Re: Slippery Goldberg
on: November 7, 2018, 12:04
Quote

It all comes down to globalism in the end. The nationalist places America (or whatever his country is, since there can be nationalists for any country and people of any race) above the rest of the world -- not necessarily out of hostility to others, but out of preference for our own. Some would say this should be called patriotism (which Samuel Johnson defined as a political philosophy based on love of country), but that's basically just semantics. Globalism places us on the same level as everyone else -- and in practice, tends to put us lower.

One also should never forget that many conservatives believe in a civility that would be very nice if the other side ever returned it. As those who hunt down serial killers have observed, those who fight monsters must be careful not to turn into monsters themselves. But they still have to fight the monsters in the end. That's where Jonah Goldberg and his sort tend to be found wanting.

Kung Fu Zu
Moderator
Posts: 670
Permalink
Kung Fu Zu
Post Re: Slippery Goldberg
on: November 7, 2018, 12:19
Quote

Globalism places us on the same level as everyone else -- and in practice, tends to put us lower.

The link is to a Wikipedia page which will give you a quick synopsis of "Globalism" which has generally been called "Internationalism."

You will see how the radical free traders were among the first to push the idea. They still claim that open trade among nations makes peace spring out in the world. I am still not convinced there is a provable cause-and-effect link between the two, but don't let the radical free traders hear you say that. And I say that as someone who has made a lifetime business out of international trade.

Further down the piece, the reader will come to the nub of who has been and still is behind "Globalism" which should be called Internationalism. The Communists have been pushing this ideology since latest Karl Marx.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalism_(politics)

Pages: First << 13 14 15 [16]
Mingle Forum by cartpauj
Version: 1.0.34 ; Page loaded in: 0.371 seconds.