Blogcritics: Comments on The Whine Heard Round the World

Comment by Rich

Tue, 16 Nov 2004 18:35:55 EST

david:

You too should pay closer attention to the information that you use.

I read the original Economist article, the original Economist's retraction and my link. Are you suggesting that there is no correlation, because the Economist doesn't feel confident about publishing its data?

Comment by JR

Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:06:58 EST

David Flanagan: I oppose the use of stem cells for research based on the fact that we are destroying humans in their earliest form in order to save other humans. We are dealing, not with an issue of Christian morality, but of human morality in that we are literally cannibalizing one group of humans to try and save another group. Presumably you oppose all military operations, then.

Comment by left angle

Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:14:12 EST

David, I saw that bogus map, you seem to forget that democrats live in those counties along with republicans. That isnt shown and gives a false impression. A better map would show how each side voted in the each county. I have a question for you. Bush got the highest total of popular votes ever for a presidential candidate. Who got the second highest total? The mindset of southern/midwestern conservatives is exactly as i say it is..Its been proven over and over historically. You offer nothing to rebut my post. YOU should learn to think for YOURSELF.

Comment by andy marsh

Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:53:02 EST

now the US military are indentured servants!!! We need to get that wall built and quick!!!

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:47:42 EST

Hmm, a closed feudal society based on a foundation of superstitious ignorant peasants kept in check by fear and bigotry, and a hierarchy of greed, ruled by a kleptocracy which occasionally sends out armed forces of indentured servants to intimidate tribes it is sure it can intimidate. No wonder Brand USA is seen as "special" around the world. Wow, what a bunch of tiny tools. Y'know as long as you stick to picking your own lice, you monkeys are somewhat amusing. Maybe we'll give you a preserve.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:51:43 EST

1) I don't want the federal government mandating abortion mandating? Like forcing women to have abortions against their will? Marriage is a precondition for societal survival How did we ever survive without it? Marriage must have been around when we were still cro-magnons otherwise we certainly wouldn't be here, huh? Let me ask you this: How does allowing me and my partner to get married, so that my child has the same protections yours does, keep you and your lover from getting married too? Answer, it doesn't. Allowing me and my partner to get married does not take away from the only way you all know how to further the human species. If the government wants to protect marriage, the way to do that, is to allow marriage, something the government already does. Sure rooted in common sense, huh?

Comment by David Flanagan

Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:44:34 EST

Left, You should take a look at the county-by-county voting results map from the election. Once you see the vast ocean of red for Bush, you'll understand why everything you say is, in your own words, simply a "mindset that consist of a rabid nationalism, homophobia, racial bigotry, religious zealotry and foremost white male supremecy." Learn to think for yourself if possible. Thanks, David

Comment by David Flanagan

Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:38:18 EST

Before I say 'touche! you got me', let me ask you: Do you want the government to outlaw abortion due to your biblical belief? Do you want the government to not allow same-sex marriage due to your biblical belief? Do you oppose stem-cell research, funded by the government, due to your religious belief? etc. etc. yadda, yadda, yadda. Let me handle the questions in order: 1) I don't want the federal government mandating abortion based on some fantasy constitutional priviledge. The issue should go back to the states. Overall, I oppose abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the health of the mother. 2) Their is no such thing as same-sex marriage. Marriage is a precondition for societal survival, therefore, the government has a vested interest in the protection of this institution. I do support civil unions, though, that will turn into a mess because, later, people will want civil unions for multiple partners, for same-sex partnerships, etc. 3) I oppose the use of stem cells for research based on the fact that we are destroying humans in their earliest form in order to save other humans. We are dealing, not with an issue of Christian morality, but of human morality in that we are literally cannibalizing one group of humans to try and save another group. Their are huge ethical issues here that we have yet to discuss as a society and it makes sense to me to go with other lines of research, such as the more successful research using human stem cells and stem cells from placentas. Do all these opinions of mine have roots in my Christian beliefs? Sure they do, and in common sense too. Can the government interfere with and/or uphold laws based on Christian beliefs? Sure they can. Just read the 14th Amendment. Thanks, David

Comment by left angle

Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:18:52 EST

the red states constitute a "coalition of ignorance" face it repubs, 95% of Bush's support comes from the deep south and midwest. these areas are well know for their ignorance and intolerace of people that dont think, act or look like them. they share a common mindset that consist of a rabid nationalism, homophobia, racial bigotry, religious zealotry and foremost white male supremecy. these people obviously ignored bush's miserable record of failure in the whitehouse because they were terrified that democrats threatened their neanderthal "values"..get real.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:30:48 EST

The fact that so much of this country wants the government to endorse their religion did catch the intellectuals offguard. And now it is your turn to throw some misinformation out there' Before I say 'touche! you got me', let me ask you: Do you want the government to outlaw abortion due to your biblical belief? Do you want the government to not allow same-sex marriage due to your biblical belief? Do you oppose stem-cell research, funded by the government, due to your religious belief? etc. etc. yadda, yadda, yadda.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:22:00 EST

"smug person who thinks he is smarter than everyone else because he paid more for his education" interesting. except for the "paid more" part, most of the posts chiding liberals for their reations to the election seem to fall right smack into the middle of that category.

Comment by SFC Ski

Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:12:35 EST

Rall titles himself as an elitist, does he not? Wouldn't an elitist be a member of the elite? IF you do not like the term elite, how about "smug person who thinks he is smarter than everyone else because he paid more for his education"? A bit longer, but it has the same meaning, in the context of this article anyway.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:59:09 EST

"the elites" it's downright scary how certain segments of the right just love to play around with codewords like this. the next thing you know, a 51% win will be a 'mandate'. oh wait...it already is!!!

Comment by David Flanagan

Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:54:49 EST

The fact that so much of this country wants the government to endorse their religion did catch the intellectuals offguard. And now it is your turn to throw some misinformation out there. :-) What caught the elites off guard was that Kerry could lose despite all the tens of millions they spent (Soros spent $24 million of his own money and got nothing out of it!) and they STILL could not buy themselves an election. Thanks, David

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:06:35 EST

The fact is, I can't really show you statistics either. I know, but you just threw that misinformation out there. Thank you for rewording your original blog. maybe the cultural elites do know more about what is going on in the world, but they have no CLUE about what is going on in their own country. This is true. The fact that so much of this country wants the government to endorse their religion did catch the intellectuals offguard.

Comment by David Flanagan

Mon, 15 Nov 2004 06:05:59 EST

Rich, You too should pay closer attention to the information that you use. The link you give us in your short but shallow comment has this to say of your data:

I have recently been emailed by someone claiming to have seen a retraction many issues later on the behalf of the Economist Magazine. The Economist could not independently verify the IQ data and the retraction can be found here.

And, if you knew anything at all about statistics, you'd know that you can't take the STATE that votes for a person and then just assume that the whole state's IQ rating should be counted for or against a particular candidate. The best you could likely do is count IQ on a county-by-county basis rather than a state-by-state to get a truer comparison. Obviously my rant above has little or no chance of ever being verified in terms of my claim that divorce etc., are all higher for cultural elites. Actually, I would imagine that crime for this group should be far lower considering that people like Michael Moore surround themselves with body guards and generally hire their own security. Thanks, David

Comment by David Flanagan

Mon, 15 Nov 2004 05:55:05 EST

Jim, The whole "faith and family" message runs counter to communism. Communists are not big on religion, the state is their god. And family is defined by, and run by the state as well. Which sounds more like what liberals want, doesn't it? Perhaps, to borrow a Freudian term, there is a bit of transference going on here? I would recommend you talk to your therapist about this when you see them next. This could be a breakthrough moment for you. Good luck. David

Comment by David Flanagan

Mon, 15 Nov 2004 05:51:43 EST

Boom, Actually, I'm not sure how you can use these statistics to show that the cultural elites, which is the topic of this post, have higher or lower rates of suicide, etc, than the regular population. The fact is, I can't really show you statistics either. The purpose of this post was just a response to the ignorance of Rall that he could equate "the meaning of life" with fine dining, movies, and clothes and then still accuse the rest of the country of not knowing about "what is going on in the world." Who knows, maybe the cultural elites do know more about what is going on in the world, but they have no CLUE about what is going on in their own country. Their are not even sensitive to, much less competent with, their own culture! Thanks, David

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:12:44 EST

yeah, well the right will get it, when it gives it.

Comment by urthshu

Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:26:38 EST

bcb- Tolerance. I'll take that. Its a start.

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:16:25 EST

Man, if that David Flanagan was any more Communist, he'd be collectivizing Ann Coulter up her pooper while Bill O'Reilly shakes his fist at his ex-gf.

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:09:08 EST

I've been so inspired by Comrade Flanagan's inspiration words that I've forwarded them to every Marxist-Lennonist, Shiningtime Stationist group I can think of. David Flanagan is a true communist inspriration who brings communist political philosophy into the 21st century via the USA.

We achieve meaningful things every day, understanding that anything of lasting value must center on faith and family, not goods and services.

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Sun, 14 Nov 2004 18:56:07 EST

We achieve meaningful things every day, understanding that anything of lasting value must center on faith and family, not goods and services.

Looking at this, it is one of the most succinct summations of the principles of Communism I've read in some time, worthy of the Reader's Digest version of the speeches of Fidel Castro or Ho Chi Ming. In fact, it will make a great multiple choice question in future pop quizzes. Who said the above: a) Karl Marx b) Mao Tse Tung c) Vladamir Lenin d) none of the above

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:53:54 EST

We work hard every day... We tuck our children into bed after hugs and kisses goodnight... We achieve meaningful things every day, understanding that anything of lasting value must center on faith and family, not goods and services.

And we drive truck bombs of fertilizer in front of the goddamn gummit daycare centres, and shoot at the jebus killers, and make sure our robes and pointy hats are snowy white.

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:36:44 EST

We don't need the society of the clueless and misinformed telling us how to live our lives.

Is that because you insist on being clueless and misinformed everyday of your life? It really appalls me that so many people in the States insist on doing everything they can to making the world a worse place, just because they can. They piss on your doorstep just because they think they can. What Flannelman advocates is nothing more than rule by the ignorant, brutal, illiterate, retrograde mob.