User Profile: HappyStretchedThin


Member Since: January 09, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [3] August 26, 2015 at 12:34am

    Amen, P8triot. Dead on as usual. Georgia mom is impugning the informed adult choice of many women when she attacks Anna as a victim of her own beliefs and values (she IS a victim, but of a philandering husband who betrayed those beliefs and values, not of the beliefs and values themselves), and her parents as maliciously neglectful oppressers of their daughter’s lost potential.
    And yet, I bet you’d agree with me that even good, well-meaning Christians sometimes misapply a good principle. Yes, women who devote themselves to motherhood and rock the cradle are the true fire-breathers who rule the world, and will rule in the heavens as well. But a devoted mother and wife who has spent her youth getting as much education as she can, and serving others in a variety of professional and non-professional ways is better prepared for raising responsible, freedom-loving, right-choosing sons and daughters than one who assumes that “submission” to a future husband means she doesn’t have to worry about all that education and “public domain” stuff because he’ll take care of that.
    Not sure what Anna’s preparation was, but being equally yoked, in my opinion, implies BOTH partners being as self-sufficient as they can individually be. Two independents becoming one inter-dependent, neither one dependent and one independent nor two co-dependents. Empowering women empowers wives to empower husbands and children, when done in this context.

  • [9] August 22, 2015 at 11:06am

    Umm…Moderate, most people who are as constitutionally clueless as you have AT LEAST NOT skipped over the first few words of the Declaration of Independence. you know, that obscure portion where it clarifies that a government’s CORE focus should be the guarantee of a right to life…
    Your vile race-baiting sarcasm notwithstanding, your worldview makes you simply refuse delivery on even the most basic of points.

  • [7] August 21, 2015 at 11:02pm

    Noticing I struck a chord, itk.
    Also noticing how the game works: Itk cries “unsubstantiated” and “projection”, as if no rational human being would believe what we know libs believe. But then when given examples and reasoning, he cries “straw-man”, “lone opinion”. If MSNBC is NOT main-stream prog, what is?
    It ALSO looks a lot less like a straw man when you remember Hillary’s book “It takes a village” of which the entire basis is that only govt structures are sufficient to the task of producing good little citizens (i.e. the family is obviated).
    As to your characterization of conservatism, you’re the one projecting: there’s no such conservative theory as “trickle-down economics” (supply-side, yes, and that works just fine, thank you-read some Milton Friedman); deregulation hasn’t happened; corporate welfare and credit manipulation is what conservatives OPPOSE; all the Dems were FOR the war in Iraq before they were against it (revisionist history doesn’t fly here); and privitization of the military happens when the core federal function of national defense gets its budget sacrificed for entitlements that appear nowhere in the Constitution (costs must be cut).
    As to wealth disparity, please join me in the adult world where equality of result is neither expected nor desired, where equality of opportunity guarantees diversity while maintaining liberty, and where the rising tide floats all boats. Even the poor are getting richer.
    Fear is a Dem strategy, not conservative.

  • [5] August 21, 2015 at 6:12pm

    The-Monk is one of the best tongue-in-cheek commenters on this site. He accurately cites the ridiculous things progs/libs believe, to illustrate their absurdity.
    But since you claim to like evidence so much, let’s go for it…
    Melissa Harris-Perry, prominent MSNBC prog, claims we need to abolish the “silly” notion that children belong to their parents:
    As to your other claims, it’s not hard to follow, really: progs have forever attempted to supply the “needs” of the needy by confiscating them from the rest of us, and empowering an ever-growing bureaucracy to control their distribution. They attack private property, equality of opportunity, individual liberty, the family as the primary organizing unit of society, and religious influence wherever they can–seeking to replace them with social programs, imposed by force or threat of force.
    There’s nothing irrational or unsubstantiated in noting that the aim of subordinating the family’s responsibilities to the state’s authority has existed in Leftist thought since at least the Communist Manifesto.

