Selene Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 Ted:Thanks.I am listening to the Ralph Peters C-Span interview from yur topic which I just stumbled onto today.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiaer.ts Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 I am listening to the Ralph Peters C-Span interview from yur topic which I just stumbled onto today.Oh, yes, Peters is quite excellent. You can also listen to Hitchens and Paglia and quite a few others in the same series, search the archive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 (edited) Comrade:That is your loss.My hostility is your argument that you and your state are going to define what mental cruelty means when it comes to a parent and a child.Our Constitution specifically enunciates a freedom of association between parent and child. So let me make this clear, your entire premise that a government could ever appoint an individual that could make that type of decision in anything but a biased manner is proof of severe mental illness,This is not hostility. This is a cold evaluation of a deadly threat to my family. There is a section of the Talmud that states, if you suspect that someone is coming to kill you, get up earlier and kill them first. Even a goyem like me can understand the absolute beauty of that statement.I am a very early riser and will wait patiently for you and never give you a chance.Adam"Severe mental illness"? Interesting way to argue. Some quasi-pornographic magazine left-intellectual elite guy did that to Barry Goldwater in 1964. Barry sued and won in spite of being a public figure. --Brant (EDIT) PS: I do despise Kyrel. I'd throw him off any list I owned because I don't have Michael's cast iron stomach. Edited September 20, 2008 by Brant Gaede Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 I believe Kyrel is a good man with a good heart and bad, horrible words that trash the good in us all (and taint the reputation of his own good). I know I would like him as a neighbor, but I would not entrust any government power to him.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 Brant:I remember that case, but I do not think it was Al Goldstein....hmmBefore the 1964 election, the muckraking magazine Fact, published by Ralph Ginzburg, ran a special issue entitled ‘The Unconscious of a Conservative: A Special Issue on the Mind of Barry Goldwater.’ The two main articles contended that Goldwater was mentally unfit to be president. The magazine attempted to support this claim with the results of an unscientific poll of psychiatrists it had conducted. Fact had mailed questionnaires to 12,356 psychiatrists, and published a ‘sampling’ of the comments made by the 2,417 psychiatrists who responded, of which 1,189 said Goldwater was unfit to be president.[22] After the election, Goldwater sued the publisher, the editor and the magazine for libel. "Although the jury awarded Goldwater only $1.00 in compensatory damages against all three defendants, it went on to [396 U.S. 1049, 1050] award him punitive damages of $25,000 against Ginzburg and $50,000 against Fact magazine, Inc."[23] According to Warren Boroson, then-managing editor of Fact and now a financial columnist, the main biography of Goldwater in the magazine was written by David Bar-Illan, the Israeli pianist. He went on to say "Goldwater sued me for $2 million. (He collected 33 cents.)"[24]Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 There is a very good discussion of the libel case in the book "Pure Goldwater". Senator Goldwater was very much a public figure. That he won anything was a big victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halbowden Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle5183045.eceDefend Disney from his Mickey Mouse criticsAs the cartoon rodent reaches 80, we should celebrate his creator - a genius and one of the best arguments for capitalism...The critics disliked Disney not because they hated his flaws, but because they despised his achievements. He created modern mass entertainment. And that is what his opponents don't like. They think it is plastic, naive, a sin against nature, an insult to creativity.Walt saw it differently. He was bringing high quality entertainment to people who had little in their lives, good quality merchandise in place of tat, brilliantly made films in place of amateur ones, artistic imagination to those who almost never encountered it. He provided capitalism with its best defence - that it can nourish creativity and inspiration.The brilliance of Snow White, the wit of Mickey Mouse, the overwhelming, stunning commercial vision that produced the theme parks. Walt Disney was a genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now