RSS

Another example of why I am in awe of Andrew Sullivan. I wish I had even a fraction of his presence of mind.

22 Nov

filibuster-dead      http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/11/22/the-senate-partially-nukes-the-filibuster-reax-ii/

Advertisements
 
6 Comments

Posted by on November 22, 2013 in Uncategorized

 

6 responses to “Another example of why I am in awe of Andrew Sullivan. I wish I had even a fraction of his presence of mind.

  1. Jake Goldblum

    November 22, 2013 at 5:17 pm

    i think sullivan is great but he takes up the weirdest causes sometimes and is a weird gay guy. When he was talking about the campaign to end circumsin i stopped reading him. He is also pretty anti-israel and weird dude. I think when he started charging for his work it got less interesting somehow. This was a good chart

     
  2. rustybrown2012

    November 23, 2013 at 9:09 am

    Speaking of charts, here’s a nifty little one showing how broken our health care system is. This shouldn’t bother Cluster though, he’s on record saying he likes paying more for health care. He’s in the right country:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/22/american-health-care-terrible_n_4324967.html

     
    • mitchethekid

      November 23, 2013 at 10:22 am

      Lower expenses, maximize profits. That’s why the right is so protective of the status quo.

       
  3. rustybrown2012

    November 24, 2013 at 3:49 pm

    I like Sullivan in some respects, but one problem I’ve always had with him, aside from his shameless cheerleading and subsequent backpedaling on the invasion of Iraq, is his nonsensical religiosity. He’s an apologist of the highest order, and his latest endorsement of this nearly incomprehensible word salad is a good example. If somebody can clarify this gobbledegook to me, please do. While you’re at it, also please explain why I can’t substitute “Peter Pan” for “God” in these passages and retain the exact same rhetorical weight of the argument:

    http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/11/24/of-gods-god-and-men/

     
    • meursault1942

      November 24, 2013 at 5:52 pm

      It’s yet another version of the “God created the world and therefore is not of this world and therefore cannot be defined, comprehended, measured, etc.” argument. But what it fails to do is explain why this exceptionalism applies only to the deity of the Abrahamic faiths and not, say, Brahma, who created the world according to Hinduism. After all, Christians would certainly deny the divinity of Brahma, and this is precisely Dawkins’ point: Atheists deny the divinity of the Christian God the same way Christians deny the divinity of all gods besides their own. Saying, “Yeah, well, those gods don’t really count as god the same way our god does,” not only fails to disprove Dawkins’ point, it reinforces it.

       
      • rustybrown2012

        November 24, 2013 at 8:24 pm

        The whole “God is such a super-duper special concept that is so cosmic we can’t even begin to talk about him” is a non starter for me, as it should be for anyone who values logic and rationality. How Sullivan can believe that claptrap is an answer to Dawkins’ salient point about the death of all gods but one is beyond me.

         
 
%d bloggers like this: