User Profile: The Third Archon

The Third Archon

Member Since: November 02, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [-3] April 27, 2015 at 12:14pm

    **** the national anthem, and all the other sheepish rituals of religious nationalism.

    Give us a reason to feel represented, to feel like we ARE a part of this society, and THEN you can have a right to complain about a lack of enthusiasm for its hollow symbolic traditions. But until then, if this offends you, you can go **** yourself.

  • April 27, 2015 at 12:11pm

    Notice the telling way in which her column is a substanceless repetition of all the tried platitudes and buzzwords we’ve all heard before. Rand Paul is no revolutionary–hell, he’s not even his father. He’s just another shill for his own personal ambitions, same story, different words.

  • April 27, 2015 at 12:07pm

    “Davis told TheBlaze Friday that it was likely prompted by her commenting on a friend’s post about why taxes should be voluntary.”
    Then they wouldn’t be taxes, they’d be donations.

  • April 27, 2015 at 12:00pm

    Real “libertarian” too.

  • April 27, 2015 at 12:00pm

    Rand Paul is no Ron Paul.

    Ron Paul is at least consistent and true to his professed interpretations of libertarianism.

    Rand Paul shifts with the political winds.

    In reply to the contribution Why Rand Paul Gets So Much Bad Press

  • [4] April 27, 2015 at 11:58am

    The Catholic church never had a moral code to begin with beyond “protect the interests of the church”–that was the point. They didn’t deviate from their moral code AT ALL when they decided, as an INSTITUTION, to protect child raping priests discovered among their ranks. Only the latest in a LONG history of their catastrophic moral failures. No secular institution with a record like theirs would probably still even EXIST–long ago being declared an international criminal syndicate and/or abandoned by its members–let ALONE enjoy the prestige and credibility the Catholic church enjoys in the eyes of millions inside, and out, its faith.

  • April 27, 2015 at 11:54am

    Riddle me this–what’s the BFD is someone wants to wear a skirt and makeup, and happens to have a penis instead of a vagina?

    Responses (2) +
  • [-1] April 27, 2015 at 11:53am

    Wow Matt, way to to be a professional douchebag once again–even a once American hero like Jenner is not above the “WITHERING INSIGHT” of your judgment, if they don’t fit your arbitrary notions of gender, eh?

    Responses (3) +
  • [4] April 27, 2015 at 11:44am

    “Father Jonathan Morris, a Catholic priest and cultural commentator, is taking heat from some who interpreted his recent on-air statements about politics and faith as definitively saying that atheists aren’t viable presidential candidates due to their lack of belief in a higher power.”
    Well, at least they don’t help each other coverup the rape of children.

    Responses (3) +
  • April 27, 2015 at 11:41am


  • April 27, 2015 at 11:38am

    Wellllll, whether or not the rate of police use of excessive force is on the rise doesn’t really answer the question of whether or not the ACTUAL amount, that we now UNDOUBTEDLY have a better understanding of in light of increasing access to surveillance technologies across the board, is intolerably high under the circumstances…or intolerably targeted disproportionately at certain groups.

  • [-1] April 27, 2015 at 11:36am

    “Obama Fought For the Right to Do Something That George W. Bush Simply Wouldn’t Do As President. Now It’s Another Security Problem.

    As president, George W. Bush didn’t send emails.”

    Well yeah, but is that THAT impressive–are we even sure Bush Jr. KNOWS what email IS?

    Responses (1) +
  • [-1] April 22, 2015 at 3:33pm

    Yeah, I’m sure ANYONE believes an 8-year old wrote that letter without being coached. And I’m sure it just TORE UP the First Lady and President to know they’d disappointed some conservative’s (alleged) eight-year old son. And I say “some conservative’s” because children just aren’t capable of forming nuanced understandings of things like political ideologies, and critically evaluating and choosing between them at that age–hell plenty of our ADULT citizens seem to lack those capacities. So even if this is a letter genuinely written by an 8-year old without being “helped” or coached by an adult, it’s little more than amusing.

    Responses (2) +
  • April 22, 2015 at 3:26pm

    “While the door may not be closed ever again when it comes to the rights of Chimpanzees, should humans be worried that their door may already be swinging the other way?”
    And we close with an explicit statement of your issue here–and a CLASSIC quintessential fallacy of conservative ideology–that rights are necessarily zero-sum. That somehow you’ve LOST something automatically just because someone else has gained something. Pathetic fearful wretch. No, somehow I DON’T foresee any significant loss of humanity’s anthropocentrism anytime soon–you can REST EASY.

    In fact, it seems PRETTY OBVIOUS, that the single greatest threat to the rights of humans are NOT other animals, but members of our OWN species of animal.

  • April 22, 2015 at 3:23pm

    “Are we beginning to see the crossing over of a threshold where animal rights will eventually evolve into those equal to humans or perhaps even surpass them in some instances?”
    First off, we humans ARE animals. That’s what modern zoology and biology have shown us (if it wasn’t already pretty obvious). I know a lot of science illiterate people and/or people with preconceived notions about the world that they privilege over demonstrable fact don’t like to hear this, and you may or may not accept the truth of the phenomenon of evolution, or the overwhelmingly demonstrated reliability of the scientific theory currently devoted to explaining the observations of that phenomenon, but it IS a fact, so you’re going to have to deal with it. We ARE animals, and in fact we are MOST closely related to the chimpanzee of any creature we’ve discovered hitherto, so it’s REALLY not that much of SURPRISE that they would be extended SOME (in fact BARELY any–not even really rights reserved to humans, but rights under an act SPECIFICALLY covering non-human animals, or colloquially “animals,” since our language STILL reflects the widespread discomfort with the factually demonstrable conclusion just mentioned) rights similar to humans.

    Second, get over your hysterical self. You REALLY think that’s likely? On the basis of this? That’s not even a slippery slope–you don’t even have a slop to point to. That’s just patently RIDICULOUS.

  • [-1] April 22, 2015 at 3:18pm

    “We have also seen human rights taking a backseat in California when a state appeals court sided with environmentalists over farmers, to protect Delta smelt fish, by limiting water diversions in what is being considered the state’s worst drought in a century.”
    Wow, you went in a random direction with that. Way to cherrypick a ****** example, where it’s not even OBVIOUS (just like you last example actually) that the wrong balance was struck between two conflicting very different and complicated sets of interest claims. I find it so ironic how conservatives talk of “entitlement” and “person responsibility”–yet when they don’t get EVERYTHING they’ve arbitrarily decided they or someone else is rightfully entitled to, with no explanation of WHY that’s the case, WHY that claim should supersede competing mutually exclusive ones, SUDDENLY IT’S THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD!!! Like maybe farmers (and the the irresponsible use of water BY conservative pro-agribusiness policies that CREATED, or at least greatly exacerbated the effects of, the drought in the FIRST PLACE) could more easily deal with reduced water use, which they should probably be doing ANYWAY in the middle of a ******* RECORD-BREAKING DROUGHT, than a species that we MIGHT want to keep around, if possible, which may or may not be put closer to EXTINCTION by the unhindered consumption of water. I’m just saying–MAYBE just because you’ve BALDLY ASSERTED that’s the wrong conclusion doesn’t NECESSARILY make it so.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 22, 2015 at 3:10pm

    “Should we as humans worry that soon our rights will be on the same level or even less than those of chimpanzees?”
    I love how the author just automatically assumes human rights (which we already do SUCH a good job of protecting in an even handed way in this country and/or planet) will decrease, rather than chimpanzee rights increase.

    “However, when it comes to humans, there continues to be a great deal of debate over when and if the suffering of a fetus should outweigh the rights of the mother to an abortion.”
    And OF COURSE–this is SOMEHOW about abortion. Who didn’t see THAT coming. Just to head off whatever stupid **** we all know is coming, yes, an adult chimpanzee IS more cognitively sophisticated than a fetus, human or otherwise, at pretty much any stage of pregnancy. At least, the best reliable evidence we have points to this conclusion. Sorry if you like to base your beliefs and moral assumptions upon arbitrary feelings and intuitions–I personally like a little fact supporting my conclusions about the world and morality.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-8] April 22, 2015 at 3:03pm


  • [-1] April 22, 2015 at 3:03pm

    Is that an admission that ISIS is totally the result of a power vacuum that would almost certainly never have existed in the Middle East, BUT-FOR Bush’s invasion of the region?!

    Did it happen? A conservative acknowledged reality?! This MUST be a dream! XD

  • April 22, 2015 at 3:01pm

    If we wanted to pursue the “leaving the Middle East alone forever” (doubtful about the forever part, but well set that aside) strategy, we’d have to find a petroleum substitute (and really, ideally, we would HAVE HAD TO HAVE FOUND, a while ago, this substitute), something conservative policymakers don’t seem to give a **** about. Even if we wanted to just totally exclude any non-conservative approach to energy, we couldn’t just substitute hydrocarbons we DO have the ability to get from outside the Middle East in any comparable level of production to our current consumption levels, because we haven’t bothered with the infrastructure for something like natural gas powered transportation (the commercial, the private, and the public), coal simply CANNOT fulfill that function even if we could replace all our petroleum based power generation with either coal or natural gas, and our aircraft, to my knowledge, would STILL need a petroleum source since I’m not aware of any aircraft engine that is able to run completely off a non-petroleum source (unless you count the hydrogen fuel rockets used by spacecraft as “aircraft”–probably not exactly what we have in mind as “aircraft”). If we could replace every source of petroleum use we currently have with a non-petroleum substitute, we MIGHT be able to get enough from outside Middle Eastern sources to make that feasible. But that’s the difficulty of the current geopolitical reality involving our relationship to the Middle East.

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