30 thoughts on “Overheard on Twitter

  1. A sister adopted a pair of infants from Russia near twenty years ago. Later, they were diagnosed with that condition. Both the boy and girl developed violent tendencies, and were institutionalized for a while. I hear this F.A.S. problem is rampant in Russia. No wonder that country is so screwed up.

    • That could explain the two children my music teacher adopted when I was a child, although I don’t recall the lower ears that is one marker for FAS.

  2. Yeah, it’s funny, but the blunt fact is that Trump has support. A lot of support. And the reason he has this support is because the Republican Party really does have fetal alcohol syndrome, not to mention a history of abuse against its conservative base.

    • We’re tired of Republicans not sticking up for the American Principles of Liberty and we’re tired of the corruption, so we’re going to support a blatantly authoritarian Progressive Republican who openly brags about having bribed politicians.

      “This is how freedom dies…”

      There is one advantage to that; we cannot possibly feel betrayed after he’s in office because we will have openly asked for it this time. It’s not rape if it’s consensual and it can’t be called fraud if all parties’ intentions were clearly known in advance.

      It can however be called unconstitutional, but who cares about that any more?

      • We’re tired of Republicans not sticking up for the American Principles of Liberty and we’re tired of the corruption, so we’re going to support a blatantly authoritarian Progressive Republican who openly brags about having bribed politicians.

        You’re still not quite there. We’re tired of seeing alleged Republicans that are actually authoritarian Progressive Republicans who are just in it to funnel money to their cronies who also can’t figure out how to win an election, even when they do win the election (and have both houses of Congress.)

        Trump has wrapped himself (truthfully or not) in the cloth of the truly converted. “I feel your pain, America, because even as rich as I am, they screwed me over too. I couldn’t do honest work, because the only way to get ahead was to pay off politicians.” The problem is, you are ignoring the rest of his argument — “And I’m going to change that and make America great again.”

      • “We’re tired of Republicans not sticking up for the American Principles of Liberty and we’re tired of the corruption, so we’re going to support a blatantly authoritarian Progressive Republican who openly brags about having bribed politicians.”

        Trump’s rise is not a result of rational thought, but flailing anger. People have blindly latched on to the one candidate who they believe cannot be controlled or influenced by the GOPe. And everything wrong with him is either irrelevant to them in the face of that one point, or they are too angry to care.

  3. Well, there went my respect for Gura. A constitutional gun law whiz he may be, but he’s whiffing big-time on a another major aspect of the current culture war. I think Glenn Reynolds had it right. The establishment failed to understand, and consequently pissed on and denigrated, the Tea Party folks years ago. They didn’t fix the core of the Establishment problem. That gave way to a deeper, courser, more low-brow anger. If Trump gets cheated by smoke-filled rooms at the convention or doesn’t win amid a lot of uncontested fraud, then the next nominee is going to be really scary.

  4. Yeah, that’d be funny if Gura had won any Second Amendment cases since Heller. One loss after another after another. He even forgot to vet the judge in Wrenn to see if he was even eligible to hear the case. Another year wasted. I think maybe Gura has some kind of syndrome himself.

    And I’m no Trump fan. I’m libertarian leaning and could live with Cruz if he kept his religion out of the law. But all the Republicans (except maybe Trump, I don’t know his position) want “drug control” and “vice control”, etc. etc. etc., just tyrants on the other side.

    • What are you afraid of; that Cruz will send out federal troops door-to-door, roust you out of bed on Sunday mornings and drag you off the church?

      You want religion out of the law?

      “Thou shalt not murder”
      “Thou shalt not bear false witness”, etc.

      Like it or not, our notions of right and wrong, good and evil, of justice (as opposed to revenge); these things come down to us through Judeo/Christian civilization. Our founding document references “Creator” as the source of human rights. You want to toss all that out, you’ll have a hard time putting it back together.

