Keep fapping your little wings, Dennis.

fixed.

Well, thanks for that, AO.

I hate to break it to you but neither one of those dudes is a black guy named Thomas Sowell.

No, but they all eerily share the same view, which is central to my point. You do know it is possible for a black guy to be a dickhead, right? All three are hoping something bad happens to America while Obama is President. And all three are getting paid to voice those despicable opinions.

I am partial to Portugese rolls ; I don’t how Amused Observer feels about them.

heh

I’ve tried that with you before, Frank, and the problem is, you just wouldn’t recognize a cogent argument if it bit you on the ass. Hard. For you “cogent” means “conforming to my prejudices.” Just isn’t worth the effort.

But glad to see your such a fan of Derrida. Derrida and Thomas Sowell. There’s a certain poetry in that.

Thomas Sowell is an idiotic right wing extremist, which makes him a perfect roll model for both you and “Amused Observer”.

” … Foucault’s resentment towards Derrida may be linked to Derrida’s devastating critique of Foucault’s Madness and Civilization, and the fact that Foucault was at one time Derrida’s teacher… ”
“… Chomsky has indicated that he may simply be incapable of understanding Derrida, but he is dubious of this possibility… ” [emphasis added - fd]

Question for you, “Newsie”: How is that you now refer to the United States as a “democratic republic” when just a few short weeks ago, you were calling the United States “our American nation”?

And why do you insist on repeating a ridiculous observation after it has been thoroughly debunked?

Finally, anyone who refers to Thomas Sowell as an “insane right wing militant” has zero credibility.

Wilbur, how about if for your next trick, you make a cogent comment?

For your next trick, could you tell us what the definition of “is” is?

And “Frank DiSalle” feels a need to write over 400 words defending that kind of obscene, anti-democratic statement.

Why do you right wingers like “Frank DiSalle” hate our democratic republic?

Let’s go over it, one more time.

“When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.”

When I see the worsening degeneracy

worsening ( a participle ) = 1) deterioration: process of changing to an inferior state
2) changing something with the result that it becomes worse

So, when Dr Sowell sees “something” becoming worse; the ‘when” implying that “something” is in the process of changing for the worse – not that it has changed for the worse, but that “some ‘thing’” is in the process of changing. So, in this case, he is not advocating change , peaceful or otherwise. He is seeing a degeneracy that exists, and changing for the worse, even now.
Now, where is it changing? : In the media, in our political arena, in the field of education, and the milieu of our intelligentsia. Is it changing amongst the general population? Not necessarily. Is it changing amongst liberals? Not necessarily. Is it changing amongst conservatives? Not likely since conservatives view change with a gimlet eye, a skeptic’s eye. What does that tell us? That a coup is imminent? No. That a coup is desirable? No.
So… Is Dr Sowell advocating a coup yet? No, he is not.
So, what is he doing?
He is wondering:”having a a wish or desire to know something; [in] a state in which you want to learn more about something” .
So, he possesses a desire to know, or a curiosity about what?
That is simple : He is wondering whether ( is curious about ) whether “the day may yet come { as in could conceivably arrive } when the only thing that can { ‘possesses the capability } save this country is a military coup”.

So, is he advocating a coup? No.

Is he desirous of a coup? No.

Is he advocating violence? No.

Is he enamored of violence? No.

Is he using “explicitly threatening rhetoric” [ or, implying the threat of violence, for that matter ] ? No. He is not.

No more than a person who wonders if a building might burn down is an arsonist.

Have a nice day, “Newsie” ( sorry this took so long, but I took a nap ).

“Several told me, independently of one another, that they had consulted the definition of “narcissistic personality disorder” in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders…”

LOL. Like Bill Kristol said when he took this hit piece apart, who the hell consults the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, much less several people? Independently of one another.

Like OW’s compatriot, Eric Boehlert, said, that doesn’t pass the smell test.

It’s obviously enough for your smell test though, isn’t it?

Certainly sweet-smelling enough to try to pass it off as the gospel truth, that’s for sure.

“Dennis”, I asked for you to show me right wing critics of Purdum’s attack on Clinton shortly after it was published.

Listen, Newsie, you didn’t ask me to show you that, and I told you it was treated as kind of ho-hum, nothing new here, tyhpical liberal on liberal high-mindedness journalism by Purdum. No one cared. When Clinton called Purdum a scumbag, that was the news story. I never claimed conservatives went nuts on Purdum, and it’s silly for you to make any kind of parallel to then vs now on how conservatives would react.

You, on the other hand, claimed just the opposite, that conservatives cheered Purdum on, elevated his status, and treated his story as the gospel truth. Now you do your typical dancing around that claim.

It wasn’t true. You made it up, and now you’re too chickenshit to admit it or provide a link, even just one, that supports your claim.

Your words…Sleazy and cowardly. Swallow them, Newsie.

Purdum’s attack piece on Republican Sarah Palin includes claims of multiple Republicans called Sarah Palin a narcissist.

“More than once in my travels in Alaska, people brought up, without prompting, the question of Palin’s extravagant self-regard. Several told me, independently of one another, that they had consulted the definition of “narcissistic personality disorder” in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—“a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy”—and thought it fit her perfectly. When Trig was born, Palin wrote an e-mail letter to friends and relatives, describing the belated news of her pregnancy and detailing Trig’s condition; she wrote the e-mail not in her own name but in God’s, and signed it “Trig’s Creator, Your Heavenly Father.””

You just made them up, didn’t you?

See how that works?

Seriously.

You’re all grown up now, “Dennis”, show me where right wing critics criticized Purdum’s attacks on Clinton. Why can’ you find them?

Hint: There were none.

Show me I’m wrong.

If we all believe, together, then “Dennis” can fly…

Keep flapping your little wings, Dennis. Someday you will fly. Someday!

But see, you are a decent guy.

You’re not making a very strong case for yourself.