ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Democracy in the Middle East

New York Times neocons never, ever, learn from their past disasters:
David Kirkpatrick, my colleague in Cairo, said it all in this brilliant, depressing lead: “Thousands of Egyptians celebrated the third anniversary of their revolt against autocracy on Saturday by holding a rally for the military leader who ousted the country’s first democratically elected president.”

...

There is plenty of blame to go around — for Obama, for the hapless Morsi, for the paranoid power-grabbing Muslim Brotherhood, for the controlling military. But above all I blame the squabbling Egyptian liberals who fought for Mubarak’s ouster but did not give democracy a chance.
Did not give democracy a chance? The Muslim Brotherhood was democracy in action. Some of you will recall the way in which I dismissed the so-called Arab Spring; there were no shortage of the usual suspects attempting to claim that I was wrong, that all the experts were right about the miraculous democratic transformation of the Middle East.

As a general rule, unless one is dealing with technology, it is very seldom different. This is as true of politics as it is of economics. Democracy in the Middle East means Islamic rule, just as the importation of barbarians and savages into the USA means that they will henceforth serve as the deciding factor in government so long as some vestiges of democracy survive in the declining West.

The huge mistake of the immigration enthusiasts was to fail to realize that immigration and democracy are no more compatible than Islam and democracy. Celler, Hart, and Kennedy claimed that Americans could open their borders to the world and keep their nation, but they no more told the truth than Obama did when he told Americans they could keep their doctor.

132 Comments:

Anonymous hygate January 28, 2014 9:15 AM  

I thought it was fairly obvious that Muslim Brotherhood + democracy meant "one man, one vote, once", followed of course by sharia law.

It would take some severe self-delusion to believe that people whose stated goal is to destroy the pyramids and other pre-muslim archelogical sites are going to be all about power to the people.

Anonymous Idle Spectator January 28, 2014 9:15 AM  

Allahu ballsakbar!

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni January 28, 2014 9:29 AM  

How long until the legitimate aspirations of the Egyptian people for gay marriage and universal free health care are satisfied? Is there no justice? I blame Israel.

Anonymous Anonymous January 28, 2014 9:29 AM  

These people think of Americans as inherently a bunch of fairly secular, egalitarian, tolerant individuals who are being held back by a few bad apples scattered around in flyover country who still take things like religion and guns seriously. If they can be that clueless about the country they live in, I guess it's no surprise that they can see these Arab countries the same way: surely filled with tolerant, peace-loving folks who will take over at the polls and demand (nicely) American-style secular democracy just as soon as we knock off the few bad guys at the top to give them a chance.

Blogger JartStar January 28, 2014 9:30 AM  

Containment is the best policy.

Anonymous Edjamacator January 28, 2014 9:31 AM  

"You can vote for whatever you want, as long as it's whatever we want."

Anonymous FritzG January 28, 2014 9:36 AM  

"The huge mistake of the immigration enthusiasts was to fail to realize that immigration and democracy are no more compatible than Islam and democracy."

Immigration and democracy is entirely compatible. The United States is a perfect example, young man. We have been welcoming immigrants for more than 200 years and we remain the longest running, most stable democratically-oriented country in the entire world. And it doesn't matter where you look: The city counsel, the county supervisors, the state representative, the governors, the President or the dog catcher.

Immigrants participate in elections and we still have democracy. The reason it words in America is there is something about this country that instill in it citizens to shun extremists, who will be the ones that ruin a good thing.

As for the Affordable Health Care Act, I have my same doctor and my premium has gone down.

Anonymous hygate January 28, 2014 9:36 AM  

OK, I actually read the linked article and the ending paragraph strikes me as particularly stupid.

"There is plenty of blame to go around — for Obama, for the hapless Morsi, for the paranoid power-grabbing Muslim Brotherhood, for the controlling military. But above all I blame the squabbling Egyptian liberals who fought for Mubarak’s ouster but did not give democracy a chance."

Or, to be kinder, naive. The "liberals" desires played no part in what happened in Egypt. Saudi and the Emirates are looking to counter Iran and have plenty of money to spread around, the Muslim Brotherhood was mismanaging the country to the point that wide-spread starvation was a real possiblity, and the heads of the Egyptian military are secular nationalists, while the Muslim Brotherhood are fundamentalist who want to bring about a pan-arab caliphate. A counter coup was as predictable as the tide.

Anonymous 11B January 28, 2014 9:39 AM  

Celler, Hart, and Kennedy claimed that Americans could open their borders to the world and keep their nation, but they no more told the truth than Obama did when he told Americans they could keep their doctor.

Thanks for being one of the few, if only, pundits who actually points out the others besides Kennedy behind the 1965 immigration law.

Anonymous Hong Hu Shi January 28, 2014 9:44 AM  

Extreme Fritz, back in action.

Have you heard of San Marino?

Anonymous Peter Garstig January 28, 2014 9:47 AM  

As for the Affordable Health Care Act, I have my same doctor and my premium has gone down.

Which is all that matters, of course.

Anonymous hygate January 28, 2014 9:48 AM  

Also, why not fault "the Egyptian People" for not being Anglo-Saxons with several hundred years of history of living in a represenative republic?

Anonymous Josh January 28, 2014 9:55 AM  

The reason it words in America is there is something about this country that instill in it citizens to shun extremists, who will be the ones that ruin a good thing.

Define extremist

Anonymous FritzG January 28, 2014 10:20 AM  

"Define extremist"

Those who act on ideologies and political or religious views well outside the mainstream consensus.

Anonymous 11B January 28, 2014 10:22 AM  

Those who act on ideologies and political or religious views well outside the mainstream consensus.

Like those behind the gay marriage issue?

Anonymous Anonymous January 28, 2014 10:23 AM  

the squabbling Egyptian liberals

Do we even know that there are Egyptian liberals? I mean, I know there were some protesters who showed up for the cameras, but beyond a handful of college students and NGO-supported troublemakers, is there really any significant population of anyone a Western journalist could recognize as "liberal" in these countries -- let alone enough "liberals" that they could lose power through squabbling?

Or do they just assume that every country has plenty of liberals because that's the way of things?

Anonymous Anonymous January 28, 2014 10:23 AM  

11B FTW

Anonymous FritzG January 28, 2014 10:24 AM  

"Like those behind the gay marriage issue?"

At one time, yes. But not any more. Now the notion of gay marriage is well within the mainstream.

Anonymous 11B January 28, 2014 10:42 AM  

At one time, yes. But not any more. Now the notion of gay marriage is well within the mainstream.

