What this brother needs is a nice tongue lashing from thor, our resident expert on other people’s grubby-hearted racism.
Or maybe a basketball.
You know — whatever it takes to get his black ass back out of Tara and back onto the plantation. Or the black top.
fO! shizzle!
(h/t STACLU)
Check out the commenter who calls this guy a “house nigga” — the impetus for the plantation line in the post.
I’ve got $100 says the poster of that comment is an 18-35 white guy with a half dozen Starbucks gift cards. Takers?
Hey Jeff, the profile says 35 years of age.
So, I’ll take that bet.
Not only is she lying about her age (she’s really 42-43), methinks he’s really a she.
Brave she, using “douche” in her name. To throw us off the track, no doubt. Clever minx.
this….bruthah…..talks….waaaaaaaay……too……slow……
boooooooooooorrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiigggggg
i wonder what he could possibly say to teh highly educated like me an dave brooks?
whatever it takes to get his black ass back out of Tara and back onto the plantation or the black top.
I’ll bet Jill at Feministe takes your statement above out of context. And then you’ll see some real fucked up comments.
Maybe Jill would be better off tracking down that “douche” commenter and asking it why this gentleman’s opinions about Black Liberation Theology — and about those who call people who don’t support Obama “racists” as a disingenuous, opportunistic, and revolting line of attack — makes him some sort of Uncle Tom.
Why, it’s almost as if blacks are supposed to think and vote a certain way!
Too bad this dude isn’t white. Jane Hamsher probably could have blackfaced him pretty nicely, I bet — maybe even thrown a pair of tap shoes on him.
Nishi —
I’m just guessing here, but howsabout, “no thank you. Just the cheeseburger will be all, please.”
Yeah……but he’s not articulate.
I think he’s as effed up as Ward Churchill. Someone tell me how it’s different for Obama to claim “black” status when his upbringing and bloodline makes him more white than black. He “claims” it for political power because he’s too weak to take on an issue on its blank, uncolored face. He’s nothing without his cloaking device of blackness.
The gentleman in the video did look clean, though. And if you listen closely, he sounds almost like Vivian Leigh.
i wonder what he could possibly say to teh highly educated like me an dave brooks?
nishi counting more cohorts here?
this….bruthah…..talks….waaaaaaaay……too……slow……
Here’s a fast-talking charismatic speaker for you. He was real good at connecting to the “youth vote” too, as you can see. They loved him!
How’s that Warren Christopher fangirl thing working out, btw?
LOL.
He’s nothing without his cloaking device of blackness.
Obama, supported by Romulans everywhere.
“no thank you. Just the cheeseburger will be all, please.â€Â
/beams at Jeff
exshually, me an Dave both have jobs already.
;)
sowwy Joan, the cloaking device is just part of O!’s killer evolutionary fitness for me.
;)
Denouncements all around!
exshually, me an Dave both have jobs already.
“exshually”, Dave “works” for a company that’s worth less than the value of the real estate it occupies, so I wouldn’t count on being around long enough to draw a pension if I were him.
I’m betting you’ll have gone through quite a few by then, too.
Denouncement factor six! Engage!
Obama, supported by Romulans everywhere.
…and intellectually invisible to media everywhere. They don’t have a clue as to where he actually stands on an issue, what he actually believes about anything. He’s just magically, “black.”
Joan, he’s black because he has one drop of black blood or more.
You guyz made the rules.
SBP, well, there is always royalties.
;)
Obama, supported by Romulans everywhere.
…and intellectually invisible to media everywhere. They don’t have a clue as to where he actually stands on an issue, what he actually believes about anything. He’s just magically, “black.â€Â
He may have a hologram deck somewhere!
If, as nishi argues, the current fashion of elevating a candidate for their perceived historical travails (I’m not sure Obama has had many based on his skin color, nor does it seem Michelle has been much bothered by it) is part of a positive trend in evolution and evolutionary “fitness,” then she is, in fact, claiming that evolution favors an anti-Enlightenment intellectual paradigm, one that, because it reduces the individual to a member of a given tribe, is anti-individualist and pro-“progressive.”
Or, to put it another way, nishi sees the US as an evolutionary failure, politically and socially speaking.
Incidentally, nishi, it was those with a misunderstanding of “race” who put the one drop rule into effect, and people like me (unlike, say, people like you and Steve Sailer, and now Obama himself) who have been trying to affect a post-racial society.
You aren’t just playing by other people’s poorly conceived rules. You are embracing them. And that’s rather sad.
Joan, he’s black because he has one drop of black blood or more.
You guyz made the rules
Funny, I don’t remember non-leftists being the ones calling Dr. Rice, T. Sowell, Michael Steele, Justice Thomas, et al, Inauthentic Blacks/house slaves/oreos/Sambo/Uncle Toms …..
O! is “black” because that is what he claims he is.
Just like a biological female can be pregnant and claim to be a “man” and we must “respect” the claim and refer to her as “he”.
nishi sees the US as an evolutionary failure, politically and socially speaking.
hahahaha
no, Master, it is a work in progress.
everything evolves.
You guyz made the rules.
Liar.
SBP, well, there is always royalties.
Yeah, an Amazon.com sales rank of 288,670 is the key to riches for sure. Why, he’ll probably be able to afford to eat the brand-name dog food rather than the store brand.
Moron.
Heh
By my count, the NYT has canned nearly 2,000 newsroom workers this decade. And circulation just keeps heading down….
except rocks.
;)
i thot u might appreciate this, Master.
Or, to put it another way, nishi sees the US as an evolutionary failure, politically and socially speaking.
Metamorphic rock.
This seems about right to me.
What’s your point? You don’t need to be a Biblical literalist to believe that the ethics of judeo christian religions as filtered through the Enlightenment were a good framework for setting out natural rights.
I think the Framers intentionally set out to weaken religion.
That would harpoon the point of many of your commetariat that “our nation is founded on judeo-xian ethics”.
meaning that the judeo-xians get to impose their morals on the rest of us.
Howso? Ethics isn’t religion.
Instead of pretending tangential neighbors and clergy speak for what’s in Obama’s heart, I prefer to listen to the man (and Obama is the muth’afukin’ man!) and accept his words, both written and communicated verbally, as to what he believes.
Your singular arguments toward Barack Obama are weak and, I believe, reflect your/a auto-reflexive disdain toward post-modern progressivism, especially the commercial enterprise of selling group-identity theories. Unfortunately you fail your own arguments of individualism and intentionalism when group-indentifying Obama, or, for sake of clarity, to the terminal extent you allow Karl to do. The rhetorical uses and misuses of group-association bullshit is an untoward game, or so you claim when it suits your arguments, not so much when you employ said same game.
Aristotle wrote a little book called Rhetoric, maybe you’ve heard of it. Obama’s “epideictic” rhetoric is what all politicians do, and the good ones do it well, as does he. That you, of all people, would not give the man the smallest a tip of your hat for his abilities to speak to an ethos or for his epistolary talents indicates to me you’ve fallen victim to what you pretend to despise most, namely, indexing an individual subordinate to his/her group identity, mostly political group identity in this case.
In other words, I await the day you just come out and admit it like a man – that this Obama-cat throws the word down very well, and it’s slightly refreshing. Agree or disagree with him, this is the type of person America needs and wants to run for public office. One can only assume many of the arguments here on PW that paint Obama as a determined know-nothing are grand conclusions borne out of petty spite toward his group identity. Is the goal of all of your anti-Obama missives to “mummify”, as Nietzsche called it, our language and culture toward one politically preferred group over another? How about just enjoying the game, warrior, and being a good sport for the sake it all.
of it all.
Chicago stinks like a whorehouse at low tide.
And Obama makes it smell like a rose.
What a load of horseshit. Obama identifies Obama by way of a constellation of his friends, mentors, spiritual advisors, etc. That you jump wildly from saying you believe what he says, to wanting me to tip my hat for his mastery at not saying what he truly believes — which you excuse because you think it part of some ethos that can’t or shouldn’t be changed — for the sake of political expediency, tells me you have no idea why you support the guy other than you happen to like him. Or that maybe, like nishi, you think him the pinnacle of political evolution.
By the way, intentionalism is not tied to what a speaker says, but rather what said speaker means. People can lie. They can satirize. They can parody. I happen to think Obama is a fraud. You can disagree with the way I interpret him, but the fact that he’s been constantly shifting his positions of late (to the hysterics of the Greenwalds) suggests to me that I might be interpreting him more ably than you.
To “admit” something I’d have to believe it. And I don’t believe he’s at all “refreshing.” And why am I supposed to concede that, even if I disagree with him, he is the kind of man “America needs and wants to run for public office”? That’s your opinion, and I happen to think he represents everything wrong with the political culture in this country. See, eg., Emil Jones and Barack.
I have no spite toward his “identity group,” unless by identity group you happen to mean progressives, who, though they can certainly be gathered into an identity group, nevertheless espouse a governing philosophy. And it is the philosophy that I abhor.
Get used to it. Because it ain’t going anywhere. And anyone who votes for a progressive and pretends to be for individualism is either a liar or a fucking dunce.
He’s a hot air balloon and a fraud. It aint gonna be pretty when it crashes. Wait til the Democraps find out that their party has been hijacked by the Daley machine.
In some cases they can be both.
Jeff….”homosexuality is bad” is religion.
pure and simple.
And anyone who votes for a progressive and pretends to be for individualism is either a liar or a fucking dunce.
wow, thats harsh.
like, half the country?
i just had a buncha ppl quote the bible at me at Volokh stating explicitly that homosexuality is evil.
