Talk here about food, fitness, etc...
If you don't want to look like a whore, don't act like one. http://tinyurl.com/pnf2g3l
unfollowed this asshole for this nasty victim shaming. he makes SJWs look like they have a point.The article he linked is about minors being victims of revenge porn, then being told to go fuck themselves by revenge porn help hotlines, and sometimes by their teachers/schools, too.
If we'd just let HIV run it's course, we'd have corrected about 50% of the problems in the West.
unfollowed this asshole who wishes death on gays. he makes SJWs look like they have a point.
we solve problems with ideas, not death.What kind of person thinks that a bunch of people he doesn't like being dead is how to make the world a better place?
you are an anti-scholar and a thug.
If you illegally jump the border, you shouldn't have any protection under the law. Including from assault, rape and murder.
unfollowed this asshole who is pro-murder. WTF. he makes shitlibs look like they have a point.If you miss your flight and overstay a visa, should everyone be allowed to murder you, too?
"You are blocked from following @Krauserpua and viewing @Krauserpua's Tweets. Learn more"I expected to be ignored. I did not expect to be blocked. What a thin skin he has for a guy who advocates raping and murdering people for a non-violent crime.
someone sure couldn't take criticism...
Since the deinstitutionalization movement of the 1960s, civil commitment in the United States almost always requires a finding of dangerousness -- both imminent and physical -- as determined by a judge.Coulter wants to take away the freedom of people whom she considers dangerous in a non-imminent, non-physical way.
Most of the rest of the world has more reasonable standards -- you might almost call them "common sense" -- allowing family, friends and even acquaintances to petition for involuntarily commitment, with the final decision made by doctors.The idea is: acquaintances plus doctors can have anyone locked up. Remember the idea of innocent until proven guilty? Remember the idea of a jury of your peers? Remember due process? Forget all that. Doctors, some of whom work for the government, are going to be judge, jury, and imprisoner. Sound fun? Sound like reasonable common sense?
The result of our laissez-faire approach to dangerous psychotics...
Why not force Democrats to defend the right of the dangerous mentally ill not to take their medicine?
Democrats won't be able to help themselves, but to instantly close ranks and defend dangerous psychotics...Remember that when Coulter writes "dangerous" in these sentences, she means "non-imminently or non-physically dangerous". Otherwise the current laws would cover it.
why so impressed by the prestige of a bad newspaper? what do you expect this stuff to accomplish?Rather than argue against any of this, L Facebook-liked the paragraph about Hayek which pointed out that getting into the newspaper was depraved by her. L also wrote a comment defending me against haters (not F) and asked them to stop.
Wynand owned bad newspapers, and you know how that worked out. you merely got an article in one. so what?
by designing a portion of your life so it could more easily be picked up by a bad newspaper, you lived their values. you let them have some control over you.
when Hayek won a nobel prize, that was not a symbol of success, it was a symbol of his depravity.
There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice.
"You, who are half-rational, half-coward, have been playing a con game with reality, but the victim you have conned is yourself. When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it's picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil.
"... there's nothing more conformist than to just talk about the college rape epidemic as being America's biggest crisis. But to be a woman who's going to go on TV and just declare the college rape epidemic to be a load of crap, that takes guts."
The first time Coulter told me she was punk rock, I thought she was joking, but this time, she wasn't trying to make people laugh. While the rest of us save our most provocative thoughts for private moments, worried we'll be fired or offend someone, Coulter has purposefully built her life so she can speak her mind without fear about employment or financial repercussions.
"I didn't get the gene that makes you afraid," Coulter explained. "I really am the freest person in America right now. I can say anything."
Sure, I never said [Burke] didn't use reason. I just said he disliked the enlightenment and disliked liberalism.But you wrote, "Individual reason was something that [Burke] held disdain for."
"Burke tried to explain to people how actual progress and reform work, how to go about that"http://fallibleliving.com/thinkers/burke
I mean, I like Burke so I'm going to agree that he showed how genuine progress and reform ought to go about. Could you give me a description of what you believe he argued for/said?
"A disposition to preserve and an ability to improve ... would be my standard of a statesman.” – this interest in improvement is not conservative"No, the point as a whole is the important part, it's about having those two things together. Did you check the original context before making this claim?
Firstly, it is important to note that it is the 'disposition to preserve' that is the important part.
A disposition to preserve and an ability to improve, taken together, would be my standard of a statesman.I think that clears it up. But read more context and tell me if you still disagree.
It's the basic part of conservative thinking. My favourite essay by Oakeshott is useful to put here. It explains what it means to be conservative. If you have some spare time you should read it. It's probably the best way of describing conservatism I've seen.replies to this are at the end
"Seeking progress rationally is how liberalism works"This concept of liberalism is mistaken. That helps explain why you don't see the connection between Burke and liberalism. I think a lot of our confusion is because the opponents of liberalism have spread a lot of lies about what it is, and now most people don't have much understanding what liberalism is actually about.
