A Philosopher's Blog

The End Time & Government

Posted in Metaphysics, Philosophy, Politics, Religion by Michael LaBossiere on October 11, 2013
Michele Bachmann

Michele Bachmann (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

Michelle Bachmann seems to have claimed that Obama’s support of the Syrian rebels is a sign of the End Times:

“[President Barack Obama's support of Syrian rebels] happened and as of today the United States is willingly, knowingly, intentionally sending arms to terrorists, now what this says to me, I’m a believer in Jesus Christ, as I look at the End Times scripture, this says to me that the leaf is on the fig tree and we are to understand the signs of the times, which is your ministry, we are to understand where we are in God’s end times history. [...] And so when we see up is down and right is called wrong, when this is happening, we were told this; that these days would be as the days of Noah. We are seeing that in our time. Yes it gives us fear in some respects because we want the retirement that our parents enjoyed. Well they will, if they know Jesus Christ.”

While Bachmann’s political star seems to be falling, she is apparently still an influential figure and popular with many Tea Party members. As such, it seems worthwhile to address her claims.

Her first claim is a factual matter about the mundane world: she asserts that Obama is “willingly, knowingly, intentionally sending arms to terrorists.” This claim is easy enough to disprove. Despite some pressure (including some from Republicans) to arm the rebels, the administration has taken a very limited approach: rebels that have been determined to not be terrorists will be supported with defensive aid rather than provided with offensive weaponry. Thus, Bachmann (who is occasionally has problems with facts) is wrong on two counts. First, Obama is not sending arms (taken as offensive weapons). Second, he is not sending anything to terrorists.

Now, it could be objected that means of defense are arms, under a broad definition of “arms.” Interestingly, as I learned in the 1980s when the debate topic for a year was arms sales, “arms” can be defined very broadly indeed. If Bachmann defines “arms” broadly enough to include defensive aid, then Obama would be sending arms. However, this is rather a different matter than if Obama were sending offensive weapons, such as the Stinger missiles we provided to the mujahedeen when they were fighting the Russians.

It could also be objected that Obama is sending arms to terrorists. This could be done by claiming that he knows that what he sends to Syria could end up being taken from the intended recipients by terrorists. This is a reasonable point of concern, but it seems clear from her words that she does not mean this.

It could also be done by claiming that Obama is lying and he is, in fact, sending the aid to actual terrorists. Alternatively, it could be claimed that he is sending the aid to non-terrorists, but intends for the terrorists to take it.  While this is possible (Presidents have lied about supplying arms in the past), actual proof would be needed to show that he is doing this with will, knowledge and intent. That is, it would have to be established that Obama knows the people who he is sending the aid to are terrorists and/or that he intends for terrorists to receive these arms. Given the seriousness of the claim, this would require equally serious report. Bachmann does not seem to provide any actual evidence for her accusation, hence there is little reason to place confidence in her claim.

While politicians tend to have a “special” relationship with the truth, Bachmann seems to have an extra-special relationship.

Her second claim is a factual matter about the supernatural world: she seems to be claiming that Obama’s alleged funding of terrorists is a sign of the End Times. While I am not a scholar of the end of the world (despite authoring a fictional version of the End Time), what she is claiming does not seem to be accurate. That is, there seems to be no reference to something adequately similar to Obama funding terrorists as a sign of the End Time. But perhaps Bachmann has access to some special information that has been denied to others.

While predictions that the End Time is near are common, it does seem to be bad theology to make such predictions in the context of Christianity. After all,  the official epistemic line seems to be that no one but God knows when this time will come: “But of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” As such, any speculation that something is or is not a sign of the End Time would be rather problematic. If the bible is correct about this, Bachmann should not make such a claim–she cannot possibly know that something is a sign of the End Times or not, since no one can know (other than God) when it will occur.

It could be replied that the bible is wrong about this matter and Bachman can know that she has seen a sign and that the End Times are thus approaching. The obvious reply is that if the bible is wrong about this, then it could be wrong about other things–such as there being an End Time at all.