Instead of pretending tangential neighbors and clergy speak for what’s in Obama’s heart, I prefer to listen to the man (and Obama is the muth’afukin’ man!) and accept his words, both written and communicated verbally, as to what he believes.
Why should we accept his words where they are belied by his behavior?
Otherwise, shouldn’t Jim Bakker still be in business?
So?
i just had a buncha ppl quote the bible at me at Volokh stating explicitly that homosexuality is evil.
Isn’t that your goal? Now you can call them twodigit theocon evolutionary losers! Doesn’t that validate your highly educated view of yourself?
And anyone who votes for a progressive and pretends to be for individualism is either a liar or a fucking dunce.
wow, thats harsh
truth is a little hard for you to handle?
Imagine that.
i just had a buncha ppl quote the bible at me at Volokh stating explicitly that homosexuality is evil.
This thread isn’t about homosexuality.
While we’re at it, it’s not about genetic engineering, Mormon theocon patriarchy daddies, or any of the other subjects you obsess about.
She’s getting ready to change the subject with meme #2. I think. I haven’t seen the meme chart.
You know, like in his books.
(Never mind the fact that one of them was titled after a sermon given by his crackpot, racist, America-hating pastor of twenty-some years.)
“Comment by nishizonoshinji on 6/22 @ 8:14 pm #
Joan, he’s black because he has one drop of black blood or more.
You guyz made the rules.”
Democrats made that rule.
Not us guyz(sic).
like, half the country?
Surely your GRRRRLLLLLJEENIUS statistical expertise has acquainted you with the fact that half the population will lie below the median IQ?
And the word is “Judeo-Christian”, you retarded marmoset.
“Comment by nishizonoshinji on 6/22 @ 8:43 pm #
I think the Framers intentionally set out to weaken religion.”
The Founders were relifious believers, you retarded marmoset.
Comment by thor on 6/22 @ 8:46 pm #
If you get an erection lasting for more than four hours, seek immediate medical help.
haha, blatant attempt at a threadjack.
i admit it.
that bruthah was soooo incredibly sloow.
i barely got thru half of the first one.
and theres like ……5??
who the hella is gonna sit thru all those?
im just givin Jeff fodder for a future post.
i hope.
Actually, nishi is right. I forgot the opportunists and the rote voters. Although the former you might lump in with liars.
And of course, not all Democrats are progressives. Which I’ve noted about a gajillion times. But if they choose to vote for a progressive candidate because they think s/he is the worse of two evils, they are casting a vote for someone whose ideology is at odds with classical liberal belief.
Powered by Key West rum, I threw it down and I stick to what hit the floor. Obama is no fucking dunce, dunce, nor am I. Obama, if you caught any of his lectures at the University of Chicago, is a standard American historian of constitutional law. The fuck! My kind of constellation! What kind of friends did he run around with in constitutional lecturer circles? Square you rhetoric, because I’m certain he has friends outside the propaganda name-association merry-go-round the r-wing pundits blather of.
He’s not a typical “progressive” nor a contemporary apologist for Victorian England as a bloodsoaked shameless meatgrinder of Imperialism, nor does he say that of America. Respect that he might punch you in your smug snout in a debate, that’s what healthy debate is about.
I will vote for a rugged individualist such as Obama. He’s not afraid to shake the hand of Chomsky or Buckley, and if were to call Chomsky a dunce, other than politically, I’d laugh in your face at your professional jealousy.
I’d vote for you too, but not until you apologize for implying I’m a fuckin’ dunce. Foul de la Personal!
Obama as individual, suck on it.
The Founders were relifious believers, you retarded marmoset.
Read the essay linked at #27.
Now I’m done for the evening. I have a Law and Order Criminal Intent I recorded, and a “Californication” season one box set that is crying out for my attention.
Plus, like, Scotch.
Incidentally, I’ll be gone for a week starting on Wednesday. Heading to Chicago. If anybody here is from out that way and can get reservations at Stephanie’s restaurant, please, invite me.
Obama’s the easiest thing in the world is all.
I will vote for a
rugged individualistwarmed-over Jimmy Carter with a tan such as Obama.There. Fixed that for ya.
Did’ja read this one. Thor? http://tinyurl.com/5scqsh
Having you laugh in my face is really of no small moment to me, thor. After all, I could just break out into the theme from Colors and win you right back over.
“I am a nighmare walking, psychopath talking, king of the jungle just a gansta stalking….”
Mmm. My dick is already hard thinking about my street cred.
Please no hardening of the penises in the Baracky threads. I’m just not comfortable with that.
Obama, if you caught any of his lectures at the University of Chicago, is a standard American historian of constitutional law.
No he isn’t. The standard American Constitutional law position is that the role of judges is to interpret the law. Here is Obama’s criteria for selecting judges:
who the hella is gonna sit thru all those?
Someone with an attention span exceeding that of a fruitfly.
Hint: not you.
Thanks for that link, Sdferr. Some interesting stuff on that site.
I’ve a vestige of conscience. That’s all.
Sing me a theme song. A long as you don’t recite “In the field, I’m the absence of field” or any other faggy lines from a Strand poem then go ahead and give it your best shot at making me feel like the unworthiest chimp in the jungle.
I like Obama.
De nada, I picked it up from powerline guys. They linked a newer article as well.
Nishi, of all people, criticizing someones communication skills.
Bitch! you bent the needle on my irony meter!
No, really? You keep your adulation so close to the vest, it’s hard to tell sometimes.
Me, I don’t like or dislike the guy. Don’t know him. But as a candidate, I have no use for him — and the only use I have for McCain is that he ain’t Obama.
Which doesn’t mean I’ll vote for him, though.
(PS I’d be watching my stories right now if my wife would finish up with 300. Wayne Brady is might gonna have to slap a bitch.)
But you doubt whether my reasons of liking Obama are worthy reasons, how could they be, after all, we all think in unison!
“Constellations reveal themselves one star at at time.”
I’m the man you couldn’t hang.
To some it is, sure. But not supporting same sex marriage is not necessarily so. And judeo christian ethics as run through the Enlightenment has given us a country in which gays and lesbians can live openly, and are, in many ways, culturally celebrated.
So again, I’m not sure I’m getting your point.
At any rate, 300 is over. The teevee is mine. See you all tomorrow for a new “provocateurism” thread. No traffic, sure. But at least it can be intellectually stimulating.
“I will vote for a rugged individualist such as Obama.”
Hmmm….
An individualist Marxist.
It’s a good thing I got my head all duct taped, otherwise it would have exploded.
The fuck do you, O’Brian, know about Marxism and/or who is and who isn’t?
Some of those Marxist are mighty good men, some!, and I’d give my life for ’em as men. For you fighting for the right to wag your tongue is as far gone as the long days of Robespierre.
Cheap intellectualism, I read a thousand lines and spunked on ’em all.
Thank you Master.
;)
Who is the “we all” who think in unison? As to doubting that your reasons for liking Obama are worthy, I have no doubt that YOU think they are (and I’m not even clear what those reasons are — for all the shit you fling, all I’ve managed to get out of you is that you think he’s a good speaker, and the kind of guy this country needs. Here’s a question for you: why does this country need Him?). That aside, because I don’t see ANY worthy reasons for supporting the guy for president, it follows that I think you and those who support Him are wrong, and that (you being one such person) your reasons are, of necessity, unworthy.
Nothing personal. Just the way the math plays out.
Nishi is not very good with Boolean operators. I heard once she got caught in a Venn diagram and had to chew her pinkie toe off.
It was Obama or the Clinton-hicks? Oh, fuck me for picking Obama over the impeached liars. There are no instructions in a manual, it’s fluid, the blues are required, so is heavy drinking and moving goal posts.
I invested in O early, as I did with McCain. Give me a moment…. Yes, exact is what you’d call that.
There is no perfection but we learn to survive the paradoxes.
Please no chewing of the toes in the… you know what? Nevermind.
And judeo christian ethics as run through the Enlightenment has given us a country in which gays and lesbians can live openly, and are, in many ways, culturally celebrated.
The phrase “Judeo Christian ethics” is so vague as to be meaningless in terms of political philosophy. Do you mean to say that our political freedoms are somehow derived from the Golden Rule?
I think the phrase “Christian Nation” has taken on an embarrassing taint of association with various white supremicis movements, and so “Judeo Christian ethics” is a euphemistic or coded way to make the same assertion.
In fact the logic of our political legacy does not depend up orthodox Christianity, and the essay at #27 makes a convincing argument that, to the extent that the founding documents referenced a theistic civil religion, that civil religion was actually in tension with orthodox Christianity.
Nice touch with the capital Him, theocon.
Throw the ‘dillo or he’ll throw you.
Axiomatic theory, I’m going to go out on a limb and advise you to dust your set theory textbook off because I’m going to wage heavy that I own you there.
When you want to know how the math plays out, ask.
Barack Obama: “…I face this challenge with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people … . I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal … . This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation. …”
Remake this great nation. Remake this great… Remake this… Remake…
Rem… R…
Selling the clouds, the O! man is the tail of a hornet.
Give it to him. That’s how you win.
Oh, Thor, coming up on magic 700 buddy, best be on alert.
What the hell are you drinking, thor? You’re making even less sense than usual.
Nevermind that you never read either of his books. Courage, summons it. Break a spine, sleepwalker.
Axiomatic theory, I’m going to go out on a limb and advise you to dust your set theory textbook off because I’m going to wage heavy that I own you there.
Prove that the set of recursively enumerable languages is closed under intersection and union, but not under complementation.
Bring it, bitch.
Rum and juice.
The human tragedy exists out of necessity. If Obama is the main character – forgot his name – in Balzac’s Lost Illusions then let him be.
If the American Dream is sinking, learn how to fuckin’ swim.
Wouldn’t the complementation set approach infinity?
“I’m the man you couldn’t hang.”
You’re no man–you’re a chimp with a personal library. Anybody’s whose seen your posts on this blog lately would be hard pressed to find any examples of coherent logic, argumentation, or grasp of facts. I’ve seen more intellectual and emotional maturity from fifth-graders.
“Some of those Marxist are mighty good men, some!, and I’d give my life for ‘em as men.”
Those same Marxists are espousing a philosophy that is responsible for the suffering and deaths of millions of people over the last 100 years. Arguing that a Marxist is a good man is like arguing that most plantation owners were compassionate towards their slaves.
Complement of an individual language in the set, not the complement of the entire set.
Closure here means that f A and B are recursively enumerable languages, then the Language I formed by their intersection (i.e., the strings that are in both languages) and the language U (the strings that are in either language) are both recursively enumerable languages. However, the language C, consisting of the strings which are not in A, may not be a recursively enumerable language.
It’s okay if any of the languages are (countably) infinite, actually.
Meh, why should I bother? I’m guessing the themes are, in no particular order:
1. Hope
2. Change
3. “That’s not the __________ I knew.”
4. “Present.”
Church’s theory and others, lattice and group theory, I’m familiar with but not learned. Sorry, maybe you’d like I to ask you a few “bring it-s”?
I’m familiar with but not learned.
translation: You p’wned me.
Church’s theory and others, lattice and group theory, I’m familiar with but not learned.
Got it. So you can’t do it.
Sorry, maybe you’d like I to ask you a few “bring it-s�
If you wish. However, I’m not the one who wagered to “own” anyone else. Unlike you and nishi, I’m quite aware that don’t know everything there is to know about mathematics, not even the subfields that I’ve studied the most.
Let me guess: did undergrad at a ‘prestige’ school, yes?
Aww, SPB has his textbook out. Cute.
Yep, Ted Nugent, I’d have to cut you open and kick you in the face as you watched you guts spill out on the floor if you tried to stop them Marxists from espousing their theories that killed millions. Ya see, I believe in our Constitution and freedom of speech.
Aww, SPB has his textbook out. Cute.
I don’t think you’ll find that proof in a textbook, thor, though of course it could be in one or another(it’s given as a problem in several common ones, that I know for a fact). I’m sure I have my notes.
Bedtime now.
No, SPB, I’m a simple jolly grad-school douche, though some think I’m in it for the free library access and really never plan on graduating, at a poorly-funded state school filled with Marxist Literary Theorists.
You might need some math skills to understand my thesis statements theories. I’m into fuzzy logic theories and their applications to natural language. It’s a game I play, because nobody grades you down when they can’t figure out what the fuck you’re talking about, which isn’t a hard thing to pull off in the Humanities.
“In other words, I await the day you just come out and admit it like a man – that this Obama-cat throws the word down very well, and it’s slightly refreshing.”
I have witnessed more than one grifter in action. While I can ruefully admire professionalism and a job well done on an objective plane, that in itself carries no burden of respecting the criminal behind the criminal act.
By all indications Mr. Obama is shaping up to be someone that would be a better fit behind some alderman’s desk in Chicago than a U.S. senator, much less a president. Or just maybe I’ve been a little slow on the uptake as far as what passes for “fit” any more in our halls of power.
I’ve had “refreshing”, too. Enjoyed the moment, but the shots and the month’s worth of tetracycline afterward kind of soured the memory.
They don’t make a drug to cure what Obama carries into our lives.
Aldo
Of all the deliberately misunderstood phrases out there, “Christian Nation” has got to rank near the top …for the reason you cite – as some sort of “declaration” of white supremacist theocracy.
The anti-religious absolutely love to push that meme. Sort of like the mendacious who equate “Swiftboating” with lying.
When people of good will use “Christian Nation” they are NOT talking about the government or American law. They are talking about the people, heritage and tradition. It is akin to what Christians mean when they talk about “the church” — not a building, or location or thing but the people united in faith. The vast majority of Americans identify as Christian, even if many of those are not regular members of any denomination. Our traditions and heritage, from Catholic California to abolisionist Quakers, from religous worship in the Capitol to Christmas parades, national days of prayer and even Sheriff John leading his lunch brigade viewers in grace before lunch and cartoon viewing, we are a Christian Nation, even as our government is Constitutionally neutral.
The attempt by rabid secularists to Bowdlerize our religious history (threatening lawsuits against cities and counties that dare have a cross in city/county seals – see Los Angeles and Redlands) is as cynically revisionist as airbrushing FDR’s cigarette from his pictures in history books.
O! the irony from the jolly grad-school douche.
O/T, but George Carlin died this evening.
Respect that he might punch you in your smug snout in a debate, that’s what healthy debate is about.
That is why he is so fired up about debating, McCain, huh?
I will vote for a rugged individualist such as Obama.
See, the thing about satire is it has to be reasonably, remotely believable. That is just fucking silly.
darleen, read the article at #27
“Yep, Ted Nugent, I’d have to cut you open and kick you in the face as you watched you guts spill out on the floor if you tried to stop them Marxists from espousing their theories that killed millions.”
You couldn’t break the seal on a container of Dannon’s yogurt, much less a human being’s body. Funny how the internet turns complete sponges in real life into the Incredible Hulk in cyberspace.
And where did I ever propose that their speech should be stifled? You talk a lot of shit about your education, please provide a direct quote. While you’re at it, find your lost skills at reading comprehension as well.
You did manage to validate my point that you’re nothing more than a chimp with a personal library, though. So thanks for that.
#
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 6/22 @ 11:10 pm #
Aww, SPB has his textbook out. Cute.
I don’t think you’ll find that proof in a textbook, thor, though of course it could be in one or another(it’s given as a problem in several common ones, that I know for a fact). I’m sure I have my notes.
Bedtime now.
Ah, not man enough to admit that someone who sees the word recursive and responds with Church’s formula might know a thing or two of predicate calculus. You’re a pussy. Bitterly cling to those notes!
…and thor still can’t do it.
#107 nishi
so?
Nah, Nugent, I’m just making the point that you’re an unintelligible Christian-fascist pussy who doesn’t understand the Constitution.
Cluster analysis, pattern recognition, similarity relations, inexact matrices, it’s all the basics of data mining and that’s the goal; we’re going to feed you exactly what you want to hear through speech identification acceptance science. We will say all the things you want to hear and we’ll charge your credit cards all along the way.
You’re making me WET, thor. The thought of you stroking yourself like that, to visions of yourself doing yourself! Mmmmm.
Aldo —
I don’t understand what’s so hard for you to understand. Religion of the Judeo-Christian lineage — filled with homilies and morality plays — met Enlightenment rationalism and political theory. The ethics stayed, only they were (for some) no longer attributable to a specific bearded white dude in the sky. A performative for the freedom of religion. Here, we get back to the idea of First Cause. I think the framers believed in a First Cause, were happy enough to call that First Cause God, and suggest that it is by dint of this First Cause that rights are inalienable, coming from a creator. Natural rights.
If they came by way of man — were in fact materialist — they would not be natural rights. Right?
I wonder if thor will ever figure out that all the stupid ass macho internet tough guy posturing in the world still isn’t going to compensate for the fact his candidate is the biggest coward in American politics since, uh, since, well, since the last Democrat to run for President.
Little thor:
There is no perfection but we [rugged individualists”] learn to survive the paradoxes.
Where can I git me a paternity test?
Oh, and thor? If you keep attacking the commenters here, you can sod off. Either interact respectfully or go find a cluster that appreciates your particular genius.
You know, the one that has you pulling for a guy whose policy talk you seem never to defend. Instead, you spend your time defending him by attacking his detractors, even as you pretend that those detractors aren’t paying attention to the substance of Barack’s campaign, which, again, you studiously ignore.
Lots of talk of pussies and Christianists and right wingers and you being able to swing your cock around like a studded maple bat, though. My swivel chair, it is damp.
One day! I swear! I’ll develop the language recognition software that’ll mimic the perfect PW-comment-bot! You wait.
Patterns, clusters, everyday language as first order logic, you wait – you’ll love my agreeble-bot, but not what lurks behind it. I am evil, OBAMA-bad.
How tedious the world must be for you thor, having to endure those who aren’t fit to lick your sack. And yet they have healthcare.
IT’S SO FUCKING UNFAIR! QUICK, ROUND ME UP SOME GYPSIES! I’LL FIRE UP THE HIBATCHI!
I am evil, OBAMA-bad.
jesus, thor, are you typing from your GROSS treehouse?
THE GYPSIES WILL BURN! THEY MUST BURN!
#101 Darleen – Yes, read #27. My #80 was a reply to Jeff’s #72, in which he seemed to be implying that our political system is based on “judeo christian ethics as run through the Enlightenment,” whatever that means.
If I understood Jeff correctly (and in fairness his comment seemed to be a quick toss-off as he was leaving) he WAS referring to government and law, not cultural heritage and tradition.
Even in the context of historical heritage I think the “Christian Nation” meme is over-reaching. I am sympathetic to your desire to push back against the people who would airbrush the influence of Christianity from the historical record, but I admit to getting uncomfortable when people start aggressively pushing the Christian Nation meme in other contexts. Whether we ever really were a Christian nation in the past is arguable on several levels, but we are not any more, so introducing the meme when debating current or future public policy comes off as bullying.
Baracky is tearing us apart. I think he might could be evil. This would be worrisome, if true.
Whether we ever really were a Christian nation in the past is arguable on several levels, but we are not any more, so introducing the meme when debating current or future public policy comes off as bullying.
Dude, I normally enjoy your posts, but that is just silly. You think it is arguable that we were founded as a Christian nation?
darleen, read the article at #27
And then check this out.
READ 27 BMOE!
Thing is, I read it. Nothing I haven’t read before.
Me attack commentors? That’s a sad twist on reality. I return fire. And for that I must pay.
Seriously, you want the place to sink into a one-way street of fanaticism? I thought that was the big turn off of Communism and such, in other words, make same noise or you chip slag in the gulag.
Twas you who called me out, not the other way around.
THOR IS TEH VICTIMZ!!!!1!!!!!!111!!!!
sorry, was looking at the first picture and relized, “OMG, MASONS!!!” and had to quit. ;D
That’s right. Jeff is the woolly mammoth and I’m the grass. He’s huge!
However, the God to whom America’s founders appealed  the individual rights granting Nature’s God  arguably was not the Biblical or Christian God. For one, the Biblical God does not grant men unalienable individual rights, certainly not a right to political liberty while the God of the American founding did. Further, on matters of religious toleration, the God of the American founding was not a “jealous†God but granted men an unalienable right to worship, in Jefferson’s words no God or twenty gods.
Wow. It is almost like God was evolving or something.
Yeah. All those 600+ comment threads? A clever ruse to hide the echochamber I’m after. But looks like you’re on to me. Confound your genius!
Called you out? You mean like, you got served?
It’s simple: Stop calling people things like Christian fascist pussies and racists unless you have a compelling argument to support the indictment. Otherwise, you’re just another aggravation that I don’t need.
but we are not any more
Even if I were to agree, I would then say we are much poorer for it.
I am sympathetic to your desire to push back against the people who would airbrush the influence of Christianity from the historical record
You might then consider not apologizing for them.
Listen, thor. If you want to make your bones by “breaking” from this site, then running off and getting you some of that mad John Cole money for having the bravery to snout out the racist truffles, fine. Just get on with it.
You’re overplaying the bit.
I’m going to watch some tv. I’ve had enough of this bullshit to last me an entire lifetime.
Sorry Jeff, I wrote #119 before I saw #111.
I think the framers believed in a First Cause, were happy enough to call that First Cause God, and suggest that it is by dint of this First Cause that rights are inalienable, coming from a creator. Natural rights.
This is true. The argument that was developed at Nishi’s link was that the framers’ theism was not all that compatible with orthodox Christianity.
Also, Nozick developed a coherent system of natural rights consistent with the framers’ vision that does not depend upon the assumption of a deity, and indeed the essay Nishi links considers the possibility that Locke himself was a “secret atheist” who dressed up Hobbesian ideas in religious language.
I am not making a case for atheism here. I am simply pointing out that our political system does not logically or philosophically depend upon Christianity. If one buys Nozick’s arguments it does not even depend on theism, but if one wants to assume a deity any of the Hindu avatars will suffice as well as the Christian God.
I was driving around with a friend kind of shopping and stuff over in the Oaks of Sherman today and we got turned around cause of some construction and as we came up to a corner to get back on Ventura out the window to my right there were a bunch of people, mostly women and thin but not particularly attractive and the few guys all had beards and all these ones were all white. They were holding signs for Baracky.
The girl I was in the car with honked and made some sort of right on hand gesture I’d never seen her make before and really it didn’t look right how she did it. But anyway as we pulled even with them and turned the corner we saw it was a bake sale for Baracky. Yay cookies I guess, but here’s the weird part. The cookie or whatever table was maybe 20 feet away from the corner, and there were about twenty people behind that. These people were all black people. So this little fundraiser thinger was all self-segregatey. They sure looked proud of themselves though. Like they were very much doing what was right.
After that we went to Coffee Bean and I tried the new yogurt ice blended drink thinger but I didn’t like it very much and we just sat on a bench and watched large-breasted Armenian women walk from store to store.
“Nah, Nugent, I’m just making the point that you’re an unintelligible Christian-fascist pussy who doesn’t understand the Constitution.”
Well, considering that I’m an agnostic and you’re arguing a point that wasn’t even made by me in the first place, your projection of “unintelligible” is highly amusing to say the least. The fact that you wilted in the face of a challenge to provide a direct citation of an assertion by me that I supported silencing Marxists merely reinforces my argument that you’re a chimp with a personal library. You talk a lot of shit, but when confronted with an actual academic challenge, you chickened out and came back by repeating the same non-existent point. And you assert that WE’RE pussies? You couldn’t argue your way out of a wet paper bag.
You’re arguing an assertion that never existed, and back it up with methodological gobbledy-gook that would embarrass the grade-schoolers whose intellectual level you’ve clearly never grown past despite the number of books you’ve supposedly read.
Seriously, is someone paying you to be this substantively ignorant, or did you lose a bet?
It’s 11:30 here and I have to get up early tomorrow. It wasn’t my intention to toss grenades and run. It wasn’t my intention to toss grenades at all, actually. I’ll gladly take the argument up again tomorrow on my breaks from work. Have a good night all.
…the framers’ theism was not all that compatible with orthodox Christianity.
The country was settled by folks fleeing various orthodox Christianities. The reason for the First Amendment was to avoid things like the Church of England, or the Holy Roman Empire, not to escape Christianity altogether.
I am simply pointing out that our political system does not logically or philosophically depend upon Christianity.
Do you depend on your parents?
If one buys Nozick’s arguments it does not even depend on theism, but if one wants to assume a deity any of the Hindu avatars will suffice as well as the Christian God.
That is why the culture of India is exactly like America.
And rejects the idea, ultimately.
BTW,
The next step in this pattern is thor slinking back tomorrow to apologize for how drunk he was. Then the cycle repeats.
I’m guilty of using inappropriate words when trying to reply to someone claiming America is a Christian nation. We are a nation built on freedom a religion, freedom of speech, freedom to dissent and the basic principles of Christian-Judaic morality. I should have replied formally.
Again, Nugent, you wouldn’t know a Marxist if you sodomized one. People are entitled to have high opinions of the British without being accused of the spectre of past imperialism, of Christianity without the spectre of the past Spanish inquisition, of America, of Marxism, etc… Your good/evil word association binary is dumb. Good people are individuals first and not symbols of ideology.
See, there’s the beginning of the slinking now.
Baracky is a symbol of an ideology though I think. He has a logo and also a seal.
For real the O! glyph is more about the neo-marxist movement than about him personally at all I think. See the trick is to do a reverse Tyler Perry where instead of everything being all Baracky Obama’s Energy Production Moratorium or Baracky Obama’s Healthcare Socialism he wants people to think these are their ideas and he’s just a mouthpiece for them.
Oh KK, are you still jealous that I lived in Russia, that I changed my lakes for oceans?
I noticed you don’t write much about Russia, and being a Russian Studies major that’s worrisome. President Medvedev just shut down the eXile. It’s news for those of us who care about freedom of speech.
The eXile was the greatest rag of blasphemy and dissent ever. Should I expound?
“Again, Nugent, you wouldn’t know a Marxist if you sodomized one.”
Your personal fantasies are none of our business.
“People are entitled to have high opinions of the British without being accused of the spectre of past imperialism, of Christianity without the spectre of the past Spanish inquisition, of America, of Marxism, etc… Your good/evil word association binary is dumb.”
You’re still not showing where I supported shutting up those who promote Marxism, a philosophy that has proven over the last one hundred years to be fundamentally evil in practice. You take the intellecually lazy position that criticizing people who support this philosophy is the equivalent of stifling their freedom of speech, yet when challenged on this point state that you’d resort to violence over an offense that was never committed.
This is the problem of arguing with a people like thor. They keep repeating the same stupid, incoherent statements over and over and over, no matter how irrelevant or non-existent their points are, because they’ve become so invested in their own unwarranted sense of self-regard to even consider that they might have fucked up in their arguments would be too great a blow to the only thing that keeps them going, their ego. thor may attempt to bullshit his way through an argument by bringing in irrelevant, nonexistent, or tangential points, but intellecutally, substantively, and emotionally, he’s no more socially advanced than the blustering schoolyard bully who can’t admit that he’s getting his ass kicked when stood up to.
Please put down the Valu-rite and lie down before you hurt yourself.
Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the fandango?
watched large-breasted Armenian women walk from store to store
that’s some wrong turn that you ended up in Glendale.
;-)
Nugent, you’re a typical American, soft and fuzzy in the head for things Reaganesque.
You want but just one living real deal? Eduard Limonov. Another? Grigory Yavlinsky.
They pay a real price to speak. You, me, Jeff, KK, we’re pussy Americans free to wag our tongues.
Real men come in different shapes and different ideologies but never, ever insult the suffering of others, Marxists or otherwise, who still speak after being jailed, beaten or having their daughters kidnapped and raped.
Real men live in the no poseur zones. Get real. If you don’t stand up for the Marxists then you can stand next to me.
Don’t stand
so close toanywhere near me.thor, slinking and desperately trying to change the subject really does not alter the fact that you were pantsed for the empty blowhard you are several times over in this thread.
BTW, thor referring to me as KK is — as thor has admitted — part of his ongoing effort to smear me as a racist. Thirteen minutes was how long thor stuck to the not smearing others rule.
Smearing people is so wrong, especially when you could just denounce them instead.
The difference being that thor is serious about the smearing. As serious as clownshoes can be about such things, anyway.
Some of us pussy Americans have put our real names to our tongue wagging and have had to deal with the consequences. Granted, there was no jailing or child rape involved — only threats to turn me in to child services as a pedophile, which would have meant having my kid snatched up by the evercaring uberstate just in case — but then, that’s why the Hitler mustache is on a smiley face…
thor –
Wow! Are you fuckin’ drunk, or what? You seem to be extra……frisky tonight. And unusually incoherent.
I wasn’t going to dignify thor’s diversionary tactic, but since Jeff acknowledged it, it should be noted that while thor claims to like both McCain and Obama, he’s really for Obama — despite the fact that McCain is the one who took a beating. Which sorta underscores how much thor really believes what he just spouted here. He’s a progg who does not like being called one, an empty suit — much like the idol he worships. But Jeff’s #155 will prompt more slinking tomorrow, because — for all of his pseudonymous bluster — when it comes to Jeff, he’s ultimately Mr. Beta-male.
I do it because I love you, KK. Not really. Your wasting your energy as far as I can tell, and I have no idea what motivates you so I draw my own conclusion, as does everyone else. There are degrees of racism, as I have explained before. Maybe you’re just so overly political you’d devalue anyone, regardless of race, to the degree that you do Barack Obama. You’re venom certainly wasn’t the same for Hillary as Obama, so who can really say but you.
I don’t like faux ideologues. And I’ve never smeared anyone, least of all you, like I smeared Susan Sontag. On the day she died I wrote a piece about my dealings with her and PEN and their handling of Eduard Limonov’s jailing. Edichka-baby is a freak, or at least he comes across as one. But he’s a superb writer and artist, by any measure, whose gone through many outlook phases and changes within his ideology (a flip flopper, woo woo). Bottom line, that cunt, Sontag, who I called, who I wrote to, was the driving force behind PEN turning their back in Limonov. If Limonov was a perky teeted Muslim whore jailed in Iran who wrote god-fuckin’ awful entries into a diary they’d worship that shit, publish it, and call on the literary elites to sign a petition on the whore’s behalf, all the routine PEN shit. But a white man, a Russian with a filthy mouth and a slight bend toward Russian nationalism, a one-time resident of New York, a male who proudly boasted of banging the lights out of young hot dyevs half his age, no, let Russian-white-male Limonov rot. And laugh as he rots, that was Sontag’s attitude. Brodsky probably castrated himself in his coffin just for fondling Sontag.
No faux ideologue ever deserved a long painful bout with cancer more than Susan Sontag. After she asked for her picture not to be taken, no bitch ever deserved for Annie Leibowitz to snap pictures of her while she sleept in her death bed more than Susan Sontag. Nobody deserved a shitty little son who’d for years keep cashing in on his Mom’s death more than Susan Sontag. She had it coming because she was the world’s greatest of hypocrites. And the worst of the many faux liberal icons in history, as far as I know.
Yes, even while Sontag’s corpse was still warm I smeared her. Smeared the hell out of her.
But if there was a reason for Susan Sontag’s existence on earth all I can think of is that is was so that we may have a low water mark to measure ourselves against. We can learn from dead Susan that in striving to never be like Susan Sontag is what matters most in life. Therefore I hope you don’t that far off the plank, Karl. One day you’re Karl and the next day, if you don’t watch it, you could be Suddenly Susan.
Dude, you wrote all that to wind up with a joke about a Brooke Shields sitcom that was canceled years ago?
I mean, maybe if the gag was a little more, you know, topical…
“Comment by thor on 6/22 @ 10:07 pm #
The fuck do you, O’Brian, know about Marxism and/or who is and who isn’t?
Some of those Marxist are mighty good men, some!,”
120,000,000 dead are crying from the grave saying that you’re wrong, poseur.
“For you fighting for the right to wag your tongue is as far gone as the long days of Robespierre.”
Oooo, I missed that one.
Gotta edit my previus to read “fascist poseur”
Yay cookies I guess
Fuck yeah! I’m votin’ for change now baby! If ya got any to spare. See, that’s what we need in this country, I lose my cookies, BO sells them back to me. All I gotta do is believe.
In a roomful of Marxist Lit. professors you’d be hard pressed to find one of them who had the courage to kick Karl Rove in the shin, much less kill 120-mill people.
I think we’re talking about two different kinds of Marxists because the ones I know are socio-economic dreamers.
Thor, I believe history has yet to show that the ones YOU know don’t turn into the ones we all know about once they get into power.
The difference, Hammerhead, is that the mass-murderers are applied Marxists. The profs are just groupies for the mass-murderers.
thor:
Should I expound?
No. Really, thor, not until tomorrow, and then not until late afternoon, at the earliest, I’m guessing.
What are you on? I despise lunar radicals who lose themselves in ideology and go about dehumanizing people to the point where out-right lies, word association games, threats and worse are all fair game. Ever wonder why I bag on you?
I do like John McCain but I don’t think he’s going to win. So that makes me a crypto-Marxist Sec-Progg, OK, whatever. You’re the other end of a Sontag. A wild extremist in a country where it takes no risk to be one. I respect that. Shows courage. You ought to study Russia. Go lecture Russians about courage and Ronald Reagan and the American way. Make a point to call out Putin on the Chechnya war. Try and make a career of it.
Mark Ames and Matt Taibbi had the guts to do it and they’re weenie Sec-Progg pussy liberals so it’s can’t require any real guts.
Whether we ever really were a Christian nation in the past is arguable on several levels, but we are not any more, so introducing the meme when debating current or future public policy comes off as bullying.
It’s not arguable at all. If you need to convince yourself, get copies of the state constitutions of the original United States. Each one was explicitly a Christian state.
The profs are just groupies for the mass-murderers.
McGehee – I really prefer the term useful idiots. I mean, they do have a purpose in the scheme.
But Thor – you’ve continued to couch your support for Obama in terms of the man that he is. Someone asked you earlier, and you never responded- exactly which policy positions, presented by Obama, do you support?
Universal preschool?
Turning half the country into non-taxpayers?
Dialogue with Iran?
Inquiring minds.
Whether we ever really were a Christian nation in the past is arguable on several levels
I do not think that this is arguable on any level, but I am a godbothering rube in flyover country, that bitterly clings to his guns and religion.
Healthcare. Doing away with lobbyist and earmarks. Cuba. Iraq. Iran. And yes, the Ayers-Dorhn universal power to the children pre-school initiative sounds rad.
He needs to flip-flop and become a domestic driller though, like McCain.
Just another feel-gooder socialist.
Obama wants to legalize caged death match bulldog fights. That puts West Virginia back in play.
Healthcare. Doing away with lobbyist and earmarks. Cuba. Iraq. Iran. And yes, the Ayers-Dorhn universal power to the children pre-school initiative sounds rad.
Healthcare – you think the government can run such an organization? Can you give ONE example where it’s been successful? Can you name ONE successful agency run by the US government?
Lobbyist/earmarks – I believe O!’s been a hypocrite on this issue.
Cuba – you’re kidding, right?
Iran – As asked upthread, exactly what compromise do we bring to the table with Iran?
Iraq -whatever
Universal Pre-school – That will be super-awesome in Detroit. The district is only 400 MILLION in the hole as it is. With a stellar track record of 24% graduation rate. Detroit is where we all will be headed. Dems, with a bit of racial politics thrown in … high taxes … middle class flight … declining tax base …
Using Michigan as your example – Detroit specifically – explain in 30 words or less how higher taxes and more social programs results in success.
Baracky really better should stay away from the children.
McGehee, I’m not pro-Marxist. I do think people have the right to be Marxists and teach at the university level.
Communists use Marxist ideology but I’m pretty sure Communist goons nowadays are more goon than Communist.
Carin, Barack’s health care plan is a government sponsored optional health plan, much like the flood and wind damage insurance here in South Florida. It’s not Hillary-care.
Cuba – no, I’m not kidding at all. Cuban Americans should be able to travel home to see his Mami and Papi, and cash stipends to relatives should flow freely. A standing ovation was the response from the Cubans when Obama stated his plans.
Iraq – Obama is getting the luck of timing here. It’s about time to wrap it up there anyway and he’s for a phased withdrawal that takes into account the advice of the military commanders on the ground.
Iran – we already talk to ’em through intermediaries. And Obama is committed to Israel’s safety and security, much tougher than McCain!
Pre-school – I don’t give a $#@$%#! about pre-schools. I doubt that has any chance. Sounds like campaign talk.
Your 30-worder.
We don’t have no stinkin’ money for any stikin’ successes that never happen. Obama can’t spend much more than GWB because GWB already broke the Treasury. He’s in for a tough awakening once he cuts the pork and sees we’re still broke.
What about universal recess?
O!
“#
Comment by thor on 6/23 @ 6:02 am #
In a roomful of Marxist Lit. professors you’d be hard pressed to find one of them who had the courage to kick Karl Rove in the shin, much less kill 120-mill people.
I think we’re talking about two different kinds of Marxists because the ones I know are socio-economic dreamers.”
“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
-C. S. Lewis
that takes into account the advice of the military commanders on the ground
You are fucking kidding, right? He, and Hillary, outright stated in the Philadelphia debate that they would surrender no matter what the Generals said.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
-Winston Churchill
Aldo
Thomas Jefferson, while not believing in the diety of Jesus …. indeed, Jefferson rejected all miracles, he still heartily embraced Jesus’ teachings. He thought them the ultimate philosophy*. He also believed in a Divine Creator. What he rejected was the whole world of religious denominations. He thought the existence of factional elements proof that all those number of different Christians had lost the true meaning of Christianity.
Jefferson’s belief system was Christian, even if he didn’t embrace a denominational tenet of Jesus’ diety.
*I’ve always wondered at the basic ignorance of people who snickered at GW when he identified Jesus as his favorite philosopher.
“The man who sets dogs on concentration camp victims or fires his revolver into the back of their necks is evidently a brute; the intellectual who devises justifications for the brutality is harder to deal with, and far more sinister in the long run.â€Â
– David Pryce-Jones
Reactionary leftism is like a germ, a very resiliant, antibiotic resistant mutant, infecting the body politic, a failed relic of the past.
#179 thor
That is some kool-aid. What has O! ever done to back up his assertions he would keep any of those promises? We have only his own paperthin record and that certainly doesn’t bode well on any of his convenient claims.
“It was only after the soviet regime became unmistakably totalitarian that English intellectuals, in large numbers,
began to show interest in it. Burnham, although the English Russophile intelligentsia would repudiate him, is really voicing their secret wish: the wish to destroy the old equalitarian version of Socialism and
usher in a hierarchical society where the intellectual can at last get his hands on the whip.”
-George Orwell
I do think people have the right to be Marxists and teach at the university level.
thor:
Are you kidding? If you’re in a Humanities department at a state university, you realize how absurd that statement is. The majority of them are already Marxist of one shade or the other, and when they sit on a hiring committee are more than likely to bring in more of their herd.
How about this–Do those Marxists which make up the greatest part of academe believe that an avowed conservative has the right to teach at the university level?
Barry did a bang up job on healthcare in Illinois! What happened in the end? Nothing of any consequence due to his caving to lobbyist. I guess the hypocrite remark that CArin made ragarding lobbyit and earmarks was intentionally unaddressed because that’s what’s required to get elected, which of course, is the prime directive.
If elected, Barry will be manipulated by a Democratic congress looking to punish George Bush. He’ll be bullied by rogue dictators, and acquiesce to the likes of the United Nations.
Yes, cowboy. My PhD dude in math whose helping me with my fuzzy math/language independent study is a …. how shall I put this… a radical hater of everyone and everything and pretty damn conservative politically.
So, see how it works. You get a pussy liberal Marxist Lit prof. to sponsor your independent study and then you go running to a conservative math prof to get all the answers then you go running back to your Marxist Lit prof with a big long paper that he can’t make heads or tails of because he too busy reading Fowles and Calvino and Carter and whatever else Marxists love to read to really give a shit.
Thomas Jefferson, while not believing in the diety of Jesus …. indeed, Jefferson rejected all miracles, he still heartily embraced Jesus’ teachings.
He wrote his own translation of the New Testament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
That is a bit of effort for a non-believer.
Ah, not man enough to admit that someone who sees the word recursive and responds with Church’s formula might know a thing or two of predicate calculus.
A man who knows the buzzwords associated with predicate calculus, perhaps.
Too bad that you can’t, you know, actually do anything with them (e.g., construct a fairly trivial proof).
You’re nishi with slightly better spelling and punctuation, thor.
hey thor
O! has picked up another important endorsement … Kim Jong Il.
Isn’t that special?
He does have shifty eyes, and he stammers! You’re right Darleen. Barack Obama is probably doing what George Bush did when he promised us 13-million new border patrol agents would seal our border tighter than a nun’s …. knickers.
Gee Spies, want to go over some of the math rules of Chomsky’s Inadequacies of Phase-Structure Grammer? How about Finite State Languages? It’s all from the ’50’s, so you know it’s really easy math. Actually this is the easy part.
Chomsky and Miller, a couple of Harvard dopes. He was a dope, but then he wasn’t. Strange.
What’s amusing to me here is that thor has announced that he is totally in agreement with Karl at all levels except the very top, and I don’t think he’s realized it.
It’s been Karl’s thesis all along that Obama is a con man, a slick-talking dude in a good suit with nothing behind the facade. Thor agrees, one hundred percent — except that he thinks that’s a good thing. There is no pea under the shell, the quitclaim deed’s only value is that it sequesters a few grams of carbon, the sea monkey king is nothing but a brine shrimp, and the Amazing X-Ray Glasses won’t see through the little red-headed girl’s dress; we’re supposed to forget all that, and concentrate our open-mouthed admiration on the skill and technique. Thor even offers us a glimpse of the Amazing Digital Con-Man, in which the technique has been so thoroughly analyzed that he can offer a Web site, with drop-down menus and radio buttons, that will come back with an infallible line of patter to sell whatever type of snake oil we might care to.
It is the triumph of process over substance. Nobody, least of all thor, can offer any tiniest clue as to how the Messiah will accomplish all those good things — his supporters simply restate the goals over and over and over, leaving the question marks in Step Three intact. The only important thing about the Presidency of the United States of America is the process of gaining the office; execution of the duties of the President is not even trivial, it’s nonexistent as a consideration.
Which makes thor either a fool or a cynic, and while nishi (who evinces the same notions, when she’s being comprehensible) definitely falls into the first category, I don’t think thor does. There are Republicans whose schtick is let the bastard win, and pick up the pieces later; I think they’re ignoring the important consideration of whether or not Humpty Dumpty can in fact be re-assembled. Thor appears to be saying that electing a con man who cannot perform as advertised and does not intend to try in any real sense is exactly what the country needs at the moment, and the only reason I can think of for holding that view is that he expects the reaction to be so severe as to allow his faction to assume full power, with himself as (at minimum) a respected adviser under the New Regime.
For myself, I think that makes thor a bigger fool than nishi. Ric’s Rule #3 applies, in spades.
Regards,
Ric
Thor, do you have a point?
And have you offered any proof to your assertion that anyone wants to shut Marxists up? None of us do — we just won’t vote for them when they’re running for President.
I sense the unicorns are uneasy today. The light has been shining with a pinkish tinge of late. Omens.
Chomsky though will not make you work. That’s Baracky’s quest, except for he won’t make you work drilling oil. That would be wrong.
HF: I’m sorry but you will not be allowed to sit in your offshore oilwell, bitter and smug in you complacency. No place will be safe anymore for the cynical and uninvolved. The unicorns told me this.
O! (noes)
No place will be safe anymore for the cynical and uninvolved.
Except maybe journalism. There’s always journalism.
It is just a coincidence that people enamored with Chomsky tend to be mostly incoherent?
Gee Spies, want to go over some of the math rules of Chomsky’s Inadequacies of Phase-Structure Grammer? How about Finite State Languages? It’s all from the ’50’s, so you know it’s really easy math.
Sure, considering that I’ve taught that material before.
Again: bring it on, bitch.
(refraining from taking a swipe at “grammer”, since that’s just too damned easy)
It is just a coincidence that people enamored with Chomsky tend to be mostly incoherent?
His early work (i.e., before he went clinically insane) is actually pretty useful for understanding computer programming languages.
Human languages, not so much.
Well, since no further pwnage from thor on FOPC and the Chomsky hierarchy appears to be forthcoming right now, I’m off to school some other people. They’re more pleasant and respectful, plus I actually get paid for it.
Carin, Barack’s health care plan is a government sponsored optional health plan, much like the flood and wind damage insurance here in South Florida. It’s not Hillary-care.
Yea, sure. It starts OUT that way. Eventually it will undercut private insurance, and everyone will opt for the government run plan. Price controls – an aim, right? – only work if we can control and limit the supply of services. Eventually, the national health care system becomes a behemoth, costing the taxpayers (or, should I say, those few who will pay taxes under O!) a fortune, and we’ll all be waiting in lines for surgeries.
Dude, I normally enjoy your posts, but that is just silly. You think it is arguable that we were founded as a Christian nation?
The topic of Christian influence in American history subsequent to the founding is irrelevent to my argument, and I was trying to avoid getting baited into picking up that tarbaby. Still, some people who aggressively push the “Christian Nation” meme over-reach in their claims on that topic as well, so I was reluctant to simply concede all that ground. Instead of writing “whether” we were ever a Christian nation I should have written that “the extent to which” we were a Christian nation is arguable. To reiterate, I am not denying the Christian influence on American history. I am just trying to avoid conceding the blanket statement that we are a “Christian Nation.”
Happyfeet,
you wrote ‘Baracky is a symbol of an ideology though I think. He has a logo and also a seal.’
and that made me wonder whether you think the public will ever get a look at a detailed insider’s (honest) view of the creation of the Baracky seal, y’know, from conception (like ‘zackly whose idea was it, what they thought it would accomplish and who finally approved the venture) to design (like real on paper design, do overs, etc.) and again approval (‘go forward with this’ sort of approval) to execution of a final product and rollout. Such a story, particularly the early planning phase, might tell us alot about the shining one, don’t you think?
“Comment by Aldo on 6/23 @ 9:23 am #
Dude, I normally enjoy your posts, but that is just silly. You think it is arguable that we were founded as a Christian nation?”
Who could argue that it wasn’t?
Sdferr, I think for real this seal thing just comes from a we really can do no wrong, you know that right? place. You don’t like my emblem of my audacity of hope well shut up you stupid racists. We think it’s pretty.
So no cynical marketing dudes sitting around going, hey! I’ve got a great idea! etc?
