• The implementation of a genuine free trade agreement is the simplest thing imaginable. All that it requires is that the government does nothing. Even the most incompetent government should be able to do nothing, right? All that is needed is a one paragraph pledge not to interfere with the efforts of your citizens to do business with one another. That’s it. A 1000 page free trade agreement just has to be a scam — 1000 pages of unfree trade agreements.

  • dmitchell commented on the blog post Early Morning Swim: Rachel Maddow Interviews Joe Miller

    2010-10-27 14:36:01View | Delete

    Please read the above as “that hardly exhausts all the potential means and hardly suggests any intent of insurrection–it is playing by the rules.”

  • dmitchell commented on the blog post Early Morning Swim: Rachel Maddow Interviews Joe Miller

    2010-10-27 14:34:27View | Delete

    I’m sure you are exaggerating when you say “by any means necessary.” Would that include, say, assassination? I doubt it. They are talking about mounting a legal challenge in the government’s own court that Obama doesn’t satisfy the government’s own requirements; that hardly exhausts all the potential means. But more to the point, I’m not claiming that the government wouldn’t call it sedition. I’m saying it is pitiful for you to invoke sedition as an argument against your family. It is like one slave telling another that he shouldn’t revolt because his master says revolts are seditious. It’s crazy.

  • dmitchell commented on the blog post Early Morning Swim: Rachel Maddow Interviews Joe Miller

    2010-10-27 06:46:01View | Delete

    lol no it’s a good thing. I only complain when he writes something that grossly offends my sense of fairness and intellectual honesty; in this case I think his criticism is right on the mark.

  • dmitchell commented on the blog post Early Morning Swim: Rachel Maddow Interviews Joe Miller

    2010-10-27 05:40:32View | Delete

    For once I have no reason to complain about a Blue Texan post.

  • Yeah, that would be worthy of note. Although how you distinguish between regular criticism and false-consciousness-secret-rationalization criticism isn’t clear. Magic 8-ball, perhaps? Or do you just assume it?

  • I don’t know, a next day response seems pretty quick to me. But OK, he should have condemned it sooner. That’s fair criticism.

  • I believe you, but that’s your fault (that you haven’t heard a condemnation). Paul has a press release condemning the assault (he actually uses the word condemn). First google result for “rand paul statement,” by the way.

  • They focus on that because Blue Texan wanted them to: those are the quotes that Blue Texan picked. For instance, “Confederate Yankee” also said in that same post that Rand Paul’s supporters acted like animals. But of course Blue Texan left that out. The reason there are no quotes of people actually defending the assault is because no one did. It isn’t true that nobody on the right is concerned with the assault; that is simply the misrepresentation created by Blue Texan when he confuses criticism of the victim with support for the assault.

  • The point is that no one defended the assault. You are battling a straw man.

  • Except that none of the people you quoted said that she had it coming. [/confused]

  • Did any of those bloggers actually defend the assault? I’m guessing not, since you didn’t quote it. Is it wrong to point out that a jackass who is assaulted is, in fact, a jackass? Not really. So what’s the problem here?

    In any event, this whole story is ludicrous. It’s like a story about a guy punching another guy as they board the train to Auschwitz together. Either Rand Paul or Jack Conway is about to be holding down and stomping the entire country. We are about to witness a nationwide act of organized violence known as an election; focusing on this incident as if this is the appalling violence is absurd.

  • dmitchell commented on the blog post Rand Paul Even Creepier Than Previously Thought

    2010-10-25 17:45:25View | Delete

    “Actually, that sounds a lot like his campaign.”

    Why would you ask me to point to this? You must have known what you were doing when you wrote it. You wrote that this “garbage” from The Antichrist sounds like Tea Party campaign rhetoric. Clearly you were trying to suggest some sort of linkage between Nietzsche and the Tea Party; perhaps that Nietzsche is the philosophical godfather of the Tea Party or right-wing politics, or something like that–it’s a common enough misrepresentation. You are viewing that passage of The Antichrist through a political lens and interpreting it as anti-welfare or anti-social justice battle cry, but that’s not what it is.

    I will admit that maybe I’m wrong and that’s not what you were doing (yeah, right), but then I’d like to know what you were doing. If you hadn’t deleted Nietzsche’s next word from that passage, and you hadn’t used boldface where you did, then you would have given yourself some wiggle room here to claim that you were questioning Rand Paul’s Christian convictions. But I can’t believe that now. So if you weren’t trying to link Nietzsche to the Tea Party, what were you doing?

  • dmitchell commented on the blog post Rand Paul Even Creepier Than Previously Thought

    2010-10-25 14:48:05View | Delete

    Oh dear. Better stick to topics you know something about, Blue Texan. This attempt to paint Nietzsche as a Tea Partier, or whatever it is you are doing here, is plain embarrassing. Your knowledge of Nietzsche is so self-evidently shallow–actually, as Nietzsche might have said, it isn’t even shallow–I wonder if you had ever even heard of Nietzsche before you wrote this?