A small group of zealots with access to money and power in the MSM pushed this radical issue. Anyone who opposed them ran the risk of their wrath through social and economic blacklisting. Still when given the chance, the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions where this issue has been put on the ballot have voted against it. Yet the group of zealots still managed to override the will of the people.

As for 'well within the mainstream', I beg to differ. At best polls might show a 50-50 split among the general public. That is not 'well within the mainstream'.

Though this issue was home grown, it does tie into Vox's post about immigration and democracy. There is a legitimate concern that once a muslim, or any alien population, attains a certain percentage, say 10 to 15 percent, the rest of us might be forced to accept certain cultural customs alien to us for fear of social, economic, and physical sanctions. The threat of a hard core minority imposing its will upon the general population is a valid concern. The gay marriage issue only exemplifies it.

Anonymous Anonymous January 28, 2014 10:46 AM  

Hello -- a humble neocon here.

Tunisia remains as the one bright spot, although I guess you could say it is a stretch to call it the "Middle-East" -- North Africa outside of Egypt has its own peculiar culture (Morocco is doing well under their king, Libya needs a strong dictator, and Algeria should stay away from democracy for about another 100 years).

Of course, even Tunisia has had its problems with Islamic fanatics, although like I said, they seem to be getting their house in order. I remain hopeful...

Anonymous Salt January 28, 2014 10:47 AM  

It's not that inhibited immigration (or the ~mainstreaming of gay marriage) destroys democracy, on the contrary, it's that very democracy which allows destruction of the culture in favor of a new dynamic. The liberals believe they know what that shall be. They will be sorely surprised.

Anonymous FritzG January 28, 2014 10:48 AM  

"As for 'well within the mainstream', I beg to differ. At best polls might show a 50-50 split among the general public. That is not 'well within the mainstream'. "

Of course it is well within the mainstream. There are far more people who oppose the Republican Parker than support it, for example, but you could not by any stretch of he imagination call the Republican part outside the mainstream nor extreme. The same today is true of same sex marriage.

"The threat of a hard core minority imposing its will upon the general population is a valid concern. The gay marriage issue only exemplifies it."

Is there a difference between a "hard core" minority and just a "Minority"?

In any case, Same sex marriage was not "imposed" upon anyone. Very much like the abolitionist movement or the civil rights movement or the suffrage movement, over time those supporting same sex marriage were able to convince opponents and doubters and opponents into either stopping their active opposition to it or actually supporting same sex marriage.

Anonymous Tallen January 28, 2014 10:50 AM  

At one time, yes. But not any more. Now the notion of gay marriage is well within the mainstream.

If that idea, for whatever reason, becomes extremist once more, then you would shun it? Also, are you claiming per "extremists, who will be the ones that ruin a good thing," that homosexual activists did in fact ruin a good thing?

Anonymous 11B January 28, 2014 10:52 AM  

I know there were some protesters who showed up for the cameras, but beyond a handful of college students and NGO-supported troublemakers, is there really any significant population of anyone a Western journalist could recognize as "liberal" in these countries -- let alone enough "liberals" that they could lose power through squabbling?

What about the protesters who were giving virginity tests? As a conservative I don't think I could get that fresh with a stranger. It would take a mighty open-minded, liberal to pull something like that off.

Anonymous FritzG January 28, 2014 10:52 AM  

"t's that very democracy which allows destruction of the culture in favor of a new dynamic. The liberals believe they know what that shall be. They will be sorely surprised."

The movement toward accepting and legalizing gay marriage hardly amounts to the "destruction of the culture" any more than legalizing interracial marriage destroyed the culture.

And I don't know what kind of "surprise" you are speaking of...But I doubt you do either.

Anonymous Billy January 28, 2014 10:55 AM  

I think I'm starting to understand FritzG. He's not here for debate. He's not hear to learn or teach anything. He's here to distract and pull us away from our ideas. Instead of continuing the discussion and building on it. We have to backtrack and justify why we are having the topic and defend it over and over. Ban this piece of shit.

Anonymous FritzG January 28, 2014 10:56 AM  

"Also, are you claiming per "extremists, who will be the ones that ruin a good thing," that homosexual activists did in fact ruin a good thing?"

What I mean by "ruin a good thing" is be likely to take actions detrimental to the whole community. A bunch of gays and lesbians can hardly be accused of that. They wrote, protested, put "Will and Grace" on TV, etc. It's not as though they went out and shot doctors who perform abortions.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben January 28, 2014 10:58 AM  

Hey Fritz, my healthcare plan was canceled and the "choices" I have now are 10 times worse. How do you figure that?

Anonymous Tallen January 28, 2014 10:59 AM  

What I mean by

That's not what you said though. Backpedal away.

Blogger JartStar January 28, 2014 11:00 AM  

I see Tad is back again.

Anonymous FritzG January 28, 2014 11:01 AM  

"I think I'm starting to understand FritzG. He's not here for debate. He's not hear to learn or teach anything. He's here to distract and pull us away from our ideas."

Do you read conspiracy into everything? I'm here because it's a pretty interesting and vibrant online community I stumbled upon via a google search. I clearly disagree with most of you, but you are interesting.

Anonymous FritzG January 28, 2014 11:01 AM  

"Hey Fritz, my healthcare plan was canceled and the "choices" I have now are 10 times worse. How do you figure that?"

I figure you'll live.

Anonymous FritzG January 28, 2014 11:03 AM  

"What I mean by

That's not what you said though. Backpedal away."

Actually, it would best be described as clarification. I failed to define what I meant by "ruin a good thing" so I understand why you might challenge it. You did. I explained what I meant.

Blogger CarpeOro January 28, 2014 11:06 AM  

"Immigration and democracy is entirely compatible. The United States is a perfect example, young man. We have been welcoming immigrants for more than 200 years and we remain the longest running, most stable democratically-oriented country in the entire world. And it doesn't matter where you look: The city counsel, the county supervisors, the state representative, the governors, the President or the dog catcher. "

Sure, democracy is compatible. Only thing is, it isn't compatible with retaining the underlying values that created the country over the long term. You will note that Vox commented that you couldn't keep your nation. There is a huge difference. Most here recognize that democracy is a transitory system that has always lead to dictatorships/oligarchies after a period of time. As immigrants have come in, they have brought their culture and understanding of how a nation is run. At low levels, they are assimilated (you will note that the United States historically closed the gates a number of times). With higher levels, just like in chemistry, they fail to dissolve/assimilate and retain much of the mindset of their homelands. In you haven't noticed, most of those homelands really suck.

Blogger CarpeOro January 28, 2014 11:08 AM  

""Hey Fritz, my healthcare plan was canceled and the "choices" I have now are 10 times worse. How do you figure that?"

I figure you'll live."


No skin off his back if you pay alot more for less, or can't afford it and have to pay a penalty and get nothing. Liberals are heartless and without empathy after all.

Anonymous 11B January 28, 2014 11:09 AM  

In any case, Same sex marriage was not "imposed" upon anyone.

It was imposed. There has only been one state thus far where voters approved the issue in a state-wide vote. Other than Maine, I believe, the issue has failed each time it has appeared before a state-wide vote.

Additionally at the federal level, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was pushed by Bill Clinton as a way to keep the existing definition of marriage. If you will recall at that time, there was momentum to amend the Constitution to preserve traditional marriage. But Clinton et al told the nation that would be unnecessary and that all we needed to do was pass DOMA. Keep in mind Clinton et al were responding to the will of the people to preserve traditional marriage. The question begs as to whether Clinton, 140 IQ, deliberately sabotaged this issue by pushing a federal law he believed could be struck down, or did he honestly believe he was doing the peoples' bidding by supporting DOMA?

The bottom line is that gay marriage did not arrive because society wanted it. Twenty years ago I don't even think the thought of gay marriage entered the minds of 99 percent of the population. If not for a small group of zealots (who wasted a tremendous amount of political capital BTW during a rough economic decade when there were more pressing issues) none of us would ever have known what gay marriage is.

Anonymous Porky January 28, 2014 11:12 AM  

It's not as though they went out and shot doctors who perform abortions.

I'll see your 6 murdered abortionists and raise you 33,000 HIV infections every single year.

Your turn.

Anonymous FritzG January 28, 2014 11:12 AM  

"Sure, democracy is compatible. Only thing is, it isn't compatible with retaining the underlying values that created the country over the long term"

Some of the underlying values extant at the founding of the country aren't necessarily worth saving.

And I don't necessarily agree with your assessment of democracy leading to dictatorship. Nor do I agree with your assessment that assimilation isn't possible after an extent of immigrants. Certainly that hasn't proven true in the past and I don't see evidence that it is true today. Now, if we had something disastrous like the kind of mass immigration you see into Syria's neighboring states....well maybe. But we aren't even close to that.

Anonymous FritzG January 28, 2014 11:13 AM  

"No skin off his back if you pay alot more for less, or can't afford it and have to pay a penalty and get nothing. Liberals are heartless and without empathy after all."

If you can't afford healthcare coverage under the Affordable Care Act, you're problems go well beyond not having healthcare.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben January 28, 2014 11:16 AM  

FritzG, how old are you?

Anonymous FritzG January 28, 2014 11:19 AM  

"The bottom line is that gay marriage did not arrive because society wanted it. Twenty years ago I don't even think the thought of gay marriage entered the minds of 99 percent of the population. If not for a small group of zealots (who wasted a tremendous amount of political capital BTW during a rough economic decade when there were more pressing issues) none of us would ever have known what gay marriage is."

People don't wake up overnight and all of a sudden decide, "hey, I think same sex marriage is just fine!" It happens over time. And that's exactly what happened here, the same way over time the idea of interracial marriage gradually was accepted by a huge majority of Americans. But it takes exposure to the idea, to the arguments for it, and for gradual acceptance by leaders and influential people. That's exactly what happen here.

In Utah, of all states, the split among people that support same sex marriage and those that don't is exactly 48-48. That's a pretty impressive change of heart for one of the weirdest and most backward and conservative states in the County.

There was no imposition of same sex marriage. The idea was gradually accepted.

Anonymous Anonymous January 28, 2014 11:19 AM  

What I mean by "ruin a good thing" is be likely to take actions detrimental to the whole community. A bunch of gays and lesbians can hardly be accused of that. They wrote, protested, put "Will and Grace" on TV, etc. It's not as though they went out and shot doctors who perform abortions.

Whether or not shooting abortionists is ethical, it's not hard to argue that "Will and Grace" has been more detrimental to the community at large. The only way shooting an abortionist is detrimental to the community would be by giving liberals ammo for convincing people that the pro-life side is too violent to support, thus helping to keep abortion legal.

I think I'm starting to understand FritzG. He's not here for debate. He's not hear to learn or teach anything. He's here to distract and pull us away from our ideas.

Right, he's a liberal. See Vox's recent post "The Nothing People" where he says, "No compromise is possible with these people." They don't want to persuade us or compromise with us; they want to destroy us. Any conversation they have with us is for that purpose: to distract, dispirit, and misdirect those who defend that which they seek to destroy.

Anonymous FritzG January 28, 2014 11:20 AM  

"I'll see your 6 murdered abortionists and raise you 33,000 HIV infections every single year."

You aren't making sense.

Anonymous FritzG January 28, 2014 11:20 AM  

"FritzG, how old are you?"

It doesn't matter

Anonymous cheddarman January 28, 2014 11:21 AM  

I wonder what is going on here beneath the surface. I would expect the U.S. and Israel want to keep Egypt in a state of partial chaos, in order to keep the country weak and unable to act a threat to Israel or other U.S. interests in the region.

Anonymous FritzG January 28, 2014 11:22 AM  

"Whether or not shooting abortionists is ethical...."

This is where I stop reading your comment. No interest of mine is served by conversing with someone who can't come to the conclusion that murdering a doctor is unethical.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben January 28, 2014 11:22 AM  

FritzG, it does matter. Do you have pre-existing conditions?

Answer the question or I'll ask the admin to ban you.

Anonymous Josh January 28, 2014 11:24 AM  

What if that doctor is Mengele?

Anonymous FritzG January 28, 2014 11:24 AM  

"I wonder what is going on here beneath the surface. I would expect the U.S. and Israel want to keep Egypt in a state of partial chaos, in order to keep the country weak and unable to act a threat to Israel or other U.S. interests in the region."

It's not hard to understand the perspective of Israel. For many years they worked very closely with the Mubarek regime and in fact did so on very friendly terms. They'd happily work with the Brotherhood too, but it turned out it was unlikely the terms would be quite as friendly.

Anonymous 11B January 28, 2014 11:26 AM  

Now, if we had something disastrous like the kind of mass immigration you see into Syria's neighboring states....well maybe. But we aren't even close to that.

I see we not only disagree as to the definition of 'well within the mainstream', but we also disagree on mass immigration. The numbers of immigrants on the Syrian border do not even come close to what we have experienced from Mexico in the past 35 years. From the Pew Hispanic Center:

No other country in the world has as many total immigrants from all countries as the United States has immigrants from Mexico alone.

Read that statement above closely. Let it sink in. Then talk to me about mass immigration.