  • [9] August 21, 2015 at 5:08pm

    Does the state have an interest in protecting life? I’d hate to live in a state that didn’t think it did, or didn’t have the strength to enforce it.
    The very fact that this state’s text quoted here DOES limit what the SCHOOL can do is a way to leave the POWER of education on moral questions IN the hands of the parents. Schools can’t teach to ONE SIDE, is all this text affirms.There’s no hypocrisy in the conservative position on promoting childbirth and adoption over abortion, only in your selective application of context.
    Furthermore, for making the accusations, onus on you to prove the PP videos were: 1. fraudulently obtained; 2. maliciously edited in order to mischaracterize; 3. applicable in any way to the translation and canonization of books in the Bible.
    For those to whom TRUTH actually matters, the content of the videos ACCURATELY reveals things PP wants hidden for fear of the condemnation of public opinion (and consequent loss of money), just as the CONTENT of the Bible ACCURATELY reveals a coherent moral code leading to lasting individual and social harmony, the brotherhood of humankind, and the universal need for forgiveness and for the acceptance of He whose sacrifice enabled it. Even though you’re wrong, and virgin IS an acceptable etymological term for BOTH meanings, no one mistakes the core accuracies the Bible teaches.

  • [34] August 21, 2015 at 4:34pm

    You’re not failing to see anything, Cavallo. It’s not a failure of your visual faculties to note that it simply isn’t present.
    Liberals suffer from what I’ve called “malliteracy”. They seem to be able to communicate and use language either to flesh out a message they want to convey or receive a message someone else sends. It seems to work fairly well most of the time both in speech and in writing. But when that message clashes with their ideology, their eyes skip over key words, their brain temporarily switches off its code-parsing mechanisms, and their ideological filter simply refuses delivery on the neutral truth of the words.
    It’s really rather fascinating to watch how garbled they get things sometimes.
    She either switched the word “most” in the phrase “most effective” and substituted the word “only” to get her hackles all up like that, or the word “abstinence” to her must be so attached to the term “abstinence-only education”, that she honestly thought the school was NOT teaching other, less effective methods of birth control (which ALL of them are).
    What’s odd to me is that she leaps from the promotion of adoption and abstinence OVER abortion and OVER less effective birth control methods, straight to religion. As if only benighted, superstitious zealots could possibly be behind an ethics of affirming the limitless potential of each living individual.
    Count me among the fervent if that’s the case…

  • [1] August 20, 2015 at 3:28pm

    Umm…The fact that it sounds good to you for Trump to impose tariffs on American companies that outsource jobs and against countries that provide cheaper products than Americans can produce is the problem.
    I prescribe some Adam Smith, some Frederic Bastiat, and a good dose of Milton Friedman.
    Look, it’s immoral to prevent capital from going to where it’s best treated. If the Chinese can do something better and cheaper, then artificially propping up an American industry with higher costs or lower quality is DOUBLY costly: 1. taxes go to propping up business, taking money away from what the core functions of constitutionally limited govt should be (if you’re FOR tariffs of this kind, then you are FOR corporate welfare–is that REALLY a conservative position?); 2. you create a false security for a company which prevents them from adapting to market conditions, which is the opposite of competition (which makes EVERYONE work hard to be the leanest and meanest), and just makes us decadent (if you’re FOR tariffs of this kind, then you are ANTI free market competition–is that REALLY a conservative position?).
    Should we use influence to open up countries whose markets are closed to our competition? YES! Free trade helps everyone! But tariffs have been a dumb idea since at least the fur trade…

  • [4] August 19, 2015 at 11:57pm

    Gotta hand it to him, on this one thing, Jeb’s actually right, even though:
    1. He’s even LESS conservative
    2. His reasoning makes no sense (it’s a complete non-sequitur to suggest that because a core function of the federal govt costs money, it’s not “conservative” to fund it)
    Be VERY very careful on the Trumpster, though. Don’t be fooled into thinking that just because he’s non-PC, and hits back at the MSM, that he’s somehow conservative.
    Conservatives are animated by principles of freedom, not principles of profit.
    Success happens when we’re free to pursue it, not because we have a strong leader forcing it upon us, or forcing others to capitulate to his whims.
    They’re still whims.
    We’ve known since the 1700s that Protectionism (adding tariffs to foreign goods to protect our own industries) doesn’t work. His “we have to start winning against China again” faux-populism is just a plastic banana.
    Don’t confuse limited government conservatism with dictatorship, which is where Trump’s cult of personality I know how to get things done because I’m an outsider rhetoric really leads–he wants us all to have to do it his way, which can be worse than socialism.