<Who could argue that it wasn’t?
Obviously we were not founded as a Christian nation. The founders explicitly avoided the establishment of a state religion.
Jeff is correct that the logic of natural rights upon which our system was constructed is grounded in what he calls a First Cause, which the founders called God. I am only making a few very limited arguments about that in this thread:
1. Rhetorically referring to the First Cause as God implies theism, but beyond that it does not imply orthodox Christianity. There are some valid reasons to doubt that the founders were even thinking of the traditional Christian conception of God. In the 21st Century some people seem intent on claiming for their own religion the First Cause of natural law, but it seems clear that the founders themselves did not intend this to be a sectarian concept.
2. Everyone is free to imagine the First Cause in their own way. In fact, even though the founders referred to God it is possible to arrive at their same conclusions as an atheist. Since our political system does not depend on orthodox Christianity, and the country is no longer homogenously Christian, it seems unecessary, historically inaccurate and invidious to insist that everyone buy into a Christian interpretation.
Good to see Ric and I on the same page.
thor seems to be taking that “tyranny of facts” approach and arguing that we need to enjoy Obama for the person and speaker he is, while ignoring his lack of experience, his frighteningly rapid rise by way of the Chicago political machine, and his empty record (save for legislation credited him as a way to bolster his profile). Hell, we’re even supposed to “admit” his skills and tip our hats to them.
Thing is, some of us like our charismatic con men in Mamet plays, not as potential Presidents. Is there any doubt Obama is on the left end of the political spectrum? Is there any doubt that leftwing policies have almost always hurt the social fabric and the economic health of the nation in the long run? Is there any doubt that Obama is going to owe a lot of folks for aiding in his rise to prominence on nothing more than an Axelrod rhetorical strategy and the fact that he represents a potential historical first?
In a truly post-racial America, Barack wouldn’t be making wink and nod quips about his being black — the suggestion being that those who don’t vote for him have a bit of a problem with the darkies.
That kind of PC bullying I find cynical and damaging. So, while thor might like the idea of Obama speaking with a guy who calls for the extermination of Israel, or the idea of a presidential candidate who because he knows the majority of work in Iraq is done, feels safe labeling it a disaster in order to justify a version of troop reduction that favors the Dem narrative of failure and defeat (at the longterm expense of other wars we may need to fight), I don’t.
That I won’t give him his props for pulling the wool over the eyes of his adoring, cult-like followers seems to tick thor off the most. But sorry: I liked Satan in Paradise Lost, but at the end of the day, I’m glad he lost.
What I meant was a Christian nation with a secular government.
And rejects the idea, ultimately.
On biographical, not logical, grounds.
Huh?
It is a biographical question, and it is answered by turning to Locke’s life and writings. The author of the Cato piece rejects the premise because the facts of Locke’s life and work point a different way.
That is a logical conclusion based on an examination of the evidence.
Rejects the idea that Locke is an atheist, but with the twist that Locke comes out, not a conventional Christian, but ‘Locke’s writings reveal him to be an Arian (thus a Christian heretic) who rejected certain tenets central to orthodox Christianity like original sin.’ and who ‘yet also posited his own variation of Hobbesian ideas (the state of nature and social contract) which were not at all biblical.’
“That is a logical conclusion based on an examination of the evidence.”
True, but what difference does that make when you’re arguing with someone so willfully ignorant about something as clear as the Establishment Clause? He’s just worshipping a slightly different form of the bitch goddess Reason – you need to allow time for that perfect Hegelian synthesis which employs the casual mistatement of fact to bear its rotting fruit.
Otherwise you’ll have to explain why New England congregationalists weren’t much in favor of Virginia C of E proponents getting the upper hand. Or vice versa, depending.
and the fact that he represents a potential historical first
President Baracky was the first American president to have been steeped for decades in a church of hate prior to his ascendancy to the office. Keep this in mind as we work our way through the text and I think you’ll see it resonate in some surprising and interesting ways.
Sdferr —
Christianity often evolves through heresy. As I’ve said — and will now repeat — just as the Renaissance altered the religion of the medievalists, it is hardly surprising to me that the Enlightenment altered the religious frame of its time. The framers were less concerned with religion per se than with how properly to incorporate it into governance. Whether some were Arian or Deist or even Gnostics or Manicheans (or whatever the hell it is the Masons happen to be) is immaterial. Those are all branches of a judeo christian worldview that, at its core, posits a Creator (or a split personality in metaphysical form) who provides the basis for natural rights.
And this is important precisely because, without such a lynchpin, man — as represented by the state — would have the authority to tinker with those rights and remove them at his whim.
All that aside, whether the framers accepted the mysticism of religion, or just believed in a blind watchmaker, is irrelevant. The important ground is a higher authority whose primary dictates, expressed with an appeal to natural law, could not be circumscribed by man.
Jefferson thought of Him more as an absentee landlord.
That attitude could explain people like Ted Turner: “God, You let my sister die! Just for that, I’m gonna stop paying my rent. Evict me if You dare!”
I general I do not disagree. The only reason I pasted J. Rowe’s stuff is that while he (and you) take Locke at his word, uncertainty as to Locke’s possible thought yet remains. It strikes me, on the one hand, as impossible to understand the political underpinnings of the USA without having first, as the framers themselves had done, at least attempted to understand the Christian and secular Ancients who bespoke and lived in the principles that give rise to us. On the other hand, as I have voiced here before, for myself, ‘Nature’s God’ is but a placeholder, though a necessary placeholder and as such is indistinct for a purpose. It stands for the mental space where co-operation becomes possible, necessarily universalist because necessarily shared by all, while remaining an indistinct, otherwise undefined sort of ‘huh?’ thing, or, as you nicely put it, un-circumscribable. To dig further (or I should say, too far) into ‘natural right’ is to begin to invite the anger of the demos down on our heads, which is obviously the thought behind all that ‘esoteric’ talk. These are very difficult subjects, I think, not at all easy to dispose of.
Okay you are just getting unamusingly bitter (bordering on insulting).
Go fondle your guns and your Jesus or something.
The founders wanted to avoid an official state religion and the attendant tyranny that usually ensues. I think our differences are mainly a matter of capitalization, we were founded as a Christian nation rather than a Christian Nation, if that makes any sense. Christianity may not have been the official religion, but its influence is undeniable.
In God we Trust.
It appears the Obama campaign has decided to dispense with it’s ever-so-cool PresidentialCandidateOfficialSeal. Meme-ory hole opens wide, accepts new donation.
Undeniable and untenable all at the same time, yep.
Okay you are just getting unamusingly bitter (bordering on insulting).
Go fondle your guns and your Jesus or something.
Lisa, you know that things like this (and worse) have been said about Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell… Why pretend that it doesn’t happen?
Is this a blanket condemnation are is there one commenter in particular to whom this is addressed?
Not that I would disavow being bitter, but “unamusingly” so? Them’s fightin’ words, woman.
McGehee: I was referring to the Perfesser. I love the guy, but this post was annoying to me.
Spies: True. Of course some people have labels for black people who are not “ghetto enough” or liberal enough. I don’t disagree. It just annoys me to see Jeff flapping his thin white lips about it. Hee hee.
Seriously, you should check out these blogs because they talk about this crap of shunning people as inauthentic for various stupid reasons alot:
Field Negro
Acting White
Am I gonna get in trouble if I click on those at work? They keep records you know.
Lisa,
I think Jeff’s real point was to smack thor upside the head. Because thor — unlike you — inevitably resorts to playing the race card. Ironic and sad.
Well you’re nishi without the ishi, just a empthy set of n! What are you a child? Or does teaching high school make you as broken and bitter as they say?
Right on cue; it’s uncanny, really.
Or like Lenny & Squiggy. Take your pick.
Obama as Satan in Paradise Lost? You’re stretching the metaphor just a little, maybe?
Barack Obama is merely human, not a cult figure, as I see it. He’s also one of two choices we have for President. Exaggerating fears and diminishing the man certainly helped the Dems defeat George Bush… oops. And it won’t help defeat Barack Obama.
That’s the gist of what I’ve said all along. The man should be held accountable in debate for his proposed policies. He should also be celebrated somewhat for his accomplishments, no matter if you stand in agreement with his policies. Little green Marxist men are not hiding in the man’s closet, nor do “whitey” tapes exist. We’re being disrespectful to the gift of democracy when we reduce it to the level of unabridged hate for person, and I speak in general not toward you specifically here.
I do recognize the shit foisted upon by some liberal icon name plates in the past. The Susan Sontag story wasn’t fiction. I actually talked with her and, no, I don’t agree with Eduard Limonov on all things but I don’t think we “liberals” should turn our back on him, or persons like him, nor should we revenge what the faux liberal ideologues did to GWB by matching their foul awfulness.
People suffer mightily hoping one day to have what we have in America, and we’re not perfect, nor is McCain, nor is Obama, but why butcher our golden goose for a meal of chicken McNuggets today, for the moment? I didn’t like Ebenezer Scrooge but was happy he saw the light in the end. He. Ha. Don’t deny or go medieval on every intellectual current, and give Obama a break occasionally.
“I think our differences are mainly a matter of capitalization, we were founded as a Christian nation rather than a Christian Nation, if that makes any sense.”
It does for me just as I read orthodox Christianity to be referring to Christianity in general and not Orthodox Christianity, of which my wife is a member and I a happy attendee who is considering joining.
