Comments for A Mild Voice of Reason

Comment on Skeleton Keys by Jalen Heil

Jalen Heil — Mon, 14 May 2012 05:58:00 +0000

I just found a old ass one in my basement with the key, worth anything?

Comment on Reflections on the “After Liberalism” Essays in “First Things” by Dissenter

Dissenter — Thu, 03 May 2012 23:19:00 +0000

Wow, same old, same old theme. What’s amazing about you liberals is that you NEVER think YOU have to change, everyone ELSE must change to accept your views. Wrong.

Comment on Saul Alinsky, Reconsidered by Cmgx

Cmgx — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:13:00 +0000

When “one” ACTUALLY READS and stops to reflect on what was just read, it’s amazing that when “one” isn’t looking, “one” might actually learn something.

Comment on Gillikinisms by j9gillik

j9gillik — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 05:32:00 +0000

“People who disdain aphorisms are condemned to repeat them.” — Jason Gillikin

Comment on Gillikinisms by Sondra Ruth

Sondra Ruth — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 05:20:00 +0000

“The quoting of an aphorism, like the angry barking of a dog or the smell of overcooked broccoli, rarely indicates that something helpful is about to happen.” –Lemony Snicket, _The Vile Village_

Comment on Moral Relativism = Moral Nihilism. QED. by Frankie Machine

Frankie Machine — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:59:39 +0000

“Their argument was a moral one: “Marriage equality” is a right, and people who oppose the right are homophobic bigots. And no one wants to be a bigot, right?”

Nonsense. You have blatantly misrepresented the argument of the gay rights and marriage equality advocates. You should have researched why marriage equality is so important. Marriage equality is not only a moral issue, as you claim. It is a constitutional one. People in a homosexual relationship are denied equal protection of the laws, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. This site has a good summary of the rights denied to gay couples because they cannot be legally married: http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

Anybody who has spent any time on earth has encountered gay couples and knows that their relationships have the same strains, idiosyncracies, and commitment as any heterosexual marriage does. A gay relationship and a straight relationship should be the exact same thing in the eyes of the law, and they are not. That is what the marriage equality movement is about. For you to conclude that marriage equality advocates are “imposing their own values on those who didn’t accept them” is disturbing. Wanting legal protection guaranteed by the constitution is at the very basis of this country’s values. Please rethink your stance on this issue.

Comment on You Go To The Polls With the Candidates You Have by Jason Gillikin

Jason Gillikin — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 01:09:09 +0000

Clark Durant.

Comment on You Go To The Polls With the Candidates You Have by MHR

MHR — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 01:01:10 +0000

Who’s the establishment idiot going after Hoekstra?

Comment on Surviving the Apocalypse by Frankie Machine

Frankie Machine — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:59:11 +0000

*As Republicans win elections*, though, a few things would likely happen:
The elderly and infirm would die.
Small children would be at elevated risk, especially if their parents died.
More and more aggressive, Type A folks would seek to dominate the supply chain around them, forming the nexus of small chieftains that would rule over areas not already divided along tribal lines.
Society would fragment along ethnic/tribal/familial lines in areas where those traditions still carry weight. People would have to increasingly make tough choices to survive, in the “If you want bread, give me your 15-year-old daughter for the night” vein.

*Fixed your typo.
I’ve noticed that the people who like to imagine what an apocalypse would turn America into always imagine that they would be the ones smart enough to be on top in the bleak landscape. That explains why they come up with scenarios like having sex with fifteen year old girls. An apocalypse would let them indulge the sick acts that civilization prevents them from doing. And they’re invariably Republican.
Liberals, however, would like to do whatever we can as a nation to prevent this holocaust from happening in the first place. That’s why liberals try to invest in good water and food and infrastructure. Their “utopianism” as you call it is actually informed by what history tells us about human nature: in the absence of solid infrastructure and safety nets and protections for the vulnerable, societies have cannibalized themselves. The first few decades of the 20th Century in Europe showed America what NOT to do, and wise leaders did what they could to prevent that kind of devastation from happening here. We built roads and water treatment plants and brought electricity to rural areas. Republicans, on the other hand, love the idea of what you describe here, and they long to bring it about.

Comment on Surviving the Apocalypse by Abbi

Abbi — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 03:26:42 +0000

Wouldn’t the “Occupy-fetishists’” idea of a world be a better place to live in, or should we just accept the alternative, albeit more believable, option you’re describing so vividly? Why assume that people will lose all sense of morality and reason just to survive?

In such a world, I cannot imagine finding much reason to carry on with an existence. Family, friends, and faith are all powerful motivators, but I would want something better to live for than simply killing another human for his or her pile of food. If in this theoretical apocalypse there might be a chance for a better way of life, why not chase it? Call me an idealist, but I think I’d take my chances with the Occupy-ists in 2013. :)

On the topic of a theoretical apocalypse, The Road was a beautiful, grim, and heartbreaking novel. I highly recommend the book if you haven’t read it yet.