Anonymous FritzG January 28, 2014 11:27 AM  

"Do you have pre-existing conditions?"

Besides that one little skin tag that irritates me? No.

Anonymous Stilicho January 28, 2014 11:28 AM  

Certainly that hasn't proven true in the past

Sure, there's no such thing as a ghetto, or a barrio, or a 'Rican section, or a Dominican neighborhood, or a Jewish town or enclave, or little Italy, Chinatown, Kaisertown, etc. Throw a bunch of diverse people together and they just naturally integrate, assimilate, associate, and homogenize. Nor have these immigrants changed the fundamental nature of American politics, because they would never dream of bringing the failed socialism and other problems that led them to flee their homelands with them. Nope, no way, no how. Why they're natural Americans just waiting to be free. That's why my great grandmother and her peers were still chatting away with each other in German (but not around the children lest they acquire the same accent) 300 freaking years after they arrived in the colonies.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben January 28, 2014 11:28 AM  

Vox, FritzG is violating the rules by not answering questions. Can you ban him?

Anonymous 11B January 28, 2014 11:33 AM  

It happens over time....The idea was gradually accepted.

There was nothing gradual about it, and it did not happen over time, at least not in the political sense. This issue went from cradle to fruition in about 15 years. For two thousand years or so Western Civ has not had gay marriage. Then in a mere 10 to 15 years, someone conceives the idea and presto it is imposed. That ain't gradual.

It will interesting to see if gay marriage is still 'well within the mainstream' as muslim populations increase. We should get to see this play out in Europe first. But I am sure America will not be far away give it some time.

Blogger JartStar January 28, 2014 11:35 AM  

Why are you people feeding the Tad?

Anonymous 11B January 28, 2014 11:36 AM  

Why are you people feeding the Tad?

You are right. I want the last 45 minutes of my life back.

Anonymous VD January 28, 2014 11:42 AM  

I think I'm starting to understand FritzG. He's not here for debate. He's not hear to learn or teach anything. He's here to distract and pull us away from our ideas

It does appear that way. If he keeps trying to monopolize every politically-related comment thread, I'll just spam him.

There was no imposition of same sex marriage. The idea was gradually accepted.

The idea was not and is not accepted. It was judicially imposed. It has been rejected by the will of the people almost everywhere the issue has been put to a vote. 28 of 30 state votes on the subject have rejected it.

If you're going to lie, Fritz, you're not going to be permitted to comment here.

Anonymous VD January 28, 2014 11:44 AM  

Vox, FritzG is violating the rules by not answering questions. Can you ban him?

No, certainly not for those sorts of questions. The requirement to ask questions relates to people evading topical discussions, not refusing to answer personal questions. It's not an excuse to ban people, it's a tool to eliminate substantive evasions.

Anonymous Motown January 28, 2014 11:46 AM  

"Of course, even Tunisia has had its problems with Islamic fanatics, although like I said, they seem to be getting their house in order. I remain hopeful..."

You remain hopeful? Why do you even care? What is Tunisia to you, other than a place to potentially harm with your unnecessary and unwanted interference?

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben January 28, 2014 11:46 AM  

The reason I asked him those questions was so I could get an idea if he's one of the few winners from Obamacare.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben January 28, 2014 11:49 AM  

For example, I had a catastrophic policy with no deductibles and no out of pocket for $185/month in NY. My lowest cost option now is around $150/month with a $3000 deductible, $6,350 out of pocket maximum, my network is much smaller and I have no out of network coverage as opposed to 80% with the cancelled plan.

FritzG, how does your previous plan compare to your new plan?

Anonymous Porky January 28, 2014 11:50 AM  

You aren't making sense.

Let me put it another way then. I'll see your 6 abortionists murdered by fringe extremists over the last 20 years (approximately 1 death every 3.3 years, and I'll raise you 33,000 entirely preventable deadly HIV infections needlessly caused every single year by gay men whom you claim are now entirely mainstream.

Your turn.

Anonymous VD January 28, 2014 11:55 AM  

The reason I asked him those questions was so I could get an idea if he's one of the few winners from Obamacare.

Irrelevant. No one has to answer personal questions here unless I require it for some reason.

Anonymous Will Best January 28, 2014 11:56 AM  

just as the importation of barbarians and savages into the USA means that they will henceforth serve as the deciding factor in government so long as some vestiges of democracy survive in the declining West.

Well the Government has been shrinking democracy down at an accelerated pace since it stated expanding the voting pool, first in the 1860's then in the 1910's, and the wheels have really come off the cart since the 1960s civil rights and the 1980s the Reagan amnesty bomb. Now you have state officials ignoring referendums, gerrymandering minorities to limit their influence while giving them a "say", and 9 Oracles who are more important now than they have ever been because they chucked out the constitution years ago and really are just impossible law in a manner to prevent a revolt.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein January 28, 2014 11:57 AM  

*As for the Affordable Health Care Act, I have my same doctor and my premium has gone down.*

Same here!

When AHCA cancelled my policy...my premiums went to zero.

Anonymous zen0 January 28, 2014 12:04 PM  

@ Fritz G.

We have been welcoming immigrants for more than 200 years and we remain the longest running, most stable democratically-oriented country in the entire world

I hope Fritz G. is an American, because that would explain his ignorance of history. I am surprised no one called him on this obvious piece of disinformation and dissembling, or if one prefers, lying.

He should be allowed his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Anonymous Daniel January 28, 2014 12:10 PM  

Aside from the Cedar Revolution, the media moniker "Arab Spring" is ridiculous and ironic. These were foreign-led insurrections against native dictatorships...not the other way around.

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni January 28, 2014 12:14 PM  

The history of democracy in the Middle East shows that democracy does not necessarily work even if you have a homogeneous population. It matters what kind of voters are voting. Democracy may seem to be working in Japan or South Korea, especially after years of conditioning of the populace by dictators, and even with women voting. The US Constitution might have worked if only Northern European males were allowed to vote. But Egypt's population is composed of Arabs. The largest religious minority is 10 percent Coptic Christians, but even they are Arab. Is there any Arab country with a functioning democracy?
And it's not because of Islam. Islam grew up among Arabs because it was a good fit for the population, not because it was imposed on them. That is also why Islamic democracy is a contradiction in terms, or at least an oxymoron.

Anonymous Will Best January 28, 2014 12:14 PM  

He should be allowed his own opinion, but not his own facts.

When people are that wrong, I just assume they are trolling.

Anonymous DT January 28, 2014 12:15 PM  

Immigration and democracy is entirely compatible. The United States is a perfect example, young man. We have been welcoming immigrants for more than 200 years and we remain the longest running, most stable democratically-oriented country in the entire world.