No for real there is a darkness that adheres to this Baracky. I think it’s a lot cause he’s not a particularly brave person and he’s afraid. This is a lot why he avoids the press so much I think. He’s a lot insecure for whatever reason and maybe this is why he seems sorta angry. He’s defensive, and not very able at all to pivot with any grace cause he doesn’t trust his own footing. He’s just kind of a sad grasping figure I think that you can have a lot of empathy for as long as he doesn’t want to marry your sister or destroy your economy with marxist redistribution schemes.
Also he did go to that hate church for like a really really long time. That’s just kind of twisted I think. It may take him years and years to get right.
Also he really hasn’t accomplished very much when you think about it. Or when I think about it. And probably when he thinks about it too, if he’s at all honest with himself.
And here is where transhumanism cannot help but do battle. We plan to slay death and rewrite our genenome.
Obviously we plan to set ourselves above the “higher authority” of the constitution. It is the Turing Heresy…if god made made man in his image, then don’t we have the capacity to become gods?
genome, lolz
i really cant speel
Spent a lot of money so far is about it as far as the accomplishing goes. And even Paris Hilton can do that and way more better really. She’s not nearly as mewling and defensive about it either.
#238: Oserve thor in full slink, as predicted. Tomorrow (if not sooner) he will be back to his same schtick, despite having been thor-oughly pantsed several times over in this thread.
Least of your problems, really.
Good luck with that.
Also I think we were being a lot disrespectful to democracy when we let the media contrive this Baracky McCain thing in the first place. Democracy is so teh gay sometimes I think. Like I can’t believe it would wear that in public, but what are you gonna do I guess.
i mean….if we lack “the authority to tinker with those rights and remove them at his whim.”
by Whose Authority do we tinker with homosapiens sapiens’ genome?
trudat, feets.
that spraytan mccain is using makes him the same color as the monster pedophile in Sin City.
Marxist men are not hiding in the man’s closet…
Nope, they out walking around in plain sight.
by Whose Authority do we tinker with homosapiens sapiens’ genome?
Exactly.
be honest feets.
handsomemormonguy should have been your nominee, but you skrewed up and forgot that a buncha theocons would rather vote for Satan (a.k.a. huckabee) than a mormon.
B Moes, we are going to do it.
with or without “authority”.
B Moes, we are going to do it.
with or without “authorityâ€Â.
Yeah, well watch out for those villagers with pitchforks.
Or does teaching high school make you as broken and bitter as they say?
Hmm… so the high schools in your area teach FOPC and the Chomsky hierarchy? Must be one o’ them-there intellekshaul blue states, huh?
Face it, thor: you got your smug ass handed to you on multiple levels on this thread. Don’t feel bad…. along about the second or third year of grad school you’ll realize that you don’t really know quite as much as you thought you did. If that doesn’t (or didn’t) happen: worry.
Now back to my default behavior of ignoring your blatherings, other than to enjoy your ongoing evisceration at the able hands of our host and the other commenters.
I don’t have enough distance yet to anoint Romney retrospectively like that. He always so obviously lived in a different world then I do. But at least his children were hale and nice-looking and not misshapen. I’m still a Fred guy. I’m sticking to the he got way shut out by a media that really a lot feared him line of thought. But anyway, McCain will be a good placeholder for the presidency I think.
*than*
I’m just off today. Heatwave thinger has really messed with my sleep.
Also this burrito tastes funny. That can’t be good.
the villagers with pitchforks can keep their genomes intacto.
we are just gonna mess with our own.
;)
after all, that how the good lord made them.
lulz
feets, Fred just want interested.
admit it.
we are just gonna mess with our own.
Can I have a copy of SubmissiveNishi Japanese Maid LoveDoll to go along with my Lil Ms B Moe SoulMate 2100 and my SpyGRRRL FemmeFatale FuckBunny v. 2.0? Or have you already forgotten how you had your ass handed to you on this just the other day?
Stop trying to drag the thread off topic, fuckwit.
that bruthah is hella borin and talks too slow.
im just spicin things up.
;)
I just though I could be interested enough for both of us. I really wanted it to work.
that spraytan mccain is using makes him the same color
Unlike the robust vitality you see in members of the Obama team.
Makes you wet, doesn’t it?
seriously, SBP, if we cant tinker with laws on account of “some higher moral authority”, how the hell are we gonna tinker with the human genome?
i means, obviously, god meant for us to get old and die, right?
Not going to repeat a debate we’ve already had several time, child.
Hint: you lost.
That’s what Warren Christopher looked like in the early 1990’s. He must look like grandpa Simpson now.
oh.
right.
you callin me liar in italics means i lost?
dont think so.
always the descent to ad homs, SBP.
i think…that means you lost.
;)
seriously, SBP, if we cant tinker with laws on account of “some higher moral authorityâ€Â, how the hell are we gonna tinker with the human genome?
The idea is that some fundamental human rights are inviolate, not ordinary laws. Natural rights theory is not inherently opposed to or inconsistent with genetic research. It would just proscribe things like experimenting on a person without her consent.
you callin me liar in italics means i lost?
No, you being a liar means you lost.
always the descent to ad homs,
Pointing out that you are lying about the topic under discussion is not an ad hom, child.
Nice try, though.
Aldo, please don’t let the liebot jack the thread.
#266: Word is he’s coming back to play Gandalf in the Hobbit movies.
SBP, we are up to 273 comments and the last on-topic comment was somewhere around # 9.
Aldo, natural law would work sure, but judeoxian law absolutely wont.
the great sky father wants us to get old and die, yah know.
why else heaven and hell?
You mean Gollum, right, Karl?
That’s what Warren Christopher looked like in the early 1990’s.
Good point. Actually, the CNN story is dated ’97, so more like mid-late 1990s.
Still, that’s what he looked like more than ten years ago.
Happy, I am starting to get the feeling that you are not all that impressed with Barack Obama…
feets, have u seen WKUK?
much more entertainin than the slow bruthah.
nailgun
Totally off-topic: Coming home from work today, I got off the train and got on the metro-rail thingie. The man sitting in front of me whipped out his crack-pipe and took what seemed to be a rather long and satisfying pull. He then jumped up and leaped off the train at the next stop, leaving me non-plussed and in a cloud of crack smoke.
I love this city.
Aldo, natural law would work sure, but judeoxian law absolutely wont.
I don’t think that they are calling for the regulation to be explicitly based on religion, rather they are assuming that most voters are Christian so the laws will tend to reflect the majoritarian Christian values. Maybe that is a distinction without a difference, though.
It’s too bad I have to leave now. Seems like the discussion is finally heating up.
I’m thinking Gollum is Jimmuh.
I spent 40 minutes stuck on the Red Line this afternoon. They said it was a switch problem outside of Dupont Circle, but that’s just what they want you to think.
It is a great city, tho.
“…natural law would work sure…”
Natural law, isn’t that what the maharishi mahesh yogi’s transcendental meditation business was all about? Someone I thought a crackpot told me the t.m.ers were taking over Iowa, swore up and down it was so when I didn’t believe him. A few years later while I’m living in NJ another fellow runs for Governor as the Natural Law candidate and sure enough he’s a t.m.er, said he was gonna fix the state problems with a lotta people meditating on ’em. I don’t know if it’s religion or not but that dude didn’t stand a chance, Jon Corzine got out his $60Mil steamroller and flattened him and everybody else.
leaving me non-plussed and in a cloud of crack smoke.
Reminds me of Baked Beans Night at the Legion Hall.
Aldo, natural law would work sure, but judeoxian law absolutely wont.
the great sky father wants us to get old and die, yah know.
why else heaven and hell?
Ummm, I can assure you, you are going to die. Judeo-Christian values is what motivates individuals to act unselfishly with that knowledge. For the rest of you, there is the age old quest for the fountain of youth.
Just try not to trample anyone on your mad dash for that sweet, sweet, fear-banishing elixir.
Pablo: The red line is always stuck or delayed. But the Red Line goes to all of the good places, alas. When I nip over to DC to visit my buddies, I always get fucking stuck on the Red Line. I probably should bring some crack to pass the time.
alpuccino: LMAO!!!!
WKUK are funny but they look different than I remember. But that one is a good one. I can send it to my friend D who is a work friend and he will feel better cause he sent me a link to that Aristocrats joke this weekend and then this morning I guess he felt awkward and he messaged one of those I hope you weren’t offended messages. He’ll really like this one.
Oh wait. I can’t send it to him cause they block YouTube at work.
rawr, you guyz really gonna be hatin on O now.
No longer an xian nation.
Are y’all in DC? That close?
No longer an eleven-an nation? What? When did this happen?
rawr?
Lisa —
Sorry this post bothered you. But I took the idea from the comment from youtube I referenced. I would have linked it directly, but I couldn’t figure out how.
What bothers me is that I know in my heart that the person who tossed out “house nigga” was a white progressive. And the attempt was to turn the speaker’s opinion into race traitorism. And that shit bothers me.
Oh — and I don’t play with my Jesus any more. Afraid I might go blind.
With the _______ you can fuzzify any domains of math reasoning using set theory.
That’s a pretty basic question. And that’s the name of one chapter I’m working through right now. If you teach this then you’re a bigger math weenie than I, but since you’re also a typical dick then mocking you will become a memebership function (A) of my universe of discourse (X). XsubscriptA (X) = 1
I and U are simple.
You’re a comedian SPB.
can fuzzify any domains of math reasoning using set theory.
ummm..pardon, but there are no fuzzy sets.
only fuzzy subsets.
;)
300!
I’ve got a fuzzy set. I don’t show it in public, but…