Liberalism is an ideology that has a set goal of 'freedom' as a value that it wants to pursue. Burke has no such value put forward first except for maybe tradition. The goal of liberalism is to maximise freedom. The goal of Burke is just a vague. One of the main reasons Burke likes change is because he believes it is necessary towards preservation of the nation state. I think the only person who you would see as 'conservative' would be Maistre.
elicit explanatory general principles from what is recognized to be conservative conductgood.
The general characteristics of this disposition are not difficult to discern, although they have often been mistaken. They center upon a propensity to use and to enjoy what is available rather than to wish for or to look for something else; to delight in what is present rather than what was or what may be.Saying this isn't difficult is bad. It insults people who have difficulty with it, and doesn't add value.
What is esteemed is the present; and it is esteemed not on account of its connections with a remote antiquity, nor because it is recognized to be more admirable than any possible alternative, but on account of its familiarity: not, Verweile doch, du bist so schon, but Stay with me because I am attached to you.Where does Burke say we should hold the present in high esteem because we're familiar with it? I don't think he thinks that way.
In short, it is a disposition appropriate to a man who is acutely aware of having something to lose which he has learned to care forBurke does have this. I am not denying that a fair amount of Burke's ideas have some overlap with some conservative ideas. But that doesn't stop him from being thoroughly liberal.
Now, all this is represented in a certain attitude towards change and innovation; change denoting alterations we have to suffer and innovation those we design and execute.This idea of thinking you have to *suffer* alterations is just the sort of thing I would consider conservative. But Burke thought some alterations were good, not things to suffer.
Changes are circumstances to which we have to accommodate ourselves
averse from change, which appears always, in the first place, as deprivation
change is a threat to identity, and every change is an emblem of extinction
Changes, then, have to be sufferedThis attitude is like, "stasis would be nice, but we'll have to figure out how to deal with a few deviations from stasis".
The idea of innovation, on the other hand, is improvement. Nevertheless, a man of this temperament will not himself be an ardent innovator. In the first place, he is not inclined to think that nothing is happening unless great changes are afoot and therefore he is not worried by the absence of innovation.Burke was an ardent reformer, a vigorous seeker of improvement.
Further, he is aware that not all innovation is, in fact, improvement; and he will think that to innovate without improving is either designed or inadvertent folly. Moreover, even when an innovation commends itself as a convincing improvement, he will look twice at its claims before accepting them.This is true and wise, and is also believed by liberals.
... no one is made to feel unwelcome for their opinions, and every viewpoint, no matter how controversial, can be expressed freely and without fear ... value the free exchange of ideas, and not to restrict on the basis of the opinions ... to create and nurture a culture of open debate and pluralism.1)
... If all ideas cannot be debated, without fear ... how is our society supposed to be organised by reason and understanding rather than groupthink and prejudice?
Barack Obama Election Ushers in a Different WorldI don't think any political opponent of Trump has tried to draw attention to this quote yet. Why not?
After the election in November of 2008, I was interviewed by Dominic Carter of New York 1 (who has recently, as of late 2009, gone through a great deal with spousal abuse) on his program called “Inside City Hall.” New York 1 is an all-news program that is popular in New York City, and Dominic has a dynamic television presence. He describes me as “a man not known for keeping his opinions to himself,” and we covered some interesting topics. Dominic asked about the election and I was honest about it. McCain was in an almost impossible situation. Bush had been so incompetent that any Republican would have a hard time unless they could bring back Eisenhower. Bush was a disaster for the country as well as for the Republican Party. Then he asked me about Barack Obama. I told him that Barack will need to be a great president because we’re in serious trouble as a country. It hasn’t been this way since 1929. So he doesn’t have much choice—he will simply have to be great, which he has a very good chance of being. What he has done is amazing. The fact that he accomplished what he has—in one year and against great odds—is truly phenomenal. If someone had asked me if a black man or woman could become president, I would have said yes, but not yet. Barack Obama proved that determination combined with opportunity and intelligence can make things happen—and in an exceptional way. He is not walking into an easy or enviable situation. As of October of 2008, the U.S. government reported a $237 billion deficit. The good news is that Obama seems to be well aware of the situation. His comments have led me to believe that he understands how the economy works on a comprehensive level. He has also surrounded himself with very competent people, and that’s the mark of a strong leader. I have confidence he will do his best, and we have someone who is serious about resolving the problems we have and will be facing in the future. To me that is very good news. After 9/11, this country received a lot of compassion from countries and people around the world. Within a short amount of time, however, we were hated. How did that happen? We had no dialogue with other countries because they just plain hated us. What’s different today is that we have a new chance, a new beginning. The world is excited about Barack Obama and the new United States. Let’s keep it that way. [Emphasis added in this paragraph.]