How a Creationist Wins Love From the L.A. Times: Trash Breitbart
by John NolteIn the journolista MSM’s perpetually coordinated effort to help further the leftist cause, over the past couple of weeks it’s become quite obvious that destroying Andrew Breitbart is the new priority number one and that the latest set of instructions raging through JournolistLand are to find and/or help to create a wedge between The Slayer of ACORN and the conservative community. And what better way to do that than with a conservative willing to go on the record and speak out against him?
The idea, obviously, is to toxify Breitbart in such a way that no “reputable conservative” would ever associate with him again. Yesterday, in that beacon of journolista integrity called the Nearly Bankrupt L.A. Times, we got an early first glimpse of just how well that plan is working.
Or not.
After using the front page of their Sunday editorial section as bait, the best the Nearly Bankrupt L.A. Times could come up with was someone they would normally mercilessly ridicule over cocktails, Intelligent Design proponent David Klinghoffer. Which isn’t to say Klinghoffer didn’t perform well. Here’s his opener:
Once, the iconic figures on the political right were urbane visionaries and builders of institutions — like William F. Buckley Jr., Irving Kristol and Father Richard John Neuhaus, all dead now. Today, far more representative is potty-mouthed Internet entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart, whose news and opinion website, Breitbart.com, is read by millions. In his most recent triumph, Breitbart got a U.S. Department of Agriculture official pushed out of her job after he released a deceptively edited video clip of her supposedly endorsing racism against white people.
The indispensible Patterico does a superb job of pointing to no less than three errors in that short paragraph here, but you can imagine how thrilled the editors of the Nearly Bankrupt L.A. Times were when Klinghoffer went beyond the Destroy Breitbart mandate and expanded his sanctimonious rant to include all those conservative…
…figures on TV, radio and the Internet who make their money by stirring fears and resentments. With its descent to baiting blacks, Mexicans and Muslims, its accommodation of conspiracy theories and an increasing nastiness and vulgarity, the conservative movement has undergone a shift toward demagoguery and hucksterism. Once the talk was of “neocons” versus “paleocons.” Now we observe the rule of the crazy-cons.
Who is Klinghoffer referring to? Beck? Rush? Hannity? Was widening the fratricide the price of seeing his byline on page 1? And how about the irony of someone calling for thoughtful debate doing so in a newspaper so thoroughly tarnished and discredited that it’s no longer able to make a profit even in one of the most liberal cities in America?
And why would anyone write for a publication so openly contemptuous of who they are?
The Nearly Bankrupt L.A. Times is hostile enough towards we everyday religious types and therefore most certainly holds a special and unique place of contempt for those like Klinghoffer who subscribe to Intelligent Design and pretty much write off Darwin. I don’t even want to speculate on the insulting nicknames the editorial staff had for him as they prepped the piece for its big front page Sunday splash, and it’s rather telling that (according to the Times’ website) this is the only time that publication’s ever been interested in Mr. Klinghoffer’s opinion.
Even more revealing is Klinghoffer’s belief that Breitbart is a setback for the conservative cause. Let’s play “It’s a Wonderful Life” and take a look at our country without Andrew Breitbart and the BIG sites. Welcome to a world where the National Endowment for the Arts uses taxpayer money to fund White House propaganda because no one smoked them out; where the Tea Party has been disintegrated by a coordinated media effort to spread the N-word lie; where the Democrats are closer to a permanent majority thanks to a healthy and vibrant ACORN “handling” the U.S. Census.
Mr. Klinghoffer wrote a book called “Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History,” so he’s well aware that even Christ knew that there was a time for talk and a time to throw around some tables and chairs.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
206 Comments
Jesus was NOT a pansy. He was willing to call out the most powerful men in his time and place on the Earth and tell them straight up they were full of it.
Now is not the time to be politely silent and retiring.
GO BREITBART!!!!
Go NOLTE!
GO BIG Nation!
REMEMBER in NOVEMBER!
A newspaper that won't name names is certainly going out of business.The tabloids are probably doing better journalism these days than the LA Times….