Perfect example indeed.

* We are flat broke.

* We have more people getting government checks then actually producing goods and services in the private sector.

* "Liberal" "progressive" Democrats openly admit to and promote the use of government resources to politically oppress grass root citizen groups.

* There is little arguing that we are a police state worse then Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. We just haven't used our brown shirts to implement some of their more heinous policies (yet).

* Marriage, family formation, and culture are breaking down before our very eyes.

* Our "limited government" is now intimately involved in every single aspect of our lives.

* You can pretty much pinpoint the crime level in any given city by looking at its immigration level.

* We are literally creating festering concentrations of the very types of Muslims who killed 2,977 Americans 13 years ago.

* One of the earliest immigrant groups, Africans, has yet to assimilate or adopt any of the culture or philosophy that the English who founded this country...and ended slavery...held so dear. In fact, the Africans are moving in the opposite direction.

Our founders would not recognize this nation at all. If they had known this would be the end result, I doubt they would have ever fired a shot against the crown.

As for the Affordable Health Care Act, I have my same doctor and my premium has gone down.

So your single experience trumps the statistics that literally the entire nation has been talking about for months now?

Anonymous FritzG January 28, 2014 12:22 PM  

"There was nothing gradual about it, and it did not happen over time, at least not in the political sense. This issue went from cradle to fruition in about 15 years."

It was gradual....In modern terms. Consider what it had taken to move an idea from an extreme idea to accepted status in the middle of the 20th century versus what it takes today. Communication of ideas is instantaneous today. Opinions can be shaped much more quickly and cases can be made much more efficiently and the promotion of ideas can be undertaken far more easily and more broadly than in the past. Both the swiftness with which the Arab Spring spread and the movement of gay marriage from absurd to acceptable in no more than 20 or so years is evidence of this speeding up of the exchange of ideas. In modern society, the move to the acceptance of gay marriage was indeed gradual.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist January 28, 2014 12:23 PM  

What I disagree with is the assumption that democracy = good. This is something that's ingrained in us from childhood - the idea that democracy is the same as liberty; the idea that there are essentially only really two forms of government possible: mass democracy or Hitler. This is nonsense.

Democracy is incompatible with Islam because, long term, it is incompatible with any system that runs on faith and tradition. The centrifugal forces in a democracy always pull it towards ruinous social economics and social libertinism. Plato told us that twenty-five centuries ago. He was right then, and he's right now. The way the West ended up after it adopted democracy isn't a fluke - it's the only way things could have ended; the only way that twenty-five centuries of experience tells us they do ever end. That the United States had an exceptionally long run before the inevitable happened to it doesn't make the inevitable any less inevitable. The world of orderly, Christian democracy that we see from, say, 1954, was simply a point along a path; it could not have been sustained.

Sorry, but that's the truth, and the sooner you all accept it the better.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben January 28, 2014 12:24 PM  

Fritz, do you support polygamy?

Anonymous FritzG January 28, 2014 12:26 PM  

"The idea was not and is not accepted."

All I know is that a majority of Americans when surveyed and polled now support same sex marriage." This is not a lie. Perhaps I don't know what you mean by "accepted".

Anonymous FritzG January 28, 2014 12:30 PM  

"HIV infections needlessly caused every single year by gay men"

Again, this is where I stop reading...when you want to equate pointing a gun at a human being with the intent of killing them on the one hand and being gay on the other hand.

Anonymous FritzG January 28, 2014 12:34 PM  

"Fritz, do you support polygamy?"

I honestly can't find a single reason why I should oppose it.

Anonymous Steveo January 28, 2014 12:35 PM  

FritzG - A bunch of gays and lesbians can hardly be accused of that. They wrote, protested, put "Will and Grace" on TV, etc. It's not as though they went out and shot doctors who perform abortions.

Let's see, a couple of gays loved Jesse Dirkhising to death, does he count?

Anonymous VD January 28, 2014 12:39 PM  

We have been welcoming immigrants for more than 200 years

This is completely false, Fritz. Immigration has been restricted since 1882 and the "Immigration Act of 1924 created a quota system that restricted entry to 2 percent of the total number of people of each nationality in America as of the 1890 national census."

The 1924 act was in place until 1965 and it maintained cultural stability which was ruined by the 1965 act.

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni January 28, 2014 12:41 PM  

So, Mr. ADA - or Fritz - why did democracy work so well in parts of Asia but not the Middle East? And why didn't gay marriage take off in Islamic countries or in the 38 countries in Africa (not all Islamic-majority) which have laws against sodomy?

Anonymous Dan in Tx (Shut up Tad) January 28, 2014 12:48 PM  

In case no one has said it yet

SHUT UP TAD

I figure steering the conversation to the gay shit was a dead give away.

Anonymous FritzG January 28, 2014 12:55 PM  

"This is completely false, Fritz. Immigration has been restricted since 1882 and the "Immigration Act of 1924 created a quota system that restricted entry to 2 percent of the total number of people of each nationality in America as of the 1890 national census."

The 1924 act was in place until 1965 and it maintained cultural stability which was ruined by the 1965 act."

Based on your comments it's clear that we HAVE been welcoming immigrants, but that you don't like the KIND of immigrants that come to America now. OK.

Anonymous Dan in Tx January 28, 2014 12:56 PM  

See....RACISSSS!

Anonymous zen0 January 28, 2014 1:03 PM  

@ FG
Again, this is where I stop reading...when you want to equate pointing a gun at a human being with the intent of killing them on the one hand and being gay on the other hand.


Your a liar and a fraud. Being a homosexual is not the issue, and that was quite clear to people who are not frauds or idiots.
Knowingly passing on STD's en masse is the issue. In my country, it is a criminal offense.

Anonymous Salt January 28, 2014 1:03 PM  

And Fritz ignores the salient 2% factor.

Anonymous Will Best January 28, 2014 1:07 PM  

Again, this is where I stop reading...when you want to equate pointing a gun at a human being with the intent of killing them on the one hand and being gay on the other hand.

By common law, if you infect somebody with HIV and they subsequently die from a diminished immune system it is either murder or manslaughter. By common law, if you infect somebody with HIV it is battery.

Anonymous FP January 28, 2014 1:10 PM  

FritzG wrote: "It was gradual....In modern terms."

Ah yes modern terms, with big money and government backing. Sort of like modern medical science and cholesterol/heart disease. Its taken more time to dispel those lies on saturated fats than it has for gay marriage to be made into a big deal that is apparently worthy of spending insane amounts of time on.

As for healthcare, cut me a check for the $700 more in premiums I'd be paying if I had been forced to take just a "bronze" AHCA plan (praise be to his Imperial Majesty Obama and my state insurance commisar for allowing a one year repreive). Oh and about $4,000 to cover my increased deductable. Got a spare $3k or so to make sure I can cover out of network costs? Tell me Fritz, why does it cost $2k for an MRI at my local hospital yet 20 miles south of me its $499 at a clinic that has bilboard adverts on the interstate? Why/how do the hospital and insurance companies get away with that?

I love guys like you Fritz, as even with unequivocal evidence that gov healthcare doesn't work you'll still call me various names and tell me I have bigger problems if I can't afford healthcare. My tolerance has been beaten out of me in the last ten years due to guys like you.

Anonymous willneverpostagain January 28, 2014 1:12 PM  

FritzG, Vox clearly made you out as a liar when he stated 28 out of 30 states voted to ban gay marriage, which means it is definitely NOT accepted by the majority. You remind me of Pauline Kael when she opined that she couldn't understand how Nixon was voted in office, since no one she knew voted for him. Please retract your false statement about gay marriage now.

Anonymous VD January 28, 2014 1:12 PM  

Based on your comments it's clear that we HAVE been welcoming immigrants, but that you don't like the KIND of immigrants that come to America now. OK.

No, I don't. I don't like importing barbarians and savages. Do you? How many Ugandans do you want to import so they can pass laws criminalizing homosexuals like you, Fritz? There are 35 million of them. If I wanted to live in Africa, I would move to Africa. If I wanted to live in Mexico, I would move there. Why would I want to live in a Africanized America? Why would I want to live in a Mexicanized America?

Also, it's not merely a question of quality. The quantity was severely restricted too.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben January 28, 2014 1:25 PM  

FP, my thoughts exactly. I guess if you have HIV as a pre-existing condition Obamacare is a pretty good deal. Not so if you just want a catastrophic plan.

Keep on eating the shitty "healthy" whole grain, sugar infused shit. It has American Heart Association approval, don't you know?

Anonymous Anonymous January 28, 2014 1:33 PM  

It was gradual....In modern terms. Consider what it had taken to move an idea from an extreme idea to accepted status in the middle of the 20th century versus what it takes today. Communication of ideas is instantaneous today. Opinions can be shaped much more quickly and cases can be made much more efficiently and the promotion of ideas can be undertaken far more easily and more broadly than in the past. Both the swiftness with which the Arab Spring spread and the movement of gay marriage from absurd to acceptable in no more than 20 or so years is evidence of this speeding up of the exchange of ideas. In modern society, the move to the acceptance of gay marriage was indeed gradual.

Let's assume your insistence on popular acceptance (which I do not) When the backlash comes and homosexuality is again seen as the destructive evil it is, the change in attitudes will happen quickly and democratically. When that happens and you are to be sentenced to death for your immorality and crimes against humanity, to what standard will you appeal?

Anonymous Porky January 28, 2014 1:37 PM  

Again, this is where I stop reading...when you want to equate pointing a gun at a human being with the intent of killing them on the one hand and being gay on the other hand.

Not equating. Comparing.

Kind of like you compared "Will and Grace" to murdering abortionists.

You know, the cigarette companies got shellacked for the kind of misrepresentation you just perpetrated. They portrayed cigarette smoking as a fun, mainstream activity with very little health risk when they knew otherwise.

And then here comes Fritzy, who portrays his lifestyle as a hilarious TV comedy while while intentionally hiding his dark, deadly secret.

You should be hauled into court and given the same treatment that Philip Morris got.

Blogger CarpeOro January 28, 2014 1:39 PM  

"If you can't afford healthcare coverage under the Affordable Care Act, you're problems go well beyond not having healthcare."

So when a man is down, put your foot on his neck and stand on it. Like I said, Liberals are heartless. Next you'll be saying that the government can help me out if only I let it....

Anonymous FP January 28, 2014 1:41 PM  

Oh, and before I forget, thanks to the AHCA (we can't call it obamacare anymore, thats raciss again), that clinic 20 miles south of me is possibly "out of network". Why? Because its in a different county. My plan is priced on the county I live in and the one west of me but not 20 minutes south of me down the interstate.

Anonymous patrick kelly January 28, 2014 2:04 PM  

Wow, I didn't find one comment on the NYT article supporting this guys lamenting for "democracy" in Egypt. There is hope after all... well... maybe....

Anonymous FritzG January 28, 2014 2:12 PM  

"I don't like importing barbarians and savages. Do you? How many Ugandans do you want to import so they can pass laws criminalizing homosexuals like you, Fritz? There are 35 million of them. If I wanted to live in Africa, I would move to Africa. If I wanted to live in Mexico, I would move there. Why would I want to live in a Africanized America? Why would I want to live in a Mexicanized America?"

I would not like living among savages. But immigration has not led to anyone living among savages, so it's kind of moot. Also, America is not "africanized" nor "mexicanized". So that's not a worry either.

The use of the term savage is interesting, though. I have a number of both friends and acquaintances who were born in Mexico, Belize, Hondurus, South Africa and Ethiopia. They all, with the exception of one, have good jobs, pay their bills, vote, take part in their community, and they are entirely civilized. But by your definition they are savages. I don't think so.

Anonymous FritzG January 28, 2014 2:14 PM  

"When the backlash comes and homosexuality is again seen as the destructive evil it is, the change in attitudes will happen quickly and democratically. When that happens and you are to be sentenced to death for your immorality and crimes against humanity, to what standard will you appeal?"

What could possibly lead to folks turning on their fellow citizens who happen to be homosexuals? Also, homosexuality isn't immoral or a crime against humanity any more that my staightness is.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 January 28, 2014 2:34 PM  

What could possibly lead to folks turning on their fellow citizens who happen to be homosexuals?

You could start with homosexuals attacking churches.

Then go on to how a gay man raped and murdered a 51-year-old woman for encouraging him to date girls.

And this is the tip of the iceberg.

Also, homosexuality isn't immoral or a crime against humanity any more that my staightness is.

Like it or not, homosexuality is immoral if you are a Christian.

Anonymous Dan in Tx January 28, 2014 2:39 PM  

From "Democracy in the Middle East" no another co-opted homo thread.

Anonymous Josh January 28, 2014 2:47 PM  

Thread derailed, great job everyone!

Anonymous VD January 28, 2014 2:58 PM  

FritzG, you're ludicrously off-topic and are henceforth limited to five comments per post. Lud, you don't get to keep asking the same questions over and over and over again. You know perfectly well why homosexuality is both evil and destructive. The topic has been discussed here before.

