Forums

Welcome Guest 

Show/Hide Header

Welcome Guest, posting in this forum requires registration.





Pages: First << 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 >> Last
Author Topic: Slippery Goldberg
Timothy-
Lane
Moderator
Posts: 1349
Permalink
Post Re: Slippery Goldberg
on: May 17, 2018, 08:53
Quote

Now that you mention it, I can recall the nun who did our catechism class at Ursuline (we non-Catholics attended, but we didn't have to participate in the discussions) giving examples of a good Catholic dying vs. an atheist dying. The first was ready and somewhat anticipating Heaven (though assuming you would definitely get there was the sin of presumption -- at the time I knew nothing of the principles of Calvinism), the second was most unhappy.

Brad-
Nelson
Administrator
Posts: 1504
Permalink
Brad Nelson
Post Re: Slippery Goldberg
on: May 17, 2018, 10:58
Quote

Being a very logical sort and drawing the obvious conclusions of Christian theology, I raised my hand. As I recall, I was the only one who did.

It’s a loaded question, given that suicide is a mortal sin. Blah blah blah. You can get experts in doctrine to go on and on about why heaven is to be lived for but not die for. They might even make some sense.

But at the end of the day, we hit the difficult wall of trying to get our religion to produce certainty out of what is, at best, mysterious and fuzzy. The logical answer is that we ought to welcome our demise (and as soon as possible) if heaven is our destination.

One of the core problems not talked about in polite company is that heaven and hell are very convenient ways for religious leaders to control their minions. Whether heaven and hell are real, I can’t say. But they are useful concepts for a bureaucracy.

Timothy-
Lane
Moderator
Posts: 1349
Permalink
Post Re: Slippery Goldberg
on: May 17, 2018, 11:02
Quote

That's why Marx referred to religion as the opiate of the masses. It kept them from revolting (unlike Marx and his followers, who are revolting).

Brad-
Nelson
Administrator
Posts: 1504
Permalink
Brad Nelson
Post Re: Slippery Goldberg
on: May 17, 2018, 11:40
Quote

What you and I know that means, of course is: “People who are happy and generally satisfied with their lives don’t make for good foot soldiers in the war to overturn everything.”

So these same people often need help. Only when they know they are oppressed can things change. (Better change? Worse change? Who cares? Forward! Reset!)

And you can know for sure that people who give their college thesis in their underwear in front of an entire classroom knows that they are oppressed. Some evil textile forces out there burden them with fashionable clothing, although I’m not sure why the bra and panties weren’t oppressive as well. Perhaps they were woven by third-world “people of color” on no-emission looms powered by unicorn farts.

Timothy-
Lane
Moderator
Posts: 1349
Permalink
Post Re: Slippery Goldberg
on: May 17, 2018, 11:59
Quote

Hand looms don't need even animal labor. I've seen them used.

There was a famine somewhere in Russia in Lenin's early days. As a Communist, he didn't want them to get any help because that eliminate any value it had for inducing revolution. After all, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. (Arthur Peabody Goodpasture had the right answer: "There's a difference between breaking eggs and breaking people." Leftists see no difference.)

Brad-
Nelson
Administrator
Posts: 1504
Permalink
Brad Nelson
Post Re: Slippery Goldberg
on: May 17, 2018, 12:05
Quote

Here's a list of 100 PC Words and Phrases. A few choice ones:

2) Homeless (Outdoor Urban Dwellers)
3) Insane (Reality Challenged)
9) Insult (Emotional Rape)
14) Right wing protest (Riot)
23) Fat (Metabolic Overachiever)
28) Natural Disaster (Global Warming Incident)
41) Crime Rate (Street Activity Index)
51) Blackboard (Chalkboard)

Timothy-
Lane
Moderator
Posts: 1349
Permalink
Post Re: Slippery Goldberg
on: May 17, 2018, 13:43
Quote

We should have mentioned 15) Left wing riot (Protest) along with 14, since they're meant to go together. I'd also note that 18) Global warming (Climate change) isn't political correctness but scientific correctness. Of course, I often refer to climate alarmism as "global warming aka climate change aka climate disruption". Or simply Gorescam.

Brad-
Nelson
Administrator
Posts: 1504
Permalink
Brad Nelson
Post Re: Slippery Goldberg
on: June 27, 2018, 07:55
Quote

In an amazing Quisling-like performance, Jonah Goldberg basically says the problem isn’t with the Left. The problem is us combatting the Left.

Without giving examples (especially how to do it right), he re-defines resistance to the Left as trying to “fill the holes in our souls.” I won’t go on my usual rant. There’s no need to. But I put the man’s sheer honesty in doubt. I agree with one poster who says “Jonah must be vamping for David Brooks' gig as the PBS/NYT ‘house conservative.’”

Frankly, what the conservative movement could really use is more Maxine Waters. Yes, I know the idea of actively opposing one’s enemies is anathema to the Quislings. But we need people getting into the face (short of violence…I guess) of these people. Opposing tyranny is not trying to “fill the hole in our souls.” It’s about trying to preserve our freedom.

Timothy-
Lane
Moderator
Posts: 1349
Permalink
Post Re: Slippery Goldberg
on: June 27, 2018, 08:07
Quote

I also had a response to Goldberg's atrocious notion on Town Hall. My basic point was that while both sides might be guilty, the left was far, far guiltier (after providing examples, of course).

Brad-
Nelson
Administrator
Posts: 1504
Permalink
Brad Nelson
Post Re: Slippery Goldberg
on: June 27, 2018, 08:22
Quote

When are both sides never guilty of something? We see from the Establishment Republicans the idea that we must battle perfectly or not battle at all.

However, I no longer believe that they believe this. They have other motives. Some are Quislings. Some are trying to get more face time on CNN or wherever. Some are just trying to deceive themselves about their own surrender. But you’ll find no Patrick Henry amongst the conservative press. Oh, they’ll analyze a subject to death, for sure. It might even be good analysis. But they exist to sell books and get face time on TV (and get paid appearance fees). They do not exist to actually reform things.

If you wanted to reform a single university, for instance, you would organize a sit-in or something. You would organize protests. But no conservative — quite unlike the Left — wants to put their name to such a thing. Trump, however imperfect, is the closest we have. We will talk a thing to death but few will get their hands dirty with real action. Things will have to get a little worse until we hear talk of “Give me liberty or give me death.” Of course, such talk now would cause Goldberg to soil his pants.

Pages: First << 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 >> Last
Mingle Forum by cartpauj
Version: 1.0.34 ; Page loaded in: 0.335 seconds.