Michelle Malkin enraged at mere Arab winning Miss America
It’s hardly surprising to see Arab-baiting from the direction of the social conservative commentator class, nor did I receive too many simultaneous heart attacks due to learning that Michelle Malkin is not too happy to see an Arab woman who appears to hold Western values ascend to the almighty throne of Miss USA. What is surprising is the extent to which Malkin and her hangers-on in the blogosphere have gone in attempting to vilify a woman who has done nothing wrong other than to have born into an ethnic group that this concordance of Rapture theologians, hawkish pragmatists, and run-of-the-mill racists have targeted for perpetual criticism.
Of course, honest criticism of an individual does not render someone racist or otherwise unAmerican in one’s sentiments towards particular ethnic groups; it is possible that Malkin’s objections to Rima Fakih are entirely unrelated to the woman’s Lebanese heritage. After all, look at all of the crazy stuff that Fakih did, as Malkin notes:
She nearly tripped over her gown.
She called birth control a “controlled substance.”
She argued that contraceptives should be covered by health insurers because they are “expensive” — and then said you could get them for “free” from your OB/GYN’s office.
Well, I’m certainly not going to defend a young woman for having gone so far as to almost fall over, which is certainly atrocious behavior of the sort that ought to immediately disqualify anyone from real or imagined public office. But let us address Malkin’s more substantive points, and let us do so quickly and with relative ease insomuch as that her points are not at all substantive and in fact make her look every bit as clueless as she would like to portray this outsider to be.
1. Birth control is indeed a “controlled substance” according to any dictionary one consults and in the parlance of U.S. policy as well; their use is regulated by both the government and the medical apparatus. Despite the controls that still exist in regards to this substance, it is now widely available to women in the U.S. and other Western nation – although, of course, one could be imprisoned simply for promoting such things through the pubic mails anywhere in the U.S. in the memory of some still living, and access was heavily restricted in the various states up until recently. Of course, it was Malkin’s co-religionists in the Catholic Church who fought hardest to restrict the rights of individual citizens to use such things as they chose; today, it is radical Muslims who have done most to enforce this bit of theology-based statism which they hold in common with strict Catholics like Malkin, who of course sees few parallels between the two religions because she is only intelligent in the sense that she is more intelligent than most of her audience and fellow religious bloggers, which is to say she is of slightly above-average intelligence.
2. Contraceptives can indeed be expensive, and they can indeed be free as well, and noting both does not constitute any sort of “gaffe.” A number of women pay a not-insignificant amount of money on contraceptives, and others get them for free by way of various programs. Trying to turn these two non-contradictory and entirely true assertions into some sort of hilariously wrong error is itself hilariously wrong, or at least wrong.
Now, we come to the heart of the matter:
Fakih’s cheerleaders are too busy tooting the identity politics horn to care what comes out of her mouth
And then Malkin quotes the following damning bit from some newspaper account:
Arab Americans across metro Detroit cheered as Rima Fakih of Dearborn was crowned Miss USA tonight in Las Vegas.
“This is unbelievable,” said Rami Haddad, 26 of Livonia, one of Fakih’s biggest supporters. “It’s a dream come true. I can’t express my feelings.”
Fakih, of Lebanese descent, is believed to be the first Arab American and Muslim to become Miss USA.
Again, Malkin excerpts this without further comment, presumably because it is so much more damning than the cultural and ethnic self-congratulation inherent to St. Patrick’s Day and Columbus Day; but then, Malkin has nothing against the ethnic Irish and Italians and it would never occur to her to question any sort of expression of pride on their or anyone else’s part in seeing someone of their own heritage accomplish some notable thing in the context of their participation in American society. Unless, of of course, that someone happens to be a black or a Hispanic or even the stray Arab. Then, it becomes “identity politics” and must be condemned, whereas of course Malkin has had absolutely nothing to say about a popular conservative blogger having been discovered to have written for a white supremacist magazine under a Confederate-inspired pen name, among other things.
Michelle Malkin is a hypocritical fool with a malicious contempt for the natural aspirations of our fellow citizens of Arab descent even at such time as they attempt to participate in the shared heritage of American culture. She is also very popular among religious conservatives, of course.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Malkin is a flaming bigot, and she has been for years.
This is bad stuff, all right. But she’s an equal opportunity hater: she hates people of Mexican descent (both legals and illegals) even more than she hates Muslims.