Anonymous Big Bill January 28, 2014 2:59 PM  

"Like those behind the gay marriage issue?"

At one time, yes. But not any more. Now the notion of gay marriage is well within the mainstream.


Absolutely right. And if we killed all white folks and replaced thrm with cl!t-chopping Somalis and head-chopping Wahhabis, and machine-gunning Mexican dope gangs it would STILL be America ... It's just that "public opinion" in "America" would have shifted a bit more, so to speak.

But they would still be "Americans", right?

And as long as they voted for a Caliph extermination of all infidels, and world-wide Jihad in an official American Constitutional Convention they can claim to be descendants of the proud American tradition of Washington, Jefferson and Madison!

Anonymous VD January 28, 2014 3:00 PM  

homosexuality isn't immoral or a crime against humanity

You're lying again. There is no question that homosexuality is immoral by most moral standards. It is a crime in dozens of countries. Now, you're done on this thread.

Anonymous FritzG January 28, 2014 3:01 PM  

"FritzG, you're ludicrously off-topic and are henceforth limited to five comments per post."

First I'm told I must respond to queries and question or get banned (thanks for defending me on the Age question, however), now I'm told if I respond to direct questions and comments I'm off topic.

Confusing rules.

I get why I probably get more inquiries and questions from folks. I think I have a different perspective on issues than 90% of the people in this community. So, any way...

Anonymous VD January 28, 2014 3:04 PM  

Confusing rules.

No doubt. Now it's very easy for you. You get five comments per post. You've used them all up here. Use them wisely on future posts.

I think I have a different perspective on issues than 90% of the people in this community.

You are a very special snowflake. That's why we don't want to use you all up at once.

Anonymous Josh January 28, 2014 3:40 PM  

In all fairness to Fritz, he wasn't the one to bring up gay marriage in this thread.

I still think he's tad, though.

Anonymous Anonymous January 28, 2014 3:43 PM  

To bring back this comment thread to the OP, I was asked the following questions:

"You remain hopeful? Why do you even care? What is Tunisia to you, other than a place to potentially harm with your unnecessary and unwanted interference?"

First of all, I care about people all over the world -- I find the world an interesting place and those who long to be free, better themselves, etc. have my moral support. Of course, I'd love it even more if someday Christian missionaries were allowed into Tunisia to spread the Gospel -- I'm a big believer in the Great Commission.

"These were foreign-led insurrections against native dictatorships...not the other way around."

Again, not true in Tunisia where it could be argued the so-called "Arab Spring" began when a fruit vendor set himself on fire.

"The history of democracy in the Middle East shows that democracy does not necessarily work even if you have a homogeneous population. It matters what kind of voters are voting...Is there any Arab country with a functioning democracy? And it's not because of Islam. Islam grew up among Arabs because it was a good fit for the population, not because it was imposed on them. That is also why Islamic democracy is a contradiction in terms, or at least an oxymoron."

Hmm. If you are arguing that the Arabs appear to be not a very good fit for democracy, I would agree. On the other hand, some Arab populations (notably those with more of a colonial history) seem to do better with some forms of democracy than others -- for example Lebanon (which obviously is helped by its Christian population), the Arab minority in Israel, maybe that's it. So I would agree that they aren't a good fit and we shouldn't be imposing our way of life on them. As for Islam itself, democracy seems to be taking fragile hold in southeast Asia -- places like Indonesia and Malaysia -- whether it will actually flourish there remains to be seen. I am pessimistic myself, but it would certainly be nice if Islam in those places came to some sort of accommodation with consensual forms of government and especially started treating minority rights seriously (so that Christian communities, and other religious minorities) would get formal protection from both the state and the mosque.

Blogger Lud VanB January 28, 2014 4:09 PM  

"First of all, I care about people all over the world -- I find the world an interesting place and those who long to be free, better themselves, etc. have my moral support. Of course, I'd love it even more if someday Christian missionaries were allowed into Tunisia to spread the Gospel -- I'm a big believer in the Great Commission."

In other words you are looking for the violent rabble rousing that inevitable follows missionary corruption of local youth away from their cultural beliefs. Don't get me wrong I don't believe in their fiction any more than I do in yours but if your really care about these people, why introduce a situation that will inevitably lead to blood shed once your cult has been introduced to a large enough segment of the population?

Blogger dixiedog January 28, 2014 4:16 PM  

You know, the cigarette companies got shellacked for the kind of misrepresentation you just perpetrated. They portrayed cigarette smoking as a fun, mainstream activity with very little health risk when they knew otherwise.

The only way cigarettes became increasingly socially ostracized was by government partnering with the medical/media establishment against the cig companies, "the pro-smoking zealots," and/or by its increasingly restrictive edicts that have come to fruition since 1964.

With sodomy we see the same measure, except the rolls are reversed with this issue vs smoking (tobacco): the medical/media establishment supports sodomy or is, at best, ambivalent towards it. Government partners with the medical/media establishment "pro-sodomy zealots" against the traditionalists so over time sodomy becomes more and more acceptable and not ostracized. Roll reversal.

The problem is that commoners or Mundanes, despite their lamenting the media, Hollyweird, and government on one hand, nevertheless heed the continuous pro or con propaganda on a given issue from the idiot box media, entertainment, and government complex.

Unless there's a genuine spiritual revival soon, this country is destined for the ash heap.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist January 28, 2014 6:00 PM  

"why did democracy work so well in parts of Asia but not the Middle East?"

Which parts of Asia are these? Most Asian democracies are a couple of decades into their democracy experiments, so it's far too early to tell how those will go (I'll call your attention to the fact that I was sure to use the modifier "long term" in my statement).

Also, here we must define "working well". The early results are not encouraging. Cultural rot manifests differently in different places. I would argue, for example, that the appalling birthrate in many East Asian countries is simply a different manifestation of the same forces that get reflected in things like rampant bastardy and its handmaiden of out-of-control crime here. Riots in the streets are not the only possible sign of impending instability. This won't end well.

One could also certainly question how much Japan, for example, is an actual democracy as opposed to merely an apparent one. If you think that the US is bad in terms of being a thin shell of democracy on top of an actual corporate oligarchy, that's nothing compared to how things are there. Among other things, this rampant corporatism results in a sort of well-paid virtual slavery for many in East Asia. Check out how many hours a day your average Japanese or South Korean white-collar worker puts in at the office. Commuter trains are frequently crowded at 11PM on weekdays, full of people in suits headed home after having been at the office since 7AM. There is no one to vote for to change this, as the system has been utterly coopted. As far as letting corporations get away with anything they like goes, the Japan Communist Party might as well be the Texas Republican Party.

Maybe if people had time for families, they'd create them. A King would probably think of his country, long term, and force the corporations to make it happen. Democracies have notoriously high time preferences and corporations care only for themselves, so put the two together, and you're pretty much screwed. Like I said, this won't end well.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 28, 2014 6:10 PM  

Here, let me fix that for you, Fritz: "Immigration and democracy WERE entirely compatible."

But "that was yesterday, and yesterday's gone." And it wasn't even entirely true then.

Anonymous zen0 January 28, 2014 7:20 PM  

I still think he's tad, though.

If he is not, and the other similar avatars are not, then it means that TAD is an identifiable internet induced sickness.

T.A.D.

Totally Asinine Declarations

Anonymous zen0 January 28, 2014 7:28 PM  

Support for immigration has always been about cheap labor, or, more recently, U.N. refugee obligations. Goes all the way back to importing African interns and Chinese railroad building fodder.

I can't see why Labor Unions would support this, especially during the current depression.

Anonymous zen0 January 28, 2014 7:29 PM  

oops

wrong thread

Anonymous cheddarman January 28, 2014 8:08 PM  

A King would probably think of his country, long term - Anti democracy activist

I nominate Nate for king...he would be the most bad assed king since at least King Jan Sobieski of Poland. Porky could be his jester.

Anonymous Porky January 28, 2014 8:20 PM  

@cheddarman

Only a complete pantywaist sycophant would beg to be ruled by a king.

Back in the days when Americans were tearing down statues of kings in the town square and burning them in effigy we would take lickspittle loyalists like yourself and dip you in tar and roll you in feathers before we chased you and your family out of town and burnt your home to the ground.

Good times.....good times.



Anonymous CX January 28, 2014 9:43 PM  

"You are a very special snowflake. That's why we don't want to use you all up at once."

I nearly spat out water all over my work computer. Well played, sir.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 28, 2014 10:34 PM  

They tell me that there is a State of the Unicorn address tonight. Is that correct?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 28, 2014 10:36 PM  

"...just as the importation of barbarians and savages into the USA means that they will henceforth serve as the deciding factor in government so long as some vestiges of democracy survive in the declining West."

That's not how it works.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 28, 2014 11:50 PM  


"...just as the importation of barbarians and savages into the USA means that they will henceforth serve as the deciding factor in government so long as some vestiges of democracy survive in the declining West."

That's not how it works.


I guess you are correct. TPTB can always find enough cold bodies to vote things their way anyway. That is why they are so opposed to voter ID.

Anonymous Colorado Confederate January 29, 2014 12:01 AM  

FRITZG...
"Immigrants participate in elections and we still have democracy. The reason it words in America is there is something about this country that instill in it citizens to shun extremists, who will be the ones that ruin a good thing.

As for the Affordable Health Care Act, I have my same doctor and my premium has gone down."

After that post I am convinced that FritzG is one of the regulars around here pulling a stunt.

C'mon, who are you really? Markku? Animal Mother?

Anonymous The other skeptic January 29, 2014 12:16 AM  

Is this an example of the Ukraine Spring?

Anonymous The other skeptic January 29, 2014 12:18 AM  

I can't see why Labor Unions would support this, especially during the current depression.

Union leaders claim they represent union members. However, it is not true. They represent union leaders.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 29, 2014 12:27 AM  

The other skeptic: "I guess you are correct. TPTB can always find enough cold bodies to vote things their way anyway. That is why they are so opposed to voter ID."

Or they can have judges strike down and bring in whatever they really want. There are lots of ways.

Blogger Rseven Rocket January 29, 2014 12:35 AM  

FritzG said:
As for the Affordable Health Care Act, I have my same doctor and my premium has gone down.

What a goddamned liar. I recommend you pay the soldiers first, for your own sake.

Blogger Rseven Rocket January 29, 2014 12:38 AM  

FritzG said:

Those who act on ideologies and political or religious views well outside the mainstream consensus.


FritzG keeps referring to the Cathedral over and over again. He likes doing the fellatio on the Cathedral doesn't he?

Anonymous Discard January 29, 2014 1:52 AM  

As anyone from Southern California can tell you, Mexicans bring decay. Any close inspection of education and crime numbers will confirm that for you Easterners. When FritzG says that immigration has not led to anyone living among savages, he lies. If all the Black and Hispanic immigrants he knows are law-abiding taxpayers, that only shows that he does a good job of avoiding the more typical newcomers.

Anonymous cheddarman January 29, 2014 9:02 AM  

Porky,

i am not begging to be ruled by a king. And I would put a bullet in your head if you tried to harm my private property or my person.

A good king thinks about the long term interests of his country, not how he is going to win the next re-election cycle by giving out free shit. If you want to be ruled by a bunch of easily bought traitors, that is your call.

The American Republic died in 1865. It lasted about 80 years.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic January 29, 2014 10:52 AM  

First of all, I care about people all over the world -- I find the world an interesting place and those who long to be free, better themselves, etc. have my moral support. Of course, I'd love it even more if someday Christian missionaries were allowed into Tunisia to spread the Gospel -- I'm a big believer in the Great Commission.

Another "conservative" who's only conserving 20th century American progressivism. That is, a typical liberal burnishing his humanist credentials by empathy with ever more exotic Others. No notion of country or people.

BTW, from what I've read, missionaries in the umma lands usually just make a half-hearted run at the Muslims, then concentrate on poaching the local Copts or other Oriental Christians.

Blogger Marissa January 29, 2014 12:06 PM  

Same sex marriage was not "imposed" upon anyone. Very much like the abolitionist movement or the civil rights movement or the suffrage movement

Except that war which killed 800,000 and the federal government ramming laws and amendments down people's throats.

Anonymous Big Cheese January 29, 2014 7:45 PM  

‘The American Republic died in 1865. It lasted about 80 years.”

What history book have you authored, or even read, to make this assertion? Perhaps you ought to take advice regarding the long-term interests of our country in light of the events preceding the four years from your “declaration”.

Anonymous Big Cheese January 29, 2014 7:45 PM  

“As anyone from Southern California can tell you, Mexicans bring decay.”

So do the Irish, the Germans, the Jews, the Muslims, etc. Your point?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 29, 2014 9:15 PM  

Big Cheese: "So do the Irish, the Germans, the Jews, the Muslims, etc. Your point?"

The Irish don't. The Germans don't. The Jews bring distorted investment not decay. The Muslims vary depending on who they are; Persians aren't Arabs. Mankind isn't all the same; hence the history of the human race.

Now what's your point in framing things according to a uniformity that doesn't exist?

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts