User Profile: The Third Archon

The Third Archon

Member Since: November 02, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • October 30, 2014 at 11:28pm

    I think you’re weak because you’ve abandoned your human gift of reason. No other reason–certainly not those Christians who embrace on of the few actual wisdoms of the Bible, that truth does not bend to force. And that no matter what blind fools may do to your body, truth remains, and if truth is what animates your soul, then your spirit is indomitable and indestructible.

  • October 30, 2014 at 11:19pm

    Because the number of mosques, like the number of Christian denominations, is sufficient to actually pass anything through Congress, LOL. XD

  • October 30, 2014 at 11:13pm

    Whatever else you have to say “shove it up your ass” guy is HILARIOUS.

  • [-1] October 30, 2014 at 11:13pm

    LOL–you get minuses because you said something reasonable. XD

  • October 30, 2014 at 11:09pm

    Any person, Right or Left, is right to feel disenfranchised, right to feel unrepresented, in this fascist plutocracy masquerading as a “democracy” or “republic.” (take your pick–I don’t want to get into a pointless semantic debate)

  • [1] October 30, 2014 at 11:04pm

    They should have Ted Nugent moderate their debates–that would be HILARIOUS. He could have a guitar, and start wailing on it whenever someone goes over time. XD

  • October 30, 2014 at 10:58pm

    I hope one or more of the Pauls (preferably Ron, but Rand will do in a pinch) gets involved in the 2016 run–they always do spice things up so! XD

  • [1] October 30, 2014 at 10:55pm

    Aw, that POOR guy with a last name of “Coward”–AWFUL.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-2] October 30, 2014 at 5:37pm

    Question–why would the sexual orientation of the President matter? Arbitrary stigmatization of sexuality and gender identity are the Right’s babies, not anyone else’s.

  • October 30, 2014 at 5:34pm

    Accepting ALL THAT as accurate and fair for the sake of argument, how can you possibly argue that IN AT LEAST THIS CASE wealth ENABLED that, in fact without which it WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE, and moreover that the original author all but EXPLICITLY acknowledged and argued this? That’s NOT to make the obviously absurd claim that that’s the ONLY route to moral corruption–just to make an observation that to ME seems unavoidable if you accept everything the original author wrote and either your or my characterization of it, that AT LEAST in THIS CASE, wealth enabled and encouraged moral corruption.

    And if the original author DIDN’T want us to reach that conclusion, he PROBABLY shouldn’t have emphasized Dunham’s rich and privilege upbringing so much.

    Finally, that’s what “if” NORMALLY means, in the conditional sense–”if x, then y”–but here the author was clearly using it in the RHETORICAL sense–i.e. “if ANYTHING is x, y is x” and in THAT sense when a person SAYS “if” what they MEAN is “this is CLEARLY an example of this kind of thing–so clearly in fact that IF it’s NOT an example of [whatever the subject in question is] then NOTHING is.” So actually, in this case he didn’t just mean “Dunham’s parents may be child abusers depending upon whether or not child abuse by overindulgence is possible,” but rather “Dunham’s parents are child abusers by overindulgence if anyone is” (with the obvious implication being that such a thing IS patently possible).

  • October 30, 2014 at 5:06pm

    “It would appear that he doesn’t like wealthy people that live a privileged life and do not realize how privileged their life really was and also did nothing but complain about all the privilege that was handed to them.”
    Ah, of course–I see the enormous amount of difference between that, and my reading. Also, remind me again what exactly it is, at least in this case if not generally (and always inherently–otherwise what would be the point?), that allows access to privilege…what is that again…oh yeah–wealth.

    “But apparently you’re to stupid to understand that.”
    I also love how in insulting my intelligence you IMMEDIATELY proceed (and this is just EXTRA delicious) the word ‘stupid’ with a 1st-Grade level English mistake–using the wrong homophone. DELIGHTFUL XD

  • [-2] October 30, 2014 at 4:51pm

    “No contradiction at all…there are many wealthy families who do not turn out this kind of trash. Similarly, I know many a spoiled rotten person raised in modest means. Access to wealth does not create immorality. Absence of wealth does not ensure morality.”
    Indeed–but the point was never whether or not wealthy people CATEGORICALLY turn out bad and non-wealthy people CATEGORICALLY turn out good. The point is whether or not there is correlation between wealth and/or the accumulation of wealth, and immorality–not whether or not EACH AND EVERY individual is reflective of this TREND observable in the aggregate. And at the point where you’ve ADMITTED:

    “I have issue with what she did with that access…that privilege…she wasted it on fueling a degenerate lifestyle. She used it to insulate herself from accountability and responsibility. She lived a spoiled life and dares complain about it.”

    I don’t see how you CAN also claim “wealth has nothing to do with it”–when you’ve all but explicitly said that wealth provides at least AN avenue to possible moral corruption that SIMPLY ISN’T PRESENT for people who DON’T have access to wealth.

  • October 30, 2014 at 3:11pm


    “…her grandparents’ having taken seven-week trips to Europe during her mother’s childhood; spending a summer at a camp at which the costs can total almost as much as the median American family’s annual rent; being histrionically miserable at said camp and demanding to be brought home early; demanding to be sent back to the same expensive camp the next year.”


    “The enormous affluence and indulgence of her upbringing did not sate her sundry hungers — for adoration, for intellectual respect that she has not earned, for the unsurpassable delight of moral preening — but instead amplified and intensified her sense of entitlement.”

    But no, the article DEFINITELY never brought wealth into it…

    Again, my point isn’t that the article was ACTUALLY anti-wealth (or at least intended that way). Coming from where it comes from, I would never think that absent compelling evidence–my point was how INTERESTING IT IS that those who’ve made an entirely ideology out of attacking an “anti-wealth” strawman will READILY resort to the EXACT SAME tactics and rhetoric they accuse fictional boogeymen liberals of using (whereas the reality of America is an almost universal blind acceptance of plutocracy REGARDLESS of self professed political ideology–indeed that’s a large part of our PROBLEMS), WHEN it suits THEIR ideological agenda. Interesting–and quite REVEALING. And perhaps more than a little CONTRADICTORY and HYPOCRITICAL.

  • [1] October 30, 2014 at 3:05pm

    Indeed…and the author CERTAINLY doesn’t attribute wealth and privilege as contributing causes for her alleged lack of morality–he NEVER did that, when he said such things as:

    “If there is such a thing as actually abusing a child through excessive generosity and overindulgence, then Lena Dunham’s parents are child abusers.”


    Here is a list of things in Lena Dunham’s life that do not strike Lena Dunham as being unusual: growing up in a $6.25 million Tribeca apartment; attending a selection of elite private schools; renting a home in Hollywood Hills well before having anything quite resembling a job and complaining that the home is insufficiently “chic”; the habitual education of the men in her family at Andover; the services of a string of foreign nannies; being referred to a homework therapist when she refused to do her homework and being referred to a relationship therapist when she fought with her mother; constant visits to homeopathic doctors, and visits to child psychologists three times a week; having a summer home on a lake in Connecticut, and complaining about it; writing a “voice of her generation” memoir in which ordinary life events among members of her generation, such as making student-loan payments or worrying about the rent or health insurance, never come up; making casual trips to Malibu…”

    Responses (1) +
  • October 30, 2014 at 3:02pm

    So you don’t care about the wealth, but you DO care about how her (well her parents’–back to the whole “inherited wealth” thing…) access TO wealth “spoiled the crap out of her,” which I’d assume you’d also link (or consider one and the same) to her “abject lack of moral character”? And you don’t see the contradiction there?

  • October 30, 2014 at 2:59pm

    I don’t see what consensual sexual activity between adults of the same sex has to do with unlawful trespass, spying, and (probably) indecent exposure–any more than I see what consensual sexual activity between adults of DIFFERENT sexes has to do with that.

    Responses (1) +
  • [4] October 30, 2014 at 2:57pm

    I feel like, if you have a van with all of those features, you be gulity of SOMETHING and should lose the van regardless of whether your convicted of a crime. I mean hell, if we’re GOING to have ridiculous civil forfeiture laws–hats off to you, Blaze, for the rare bullseye–we might as well use them against truly deserving and OBVIOUSLY nefarious individuals. No one has a windowless van without INTERIOR handles for an INNOCENT reason…

  • [1] October 30, 2014 at 2:55pm

    Spanish Bayonets? I assume they are rather nasty plants.

    That’s actually a genius idea I hadn’t seen before–incorporating flora into your home defense. Sneaky, efficient, AND it can blend seamlessly into your homes aesthetics. “Oh, yes, and here we have our beautiful Spanish Bayonets–watch out, they double as junk slicers for creepers who might try to lurk under the eaves!” XD

  • [1] October 30, 2014 at 2:52pm

    LOL–while a HILARIOUS and DELIGHTFUL image it is to imagine some creeper with his pants down skulking about your lawn suddenly evaporating with a look of stupid surprise in a smoke cloud of shrapnel, fire, and blood, it’s PROBABLY not the best practical home defense for people with children.

    It would be quite purpose-defeating if your claymore (I’m just assuming it’s a claymore for funnsies) took out the very person(s) it was there to protect.

  • [1] October 30, 2014 at 2:50pm

    Well then you’ll actually have to hit the guy, which is a lot harder than I think conservatives think it is when the target is moving, and has some distance on you to start with. Bullets are actually quite small, and firearms, particularly pistols, are difficult to be accurate with if you aren’t extensively trained, and even then factors other than technological limits of the gun make it difficult nigh impossible to hit something that may be technically within the lethal range of the gun (i.e. a gun can put bullets downrange with lethal force far further than most users can accurately place the shot). And that’s without examination of how the law in the area might bear on the issue (If I recall this is Florida, so you’re about as favorable as far as the law goes as you can get right now in terms of who you’re legally allowed to shoot and why/when) or whether or not the presence of innocent bystanders complicates the difficulty of placing an accurate shot between the shoulder blades of a fleeing suspect.

    Which is why you all need personal drones! Death (or not) from above! XD
    If drones aren’t ALREADY faster and more effective at identifying and suppressing threats (whether lethally or not), they probably will be soon.

123 To page: Go