The assault on Breitbart looks similar to the assault on Sarah Palen. During the run of office with McCain, she was McCain's attack dog on obama and the left. She was unrelenting. Andrew just getting some of the same "medicine" for similar actions.
To Hell with them. They want us silenced.
All I can say is Thank you Andrew
You have given us (me) hope and I will always be grateful
God Bless you and yours
I'm not a potty mouth, I'm a creationist, I'm a christian and I'm a conservative and I LIKE BREITBART. I bet I could run circles around Klingerputz when it comes to putting evolution up against creation, I don't even have to call it intelligent design to avoid offending anyone. Klingerputz is a Christian-wannabee new age person who obviously subscribes to socialism. Seriously I thought everything in LA was nearly bankrupt, not just the LA Times. I don't read the LA Times so I guess I will never get to read David's masterpiece on Andrew Breitbart. John 2:14-16 I believe is the scripture I like to use for Liberals who think anger is a sin.
How many Conservatives read the LA Times?
I'd say just about the same nummber of adults who use the idiom "potty-mouthed" in exclusively adult company now days.
The truthfulness of the new news media like Andrew Breitbart are what's driving the moon-bats nuts and out of business. Their only retarded course will be to make up stories, discredit, lie, verbal tar and feather, but that isn't going to work for them. Why? Because truth will always trump spin, mirrors, de-spin and/or bullshit. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the hit-meter on Breitbart were going through the roof, and I'd bet just the opposite on the L.A. Slimes sales tanking.
Does anybody read the rag? Nope. And that is why it is in a death spiral. Conservative readers have choices and there are too many litter box liners to pay for that poorly written and Social Detremental LIBERAL RAG. Please just die so we can celebrate your demise.
Nolte: "The idea, obviously, is to toxify Breitbart in such a way that no 'reputable conservative' would ever associate with him again.
Seems like he's doing a pretty good job of toxifying himself.
This is the reason I no longer read this paper. Also the reason the paper has no money.
I hope they dissed Big Government, Big Journalism, and Big Peace by name. Just a whole passel of new
subscribers for the Bigs. I have always heard there is value even in negative publicity. Seriously though,
who in LA gives a dang about this wacko 'attack dog' ha, ha. He looks like a real pit-bull. tee-hee-hee.
Somehow, I don't think Andrew cares.
That's the secret to his success.
He's not politically correct, he's just correct
Who needs a sell out?
“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” Sam Adams.
I struggle with a potty mouth (just ask my husband) does that make me a horrible Christian? At least I'm honest about my shortcomings. What about you? Are you one of those Christians who think they are God's gift to mankind?
Every day I read how Obama is taking over our country and I could just cuss a RED (not blue cause we are dealing with commies) streak! I just get so angry.
Mr. Klinghoffer — he that is without sin; let him cast the first stone.
I'm a Conservative Christian who believes in ex nihilo (out of nothing) creation by God. Am I supposed to believe Klinger-on is a Conservative simply because he's touching that stone carving of the Ten Commandments? Who's his pastor/church – Jim Wallis? Believe me Kling-on, these are your *entire* 15 minutes of fame – hope you enjoyed them – 'cause it cost you your birthright (OT ref.)
Anyone who stills reads a newspaper is either lazy or …… lazy. There's so many places to get information today why would anyone who thinks of himself as someone who likes to be informed bother with a newspaper?
I make it my mission to discourage everyone I know from buying, subscribing or reading them.
They've only just begun, folks. This is tame compared to the invective headed our way by mid-October and thereafter, once Regressives begin to understand not merely how badly they're about to be humiliated, but rebuked for the next generation. Straws clutched at this hard have a nasty habit of causing extremely painful friction burns…
I am a long time contributor to the Discovery Institute, and a big proponent of Intelligent Design Theory (If you want some background on it, I suggest reading Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell: The case for Intelligent Design).
With that said, I was appalled by David Klinghoffer's editorial, and wrote him a letter discussing the shallowness of his claims that "conservatism has shifted towards demagoguery and hucksterism."
