I’ve predicted for a while now that it’s only a matter of time before Cathy Reisenwitz, eager eyed young feminist and rent-seeker extraordinaire, finally achieves her life long ambition of being paid to speak at a conference of neckbearded libertarian social outcasts only to be clumsily hit on by one of the smellier basement dwellers while riding an elevator. This will allow her to realize her ultimate end game of ranting about patriarchal oppression at the hands of the male dominated libertarian community and kick off an ideological civil war inside of the liberty movement, eventually spawning Libertarian + with Reisenwitz ascending to the throne as their chief representative.
I’ve long maintained that you can predict most liberal positions will just be the opposite of whatever conservatives are talking about at the moment. This is certainly the case any time some progressive smirks and proclaims that Islam is totally no different whatsoever than Christianity in terms of social consequence. Even the New Atheists, a group notorious for misadventures in philosophy, are at least intellectually honest enough to loudly disagree with the liberals on their naive premise that Islam is “no more problematic than Christianity” and cite plenty of convincing reasons for why this isn’t true. Quite naturally, the liberals considered the intellectual case for disapproving of Islam at considerable length, and then constructed a carefully reasoned rebuttal of this premise. Just kidding! They did nothing but scream “Islamophobia” at full volume, peppering retorts of “Not All Muslims Are Like That” in between mandatory accusations of xenophobia and racism.
Old but gold, today’s article comes from a December 2013 episode of the O’Reilly Factor. The subject: a federal judge’s ruling on polygamy in Utah.
Bill O’Reilly presents us the modern, toothless, “conservative” take on not conserving much of anything in America. Andrew Napolitano offers the unbrutal and hypocritical “libertarian” perspective on the erosion of our liberty.
Both men would rather appeal to their cow-brained demo than try and discuss the serious issues underlying our culture today. Of course.
Trigger Warning: Modern Realpolitik
Behold, the stupidest thing I have seen today… And it’s 2am. Dammit.
Trigger Warning: Jen Sorenson
1. Funny how “freedom” when dealing with human actors always becomes something inherently unequal. Jen ignores this. Of course. Jen instead projects a conception of freedom that involves reality catering to her wants. Of course.
I have been dragged through this debate so many times that the talking points have been ingrained into my neural pathways like the well worn action of Grandpa’s old Remington shotgun. For the record, I am pro-gun, but for infinitely simpler reasons than the typical pundit: I just like guns. To put this in liberalspeak, if two consenting gay adults wanna use a loaded AR-15 as a sex toy, that’s their business, and you religious bigots had better keep your intolerant noses out of their bedroom. The only thing they’re hurting is their alimentary canals and possibly the muzzlebrake on that Colt. Of course, to be fair, both pro-gun and gun control advocates make some predictably stupid points in this discussion, so let’s lock and load the primary examples of bad premises and shoddy thinking:
Source: George Takei
This “higher ground” amounts to spitting on religious doctrine in favor of the disgusting behavior associated with gay “culture.” Apparently it’s also not absolutism or religious if you are a female or “LGBT ally” that absolutely and religiously supports things that were better off secluded in dens of iniquity.
So, yesterday FEE published an article by Jeffrey Tucker. It was awful.
I am of the opinion that Mr. Tucker wears his bow tie much too tightly these days; it seems to be cutting off circulation to his brain. Or perhaps it’s all the Rentseekerwitz farts he’s been sniffing?
Whatever the reason, Tucker’s progressive softening of the mind has led him to embark on a campaign not only against his ideological fellow travelers, but against reality itself.
The absolute worst thing about this link is the question posed within the article’s picture. Over a CATHEDRAL, no less.