She’s A-OK with forced internment and deportation of American citizens who are Muslims. She’s just fine and dandy with deporting American citizens of Mexican descent, and sending American troops to our border to shoot any and all Mexicans on sight.
Her website has long been a home to some of the most vile conservative commenters on the internet.
…”she hates people of Mexican descent (both legals and illegals) even more than she hates Muslims.”
What is your evidence for saying that?
“She’s A-OK with forced internment and deportation of American citizens who are Muslims.”
Do you have a quote from her saying that?
“She’s just fine and dandy with deporting American citizens of Mexican descent, and sending American troops to our border to shoot any and all Mexicans on sight.”
When has she ever said that?
“Her website has long been a home to some of the most vile conservative commenters on the internet.”
I would define “vile” as making false attributions to someone without the slightest bit of evidence.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Brown,
You forgot to mention her staggeringly evident self-hatred as an “ethnic” herself. While she would like us to believe that this “proves” that she is not a racist, it actually shows the opposite, it underlines the depth of her racism.
What is your proof for Malkin so-called “self-hatred” as an ethic minority?
Or the proof of “racism” on her part?
In response to another comment. See in context »You are incorrect about the meaning of “controlled substance.” The definition you gave is so broad as to include “substances” like gasoline.
The government defines “controlled substances” into 5 classes, , or schedules, based on their potential for abuse or physical and psychological dependence. Here is the list of all Schedule classifications, 1 thru 5, and birth control is not listed:
http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html
the definition is not broad at all…it is very specific. Rx’s like birth control, antibiotics are not controlled substances. Every controlled substance in the pharmacy are marked with a C and a number to identify what level of control they are. Vicodin is a C-3.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m referring to the definition BARRET BROWN gave – as he defined “controlled substance” as any substance regulated by the government, which is too broad a definition, as it would include gasoline, milk, etc.
BROWN’s definition is too broad.
In response to another comment. See in context »Fool, birth control are not controlled substances. A control substance are rx’s like pain killers and narcotics. There are 2 types of prescriptions– dangerous drugs and controlled substances… at least do your homework before you write your B.S.
And, now we go away from the heart of the matter — to oh so urgent definition(s) of ‘controlled substance’. Thank you garysb07 for your superior ability to shoot the messenger… with a big gobby spitball.
In response to another comment. See in context »I am not incorrect about the meaning of “controlled substance.” You have pointed to the definition currently used by a branch of the U.S. federal government; I am using the definition from dictionaries and common usage, indicating a substance that is controlled – and in much the same way as are other substances deemed to be “controlled substances” by that same government insomuch as that there is an overlapping of controls of place on many birth control products and substances that the U.S. government defines as being controlled. I know that this will not change your mind but I am noting it because there have been several comments along these same lines from other readers whom I assume to be here to conduct Lizard Civil War against the Charles Johnson faction. I’ll tell you something that will anger you further – Johnson has spent a portion of the last year accusing a guy who wrote for a white supremacist publication of being a white supremacist. Go get him! He went that way!
In response to another comment. See in context »You are still incorrect. As I’ve pointed out, by your definition a “controlled substance” could be gasoline, milk, even water, because all of those “substances” are in some way regulated by the government.
But nobody refers to those fluids as “controlled substances.” You are simply, utterly, and absolutely incorrect, as has been amply documented here.
In response to another comment. See in context »And as I have pointed out, I am using the definition from dictionaries and common usage, indicating a substance that is controlled – and in much the same way as are other substances deemed to be “controlled substances” by that same government insomuch as that there is an overlapping of controls of place on many birth control products and substances that the U.S. government defines as being controlled. Again, calling birth control a controlled substance is not more comparable to calling milk or water a controlled substance than it is to call various other prescription medications a controlled substances, as birth control shares more relevant fundamental attributes in common with the latter than with the former – for instance, your “regulated by the government” comparison is much broader than my specific “regulated by the government in such a way as to require prescriptions” and “being a drug” and “having been approached in a legally adversarial manner for much of the past” comparisons that apply to both birth control and those things which the government currently categorizes under controlled substances. As such, calling birth control a “controlled substance” is not very much akin to calling milk a “controlled substance,” as you would like to claim, whereas it is very much akin to calling any other prescription drug that has been controlled to various levels due to moral qualms a “controlled substance,” and thus your comparison to milk and water and such nonsense is merely an attempt to distract from the much closer shared characteristics held by birth control and government-designated controlled substances and to pretend such similarities away.
Again, for clarity, I understand your argument; you are trying to say that, if birth control is a controlled substance, then milk must be, too. What I am saying is that there much narrower definitions that apply to birth control that do not come anywhere near to applying to milk, which is to say that your assertion is clearly not the case.
Now, I’m afraid I do not have any more time to dedicate to debating you on this subject, so of course you may declare victory by virtue of argumentative longevity.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Now, I’m afraid I do not have any more time to dedicate to debating you on this subject, so of course you may declare victory by virtue of argumentative longevity.”
It would have been far wiser had you confined yourself to this remark. But as it stands, you simply dug yourself in deeper, especially when you claimed that your definition was “common usage.” It is not, you know it, and everyone reading this knows it.
In response to another comment. See in context »Don’t forget that Michelle Malkin herself has been a featured contributor for years at the white nationalist hate site VDARE.com, and has boasted at her blog about her friendship with white nationalist Peter Brimelow.
That may have some bearing on why she’s so unconcerned about Robert Stacy McCain’s connections to white supremacists.
You’re rather renowned for calling practically EVERYONE a “white nationalist,” or “supremacist,” so it really doesn’t have any meaning anymore.
In response to another comment. See in context »Some background information on VDARE.
Some background information on Peter Brimelow.
I invite anyone reading this to check into Brimelow and VDARE for themselves; there’s a lot more information out there.
That was a pretty weak attempt to brush off their ugly racism by attacking me.
In response to another comment. See in context »Quoting the Southern Poverty Law Center is about as meaningless as accusations from Charles Johnson, and for the same reason.
In response to another comment. See in context »So it’s your position that VDARE is a nice harmless website that everyone’s family can enjoy?
Interesting.
In response to another comment. See in context »Which part of ‘fallacy’ do you fail to get, man? The part that says that it’s an error of logic? Here’s some simple examples, to help you grasp simple things, such as the argumentum ad hominem, which is also a fallacy.
1. Conservatives are widely renowned to be breath-takingly stupid.
2. Lgwalt2002 keeps trying to score points for conservatives.
Ergo: [draw your own conclusion; it follows trivially].
Another one:
1. By near-universal recognition, Michelle Mangalang is a puckered racist asshole.
In response to another comment. See in context »2. Lgwalt2002 keeps trying to defend her.
Consequently: [repeat as in 1 above].
“You’re either with me or you’re with the fascists.”
In response to another comment. See in context »I’d have a lot more respect for the Southern Poverty Law Center if they had similar posts about Barack Obama’s attendance at an anti-semitic church for 10 years.
I also see you’ve resorted to your tactic of cutting off replies (below).
In response to another comment. See in context »Ah, nothing like the joys of engaging with passive-aggressive trolls. Makes stabbing yourself in the eyes so much more appealing.
She quotes extracts without comment, because she thinks res ipsa loquitur is a valid form of inference. Helpful hint to lgwalt2002: it’s not. But, if you believe in it, here’s a response in kind. Now you tell us: on what kind of controlled substance is the woman in that video?
I guess you have to respond in this manner because Brown is so clearly incorrect in what he describes a “controlled substance” to be.
Malkin is suggesting that the Miss USA contest has been politicized. Given the reactions to politically-charged questions in the past (those with non-PC answers) you have to at least admit to the possibility.
In response to another comment. See in context »I do. What I can’t bring myself to admit to, however, is two things. First, giving a damn about a minor non-event like ‘Miss USA’ and its alleged political overtones. (By the way, why are some conservatives so obsessed with reading tedious political shit into all kinds of unimportant pop culture crap? Jesus.) Second, I can’t admit that some of the answers to ‘charged questions’ in the past were simply ‘non-PC.’ If you have in mind the Prejean woman, it wasn’t non-PC; it was cretinous. Mouthbreathers who justify their bigotry by appeal to books of violent fairy tales aren’t un-PC; they’re just sad cavepeople.
As to the charge of politicization of unwatchable shit on TV, this is especially rich coming from conservatives. Surely everyone remembers that the whole culture war bullshit, with its hysteric politics read into innocuous stuff, was started by conservatives. But again, no one has ever accused a conservative of self-awareness.
What is it that conservatives are trying to conserve, anyway? Obviously, it’s not natural resources. Is it the past, then? What for?
In response to another comment. See in context »I imagine Malkin “gives a damn” about Miss USA as much as you do – but you can’t complain about a conservative’s “obsession” when you are posting here concerning a matter you supposedly “don’t give a damn” about.
Carrie Prejean’s answer was at “cretinous” as President Barack Obama’s answer to the same question. Their public position on gay marriage is exactly the same. Yet nobody calls Obama “cretinous” for saying exactly the same thing Carrie Prejean said.
Conservatives are trying to preserve the DESIRABLE things of the past, not simply “the past.” To take the other position, the “what for,” position, is to say that every single decision, public policy, cultural statement, etc., by our ancestors is completely wrong.
In response to another comment. See in context »I will call Obama cretinous every time he says stupid things. As to his ‘defense’ of heterosexual marriage, I’m not sure if it’s motivated by stupidity or cynicism. Anyway, neither is any more defensible.
Spelling things in large capitals is no substitute for a genuine defense or explanation. Calling something desirable achieves nothing, when the consequence is denying a group of people what the others get to enjoy (no wonder they find it desirable). No person A has the right or justification to deny something to another person B just because A finds it desirable, whereas B finds it in violation of his own rights. What many conservatives seem to forget is that the modern standard of justification, in Western societies, is individual rights. Anything that conflicts with that is ipso facto morally unacceptable, no matter how many other people find it desirable, endorsed by some old-ass book of superstitions, older than feudalism or things of that sort. That’s the legacy of the 18th century Enlightenment, and the litmus test for whether you belong in the modern age or not. Anything that fails to meet that test is so much garbage that belongs in the dustbin of history.
Again, why is this so hard to get? Do social conservatives have some deeper point that I fail to grasp? Or are they just not that well-endowed upstairs?
In response to another comment. See in context »Which part of ‘fallacy’ do you fail to get, man? The part that says that it’s an error of logic? Here’s some simple examples, to help you grasp simple things, such as the argumentum ad hominem, which is also a fallacy.
1. Conservatives are widely renowned to be breath-takingly stupid.
2. Lgwalt2002 keeps trying to score points for conservatives.
Ergo: [draw your own conclusion; it follows trivially].
Another one:
1. By near-universal recognition, Michelle Mangalang is a puckered racist asshole.
2. Lgwalt2002 keeps trying to defend her.
Consequently: [repeat as in 1 above].
And YOU’RE the guy complaining about “argumentum ad hominem?” In just a handful of posts, you’ve called conservatives “mouthbreathers,” “cavepeople,” and me as a “passive-aggressive troll.”
All of these “ad hominems” are yours, not mine. And the supreme irony is that you said: “No one has ever accused a conservative of self-awareness.”
And yet you seem totally unaware that you continually violate your own alleged “standards” of argumentation.
In response to another comment. See in context »Oh, gosh, you got me there! Ouch!
In response to another comment. See in context »“Spelling things in large capitals is no substitute for a genuine defense or explanation.”
Or, I might ad, the profligate use of latin phrases you don’t completely understand.
Unfortunately for you, I did give a genuine defense or explanation. A reference to capital letters was just an effort on your part to change the subject
“Calling something desirable achieves nothing, when the consequence is denying a group of people what the others get to enjoy (no wonder they find it desirable).”
Malkin’s point was not to deny Muslim girls the dubious “right” to win beauty pageants. It was the double standard of looking past vapid and incorrect answers as long as they fit a prescribed pattern.
“No person A has the right or justification to deny something to another person B just because A finds it desirable, whereas B finds it in violation of his own rights.”
You mean like forcing young people to purchase health insurance?
“What many conservatives seem to forget is that the modern standard of justification, in Western societies, is individual rights.”
What you don’t seem to understand is that it is the conservatives supporting “individual rights.” It is the Left that is subsuming more and more individual decisions and rights to the State (such as whether to purchase insurance policies, consuming an amount of salt that Michelle Obama doesn’t think you should, etc.)
“Anything that conflicts with that is ipso facto morally unacceptable, no matter how many other people find it desirable, endorsed by some old-ass book of superstitions, older than feudalism or things of that sort.”
I guess you’re talking about the Bible. You consider the Sermon on the Mount an “old ass superstition?” Or Paul’s essay on love in 1 Corinthians 13? Again, calling something “old ass” is not an argument.
“That’s the legacy of the 18th century Enlightenment, and the litmus test for whether you belong in the modern age or not. Anything that fails to meet that test is so much garbage that belongs in the dustbin of history.”
It’s the conservative Tea Partiers that are going around with copies of an 18th century document in their pockets, and talking about the 9th and 10th Amendments as if they actually mean something, not you folks on the Left.
“Again, why is this so hard to get? Do social conservatives have some deeper point that I fail to grasp? Or are they just not that well-endowed upstairs?”
Well, I’d say someone who claims to be against a group while repeating positively their own arguments just MIGHT be a candidate for not being “well-endowed upstairs.”
Sorry for the capital letters.
In response to another comment. See in context »I was talking about gay marriage. I’m really done with faux outrage over silly TV shows. Did you miss my point–or are you just trying to change the topic?
As to the Bible–please don’t go there. There’s countless passages in that book that sound like naked affronts to human decency. If one is allowed to pick and choose, even Mein Kampf can be whitewashed.
From the 18th-century, I took the idea of individual rights, not any texts. I don’t advocate literalist readings of anything as a guide to government. Again, it’s quite rich of teabaggers to appeal to an 18th-century event that was about protesting taxation without representation. There’s abundant representation these days for everyone in America, especially for middle-age white folks. What the fuck is the teabagger’s point, really, in recalling the Boston Tea Party? Please explain how that is not evidence for my claim that they are breathtakingly stupid.
Please also explain how requiring people to buy health insurance is a violation of their rights, but asking them to buckle up and buy car insurance isn’t. Or wearing a tie at work. Or obtaining a prescription for prescription drugs.
And I’m still waiting for an account of how denying gay people the right to marry each other really is about preserving something desirable. I mean, objectively desirable, not ‘to the liking of bigoted crackers.’
In response to another comment. See in context »“I was talking about gay marriage. I’m really done with faux outrage over silly TV shows. Did you miss my point–or are you just trying to change the topic?”
The topic of this article is “silly TV shows,” as you can see by the articles. By trying to make this about gay marriage, it is YOU trying to “change the subject.”
“As to the Bible–please don’t go there. There’s countless passages in that book that sound like naked affronts to human decency.”
Maybe when you’ve had 35 years of theological study, degrees in history and philosophy and post-grad work in seminary, we can discuss that.
“From the 18th-century, I took the idea of individual rights, not any texts.”
Even ideas are “texts” whether written or not (as Nietzsche understood) but how did you find out these 18th century “ideas” without reading them somewhere?
“Again, it’s quite rich of teabaggers to appeal to an 18th-century event that was about protesting taxation without representation. There’s abundant representation these days for everyone in America, especially for middle-age white folks.”
I must have missed the middle-age white folks mandate for 1/5 trillion dollar deficits and unfunded liabilities of 114 trillion. It’s not “breathtakingly stupid” to question our representation when Congress passed a 2000 page bill without reading it, against the desires of 60% of the electorate.
“Please also explain how requiring people to buy health insurance is a violation of their rights, but asking them to buckle up and buy car insurance isn’t.”
Because you aren’t required to buy car insurance and buckle up if you don’t buy or ride in a car. It’s not a requirement of citizenship to drive a car. The health-care mandate makes it a requirement of citizenship to purchase health insurance.
“And I’m still waiting for an account of how denying gay people the right to marry each other really is about preserving something desirable.”
Then maybe you should find an article someplace about gay marriage, rather than an article about Malkin and the Miss USA Pageant. Again, you are trying to change the subject (understandably, because you are doing poorly in this one).
In response to another comment. See in context »Oh dear. Here comes–the appeal to many years of post-graduate study. Please explain, esteemed scholar, how that fount of humanism, the Sermon on the Mount, coheres with such passages as:
Colossians 4:1 “Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.”
Ibidem, 3:18 “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.”
Corinthians, 10:8 “Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.”
Shall I go on?
And don’t tell me these passages have to be read metaphorically. If you do, explain your decision — in particular, explain why we shouldn’t also take “thou shalt not kill” in a merely metaphorical sense.
And please drop the fucking Miss USA thing. I’m sick of it already.
In response to another comment. See in context »” Please explain, esteemed scholar, how that fount of humanism, the Sermon on the Mount, coheres with such passages as:
Colossians 4:1 “Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.”
So, you think that Masters should give unto their servants what is unjust and unequal? What’s the problem with justice and equality?
Ibidem, 3:18 “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.”
And the problem is…. what, exactly? You’re arguing that the verse is wrong because the verse is wrong?
“Corinthians, 10:8 “Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.”
So, how many do YOU think “fell in one day?” You have a problem with the statistics?
“Shall I go on?”
No, you’ve made it abundantly clear that you haven’t given this matter any serious thought. You are conflating your opinion with fact, and claiming the Bible is wrong because you say it’s wrong.
I have another verse for you: Matthew 7:6. There’s little point in me arguing about the Bible with you.
“And please drop the fucking Miss USA thing. I’m sick of it already.”
Then go to another thread. Why try to change the subject?
In response to another comment. See in context »Are you for real? Masters and servants? Women, know your place, ’cause that’s the way the lord likes it? Thousands of people died because they committed fornication? You find this medieval shit inspiring or relevant to the modern world? Jesus. It’s a good thing we found the courage to overcome you Christian talibans in the West, or we’d still be living in caves, waiting for the afterlife to fix everything.
I love that we found reason to guide us, instead of that hippie Jesus who claims, according to Luke (19:27), “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” Or of that original taliban, Paul, who insists (in Romans 1: 31-2), that those “without natural affection” are worthy of death. I will not go into the utter barbarity with which the Old Testament is teeming. I guess it takes 35 years of theological hair-splitting to rationalize such savagery. Religion of peace, indeed.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Are you for real? Masters and servants?”
Your problem is that you don’t have any conception of what you don’t know – Paul also said “if you can gain your freedom, do so,” and the short book of Philemon is asking him to free his slave Onesimus. Clearly the arc of Christian teaching was to free slaves – and it was the Christians who ended slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries, not the secularists. This teaching is especially relevant today in arguing from the lesser to the greater: If the moral obligation of a Master was to treat servants with justice and kindness, how much greater is an Employer’s obligation?
“Women, know your place, ’cause that’s the way the lord likes it? ”
Too bad it actually doesn’t say that, and historically, it was Christianity that was the first religious movement to raise the status of women. It wasn’t the secularists.
“Thousands of people died because they committed fornication? You find this medieval shit inspiring or relevant to the modern world? ”
Well, considering our most crime-ridden neighborhoods have illegitimacy rates in the 90% bracket, and that AIDS has killed millions of people around the world, I’d say it’s pretty relevant, wouldn’t you?
“Jesus. It’s a good thing we found the courage to overcome you Christian talibans in the West, or we’d still be living in caves, waiting for the afterlife to fix everything.”
It was actually Christianity that was responsible for the rise in modern science and applied technology, because it taught that the resources of the world were placed by a good, rational and loving God who created a systematic, rational world of scientific laws that could be studied to the benefit of humanity. That’s why modern science came out of the Christian world, not the Muslim or the Hindu, Shinto or Buddhist worlds.
“I love that we found reason to guide us, instead of that hippie Jesus who claims, according to Luke (19:27), “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”
Maybe you should reconsider and repent while you still can. Just because you don’t like the reality doesn’t mean it’s not – reality.
In response to another comment. See in context »You’ve lost your damn mind, man. Seek help; we have science and medicine to cure people these days.
In response to another comment. See in context »“You’ve lost your damn mind, man. Seek help; we have science and medicine to cure people these days.”
This is the root of your problem. While you are full of contempt for Christianity, you are completely unaware that there are insurmountable problems with your own epistemology – specifically the fact/value distinction, among other things.
In response to another comment. See in context »I think she’s very pretty and I thought the idea was “may the prettiest woman win.”
Or did I oversimplify things too much?
No, I agree with you that Donald Trump prefers pretty women to Muslims, but our view is not shared by those who wish not to share it.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] conservative blogger, Michelle Malkin, lamented that "Fakih's cheerleaders are too busy tooting the identity politics horn to care what [...]
[...] conservative blogger, Michelle Malkin, lamented that "Fakih's cheerleaders are too busy tooting the identity politics horn to care what [...]
[...] long as we are on the subject of birth control, which I suppose we are, let us discuss what it is exactly that birth control entails and what it [...]
Unsubscribing from this thread now. Y’all need to take your meds and get some new hobbies.
I was referring to some commentators, not the author, btw.
In response to another comment. See in context »