      The first amendment contain the establishment clause, which is the most often cited, but don’t forget the free exercise clause. If this is going to cause you to reject the only remaining constitutionalist in the presidential race, we have more serious problems to confront. Let it go. Christians are not your enemies. Fake Christians (hypoChristians) maybe, but not the real thing. There is a difference.

      Don’t want to “legislate morality”? Sounds hip. Let’s look at it then; Theft, murder, property crimes, fraud, perjury, assault; these acts are all immoral. Thus all just laws constitute the legislation of morality, first, foremost and exclusively. It’s all any proper law should be. Or do you want those things legalized so we can be “free”?

      • I could say “god damn it” all day long and you might not bat an eye, but if I should leave out the “damn it” part, now your rights are being violated? Explain how this works.

        • Another bullshit straw man argument. Who said anything about you saying “god” or not? Or that that would violate anyone’s rights?

          If my liberty is infringed by someone imposing their values upon government policy, religiously-based or otherwise, that’s how it works.

      • I find it funny that people are afraid that we would or could establish a Christian theocracy. We are so far past that possibility that it is laughable. Relax,

        Worry about muslims trying to get courts to accept sharia law and the risk of a dual justice system. That is a real concern. If you hate Christians because they point out your sins, just wait until muslims behead you, stone you, or throw you off a building. That is the threat, so stop voting for them (aka someone like the POTUS) and vote for Christians.

        • Yeah. So you think all the opposition to same-sex marriage wasn’t predominantly from christians attempting to impose their values via government policy?

          You think all those people who oppose “death with dignity”/assisted suicide etc. aren’t mostly christians attempting to impose their values via government policy?

          You think that the vast majority of people who oppose efforts to decriminalize/legalize consenting adult remuneration for sexual activity aren’t christians attempting to impose their values via government policy?

          Etc. Etc. Etc.

          Theocracy indeed.

          • Yeah. So you think all the opposition to same-sex marriage wasn’t predominantly from christians attempting to impose their values via government policy?

            You think that libertarian philosophy supports the idea that the government should be in the marriage business in the first place?

            You think all those people who oppose “death with dignity”/assisted suicide etc. aren’t mostly christians attempting to impose their values via government policy?

            You think that a libertarian philosophy supports the idea of physician killing when there is also the power of the state to declare someone incompetent (because of their illness, to boot) and give their guardian that power?

            I think that your hatred of Christianity is making it tough for you to adhere to actual libertarian values. There’s a huge gulf between libertarian and just libertine.

          • @Phelps:

            1. Why don’t you answer any of the questions? If those examples aren’t indicative of religious values being imposed via government policy, what is their basis? And who besides christians advocates for them?

            2. I never claimed to be “a true believer” in every tenet of some theoretical “libertarian philosophy”, even if there was one, which there is not. I said I was “libertarian leaning”. Do you have a reading comprehension problem or is it intentional disingenuousness? Your attempt to pidgeonhole me, and then lie about what I must believe, is bullshit.

            3. No I don’t think government should be in the “marriage business”, but it is. And as long as it is, and christians are attempting to impose their values on how government conducts that business, I oppose that imposition. Now, why don’t you answer the question?

            4. I don’t care what your interpretation of any so-called “libertarian philosophy” “supports”. Your use of the phrase “physician killing” belies your meager attempt to hide your agenda. Who said anything about “incompetent”? Who but a christian, or some other “religious” person who “knows” what their make-believe “god” wants would deny a competent person the right to choose how and when to die?

            5. Do you have to distort every statement I made in order to attempt to critique it? That’s a rhetorical question. Obviously you do.

          • 1) Because your questions are bullshit. You are taking genuine political questions that have actual, secular issues (as I have pointed out) and boiling them down to “those dum xtians.”

            2) This is the same argument as “I support the second amendment and I’m a gun owner but let’s require background checks for all transfers, limit magazines to three rounds, and ban scary black guns.” You were arguing that Christians all argue from a bad faith position, while you are arguing from a purely libertarian position… and then you run away from it when confronted with libertarian arguments.

            3) Now you are back to “upon whose couplings shall the state look down upon and approve.” If the state is approving of things, then that approval should be left to the People. There is no self-evident right to marriage. It’s an entirely human creation. If the state is going to be inventing states of being, then the People should be the ones controlling that. There’s no right to against the will of the people (like there is in self-evident rights like self-defense.)

            4) I don’t care about your mewling cries for “gay marriage” and “physician assisted suicide” if you haven’t bothered to figure out the second and third order results. One of the major second order results of legalized physician killing (because assisted suicide is a euphemism — this is about having physicians kill people) is the question of who gets to make the decision. You say, “Oh, they are making for themselves.” Well, what about the people that the State has decided can’t make their own decisions and then appoints someone to make those decisions for them? That is what incompetence under the law is. I don’t want children to be able to decide that their elderly parents are a burden, have them declared incompetent in court, and then have a doctor murder them. That is going to be a result of legalizing physician killing.

            5) Do you ever think about any position beyond your own personal emotions? I’m sorry that you dislike Christians. I’m not basing public policy opinions on your wacky emotions.

          • “You think that libertarian philosophy supports the idea that the government should be in the marriage business in the first place?”

            That might be a valid response, if it weren’t for the fact that all but a very few were a) not arguing to get government out of marriage, and b) arguing that government needed to protect “traditional” marriage by banning gay marriage. Also, if it were actually responsive to his question.

            “You think that a libertarian philosophy supports the idea of physician killing when there is also the power of the state to declare someone incompetent (because of their illness, to boot) and give their guardian that power?”

            Again, not what he said, so not a relevant response.

      • What a stinking pile of horseshit strawman and other fallacious arguments.

        You really can’t tell the difference between when one individual is harmed by another (theft, murder, rape, fraud, etc.) and “crimes” (deemed “sins” by your religion) of victimless activities engaged in by consenting adults like sex, gambling and consuming particular psychotropic substances? Cruz wants to continue to arrest, try, convict and imprison people for those activities, and it’s based upon his religious “morals”.

        Or do you believe that any and all religious values are legitimate sources of government policy? And you use the “historical precedent” argument for deciding which religions count and which don’t?

        • It is important at this juncture to note that the hated George Bush was unable to do any of the things you think Ted Cruz will do, and he had a Republican House and Senate for six years.

          • Name one thing I said “Ted Cruz will do”. One.

            I didn’t make any prognostication. None.

            Please quote my posts and list them.

  5. Alan, I’m only supporting Trump because he promised that, if elected, he would exile you to the North Pole.

    Naked.

    With Joy Behar, also naked.

    😉

  6. People are frustrated, weary and angry, thus overtaken with emotion. Emotions short-circuit, or bypass, the higher order brain functions of reason, discernment and extrapolation. What more proof do we need of that than the current circumstances?

    The cure then is to overcome emotions. It has often been said that a person cannot be reasoned out of a position he did not reason himself into. While true, it offers no solution (other than violence, maybe). If the cure is to overcome emotions, then the first and most important step is to recognize that there are emotions to be overcome.

    That’s difficult to do while your higher order brain functions are short-circuited, but it is possible.

    We are too often occupied with the goal of feeling good rather than of doing good. If you aren’t “feeling good” at the moment, at least you can endeavor to do or to be good. How you feel then becomes less and less important than how you actually are.

  7. With Trump, we might, maybe, get our borders under control. I’m aware of his progressive proclivities, and don’t care. With anyone else, we will not. It is that simple. No borders, no country. That is enough to make Trump my candidate. All other considerations are secondary.

    • You don’t mind losing the Bill of Rights in order to get security? Interesting tradeoff.

        • It isn’t. But I was referring to other things, like Trump’s promise to tear up the freedom of the press. I don’t trust him farther than I can throw him on the 2nd amendment either, though I’ll acknowledge that I have no hard data to support that worry.

Comments are closed.