User Profile: HappyStretchedThin


Member Since: January 09, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [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.

  • [10] May 17, 2015 at 8:39pm

    Oh Jinxe,
    Your theory of how wealth is created is as flawed as your sense of compassion.
    Economies are not zero sum games. They’re not static. They expand according to the participation input. 60-100 M more people is NOT merely 60-100M worth of DRAIN our limited resources, but rather 60-100M worth of people acting on resources to produce NEW wealth, serving their fellows by producing things or providing services, making stuff out of raw materials, inventing new things, etc.
    In America, per 100M, we have the highest rate of millionnaires in the world. Imagine the good that even a FRACTION of the 60-100M who became millionnaires could do with their resources, growing up as they have in the culture that best produces them.
    Have a little faith and imagination…
    Which, in the end, is what you’re lacking if you give up on the infinite possibilities contained in EVERY child, instead assuming the poor will get stuck in poverty and assuming their situation will prove so fruitless that somehow death is preferable.
    What truly boggles your mind should be how easily you succumb to that faithless assumption against the mountain of evidence that they CAN succeed in their lives, no matter how they start, in this land of freedom (may it ever remain thus!).

  • [7] May 14, 2015 at 4:22pm

    Let me do my best MR impression:
    (finger firmly in ears): LALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU

    Complete and total refusal of delivery on facts and logic.
    I’m not even going to dignify the rest of your post with a response. Neutral readers of our exchange can see that you’ve misrepresented the conservative position at every turn, and have made false claims for every one of your own positions.
    And now, to put the nail in the coffin, let’s imagine that you had your way: free meals for all (why just the poor, after all?), free health care, 95% tax on millionaire to support welfare for anyone with less than 3 TVs, 2 cellphones, 2 cars and 3 filet mignon dinners per week. The kicker is that the US war on poverty, the medicare, the school lunches programs, etc. have only actually resulted in higher and higher levels of poverty in the US. Your “compassion” leads to subsistence, and dependence, not thriving on the fruits of your freely made good choices. In the end, your “compassion test” only proves you all the more a dupe of blind belief in liberalism over reality. With the mask off, your brand of compassion looks more and more like command and control slavery. Your own aims are counterproductive.

  • [5] May 14, 2015 at 10:39am

    I’ll bite:
    1. Sars of 9:22PM talked about volunteering at places that serve the needs of the women and their unborn. Compassion for unborn was the point.
    Blazers 1, MR 0
    2. MS of 9:23 PM spoke of the lunacy of believing PP has a primarily compassionate mission, implying that we should have TRUE compassion for the unborn.
    Blazers 2, MR 0
    3. abrooks of 9:32 restated MS’s point, implying again that true compassion for the unborn is the goal, not PP’s false compassion
    Blazers 3, MR 0
    4. jeff of 10:18 showed that true compassion consists of giving adults the tools to responsibly care for their own unborn, and not treat sex as in consequential. Compassion for the unborn demonstrated again.
    Blazers 4, MR 0
    5. love of 10:28 pointed out that care for the unborn and his/her mother is a feature of our socialized medicine institutions, so taxes DO contribute to compassion for the unborn already, and then pointed out that there is a better way yet that institutionalized “compassion”, because the institutionalized version doesn’t get the results it promises. If you’re for false promises, you’d be for MR’s higher tax funding for PP and other social programs. The point was in favor of true compassion for the unborn.
    Blazers 5 MR 0
    6. sharp of 10:42 showed that MR’s version of compassion is a sham and amounts to slavery, and offered two excellent solutions to give more TRUE compassion to the unborn than MR’s proposals
    Blazers 6 MR 0
    I could go on…

  • [4] May 14, 2015 at 9:38am

    You can tell MR is getting unhinged when he angrily projects accusations onto others that he’s guilty of himself, and escalates from mere twisting of logic into full-blown illiteracy.
    Why you in such a lather, bro?
    Truth is, out of 17 comments that weren’t your own: 12 either showed better, more compassionate ways to deal with your case scenario, or demonstrated how mistaken you are that the taxes and PP clinics you support do what you claim they do; 4 were direct ad hominem attacks on your personal credibility (The-Monk is my favorite, btw, he does everything with a delightful sense of humor); and 1 was downright mean-spirited.
    But your inability to read for understanding anything factual and logical that refutes your worldview is no surprise to us. Liberalism always comes at the truth sideways, and refuses delivery even when proven wrong.
    Truth is, we’re ALL compassionate toward our fellow human beings who are in a tight spot. And we think the best way to help them is to teach them and trust them to make responsible decisions for themselves. True compassion encourages families, and the charities that encourage families. They solve the ills you identify better than any other program.