    Responses (2) +
  • [22] August 8, 2015 at 4:41am

    Trump is not a conservative. He neither understands nor respects liberty. Trump has no substantive reason to want a pundit’s job for criticizing him. That’s how dictators behave, not presidents.
    I get that many of you are so thirsty for strong conservatism, but PLEASE don’t mistake ALL strength for strength in the right DIRECTION.
    Trump gave zero substantive answers in the entire debate. He was winging it, unprepared, and pulling defensive, aggressive bully tactics, trite platitudes, and 17th century protectionist gobbledygook out of his mouth.
    Did Fox play fair? Of course not: they let SOME candidates know ahead of time what the questions would be. But they DID serve up tough questions to EVERYONE.
    But if it’s conservatism you want, let the ACTS speak, not the words.
    Trump behaves like a tyrant, clamors for power and fame, and talks about “winning” as if it doesn’t matter how we play the game.
    That’s NOT conservative values.
    Is Levin right to point out that questions derived from daytime comedians’ comments shouldn’t have weight on a presidential debate stage? Absolutely.
    But so is Krauthammer–who the tyrant wishes to deprive of his job for voicing a political opinion unfavorable to his royal highness–when he points out that the “tough guy” schtick is belied by his whining about unfairness afterwards. He spouts excuses for his own failures, and boasts about his successes as if no one helped.
    He’s not right for America.

  • [4] July 24, 2015 at 10:35am

    I’m still stunned to discover that an outfit of the new media actually HAS a code of ethics…

  • July 12, 2015 at 7:12pm

    Wazzap Monk,
    Sorry to say I haven’t been as active as I’d like. However, from what I know of your character and habits, the posts are not only brilliantly witty, but intelligently critical of Progressivism in a bitingly humorous way.

  • [5] July 12, 2015 at 3:52pm

    Mais non! Ce n’est pas vrai du tout!
    When deciding what a symbol means, you’ll rarely get an unbiased opinion by asking its detractors. Everyone’s allowed to determine EXTRA meaning something has for THEM personally, but the core meaning is CONVENTIONAL by nature.
    In this case, the French were using this symbol as a symbol of monarchy LONG before there was even an African slave trade (which they endorsed on American soil, but NEVER brought back home to France institutionally). The fact that French slave owners in LA, Haiti, Martinique, etc. marked slaves with a symbol of the French monarchy is a stain the FRENCH need to own up to. Louisiana connections to France are to culture and language, and don’t stand in celebration of a racist part of French history that even the French deplore since 1848.
    Ask the French what the Fleur de Lys means, and they WON’T even THINK about anything related to slavery. Instead they’ll talk about royalty, and the history of the feudal system (the 3 estates: oratores, belladores, laboratores; each have a piece of the tri-part fleur, all bound together in unity), and maybe a knightly code of honor they vaguely hold as an ideal still.
    Do we get an Kashmiri Hindu’s opinion on the meaning of the Islamic Crescent before letting Pakistanis own what’s on their flag? Do we let the Islamic State tell Christians whether or not the Cross is acceptable?
    This is all ridiculous. Before asking what does it mean, we should ask who decides.

    Responses (2) +
  • [6] July 5, 2015 at 12:33am

    p.s. to your point about the “steel” bow, you are again, entirely outside of the context you attempt to cite. Probably out of laziness–which is a kind assessment, since the alternative is that you are doing it with malicious purpose. Joseph Smith was intimately familiar with KJV language (he had only a 2nd grade education, but once he had the skill to do so, voraciously devoured the only printed material his poor family could provide him), but to believe he unknowingly copied its errors for insertion into the Book of Mormon misses the tiny insignificant detail that he was translating from a modified form of EGYPTIAN, not Hebrew (OR English), and was therefore NOT transferring from KJV AT ALL.
    I propose a rule as a remedial reading lesson for your particular case: never cite ANYTHING until you’ve explained the context surrounding it first. That simple rule ought to prevent you from making such egregious errors in interpretation all by itself.