I hope to hear a response soon. He really did go rather ramble without knowing the entire background of the situation with the Tea Party, NAACP and Sherrod.
Right on time, here comes one of our minders from Stimulus Spenders International Union, the "We're Squandering Your Great-great-grandchildrens' Wealth So They Won't be Able To" people.
Now go crawling off to give Lord God King Narcissus oral pleasures somewhere else, Regressive. HuffinGlue Post, perhaps?
Klinghoffer is a blogger for Huffpo…and that, in a nutshell, say's it all. He also points out that we weren’t exactly exempt for the eugenicist craze that was triggered by Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” paradigm. Funnily enough, but not in the “ha ha” sense, the “progressives” were actually a major source of inspiration for a certain Austrian corporal (the one with the cute mustache). And “progressives” such as Margaret Sanger, the hero of Baby Murder Inc., (Sorry, Planned Parenthood). Source considered, and dutifully rebuked by anyone with half-a-brain.
The vast "right wing conspiracy" doesn't read the LA Times! Apparently then the marketing plan is for the few literate liberals who can and do read it to buy more than one copy so they can support this lost caused called the LA Times! Gotta love it!
I think being a blogger ON Huffopo is different than being a blogger FOR Huffpo. Just a minor, but important distinction. Klinghoffer is, after all, an evangelist of sorts. Gotta go into the lions den if you want to convert the cubs. With that said, I still think his editorial in the Times is flat out wrong.
Ironic that you're in Seattle. Klinghoffer is a long time senior fellow at the Discovery Institute (also in Seattle). He's done a lot of good work, and I think your rush to judgement is not in a very Christian spirit. He's wrong about Andrew Breitbart, though, and I wrote him a letter to edify him about the situation. Everyone falls short, but let's not make it a habit of disparaging otherwise good men.
I agree. He was doing a fine job on his own.
It's always funny when conservatives call other people regressive.
Hehe. I wrote Mr. Klinghoffer a letter concerning his editorial. As Christians, we all fall short from time to time. Perhaps he'll respond to my letter. Perhaps not, but hopefully, he'll realize the injustice he's done. I think everyone involved in this matter are concerned that Christian ethical values and virtue triumph in regard to the restoration of our country. I just think Mr. Klinghoffer rushed to judgement without the entire situation adequately clarified.
This gives Breitbart more cred, not less. These attacks don't work.
"During the run of office with McCain, she was McCain's attack dog on obama and the left. She was unrelenting."
That's why McCain lost. Most people were sure red baiting went out in the 1950's. I guess Breitbart is doomed to repeat history.
"Seems like he's doing a pretty good job of toxifying himself."
Only to progressives who would turn our constitution into garbage by their "Social Justice".
McCain lost because he ran as "democrat-light". McCain wanted to be elected on the statement of reaching "across the Isle", which is code for, "I have no principles, I stand for nothing but I'm a nice guy, so vote for me".
That pushed conservatives away and sounded wishy-washy to the middle. It is middle-America that controls who gets elected. That is where the battle will be won, or lost in 2012.
I struggle with an occasional potty mouth & pen! But actually, sometimes there's an appropriate use for some cuss words at the right time in the right way (sounds like an oximoron I know). But a few well- placed colorful words (of the milder variety) can drive home a point like nothing else, especially when it comes to the, er, 'illegitimate children' running the country right now.
Running far to the right marginalizes you as a candidate hence why Palin is consistently unpopular with a majority of Americans and why McCain ran toward the middle. If you didn't notice 2008 was the democrats year. Most Americans wanted the antithesis of GWB hence McCain's campaign strategy. You also act as if there aren't any democrats in middle america and we all live in the Northeast or in California! Obviously that's not true. McCain also ran on the usual Republican platform of national security, business, lower taxes, and no universal healthcare. What else did you want? Would a bible in every classroom and repeal of women's sufferage been better to run on?
Your political analysis is deeply flawed.
But yet Conservatives want to nullify constitutional ammendments, like the 17th, that they find unworkable toward their vision. They should really work on that contradiction.