Interestingly, her view of the coming End Time might help explain her positive view of the government shut down. When asked about the shutdown, she said “It’s exactly what we wanted, and we got it.” While Bachmann has not (as of this writing) claimed that this is also a sign of the End Times, her view that the End Times are approaching would certainly provide an explanation for her lack of concern. After all, if the End Time is fast approaching, then the time of government here on earth is fast approaching its end. Bachmann does seem to think it is on its way.

Weirdly, she also seems to think that Jesus will handle our retirement–which is presumably a reason we will not need the government. She says, “Yes it gives us fear in some respects because we want the retirement that our parents enjoyed. Well they will, if they know Jesus Christ.” This seems to be saying that people who believe the End Time is coming, such as herself, will worry that they will not be able to enjoy their retirement. This seems oddly reasonable: after all, the End Time would certainly clash with the sort of non-end-of-the-world retirement our parents enjoyed. But, oddly enough, she thinks that people who know Jesus will be able to have that retirement, apparently with Jesus providing the benefits rather than the state.

As might be imagined, the fact that Bachmann is an influential figure who apparently has some influence on politics is terrifying enough to itself be a sign of the End Time.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Enhanced by Zemanta
About these ads

35 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. T. J. Babson said, on October 11, 2013 at 8:58 am

    Weirdly, she also seems to think that Jesus will handle our retirement–which is presumably a reason we will not need the government. She says, “Yes it gives us fear in some respects because we want the retirement that our parents enjoyed. Well they will, if they know Jesus Christ.” This seems to be saying that people who believe the End Time is coming, such as herself, will worry that they will not be able to enjoy their retirement.

    Mike, you really need to bone up on your Christian theology. I am returning your essay until you figure out what she is really saying.

  2. ajmacdonaldjr said, on October 11, 2013 at 9:15 am

    Bachman is a Christian Zionist, meaning she holds to a lousy, unbiblical eschatology.

    You’re correct that no one can know the day or hour of Christ’s return, but she’s correct when she says the world will be godless and immoral before the second coming of Christ, because Jesus compared that future time with the time of Noah, which were days of unspeakable evil, much like today (only today is worse).

    “For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark. and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.” (Matthew 24:37-39)

    Today we praise and glorify evil, and we act as though no judgement will come upon us for it, by carrying on as usual. Only those who are following Jesus will perceive the danger we are in, just as Noah once did, when God warned him of the destruction that was soon to come upon the world due to man’s evil ways and thoughts.

    Obama, like his predecessors (dating back to Carter, who created al Qaeda), is arming, funding, and training al Qaeda & Associates in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Caucuses, Kosovo, Africa, etc… and this is a well known and proven fact. This is US policy.

    The USA sided with Saudi Arabia and Israel against Iran and Syria long ago. Russia sided with Iran and Syria long ago too, and Russia is our ultimate enemy, in the eyes of the DoD.

    See: John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Kerry, and Barack Obama fund, arm, and train al Qaeda and its associates in Syria – http://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/john-mccain-lindsey-graham-john-kerry-and-barack-obama-fund-arm-and-train-al-qaeda-and-its-associates-in-syria/

  3. T. J. Babson said, on October 11, 2013 at 9:36 am

    “It could also be objected that Obama is sending arms to terrorists. This could be done by claiming that he knows that what he sends to Syria could end up being taken from the intended recipients by terrorists. This is a reasonable point of concern, but it seems clear from her words that she does not mean this.”

    Except this is exactly what she does mean — that there is no substantive difference between the “rebels” and “terrorists.”

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 15, 2013 at 1:10 pm

      She seemed to claim that Obama is sending them to actual terrorists. Now, one could say that rebels are terrorists here on the grounds that they are all bad. Some folks have made that claim-if so and there is evidence that no one in Syria would pass the vetting process, then they should get nothing.

  4. T. J. Babson said, on October 11, 2013 at 9:46 am

    Why did you hide your new definition of “arms” under a bushel when we were talking about gun control? All this time I thought the right to bear “arms” meant we were talking about guns. I didn’t realize that if the guns were used for defensive purposes they were no longer “arms.”

    And what if the Stinger missiles are used to bring down a helicopter that is machine-gunning you? This sounds pretty defensive to me.

    • Anonymous said, on October 11, 2013 at 10:59 am

      Because mike is a douche who will redefine the meaning of words to suit his purposes and thus “win” any argument. He’s been doing this all along, are you now just noticing? It’s a common tactic of leftists and other liars. Orwell warned vigorously about this. Control language and you control thought.

      • WTP said, on October 11, 2013 at 11:25 am

        Ah, that’s me, WTP. In case it wasn’t obvious.

        • T. J. Babson said, on October 11, 2013 at 12:26 pm

          Never any doubt it was you, WTP.

  5. magus71 said, on October 12, 2013 at 9:46 am

    Per usual, when I read Mike’s posts I see so many problems that by the time I finish reading, I forget the original problems I saw and only hit on the last one.

    1) Mike accuses Bachmann of having troubles with facts from time to time. It seems, he too, has the same troubles. “Thus, Bachmann (who is occasionally has problems with facts) is wrong on two counts. First, Obama is not sending arms (taken as offensive weapons). Second, he is not sending anything to terrorists.”

    Not sure where Mike is getting this information. I guess it’s from the White House’s propaganda that he linked to, which states that the aid “includes” chemical personal protective equipment. This statement does not tell us what the statement does not “include.”

    In fact, what it does include is offensive weaponry. Small arms like rifles, ammunition, light machine guns (probably PKMs, a Russian made LMG) and RPGs which are being provided through another Middle Eastern State, perhaps the Saudis. The weapons and ammo are tracked using a similar system used in the Fast and the Furious scandal, so that after Western Infidels are killed with them, we can know exactly which American factory produced the ammunition…..

    The CIA is providing offensive weapons to the rebels:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57602575/report-cia-delivering-arms-to-syria-rebels/

    2) “Second, he is not sending anything to terrorists” The White House smooths over the statistics here, but the further into this we get, the less and less it looks like the rebels are “moderate.” I will not post anymore links in my comment, because WordPress will send it to Mike’s spam filter if I post more than one link. I find it dismaying, though not surprising, that Vladimir Putin is more on point than American Democrats such as John Kerry when it comes to these things: Putin on Kerry: “He lies, and he knows that he lies.”

    The Daily Beast:

    “Charles Lister, an insurgency expert with IHS Jane’s and author of the analysis, estimates that around 10,000 are jihadists fighting for al Qaeda affiliates (the Islamic State of Iraq and the smaller Jabhat al-Nusra), while another 30,000 to 35,000 are hardline Islamists who have less of a global jihad vision, but share a focus on establishing an Islamic state to replace Assad. Another 30,000 or so are more moderate Muslim Brotherhood Islamists.

    He estimates that moderate nationalist fighters number only about 20,000, with the Kurdish separatists being able to field only 5,000 to 10,000. In recent weeks clashes have increased in northeast Syria between al Qaeda–affiliated jihadist rebels and Syrian Kurds aligned with Kurdish separatists in Turkey. The jihadists have sought to exert more control over their enclaves, while Kurdish militants have tried to snatch oil wells currently run by the al Qaeda affiliates.

    On his Twitter feed, Lister concedes that it is a “rough science” to estimate rebel numbers and assess their ideological coloring, but he says he has based his calculations on open sources as well as on intelligence assessments and interviews with opposition activists and militants. He notes that while the al Qaeda affiliates don’t have the largest numbers, “they have the most resources and best weapons, and they have very good organization.” (Dettemer, Jaimie; “Just How Extremist are the Rebels in Syria?; The Daily Beast; 17SEP2013)

    It is impossible not to arm terrorist by providing weapons to the Syrian rebels. The United States in Afghanistan cannot even prevent its own uniforms from getting into the hands of the Taliban. There is simply no way to keep these out of the hands of al-Qaeda. The administration knows this, and simply accepts the risk.

    3) “While predictions that the End Time is near are common, it does seem to be bad theology to make such predictions in the context of Christianity. After all, the official epistemic line seems to be that no one but God knows when this time will come: “But of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.”

    Yes, this true in the limited scope you present it, Mike. But he left out the context Jesus’ statement. Here’s the surrounding context from Mathew 24:

    “3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

    4Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. 6You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8All these are the beginning of birth pains.

    9“Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

    32“Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.”

    So, it is clear. That while we cannot know the month or the day, we can know the season. Jesus also relates the End Times to a woman in labor before child birth; the time between the pains becomes less and less and the pains become more intense. I do not agree that Obama providing arms to the Syrian rebels is, in and of itself, a sign of the end. Bu there are plenty of signs. Abortion and other evils are abundant. Obama’s policy is only Hanlon’s Razor, the overriding thesis of this administration. I myself do believe that we are in the season, that lawlessness is abounding, as Jesus said it would. Obama thinks he is a man standing against the age. In reality he is merely a man of his age, expounding exactly what the degenerates of our age believe. I know that this “season” may last hundreds or more years. But it is the final season. There will be no shift back to spring; fall is come, the leaves have changed, winter looms. The final winter…..

    So Bachmann, IMO, is correct; we are in the season. But not because of Obama’s policy. Now, other policies I would argue differently. Right has become wrong, wrong–right.

    Mike says that Bachmann believe the end is “fast approaching.” I do not know that this (that Bachmann really believes this), is true.

    I’ll post a video here, where Bachmann explains her position. It is actually perfectly reasonable and clears things up when separated from Mike’s spin. Spin that is never applied to a radical jihadist.

    • magus71 said, on October 12, 2013 at 9:51 am

      And Mike, after listening to Bachmann’s comments above, I find it reprehensible that you spun her on the “Jesus will give us a great retirement”, issue.

      You quoted: “Yes it gives us fear in some respects because we want the retirement that our parents enjoyed. Well they will, if they know Jesus Christ.”

      Everyone: Go to 2:50 in the video and hear what she is saying.

      Michelle Bachmann for President, 2016.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 15, 2013 at 1:20 pm

      Assuming that the CIA is sending arms, then the claim that only non-weapon aid is being sent would not be true. As such, my claim would be in error: arms are being sent to Syria via third parties. Thanks for finding that information.

      However, the article you link to also claims that there is a vetting process-the arms are supposed to go to those who are not terrorists. So, he would not be intentionally, etc. arming the terrorists. As such, if the article is credible in regards to one claim, the credibility should extend to the other claim. So Bachmann would still be in error.

      Now, it is reasonable to worry about what will happen to those arms-once arms get into a combat zone, they could end up in the wrong hands. For example, the Germans used captured American equipment (such as Sherman tanks) in WWII. However, I would not thus claim that we were intentionally, etc. arming the Germans.

      I would agree that sending arms into the quagmire of Syria could be a bad idea-even if the arms initially end up with the folks who are not interested in fighting America, they could be captured in battle, stolen or sold off. Some Republicans have argued for sending arms, so this has some bipartisan aspects to it as well.

  6. magus71 said, on October 12, 2013 at 10:06 am

    Serious question: Would every man who posts here rather date a girl like Bachmann, or Hillary Clinton? Why?

    • T. J. Babson said, on October 12, 2013 at 12:13 pm

      I’ve always been partial to MKH, myself.

    • WTP said, on October 12, 2013 at 9:10 pm

      Aw, man…those are my choices? Nothing against Bachmann but ..ah, Hillary is gay. Process of elimination. Though if you asked which one I’d spend more than 30 seconds with, it’s Bachmann. Hands down. No question. Hillary is a screeching evil beast. “What difference does it make how they died”? Stupid, too.

      • magus71 said, on October 14, 2013 at 6:08 am

        I only used these two to juxtapose the types of people they are. It was never intended to be Catherine Bach vs Farrah Fawcett. :)

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 15, 2013 at 1:21 pm

      Neither. Bachmann is irrational and Hilary is too old for a young fellow like me.

  7. Russel Ray Photos said, on October 13, 2013 at 6:06 pm

    My wise old grandmother taught me to add laughter to each and every day. Every time Bachman is in the news, I’m able to laugh for a week!

    • TJB said, on October 13, 2013 at 10:28 pm

      Nancy “pass it to know what’s in it” Pelosi has always provide comic relief for me. Jay Leno likes to speak of her “unblinking support” for Dem causes.

      Bachman may be an Evangelical, but she’s far smarter than Pelosi.

      • magus71 said, on October 14, 2013 at 6:02 am

        I’d like to see Mike write an article tearing into Pelosi at a personal level as he’s done with Bachmann. But I know that expecting too much from this life is a sure road to unhappiness.

        • TJB said, on October 14, 2013 at 7:50 am

          It’s time to start calling “progressives” out on their bigotry.

          • magus71 said, on October 14, 2013 at 9:12 am

            still awaiting acknowledgement that Mike got his facts absolutely wrong in this article. And he used his wrong facts to attack Bachmann personally. Not very scholarly.

  8. magus71 said, on October 14, 2013 at 5:21 pm

    Democrats at Work: Louisiana people on welfare looting Wal-Mart when the welfare debit system failed to show a limit. Mike says there aren’t many people like this. The future of our nation. Looters and thieves, no builders. The builders will just go to tax havens. My wife is up in arms about this story. She’s from south Texas and confirms the evil of Louisiana. Nuke and Pave.

    http://www.ksla.com/story/23679489/walmart-shelves-in-springhill-mansfield-cleared-in-ebt-glitch

    • T. J. Babson said, on October 14, 2013 at 10:40 pm

      Just bought a book you may want to check out, Magus. I have only read a few pages but I already know it will be interesting.

      The Paleo Manifesto: Ancient Wisdom for Lifelong Health
      by John Durant

      In The Paleo Manifesto: Ancient Wisdom for Lifelong Health, John Durant argues for an evolutionary – and revolutionary – approach to health. All animals, human or otherwise, thrive when they mimic key elements of life in their natural habitat. From diet to movement to sleep, this evolutionary perspective sheds light on some of our most pressing health concerns. What is causing the rise of chronic conditions, such as obesity, diabetes, and depression? Is eating red meat going to kill you? Is avoiding the sun actually the best way to avoid skin cancer?

      Durant takes readers on a thrilling ride to the Paleolithic and beyond, unlocking the health secrets of our ancient ancestors. What do obese gorillas teach us about weight loss? How can Paleolithic skulls contain beautiful sets of teeth? Why is the Bible so obsessed with hygiene? What do NASA astronauts teach us about getting a good night’s sleep? And how are Silicon Valley techies hacking the human body?

      Blending science and culture, anthropology and philosophy, John Durant distills the lessons from his adventures and shows how to apply them to day-to-day life, teaching people how to construct their own personal “habitat” that will enable them to thrive. The book doesn’t just address what we eat, but why we eat it; not just how to exercise, but the purpose of functional movement; not just being healthy, but leading a purposeful life.

      Combining the best of ancient wisdom with cutting edge science, Durant crafts a vision of health that is both fresh and futuristic.

      • magus71 said, on October 15, 2013 at 5:27 am

        I’ll check it out. The book gets very good reviews on Amazon.

        Since returning from Afghanistan, I’ve moved even more toward an animal product based diet. I am astounded at the results. Everything works better, including my brain. It takes a while for the body to make the switch, but when it does, I do not think most people would want to go back to refined carbohydrates at all. I lost all cravings for sugar. To some, this may even seem an undesirable phenomena, but not me. I do not even crave a bowl of oatmeal or cereal in the morning. In fact, one’s appetite in general is greatly reduced–you just don’t get hungry.

        This subject is infinitely fascinating to me, not only for my own health, but for the fact that it shows how science can go so wrong, and reminds me that people place too much confidence in the generalized statements of others that they assume know it all.

        If you choose to go this way, you must remember one key factor: Eat fat. This is not “high protein” but a low carbohydrate diet, and so your body must have plenty of fat for energy. American frontier-men became sick when they started eating only hare, because it is too lean. They quickly learned why animals first eat the fattiest part of a kill. Fat does not “clog” arteries, as you know from reading Good Calories, Bad Calories. Fat should never be cut off your steaks, and buy Porterhouse and Tbones preferably. Do not throw out the grease from your bacon, and do not take the skin off your chicken.