  • [5] July 5, 2015 at 12:24am

    Ummm. I’m starting to think you may be illiterate in BOTH English and ancient Hebrew.
    I wasn’t ARGUING that the correct interpretation was “pet”, and only offered that as a point of INTEREST for you.
    Interesting, though, that when you can’t deal with actually solid exegesis, you begin projecting your own failure to read honestly onto others.
    You have yet to adequately respond: what is the word “AS” doing in that passage? Its existence stymies your entire line of attack.
    But then again, “spin” seems to be not just a forte for you, but the ONLY tool in your arsenal.
    I empathize, though. I know how it feels to be in a vulnerable position: if you come at someone straight and honestly, you run the risk of being shown arguments of superior logic that require you to change yours. Good thing the LDS teach that Christ’s main mission was to provide an infinite atonement which could enable the changing of the hearts of mankind from something carnal in enmity toward God’s very nature into something innocent and redeemed. (Oh wait, that sounds like the Biblical Jesus, no?) I pray you find the courage and honesty to tap into His redeeming power.

  • [11] July 4, 2015 at 5:01pm

    I respect your passion, and desire to dig deeper into the text, but I’m not sure anyone should be taking rhetorical lessons in biblical Hebrew from someone who hasn’t quite figured out what a simile is in plain English. The quote is “AS of one that hath a familiar spirit”. The only way you can derive your contrived reading of LDS scriptures as being FROM a “familiar spirit” is if you conveniently skip over the MOST important operative word in that clause: AS.
    You may be technically correct that the Bible has no record of God speaking from the ground, but He HAS spoken on occasion through His creations–think burning bush, for example. But then, since Isaiah was employing an obvious metaphor (you should read his book–you’ll find he’s really quite poetic), we don’t need to insist that Mormons are ridiculous interpreters of scripture–at least not on those grounds. Since the Book of Mormon was written on gold plates quite literally found buried, speaking “out of the ground” seems like a pretty apt metaphor to me.
    p.s. your biblical Hebrew is not in dispute here, and you correctly noted the meaning of “familiar spirit” as connected to witchcraft (the Northern kingdom had a problem with idolatry that Hezekiah’s court was familiar with), but you might be interested to know that the word “familiar” in King James’ time could also quite innocently refer to any kind of pet.

  • [22] July 4, 2015 at 11:57am

    blink, tearin, and others,
    Raptur doesn’t understand what a cult is, doesn’t understand LDS doctrine, and doesn’t understand even the Bible he purports to derive all his motivations from. The proof is easy to spot: every time he insults a Mormon by calling them blind followers (which is tantamount to labeling them stupid), he calls it a “warning” instead of an insult. Someone motivated by love to warn a neighbor doesn’t insult them into action, but rather takes them by a loving hand and leads them carefully–meeting them at whatever level of understanding they currently are to the next level, helping them overcome their impediments as they go. That’s the pattern Christ showed.
    There’s no truth in Raptur. Every single time he pretends to demonstrate that he “knows” what the LDS believe, every single one of his LDS respondents attempt to correct his descriptions of what they believe. If he was being honest and honestly attempting to convince them that they were wrong, there would be no need to lie about what THEY believe.
    But we can usually all see him for what he is, and usually only call him out in case there’s a third party reading and missing it. His surface readings of almost everything amount to tithing mint and dill and cumin and neglecting the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith.
    p.s. If Packer was a profiteering cult leader, he was a spectacular failure at it–I’d at least have come away with a mansion and a nice car…

  • June 25, 2015 at 2:38pm

    You’re right to be frustrated that a culture you identify with is having one of its symbols maligned, and also that leftists are using shame to stop debates, rather than actually winning on ideas.
    All I’m saying is that if you look at actual bona fide white supremacist groups and observe the iconography they adorn themselves with, the confederate flag is one of the ones they choose. It’s a complete distortion of what that flag means and of what Southern culture is all about. And that’s why THEY should be argued with and shamed into taking it off. They’re abusing the privilege of associating themselves with a symbol the rest of us should find positive, so we should be standing up to them, NOT removing OUR flags (which is basically letting the racists win the symbol).
    I’m impressed with your intimate knowledge of military history and organisation.