  • [16] May 14, 2015 at 8:41am

    I personally run a privately-funded not-for-profit charity focused on caring for children born into poverty, covering prenatal and postnatal care, and featuring family planning best-practices and meal programs (breakfast, lunch, AND dinner) so that the parents can be productive members of society AND make sure their kids are raised in a loving environment that sees to all their material needs.
    It’s called a FAMILY.
    And every tax dollar the government removes from it, detracts from the support I can offer to that remarkable, and extremely successful charity, and the others that I can CHOOSE to support (rather than being FORCED to support the inefficient government ones). We’re so successful that just over 10% of our income goes to low-overhead charities for the benefit of those outside of our family who are in need.

  • [4] May 14, 2015 at 8:26am

    I suppose that if ultimately God’s responsible for when and how every single person dies, then technically his nature is homicidal, right? Utter nonsense!
    You don’t even understand the CONCEPT of God, let alone his nature. If we are truly immortal spirit beings with a temporary mortal shell, then the God who created that immortal being and who loves each of His creations removes us, at his mercy, from our mortal test period as he understands best for our test conditions. We still exist elsewhere, and are still subject to His laws which are perfectly just. In other words, He’s the only coach well-placed enough to judge when it’s merciful to take a person who’s failing the test miserably out of the game, and when it’s more merciful to allow them to make mistakes, repent, and learn from them for a higher purpose later.
    But as laughable as your logic is, what I find truly disturbing on this thread is how little your critics even understand the Bible that they’re trying to use to refute your twisting of it.
    Hosea 13:16 contains a PREDICTION, NOT a COMMAND. God has never contradicted himself on his 6th commandment not to MURDER, fetus or otherwise.
    If you want to claim that elsewhere God HAS commanded genocide, you are free to do so, but until you have ANY sense of context (war against idolatry featuring human sacrifice) when it comes to the Bible, your contortions of its text will still be utterly unconvincing to anyone who reads it seriously.

  • May 6, 2015 at 9:29am

    Just curious, MR: when did God die and appoint you reader of thoughts and intents of the heart?
    You claim to know Geller’s true motive, but I don’t see you backing your claims up with logic or examples, so I suppose I’m left to trust your psychic skills?
    The fact is that your evidence is not only lacking, so is your logic. You completely misread her objective (as you consistently misread EVERYTHING that doesn’t support your preconceived scripts–as I said, that’s characteristic of liberals). It’s a rhetorically underhanded and baseless ad hominem tactic to label everything that criticizes anything you believe in fearmongering bigotry. Why? Because no one can disprove a negative.
    But maybe the best way to deal with your asinine claims is to call your bluff: IS there something worth criticizing in Muslim culture? Where IS the line between calling out for legitimate beefs and incendiary provocation?
    You’ll miss the point again, but I’ll say it clearly for other readers: any fool can throw down an insult (call Geller a fool if you please, I’ll join you), but it takes a bigger fool to pick it back up again.
    Geller’s true target is LEGISLATORS, not racists. Her true goal is to SAFEGUARD freedoms by educating the people who elect them against the threats that the thought behind Sharia poses to liberty and civil society. AVERAGE Muslims AGREE with her.
    In the end, her work leads to a SAFE place for Islam in the US, where ALL religions can live free from tyranny.

  • [4] May 5, 2015 at 12:14pm

    Please, MR, I know liberalism prevents reading/listening for truth, and instead only picks out from its interlocutors what already confirms its warped worldview, but make an effort.
    I defined provoking, and subduing.
    I’m not actually defending Geller’s MANNER of provoking, just her right and the point it proves when gunmen arrive to silence the speakers.
    I think we should treat individuals with love, and logic. (Rules on the love part suspended for you, as an anonymous troll, you don’t actually qualify as a “person”).
    But let’s entertain your notion that provoking groups to enforce their own ethical rules is poorly conceived: I guess that’s puts you in the Democrat column when they opposed MLK’s provocations to inspire legislators to enforce full federal control on a few wayward states’ twisted application of the 14th amendment. If you were consistent in your own logic, you’d condemn Rosa Parks as being provocative as well.
    It’s actually a VERY well conceived strategy, and it works when the provocation convinces the MAJORITY to decide for ITSELF to clamp down on its own ideals’ hijackers.
    And I hope you’ll also remember that MLK spent a LOT of energy calling out his OWN side for going TOO FAR in their provocations. Apt analogy, no?
    And hmm. Sounds more and more like Beck’s reaction to this…
    I know progressives don’t actually like to look to history much (unless cherry-picking self-justifications), but you could learn from it a little, MR.

