jesshwarren
Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2007
- Messages
- 123
They say we are all unstable nerds. It pisses me off. If they can't say nothin bad about him they bash the supporters 
Time Magazine Articles
- Thread starter Matt Collins
- Start date
Brinck Slattery
Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2007
- Messages
- 440
Whoever "Devils Advocate" is needs a good flogging. Ugh.
MsDoodahs
Senior
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 11,373
mconder
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 2,492
Hell yes it's a real movement. It's the antithesis of everything Libertarian, and I'd say it's the winning ideology today.
Everything you need to know about communitarianism here:
http://nord.twu.net/acl/
Last edited:
Syren123
Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2007
- Messages
- 1,620
The one posted today by Joel Stein? Typical. What other way was he gonna go? We're talking about a guy who appears on "We Are The 70s" on VH1 who writes for TIME. And btw...who is he calling a nerd? Has he looked in the mirror lately?
Guess he's trying to overcome the shame of his own innate nerdiness by casting aspersions on others and being a quasi-celebrity. And he's not even that good of a writer.
Whatever, Joel.
Guess he's trying to overcome the shame of his own innate nerdiness by casting aspersions on others and being a quasi-celebrity. And he's not even that good of a writer.
Whatever, Joel.
Interesting Guy this Stein is. hmmmmmmm
Controversial editorial
On January 24, 2006, the Los Angeles Times published a column by Stein under the headline "Warriors and Wusses" in which he wrote that it is a cop-out to oppose a war and yet claim to support the soldiers fighting it. "I don’t support our troops....When you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you’re not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you’re willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism..." He prefaced his argument by stating that he does not support the troops in Iraq, in keeping with his views on the war. There was an immediate response—notably, Stein was the same day invited on The Hugh Hewitt Show, a conservative talk radio program that broadcasts from Los Angeles. Hewitt asked Stein questions about the breadth of his relationships and experiences with people in the military, his views on recent deployments, and how he acknowledges those on active duty—and also one who died on active duty.
Stein conceded a lack of personal relationships or interactions with military servicemen and women. Concerning Afghanistan, Stein indicated mixed feelings towards sending troops there and expressed doubt that invading the country had made Americans safer. As for other troop deployments, Stein acknowledged recent humanitarian interventions as being generally agreeable but expressed disapproval towards actions he felt station troops as a "police force." Stein stated that he honors the service of those who defend his country, but reiterated his view that he does not support troops in a military action he does not believe in, indicating that consenting to their involvement might only prolong their stay. He expressed sympathy for a U.S. Marine, cited by Hewitt, who died in Fallujah in 2004 and admiration for his bravery, but held that he felt there no purpose for his death. Concluding the talk, Hewitt asked if he would do it "over again," that is, write the column, and Stein said he would. Stein's Times column and subsequent chat with Hewitt were discussed nationally on talk radio and blogs.
Controversial editorial
On January 24, 2006, the Los Angeles Times published a column by Stein under the headline "Warriors and Wusses" in which he wrote that it is a cop-out to oppose a war and yet claim to support the soldiers fighting it. "I don’t support our troops....When you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you’re not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you’re willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism..." He prefaced his argument by stating that he does not support the troops in Iraq, in keeping with his views on the war. There was an immediate response—notably, Stein was the same day invited on The Hugh Hewitt Show, a conservative talk radio program that broadcasts from Los Angeles. Hewitt asked Stein questions about the breadth of his relationships and experiences with people in the military, his views on recent deployments, and how he acknowledges those on active duty—and also one who died on active duty.
Stein conceded a lack of personal relationships or interactions with military servicemen and women. Concerning Afghanistan, Stein indicated mixed feelings towards sending troops there and expressed doubt that invading the country had made Americans safer. As for other troop deployments, Stein acknowledged recent humanitarian interventions as being generally agreeable but expressed disapproval towards actions he felt station troops as a "police force." Stein stated that he honors the service of those who defend his country, but reiterated his view that he does not support troops in a military action he does not believe in, indicating that consenting to their involvement might only prolong their stay. He expressed sympathy for a U.S. Marine, cited by Hewitt, who died in Fallujah in 2004 and admiration for his bravery, but held that he felt there no purpose for his death. Concluding the talk, Hewitt asked if he would do it "over again," that is, write the column, and Stein said he would. Stein's Times column and subsequent chat with Hewitt were discussed nationally on talk radio and blogs.
MS0453
Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 435
The hilarious part about that anarchist statement is that he's probably pissed off a bunch of anarchists by saying they would/do support Ron Paul or partake in elections.
Psyclone
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2007
- Messages
- 123
I didn't think the article was as bad as some people apparently think. I was the guy at the Ames rally wearing the three-corner hat and ringing the bell that he used as his primo example of a "weird Ron Paul follower" and even I'm not offended (indeed, I imagine I now join a fairly small group of people who have been explicitly called "weirdos" by Time magazine). Surely any publicity is good publicity at this point.
Personally I think that's a rather poorly written article (it seems like the writer came to it with the intention of painting Paul as a boring, one-issue politician, whose supporters are nerds), but the more name recognition the better.
I also find the Luntz quote an incredibly stupid addition, not only because it's offensive to us supporters (again, the accusation that we're idiots who don't know what Paul really stands for, and he flat out says that no one should care about what we think), but because of the conflict of interest. If I was writing a story on Clinton's support, would I care what an old Obama employee and colleague has to say and classify it was an unbiased, "expert" opinion?
And yeah, when has Paul ever said he doesn't plan to win the Presidency?
Oh well, shake it off. They'll be declaring Paul Man of the Year in 2008.
Though if they have any sense, or if NH holds their primary in December, Paul should be one of the 100 influential people for this year.
I also find the Luntz quote an incredibly stupid addition, not only because it's offensive to us supporters (again, the accusation that we're idiots who don't know what Paul really stands for, and he flat out says that no one should care about what we think), but because of the conflict of interest. If I was writing a story on Clinton's support, would I care what an old Obama employee and colleague has to say and classify it was an unbiased, "expert" opinion?
And yeah, when has Paul ever said he doesn't plan to win the Presidency?
Oh well, shake it off. They'll be declaring Paul Man of the Year in 2008.
Though if they have any sense, or if NH holds their primary in December, Paul should be one of the 100 influential people for this year.That's exactly what it is btw. That article is a libertarian hit piece by a socialist. Who would have thought during the cold war that Time Magazine would praise socialism and put down liberty.
Knightskye
Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2007
- Messages
- 7,249
I have the magazine version. It's very similar. The caption underneath the title says: "Voters throng to hear longshot G.O.P. preach about Austrian Economics and the Gold Standard. Seriously."
And the end does say the LIE about Ron not expecting to win the nomination. He said on the Tonight Show that "there's a risk I could win," and that was about two weeks ago. A week after that his campaign got a $4.3 million boost, so I think he feels that risk increased.
They should've included the supposed "interview" they did with him. And why do they only have a small picture of him in the lower-right hand corner? The article before his is about Mitt Romney, and they have one whole side of a page for his face.
"TIME - in partnership with CNN." I guess Wolf Blitzer thinks we're nerds, too.
And the end does say the LIE about Ron not expecting to win the nomination. He said on the Tonight Show that "there's a risk I could win," and that was about two weeks ago. A week after that his campaign got a $4.3 million boost, so I think he feels that risk increased.
They should've included the supposed "interview" they did with him. And why do they only have a small picture of him in the lower-right hand corner? The article before his is about Mitt Romney, and they have one whole side of a page for his face.
"TIME - in partnership with CNN." I guess Wolf Blitzer thinks we're nerds, too.
Similar threads