  • [91] June 24, 2015 at 12:14am

    This article gets Coulter wrong, and Coulter gets the flag debate wrong
    1. It’s not inaccurate to label the child of immigrants as an immigrant, even if their legal status derived from jus solis is that of a citizen. Culturally, we refer to them as 2nd generation immigrants.
    2. The flag debate is not about history, it’s about appropriation of a symbol. If the Dukes of Hazzard, as recently as 10 years ago can be popular enough to have a movie made with the iconic stars and bars car and no one bats an eye, then the public CAN admit to itself that there’s no NECESSARY connection between racism and the confederate battle flag. The problem is that racists do use that flag to flaunt their racism, and now we’re in a position of having to decide if we’re going to allow racists to appropriate its meaning so thoroughly that we can’t allow the symbol at all anymore. Coulter’s using good historical arguments to show that the flag has positive, solidarity-invoking meaning, but its strength gets diffused when contrasted with its immediate and emotionally powerful opposite of the racist meanings.
    What saddens me is that so few people think positively about the South’s culture, because they’re only taught the easy emotional rejection of the slavery issue–as if that’s all that ever was important to know about the South–in their oversimplified and condescendingly judgmental and context-free history textbooks and media.

    Responses (6) +
  • [5] June 23, 2015 at 1:30am

    Denvil’s wrong on all his points:
    1. If your argument is that guns don’t kill people, people do, but people without guns kill fewer people, it’s YOU who’s missing the point. Gun use is a moral issue that you’ve completely sidestepped by citing leftist propaganda without its proper context. More violence happens in the US because there’s more FREEDOM here. Freedom predicts that SOME will use privileges wrong, but MOST use it right.
    2. Comparing individual gun ownership to state ownership of nuclear weapons demonstrates that you misunderstand both: it’s moral relativism to conveniently forget that the US is a constitutional republic with democratic processes and a responsible government (in the technical, poli-sci sense of “responsible” not the lay sense–it gets less accountable to the people the more it grows), Iran is a theocratic dictatorship whose people don’t support what the Ayatollah would use nuclear weapons for.
    3. There are two variables you cite: force and surprise. Surprise was the one under Roof’s control, so let’s consider the scenario with only what the others could control: it’s better to have the MEANS to meet force with equal or greater force, no matter what surprise is sprung. So why remove the POSSIBILITY of an instant and legitimate defense? It’s illogical.
    4. You should look up a few more SCOTUS decisions before opining, methinks. The question of whether handguns are protected is fairly settled. Self-defense is still a valid argument pro 2A, sorry.

    Responses (2) +
  • [3] May 22, 2015 at 11:30am

    It’s amazing how someone can bring such astute insights to a discussion, and still have the basics all wrong. Wait. Did I just define liberalism?
    Yes, there’s a “new” system of moral beliefs developing (but it’s actually nothing new, and has been going on since Cain).
    Yes, it’s gaining ground and the “old” system is dwindling.
    Yes, it centers around the distinction between selfless higher purposes and selfish self-fulfillment.
    And YES, it colors debates on the shape of government, sexuality, and identity.
    But the governing motivation behind the old morality is NOT guilt, but love. And that of the new morality is not regret, but pride.
    Wanting the best for others, and not self is the essence of love, AND of community. Teaching people that it’s immoral to insist on instant self-gratification helps families grow in love, and societies because of it. Pridefully insisting no one’s allowed to judge me, on the other hand, leads to a complete and total collapse into selfishness. How can he miss that?
    Rubin understands the nature of the Christian model of chastity, about the nature of the Conservative model of limited government and principle of rugged individualism, and about the nature of the threat
    to liberty some LGBT activists are unwitting parties to when they attack the 1st Amendment so badly that states have to defend it on their own.
    Sorry Rubin, you’re a either a useful “intellectual” idiot, or a purposeful distortionist shill.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love