September 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Otis Hairston, Jr. | Main | Sunlight from the N&R »

Oct 16, 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

prell

"I'm still trying to figure out what it means for someone to be an anti-colonialist in 2012, much less why that would be a bad thing."

From what I've gathered talking with people who've seen the movie, being an anti-colonialist is bad and "un-American." When I've tried to pry them for more details they've recommended that I see the movie and judge for myself, which leads me to believe there are no details or the details are so abhorrent that they can only be viewed and never spoken of.

Sykes

It's pretty much code for "get whitey" and "reparations" ...

Spag

So I assume the point is that if you are an evangelical Christian you are supposed to be infallible and are not allowed to make movies hostile to Obama if you aren't.

bubba

^The point is that the blog host has totally run out of worthwhile material to use to distract from his failed president's reign of incompetent hardheaded-ness.

polifrog

I believe the point is that it is more moral to meet low standards of morality than it is to attempt higher standards of morality and fall short.

formerly gt

i agree with bubba. the cone heads have been eerily quiet for the past few days and weeks since the SS Obama started taking on water. nothing like conservative (even better if Christian) hypocrisy exposed to bring on a wave of posts.

And as for Dinesh, if this is as bad as it looks - seriously? while Christians don't demand purity, they do demand adherence to basics such as faithfulness to one's spouse.

and if you're going to take on the left, you better be purer than ivory snow. otherwise every shortcoming, sin, and error in judgment that you've ever made will become public. additionally this will substitute for a refutation of your argument regardless of whether the argument was valid or invalid.

So, you lose personally on two points while damaging the cause you're trying to promote.

as for anti-colonialism and ed, i've noticed that D'Souza has written at least one piece outlining his thoughts, that might be a good place to start your research as you're endeavoring to understand his point.

maybe once you figure it out, you can share with us your thoughts on whether colonialism was good, bad, or something in between. and ditto for anti-colonial movements.

i must confess i don't know that much about the subject. just that if you were going to be colonized, it seems it was far better to be a british colony than to be a spanish or french colony. and if russians were considered to have colonized Eastern europe and parts elsewhere they did a much worse job with their colonies than even the french.

my thought for the day - They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin

Dale

My advice to the Martians: Fight back now. Do not let the invaders get a toehold.
Do not even let them use the restrooms.
They will come up with some pseudo-religious crap about Manifest Destiny or Exceptionalism.

polifrog

Formerly GT:

while Christians don't demand purity, they do demand adherence to basics such as faithfulness to one's spouse.


I have not known a church to reject a potential member or exclude a current member for infidelity, but it is clear that Ed feels entitled to do what Dinesh's faith does not by intimating that Dinesh has earned exclusion or rejection, not from his faith but from something entirely unrelated, politics.

If Dinesh were not faithful, but rather amoral, he would have been immune to Ed's political critique, thus, in a very real way Ed promulgates the political entitlement of the amoral.

If that the case, on what morality do you, Ed, feel entitled to argue for Dinesh's political exclusion?

Spag

"If Dinesh were not faithful, but rather amoral, he would have been immune to Ed's political critique"

Correction: "If Dinesh was not an evangelical Christian and had made a movie critical of George W. Bush and was not faithful, but rather amoral, he would have been immune to Ed's political critique"

Further correction- Ed really doesn't have a critique. That usually requires an argument.

Thomas

Polifrog - I see you left yourself wiggle room by not saying Ed said something, but by saying he intimated something. You then just made shit up and criticized Ed for intimating your made up shit. Nice.

polifrog

As usual, Thomas is wrong again.

As Spag points out, Ed has no argument. Intimation is all that is left.

Just as when one attacks another for striving for something more and falling short, one becomes a cheerleader for mediocrity, one becomes a cheerleader for amorality when attacking another for falling short of their faith.

It is a simple concept, Thomas.

Democrat, mediocrity, liberal, amorality, Ed Cone, anti-individualist, and Thomas... not a dime's worth different.

sean coon

seems to me that ed, who writes a locally focused blog, reported the connection between a once-greensboro native and a rather juicy story making the rounds nationally. and his "critique" of d'souza's narrative on obama is rather straight-forward -- i could reduce it to "wtf?"

not quite sure why panties are getting twisted.

Thomas

"...attacking another for falling short of their faith."

Where is the "attack" in Ed's post?

As Sean said, WTF?

Andrew Brod

The "attack" was Ed linking to a negative and salacious story about conservatives, which makes the conservative here really, really sad. And can you blame them? Ed never does that to Democrats.

bubba

"not quite sure why panties are getting twisted."

Why don't you take yours off, and see what's causing your problem?

sean coon

for the record (that sam keeps), my boxers are loose and untangled.

i just don't get all the vitriol. either argue for d'souz's narrative, against him being held to standards that even bill clinton was held to or go spend your time on something useful. the amount of fidgety, reactionary comments are ridiculous.

i remember ed posting something about the craziness of this time of years about a month ago...

polifrog

Thanks, Doc.

When an individual attempts to achieve beyond their current state it is sad when others use that attempt as a cudgel against them for political gain.

Your link does not show Ed doing that to a Democrat.

The post you link to:

Not the crime but the coverup, chapter the Nth:

The chairman of the state Democratic Party is expected to resign after an avalanche of top elected officials called for his ouster Tuesday amid revelations that he authorized a secret agreement to pay a former staffer to keep quiet after making sexual harassment allegations.

It leaves one to wonder at the perils of attempting to better one's self and the virtue of amorality Ed promotes in his attacks on those practitioners of religions not his own.

A discussion over a modern colonist would have been interesting but sadly Ed chose to needlessly distract from that conversation by attacking Dinesh with Dinesh's faith.

Andrew Brod

Wow, that's a really stupid take on this. Mazel tov.

sean coon

it is pretty dumb. ed "attacked" his faith by linking to a real world story that is unfolding outside of ed's purview?

methinks d'souza attacked his own faith. not that i actually care.

polifrog
it is pretty dumb. ed "attacked" his faith by linking to a real world story that is unfolding outside of ed's purview?

First Ed denigrates a man for falling short of his aspirations. Only then does he turn to political arguments.

It is as if I were to begin an argument with a bit of character assassination. Keynes' deep immorality for instance when Keynes says:

In our opinion, one of the greatest advantages of his [Moore’s] religion was that it made morals unnecessary…

We entirely repudiated a personal liability on us to obey general rules. We claimed the right to judge every individual case on its merits, and the wisdom to do so successfully. This was a very important part of our faith, violently and aggressively held, and for the outer world it was our most obvious and dangerous characteristic. We repudiated entirely customary morals, conventions and traditional wisdom. We were, that is to say, in the strict sense of the term, immoralists.

And with that introduction turn to a discussion on the failures of Keynesian based policy.

Stupid? Stupid is not recognizing when you are being played by an individual who feels free to denigrate others for aspiring to more.

Thomas

Please point us to where in this post Ed denigrated someone. Or attacked someone. Or made a political argument.

Ed Cone

I should add that Greensboro's own Mickey McLean, an early local blogger, is an editor at World, the Christian publication that broke the story and now reports that D'Souza has been forced out of his college gig.

sean coon

STOP ATTACKING HIS FAITH, ED!

prell

Hasn't the frog attacked Islam in previous threads?

polifrog

Ed:

I should add that Greensboro's own Mickey McLean, an early local blogger, is an editor at World, the Christian publication that broke the story and now reports that D'Souza has been forced out of his college gig.

So, what you're doing is akin to the acceptable use of the N-word. You simply relay what you see as another's acceptable use of religion as a cudgel.

Again. It is not acceptable to use self betterment as a political cudgel regardless of one's personal faith. That would include intra-faith debates as well.

Have I criticized Islam? Yes.
Have I used Islam as a Cudgel? Not even against Obama.

sean coon

wtf are you talking about? get some help, man.

prell

I'm gonna have to second what sean said. That, or just take a break from the Internet and step outside of mom's basement.

sean coon

ed, please have your tech department add a like button to these comments. thanks.

polifrog

Prell, you can second the confusion of another or stroll around your mom's neighborhood. Your choice.

Or I can help you guys.

Ed appears to agree that using one's failed attempts at betterment through religion as a means to score political points is wrong if one is not of the same religion, therefore he outsources that particular job to, surprise, a Christian.

As such, Ed appears to believe using one's faith against another for political advantage is fine if it is done 'in house'. And, further, that there is nothing wrong with reporting the event even when doing so is a blatant attempt to denigrate the author of the author of a theory being presented for discussion.

The fact is that Ed's is an attack on the concept that it is better try and fail than never try at all. FOr example: If Dinesh had not adopted Christian values as a goal, Dinesh would not have failed to meet his goals and Ed could not have shit on him.

More and more it is becoming easier and safer to be amoral than to adopt goals beyond the amoral and fail in the presence of the American left.

The comments to this entry are closed.