  • [6] May 4, 2015 at 10:14pm

    There is a confusion, MR, but it lies not in a failure to distinguish the average believer with the crazy perpetrators of excessive violence, because I don’t fail to distinguish that. In the same sentence you lift my quote, I correctly identify a difference between Islam’s core principles on how to deal with verbal disagreements, and the crazy fanatics. In fact, that’s actually a PROJECTED confusion: I don’t blanket all Muslims with the charge of violence, but you want to blanket all Conservatives with the charge of Islamophobia.
    Instead, the real confusion is that of issues: no one’s defending stereotyping here, we’re calling for civilized behavior. You’re confusing the issue of responsibility for public speech with the responsibility for personal restraint. The issue at hand is that when crazy Christians behave violently, we condemn, excommunicate, refer to state authorities, and punish perpetrators. Can you honestly not see the contrast between rapid police response and community outreach when the Sikh temple is attacked and when news of 911 inspires AVERAGE Palestinians to dance in the streets?
    And not individuals, but Islam as a whole, yes, provocation: demonstrating to AVERAGE Muslims that the hijackers of their faith need them to crack down, or risk tainting the whole and confirming ugly stereotypes.
    And not Islam as a group, but individuals, yes, subduing: evil acts must be met with justice, if necessary by the force of a moral authority.

  • [25] May 4, 2015 at 12:09pm

    Amen Cavallo!
    There IS a line (and it’s not even fine) between POLITE speech and being intentionally incendiary, but the whole point is that this line is a matter of personal judgment, NOT state (or federal) judgment. It doesn’t matter how incendiary my speech may be, your right to respond to it is limited to speech or other forms of response that do NOT include injury.
    Let’s be honest, this event WAS intentionally incendiary. But that’s because it NEEDED to be. Islam teaches that speech should be met with speech, not with violent acts, but until its adherents can impose discipline on their own precepts, then they deserve to be provoked and subdued until they can behave like the rest of civil society does.
    The problem with Camerota isn’t that she’s wrong about provocation, it’s that she completely missed the point that the gunmen made most starkly and poignantly: if speech can provoke violence, the failure of civilized restraint is NOT in the speaker, but in the PERPETRATOR.

    Responses (9) +
  • [3] April 16, 2015 at 11:53pm

    p.s. MR, there actually IS a ranking of sin severity in the Bible, but even the least disqualifies without redemption. And remarriage isn’t committing adultery unless the divorce was groundless.
    Don’t think I let you escape with all your own twisting of Christian doctrine…
    Oh, and citing Anne Lamott isn’t helping your case much. She’s a Progressive every bit as sanctimonious and selective in her understanding of Scripture as this faux-Christian is of his Bible. At least he’s erring on the side of freedom, not control.

  • [12] April 16, 2015 at 11:40pm

    I’ve called you out on your wishywashy logic before, MR, but this time, I’m with you. This man’s claim to being “Christian” is tenuous at best. Not only does he apparently not see the hypocrisy in accepting some kinds of sinners and not others (I wonder what his test for “immorality” would be?), he is giving all Christianity a bad name by claiming to worship He who said “judge not” by being “really quick to judge”.
    A true Christian understands the meaning of “go forth, and sin no more”. A true Christian understands we’re ALL sinners. In fact, our deeds, words, and thoughts make us sinners in need of a Savior. So we should treat all our brothers and sisters (as confused as they may be about their gender identities) as if we’re all beggars who should love and serve each other.
    Now in fairness, this guy DID say that immoral behavior was not WELCOME in his shop, not that he’d refuse service to people who don’t believe as he does.
    Does he have a right to conduct his business as he sees fit? Yes, he should have the right to refuse service for any reason he chooses.
    And if he chooses to discriminate on skin color, I have the right to call him a racist. And if it’s on sexual orientation, he’s a bigot.
    But if he claims to do this because of Christian beliefs, I call him out: when did Christ command you NOT to be kind to and serve everyone?
    Worst of all, he’s not convincing anyone to be more Christ-like or come to Christ this way.

  • [1] April 14, 2015 at 4:51pm

    Are you loyal to people? Or ideas?
    It’s not a betrayal, if it’s being true to an idea.
    The idea that income taxes remove the choice of what to do with the money one has earned from the hands of those who have earned it and gives it to barely accountable officials who abuse it, waste it, and then complain they can’t pay for their rash promises without taking even more away is a Tea party idea that RUBIO is betraying in his tax proposal.
    Beck’s not stabbing Rubio in the back, he’s pointing out how Rubio’s planning to stab AMERICANS in the back.

  • [24] April 14, 2015 at 1:54pm

    Misleading stat. Almost all of the speakers of the languages that don’t have a Bible translation available also speak another language in which the Bible is abundantly available. I still believe every nation, kindred, tongue, and people will get the Word in their native tongue, but the message itself is available now more than ever before. Please support the work of the good people at the Summer Institute of Linguistics and consult their ethnologue for more.

    Responses (2) +
  • [4] April 7, 2015 at 12:15pm

    Perhaps you didn’t notice that Rand is so concerned about distancing himself from those who proudly claim the monicker “Paulbot” that he actually removed his last name from his own election logo. Interesting that.

  • [11] March 28, 2015 at 12:59pm

    p.s. It was so completely unconnected logically, that in dealing with the fallacies behind STORB, I completely forgot to mention how much of a total non-sequitur it is for her to conclude that because an 18 month old behaved fearfully when faced with someone likely 10 times his weight and 4 times his height, who also happens to have a different skin color, the defense of religious freedom act in IN deserves a no vote. It’s hard to flesh out for people the underlying assumptions they’re too inarticulate to make explicit themselves even when the arguments make sense on the surface. Here, though, if I can guess that she meant to conclude that her fellow politicians were homophobes with an 18 month old level of maturity in dealing with otherness, she still makes no sense: this bill is not about protecting a “right” to discriminate against anyone, but about protecting people from being forced to condone things they don’t. No one should be allowed to refuse service to someone simply because they identify as lgbtq, but no lgbtq person should be allowed to force someone to sell them products/services any WAY they want. Grown-ups who don’t like the way one company does something take their business elsewhere. This bill keeps the courts out of adolescent attempts to crush opposition.

  • [18] March 28, 2015 at 12:28pm

    azghost: that’s a retort that accepts the premise. And while it’s fair to wonder if she’s a hypocrite (because most liberals are–it’s a core element of their ideology to seek to impose rules upon everyone else that they wish they were an exception to), the real problem here is her theory of racism.
    Apparently, according to the Summers Theory of the Origins of Racial Bias, or STORB for short, white children are born racist until exposed to people with diverse skin colors, and this vision magically converts them into tolerant, empathetic human beings able to see themselves in others. Oh, and two corollaries: 1. The critical period for this development is prior to 18 months; 2. Any manifestation of fear in an 18 month old can be directly attributed to lack of exposure to sufficient difference in skin color. It’s apparently outside her theory’s purview whether non-white children are also born that way…
    Funny thing is, this is in direct conflict with other critical theories of the origins of racial bias which almost all assume children are born tolerant and have to be taught to be racist. Maybe a beer summit can help her get with the program?
    Whichever the belief, the antidote MLK prescribed is something that’s gone completely over Rep. Summers’ head: judge by the content of character (with the corollary that it takes adult judgment..) NOT the color of the skin.

  • [29] March 22, 2015 at 10:36pm

    For the record,
    HarryPotter is fond of the claim that “All the scientific research into same-sex parenting has shown that gay parents raise children equally well or better than their straight counterparts.”
    That is true IF by “all” he really means “all the small-sample-size, interested-parties-as-test-subjects, funded-by-SSM-advocates ones”. Larger and better conceived studies with less methodological bias (but which have their methodological weaknesses too) show that whatever part of the “what’s better for society” question that CAN be answered by science (and btw, HarryPotter is also loathe to admit that it’s not SIMPLY a scientific question–his aim is to insinuate that his opponents are backwards, knuckle-dragging religious-nut flat-earthers on everything and especially SSM–but rather a MORAL one which REAL science doesn’t PRETEND to be able to answer) actually falls in favor of–you guessed it–traditional marriage. Children do better when raised by their own biological parents, and while many heterosexual marriages are utter shambles, it’s the same logical fallacy of throwing the baby out with the bathwater to suggest that the existence of failures invalidates the whole model.
    Not that anyone here is actually buying his hooey, but I just like to make sure he doesn’t leave canards unanswered…
    p.s. Hormel, no one’s criticizing anyone for wanting to love and raise a child. It’s for forcing on us the destruction of the institution that gives kids their best chance.

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] March 11, 2015 at 12:00pm

    This guy’s right to bring the speaker in–people need to be exposed to opposite viewpoints to solidify their own. It’s not an attack on our faith to let her speak, and decide if we disagree.
    On the other hand, I’m divided about his statements about the Bible.
    1. The Bible is no more a 1st C viewpoint than the Constitution is an 18th C document. Both distill the timeless and universal principles upon which their respective spheres of subject matter rely (morality in the case of the Bible, limited government and liberty in the case of the Constitution). He fundamentally misunderstands what the Bible IS, if he thinks its core principles need an “update”.
    2. There ARE Christians out there who seem to believe that the Bible as a physical object, or as a collection of writings is a symbol more important than their own lives’ expressions of its principles. In the name of keeping with a verse or two they don’t really understand the context for, they ignore the interplay those verses have with the broader principles of truth, justice, and mercy. Some even call it infallible, in contradiction to the words of the prophets contained within it, who almost all complained of their own inadequacy to express God’s Word. A refusal of the principle of the need for continuing revelation that the Bible demonstrates, for example, is an attitude some bible-respecting Christians hold, a bit idolatrously, in contradiction to the Bible’s own lessons.

    Responses (1) +
123 To page: Go
Restoring Love