No, McLame didn't want to be elected. He as much as said so the night of November 2nd, when he announced he was glad to be part of the historic election of the first black President. That's why his minions kept Palin from speaking her mind all but the few times she got away from them.
Its funny cause its true, and progressivism is regressivism, as progressives take us backwards.
Toxified to the point of hugely increasing rates of additional readers, and increased revenue… Toxify.. ME.. baby !!
Those who read this please note that larrypubic666 is replying to his own replies !! Precious. He lost his place on the huffpo cheat sheet !! hahahahahahahahahaha
Well, Prohibition was repealed because it was bad for the country. I think the 17th Amendment is bad for the country as well. If there were no 17th Amendment, the Senate would never have passed Obamacare, because of the unfunded mandates on the states. If the senate PROPERLY represented the states, rather than the citizens (Duh, that's why we have a HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES), then we would be closer to having a proper working republic.
I'm replying to my own replies old tampon? Nope. can't say that I am.
Excuses, excuses. He didnt want to win? LOL! No, he just ran for President because, hey, why not? McCain lost because of Palin. She ruined his campaign with her inability to answer simple questions during interviews and to grasp any kind of foreign policy objectives. Tina Fey and the media didnt help her much either. And on top of that she resorted to red baiting which turned people off. The exit data supports this too. I know it didnt turn you off and the 20 percent of the population that still love her but the majority of Americans didnt like her. If McCain was such a bad candidate why does he continually get re-elected in a red state like Arizona?
Out-Of-Your-Mind.
McCain ran to the center??? From where? The left? He was never a friend to the right.
Palin now out-polls obama with a majority of Americans. (Not that THAT should be too hard)
As for running from the right, the only recent example we have of that would be Ronald Reagan. Was he "marginalized" when he won two LANDSLIDE victories? How can you equate a 49 State victory with a "marginal" anything?
It is YOUR analysis that is deeply flawed.
I suspect Klinghoffer is just a publicity hound, not bright enough or honest enough to bother getting the whole story or to even realize there is one. Maybe someone from the Slimes asked him to please comment on this evil "potty mouth" Brietbart and that's all he needed – "Oh print me, print me!"
Thanx for your support of the ill received albeit legitimate concerns of the tea partiers. However I subsribe to neither creationism nor intelligent design. Who designed the designers. We are simply as we perceive ourselves to be. No more, no less!! Any other discussion on these issues is simply our rudimentary intelligence attempting to solve the unsolvable.
Nice try all you jagoffs at the LA Times. But it ain't gonna work. Too many people are too well informed to fall for your nonsense. Now all you little lefties need to go back to your word processors and write another hit piece on Dick Cheney or Sarah Palin or Fox News, or racist "teabaggers", etc.
Reagan was never like Sarah Palin. Furthermore who was Reagan running against? Jimmy Carter? Walter Mondale? Very different times my friend. 2008 was simply Obama's year. 8 years of Bush pushed him right into victory. Democrats won everywhere so it wasnt simply this one election. Remeber they still have a majority in both the house and senate and have since 2006 so it was more an overall movement to the left and more than just this one election. Mccain's campaign stratgey was solid he just could not beat the force that was the Obama campaign that year. And Palin was extremely unpopular outside of the Republican base. Other republicans even turned on her.
According to one poll he's tied with Palin at 46. But Americans also love Jersey Shore so it doesnt mean much. Not only that but if she's so amazing he is the second coming of Mao shouldnt she be way way ahead in polls?
Ok, by that logic then you should be able to understand the left thinking the second ammendment is bad for the country.
The word is "repeal." Only Regressive Socialists like you and the Oval Office Fascist would seek to "nullify" the Constitution.
What part of "we're not anything like you" don't you get?
Then get it repealed. Good luck with that.
No, you're doing your best to imitate Your Hero the Zero – by stroking yourself in front of a mirror.
McCain was the latest in a long line of RINOs to be nominated.
Pre-2008, If you could have polled every conservative in the country, and asked them to name their least favorite Republican, McCain would have won in a landslide, and yet, somehow he was nominated.
There was more frustration than I've ever seen among conservatives.