        The soldier that I helped to lose 42 lbs in Afghanistan is back under the auspices of his wife, whom is a vegetarian. She makes him eat vegetarian, too. We have been back about 45 days. While downrange, I had him eating meat, and only a small portion of starches everyday. He began losing about 2 lbs a week. Now that he’s back and eating vegetarian again, he gained 8 lbs of fat, his exercise capability dwindled to the point where he failed his PT test last week, this after scoring the highest he’d ever scored when I was training him in Afghanistan under conditions very unfavorable. Most disturbingly, I begin to see how his mind suffers. He becomes dumber on the vegetarian diet. Everyone downrange commented that he seemed sharper than usual, but now he is confused again.

        Me on the other hand, I’m thriving barely touching carbs, but am able to eat some if I want. My fitness has never been better. At 42 years old, I can two-hand swing a 70 lb kettlebell 130 times in 5 minutes. My blood pressure, as measured two weeks ago was 116/69; resting heart rate 59 beats per minute.

    • T. J. Babson said, on October 14, 2013 at 10:46 pm

      Do Dems regard this as a bug or a feature?

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 15, 2013 at 1:26 pm

      Most people are not looters or thieves, though they can become such. Unfortunately, good deeds and honesty are usually not considered newsworthy, so we tend to get a biased view of people.

      Of course, if Hobbes is right, this is what people really are. That is, selfish egoists. The small time looters and the big time money makers…it is just a matter of ambition and scope.

      • WTP said, on October 15, 2013 at 2:40 pm

        Will someone please address mikes equating economic success with moral failure? I’m busy working on my economic and professional success. This is ignorant character assassination.

      • WTP said, on October 15, 2013 at 10:26 pm

        Now that I have the time, I’d like to see this point addressed.

        That is, selfish egoists. The small time looters and the big time money makers…it is just a matter of ambition and scope.

        In what sense are people selfish egotists if they make big time money? Is Bill Gates selfish? William Buffett? T. Boone Pickens?

        Also, given Mike’s position that profit is theft, what does that make corporate shareholders? Theives? Is owning stock a sign of moral failure? If so, how is Mike NOT a socialist? By what right does Mike impugn the character of such people? Especially as he lives off the wealth that they earn?

        • magus71 said, on October 16, 2013 at 3:39 am

          AS Ayn Rand points out in an interview when asked about “robber barons”: America was not made by robber barons.

          Just as Mike says he can agree with Marx on many issues and not be a Marxist, I can agree with Rand on many points and not be a Randian.

  9. T. J. Babson said, on October 15, 2013 at 10:36 pm

    Mike suffers from oikophobia, WTP.

    There is one important difference between the American oik and his European counterpart. American patriotism is not a blood-and-soil nationalism but an allegiance to a country based in an idea of enlightened universalism. Thus our oiks masquerade as–and may even believe themselves to be–superpatriots, more loyal to American principles than the vast majority of Americans, whom they denounce as “un-American” for feeling an attachment to their actual country as opposed to a collection of abstractions.

    Yet the oiks’ vision of themselves as an intellectual aristocracy violates the first American principle ever articulated: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . .”

    This cannot be reconciled with the elitist notion that most men are economically insecure bitter clinging intolerant bigots who need to be governed by an educated elite. Marxism Lite is not only false; it is, according to the American creed, self-evidently false. That is why the liberal elite finds Americans revolting.

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704147804575455523068802824

    • WTP said, on October 15, 2013 at 10:54 pm

      I think you mean oikophillia. Or just plain oik. Though patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel sinks. I think Bob Dylan said that.

      • T. J. Babson said, on October 15, 2013 at 11:16 pm

        I think we can agree that:

        1) economic freedom is what made America rich

        2) American wealth permits even small universities to hire philosophy professors

        3) Mike is essentially biting the hand that feeds him when he criticizes capitalism

        In some sense Mike is like Plato. Plato would not flourish in his Republic, and Mike would not flourish in the society that he advocates.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 16, 2013 at 1:40 pm

          I’d do great in the society I actually advocate, that is in a society of fair competition with a strong commitment to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

          • WTP said, on October 16, 2013 at 1:47 pm

            He’s also not, I repeat NOT, a socialist. You know it because he says so. Like I said, last refuge…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,011 other followers

%d bloggers like this: