Monday, November 16, 2009

Our Hasan Apologists Sober Up Hitch

Doesn't sound like he has an ounce of ouiskie flowing in his veins. Gen. Casey and co. have made a teetotaler out of him?
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , ,

4 comments:

Tecumseh said...

Single malt not working anymore.

11/17/2009 3:42 AM
Mr roT said...

Hitch is a bore. Seems he's trying to co-opt the feminists and homos in Cambridge to his pox-on-all-religions bs while in fact theirs is the stupidest and most vacuous set of beliefs there is, and he shares them.

Like Tecs and his sidekick David Brooks say, you can't beat something with nothing. Tecs is of course talking about Palin's diploma versus Obama's, and blinding himself to something deeper, called character, but let us leave Tecs to grovel in his confusion on that and othe rcounts for now.

Point is that a bunch of tie-dyed feel-gooders that write 5 page histories of the American blowjob for Vanity Fair are not going to last long in the stoning.

I don't mean physically. I mean morally.

Permissive societies die quick.

You two schmucks fill in the blanks. I am trying to read a wrong paper.

11/17/2009 4:52 AM
Tecumseh said...

Mr Rot, Mr Rot (said with a deep Rooskie baritone). WTF are you talking about. Methinks you need a hearty dose of Glenlivet, le tout arrosé with a gros rouge.

11/17/2009 10:07 AM
My Frontier Thesis said...

With AA's post, it sounds like Rot and Tecs are conjuring up an old but important debate that has been a healthy characteristic of the intellectual tradition in American history: the question, since John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, has been whether we're a nation founded on christian morals or enlightenment universals. I'm quite fascinated by it all. This little experiment we're continuing in America will not stand for individuals who think they're above the law, who run around trying to justify murder — whether it's with non-secular language or not. What the FBI was doing simply watching him is beyond me. It seems to be beyond us all at this point.

As Aristotle points out in his "Rhetoric and Poetics," politicians guide societies into the future, and philosophers are more interested in discovering truths through questioning and skeptical inquiry. Thus, philosophers are not politicians. Hitch continues to contribute to an important component of the intellect in our Western Tradition (easily in the David Hume/Ben Franklin/Thomas Paine sense). But Rot is in part correct in that the Hitch doesn't have any place as a political/government official. Hitch is a skeptic. Yet that too is important if we want to hone our wits and intellect.

Just some thoughts on the passing scene. That's all. And by the way: I'm up to having blasted 3 rooster pheasants on the northern Plains this autumn. I'd like to thank China for lending us the fowl so we could stock the Plains so many decades ago. Thanksgiving will be that much more bountiful.

11/17/2009 10:13 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)