If you took that same poll today, he would still be in the top five, behind Lindsey Graham and some others.
But despite all of that, if McCain had come out in opposition to TARP when he suspended his campaign, he would have won, and we would have basically had four more years of Bush.
(Which would have been bad, but not suicidal)
Yeah, and trying to stop stem cell research and teaching kids that Darwin is in league with Satan isnt regressive? LOL!
I don't want it repealed. I'm a gun owner.
You're a jerk. I'm glad I'm not anything like you. If that was the case I'd be stuck in a constant state of self loathing. And conservatives want to repeal the 17th ammendment.
So, you're thinking of me stroking myself? Something you're trying to hide? Don't let the ant-gay army at Breitbart hear you say that. They might ship you off to post at Huffpo or worse daily Kos.
You're thinking of me stroking myself? Better not let anyone around here hear you say that. They'll ship you off to Huffpo or the Daily Kos.
HL
If it's in the soon to be bankrupt LATimes, it's by definition, suspect. But it's quite hillarious to what extent they will go to try to discredit Breitbart. This "conservative" Klinghoffer is about as formidable as trotting out David Stockman to discredit Milton Friedman..
The good part is, anyone who still reads the bankrupt Times, hasn't a clue as to who any of these players are..
So, they (Times) may as well have been "whistling Dixie" for all the good it did to further their cause of "hopeless chains"…
I hate to feed the trolls, but I stand by my remarks. As for Palin not answering simple questions the interviews were sliced and diced to remove all intelligent responses from her. Anyone – a-n-y-o-n-e – can be made to sound like a fool with a little editing.
Then you are on the wrong side since that's one of the Left's biggest goals
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just like with how the MSM smeared Palin's children and the jokes made about the kid with the horrible birth defect, etc. Let's not even consider how the MSM totally neglected to vet Obama and his association with radicals such as Jeramiah Wright, Bill Ayers, et al.
Add this to your exit data, troll.
McCain's campaign strategy (if you can call it that) SUCKED. "I'm suspending my campaign to deal with the fiscal crisis"????? Oh yeah, that's solid. The fact is, 2006 was a referendum on Bush's inability to defend and promote conservatism, which resulted in Conservatives staying home, and moderates breaking from the Republicans. The only way democrats could pick up Republican seats in 2008 was to have many of their candidates run to the RIGHT of their Republican opponents. That WAS a good strategy, at least for that election cycle. Now that pelosi, reid and obama have been exposed for the leftists that they are, most of those gains will most likely be lost in 2010. As for "some republicans" turning on Palin, no kidding. The establishment republicans also hated Reagan, so there's no surprise there.
In your original post you wrote:
"That's funny according to most polls 71 percent of the public doesnt want her to run for President and 41% find her unfavorable with only 26% liking her, the rest are undecided."
To that of course I'd respond that obama's unfavorability is running in the mid fifties, so 41% isn't all that bad.
As for Americans loving Jersey Shore, that alone explains the election of a slick marketed huckster to the presidency. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Snooki out-polls obama these days as well.
The more that the attack dogs of the left snarl the more I think they are worried about something. The way to really hurt someone is to not even acknowledge their existence,,,,,LA who?????, there still around????
With the literacy rates in LA due to the fine unionized educators, no one there can read anyway.
Andrew Breitbart has the majority of America on his side. He has nothing to worry about. Ignore these superfluous gnats. This is one of the most powerful Blogs in America! There are millions of connections here! We have the numbers! and we have the momentum! Go Andrew!
Did you skip the part of not wanting to use fetuses for stem cell research? And, as it were, that worked, out well. Our fine scientists have made great, and widely supported, gains in gaining mature stem cell advances.
And please don't used that tiresome Darwinism (19th century I might add) argument by the then religious zealots !
Really? I'm pro-choice, pro-universal healthcare, pro-gay marriage, for marijuana legalization, and I'm an agnostic. So I think I'm on the right side. I just happen to believe people have natural rights and one of those is to be able to defend yourself by any means necessary.
Bastard is in the Bible and O is one!
I can't believe a Christian like Kling would refuse to read this site or support AB because of some swearing! We are witnessing the death of our country and need every patriot we can get. This site is a thorn in Obama's side and should be supported as well as other conservative media. I don't have time to worry about an occasional swear bomb right now. I'm too concerned with how I'm going to house and feed my family if TSHTF (Mr. Kling, that's the "S" word right there.)
Really? The only reason democrats won is because the Conservative base stayed home? LOL! The referendum was on Bush's wars and corporsatism. Not his lack of defending conservatism! The base were the only support he had left. Where do you get this from? The country simply moved left. Democrats ran to the right of their opponents? LOL! Then how did they win? man, that is the most idiotic analysis I've ever heard. it's funny that after the election even Fox News admitted the country moved center left. It was a referendum on Conservatism and mainly on W.
Furthermore your analysis sounds like one long, lame excuse. Do you think that even if republicans win alot seats this Novemeber they are going to hold on to them? Not likely.
Yes it was a huge media conspiracy that edited her to not be able to answer a simple question like "what do you read?" Or "what's the Bush doctrine?" She admitted herself on Oprah that she did horrible in those interviews. was that also edited to make her say that? LOL! You guys have more excuses…
This is hilarious. You still can't admit you lost an election two years ago that you obviously lost! It's just a bevy of excuses as to why. The country hated W and the GOP and they love novelty which is what Obama was. Simple as that.
Doesnt take much to irritate conservatives. Show any kind of tolerance or disagree with any facet of their social agenda like being pro life, or in favor of stem cell research, and they hate you. Far as I could tell that's why they hate McCain.
oh poor misguided larryfullofcrap – how many conservatives do you actually know? I'm going to take a random guess and say none – I can't imagine any conservative having the time or patience to listen to your nonsense.
Here is the reality, if you can recognize truth when it hits you in the face –
conservatives DID stay home, true conservatives could not, would not vote for mclame, if you want to keep writing your bullcrap and try to dispell it, go for it, you are nothing more than a typical misguided/misinformed big mouth -
ha ha, kinda like how little it takes to irritate your feckless leader huh?! dang larry, try really hard to get some reality in your world – the dumb dems are the most pouty brats ever -
see, this is how the very simple minded fools like larry can live with their backwards ideas –
yea yea, it was because we just hated President George W. Bush, ah huh – yep, you must be a real genius!
love novely? ha ha, try again twit –
let me help ya out larrydingbat –
george soros, you know him, he signs your checks – poured 10 MILLION dollars into the hate George Bush campaign
all the deadbeats who hate anyone who has a dime more than they, fell for the gravy train they saw headed their way
all the war haters/tree huggers/anti-big business, anti-wall street/anti-anything, since your side is sooooo damn talented at showing hatred, just wanted novely?! ha ha, you kids are too damn funny!
Yes, well, the problem here isn't that your ignorant, but that you know so much that isn't true.
In 2006 the Conservatives were NOT excited by the mid term elections. So yes, they largely stayed home. The Independents were succumbing to the ugly vitriol coming from the left against anything "Republican." And yes, George Bush could not defend or promote conservatism, because he wasn't governing conservatively. And everybody knew it.
In 2008, mostly spearheaded by none other than rham emanuel, the democrats planned to increase their majority by having their candidates in conservative leaning districts RUN TO THE RIGHT of their Republican opponents. Hence the large number of "blue dogs" that won seats. But they have proven that color doesn't matter. It could be blue, red, green, or purple, a dog is still a dog. Most of them sold out their districts. And that's why they're going to go home in January.
Again, you're Out-Of-Your-Mind. Now you're suddenly listening to what Fox News says? Try to sell that crap somewhere else. The only thing you know about what Fox News says is what you read on HuffGlue.
I hate to break it to you. But the country NEVER moved to the left. We're still that good old center-right nation we've always been. Except now we've moved WAY to the right, as a natural reaction to the lurch to the left by that bunch of charlatans and crooks currently running DC.
We need to Dig in to this Racist Sherrod & her Hubby 's Past , Why is such a Perverted individual ,, Allowed to Work in a Government Job . Also Who gave Breitbart the Video and Not the Complete Video ,, in the first Place ? Something Smells Very Fishy in the Crap House .
"Who designed the designers" This is an age old question. Let me give you the age old response to it:
First, We all see that cause and effect are active in our world. The relationship is that a cause entails an effect.
Thomas Aquinas will now finish my argument for me: (Summa Theologiae Q2, article 3)
"We see in the world around us that there is an order of efficient causes. Nor is it ever found (in fact it is impossible) that something is its own efficient cause. If it were, it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Nevertheless, the order of efficient causes cannot proceed to infinity, for in any such order the first is cause of the middle (whether one or many) and the middle of the last. Without the cause, the effect does not follow. Thus, if the first cause did not exist, neither would the middle and last causes in the sequence. If, however, there were an infinite regression of efficient causes, there would be no first efficient cause and therefore no middle causes or final effects, which is obviously not the case. Thus it is necessary to posit some first efficient cause, which everyone calls "God." "
What's The Obama Doctrine?
All of the people and businesses that Obama and the propaganda media tell us to stay away from are doing better after the hit than before. It is free advertising for them.
How do I get on their hit list? I can use the extra money and fame.
The loss isn't the issue, it's the Bill of Goods he sold to obtain the win. And just as the polls indicate it's been a downward trend since January 2009. Even the government controlled media can't cover up for all his half-truths and lies. This spineless tool won't even hold a news conference, yet he'll go on 'The View' and yack it up with morons like you.
That's what I call hilarious.
I don't disagree with your notion. There is a a process for amending the constitution. 3/4 of state legislatures must agree to an amendment, after 2/3 of the states call for a constitutional convention to propose amendments (This process has never been used yet). The other process is for both houses of congress to agree to an amendment by a 2/3 Majority vote in both houses. Then 3/4 of state legislatures must agree to the amendment within a time period specified by congress.
One other issue, however, is the status of the 2nd amendment as being in "The bill of rights" as opposed to the 17th amendment which was passed much later in February, 1913. I think there is a much greater chance (even if small) that the 17th amendment would be repealed before the 2d amendment is repealed.
Who is this metrosexual nobody and why should I care? Really. Anybody?
the reason some want it repealed is to restore the original intent of the founding fathers. The senate was supposed to represent STATE interests. NOT citizens. With the 17th amendment, senators must pander to an ignorant electorate, and state interests get squished in the rush to feed the pigs at the public trough.
In normal debate where both parties respect one another, civil discussion can lead to productive results. However, when one side holds the other in utter contempt so as to spew lies and false accusations at the other, a different approach is required. Well-meaning conservatives like Klinghoffer believe that the left has respect for thoughtful members of the right who are capable of expressing themselves in a civil manner. I hate to break it … but the left views members of the right as utter evil, regardless of whether the intellectual conservative expresses himself with thoughtful eloquence. Attempts at civil discourse will get you published in the LA TImes, but will yield zero productive results. Desperate times call for bold measures. AB and the BIG sites are a step in the right direction. Please move out of the way Mr. Klinghoffer.
The Brietbart love fest is hilarious. He brought this on himself, why the sympathy?
I concur with both your and T. Aquinas conclusions. But In my simple mind, it is simply applying a logical conclusion because we can't foresee any other explanation. And we shouldn't stop searching for the Cause simply by applying 'human' logic. Hell in the grand scheme of things we have barely recognised our own existance !! again, it only serves to highlight our limited ability to see that which cannot be seen, or understand that which may be beyond our current ability to understand based soley on our limited, and quite recent exposure to what the universe hides from us. If there is a god, and that entity decides the time is right for us to know the true reality (whats it all means) I contend science will offer that final enlightenment.
No quarter was asked………………………………and none was given.
We settle for nothing less than unconditional surrender.
Suck on that for a while warglory. Nice devil horns asshat.
I think Breitbart should sue every media outlet that stated the video was edited. It wasn't, it was an excerpt of a longer video (that he may not even had access to). Stating that it was edited has connotations that Breitbart edited the video to present Sherrod in as poor a light as possible. I would say he has a better case than Sherrod, but I'm not a lawyer.
I have no love for Brietbart…just lots of respect! For the LA Times…no respect…just contempt!
Seems like he's doing a pretty good job of toxifying himself.
And yet a whole bunch of anonymous twits like yourself keep coming here squawking ludicrous claims about him over and over and over…. almost as if you aren't quite certain he can do it himself.
Why is logic logical? Why does the world make sense at all? The early Christians believe it made sense precisely because there was a God who made a creation that enabled us to explore and learn.
Science was developed by religious people. I've never understood why Philosophical Materialism crept in and demarcated between the two. After all, not all reality is material. If you don't believe it, ask yourself what are the height, width and length of your thoughts? Not the electrical representations of your thoughts (A picture of a mountain, is not a mountain), but the actual dimensions. There is more to reality than just materialism, and if we restrict science to such, we will never understand the whole Truth.
Personally, I don't think that God is as concerned with 'words' as He is with actions…words are just that…words..
Leave it to the Times to adhere to an Arabic proverb: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Let the LA Times release of audio tape of Obama talking with the Palestian terrorist several years ago. Why do thye keep it in a safe? What are you scared of Times?
Let's see, the NY SLIMES, the LA SLIMES, HUFFING post, newsWEAK, SLIME magazine. Why would anyone believe that these libRETARDED publications claim to be news. I'll take and TRUST Andrew Breitbart anyday over those PATHETIC excuses for information.
I distrust "born again" conservative stories since they imply that people naturally start life as liberals. Conservatism expresses itself in the day to day language of Americans who love their country, believe in it's founding principles, and understand that is our unique freedom that makes this country great.
The true conservative speaks with passion when speaking about our core principles and need not rely on talking points, since that understanding comes from the American heart. Reagan spoke to that American spirit, and all who heard him knew instinctively that they were listening to a man that loved his country more than life itself.
I hear that passion when Breitbart speaks. Reagan didn't always get it right and I doubt that Andrew is any different in that regard. Conservatism comes from the core, you can't fake it!
Don't believe me? Just listen to the John McCain's of this world struggle to sound like conservatives! I don't hear that in Klinghoffer, either.
I also have to laugh at a grown man using the the word 'potty.'
I used that word when I was potty training my youngins'.
Otherwise, it's not a word I would use in a political article if I wanted to be taken seriously.
With all due respect, there really ARE some liberal creationists. "Demagogue." There's that word again. The new talking point of the left. This guy is a plant. Why else would he be given a full column in the LA Times.
If he was a real, conservative creationist his picture wouldn't have seen the light of day. Yes, I really do think the LSM would "make up" a story to fit their narrative.
Breitbart laid down the gauntlet against these journo types. I am sure he is expecting a thrashing in the media. It goes with the territory. And for the record, AB did nothing wrong in the Sherrod video expose. Cut off or not, every thinking person knew what that video was about so the LSM can try to demonize him all they want. Common sense will win out at the end of the day.
Is that the best they can come up with? The error ridden rantings of a religious bigot and scientific joke? I bet Breitbart is shaking in his… flip flops.
So this is how we protect Breitbart? By blaming other people for his problems? Don't you always accuse liberals and 'statists" of doing that? What happpened to personal responsibility?
"figures on TV, radio and the Internet who make their money by stirring fears and resentments. With its descent to baiting blacks, Mexicans and Muslims, its accommodation of conspiracy theories and an increasing nastiness and vulgarity, the conservative movement has undergone a shift toward demagoguery and hucksterism." Sounds like he is describing PuffHo, Daily Krap, Fecal Matters for American and the rest of the left wing sites.
The way that they're going after Breitbart is the way that they came after us at our rallies and in the town halls last summer. It's the same as what they've been doing to Sara Palin, and M. Bachman and Sharon Angle. They want us all to shut up. We scare them. And we are going to kick their a$$e$ in less than 90 days and they KNOW it!
You must be logged in to post a comment.