Comments for Thom

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

74 posts / 0 new

Comments

OK Space Cadet, I am a post-theistic theologian and you can learn to respect it or stuff it into the empty cabin of definitions you use to ignore the cogency of my criticism of your 'enthusiastic' dogma about atheism.

"Evangelical" is how I describe Hitchins, who was very enthusiastic to the point of rhetorical overload on the subject. I am also aware of Dawkins, Harris and others who have attempted to make some point or other about "god" while they have varing opinions on religion. It is the latter that I separate from the issue of "atheism" which is about believing in a "god" and for the most part is about an ontic being existing somewhere, which I reject as at least, passe.

If you wish to keep "evangelical" for specifically religious advocacy, you could at least allow that its use as a descriptor of enthusiastic and dogmatic atheism is not that much of a violation and does nothing to change the facts of the description.

The question I keep asking atheists is what difference does it make that there is "no god" to them. What difference would it make if god existed? How "god" exists is not a trivial question to ask. Metaphor and Myth are able to communicate truths, but they don't become science and history to be "true."

I hardly change any definition when I refer to secularism as "religion" rather than fact because the word itself is part of a pair describing a whole called reality. Sacred is the other half of secular, and to remove it in disgust for the archaic nature of theism is to leave the whole realm of human value and "soul" out to dry in the arid and shallow ground of something like "economic man(sic)" or our imperial fantasies of power and glory.

Mind you, I have no desire to convert atheists to theism whatsoever. Atheism is not a flawed place to start, it is just a silly place to stop. It is not a critique of religion, but it is of theistic religion and there is a lot of that to cut through out there for sure. I ask this same question of those who claim they do believe in God, because it is also a silly place to stop and probably a harder place to get a start into the big question of what it takes to make and keep human life human in this world.

That is the game field everybody needs to move to and get away from this stupid and silly confrontation about the existence of God. If they have to defend God, they don't believe in the All Powerful and All Knowing Master of the Universe and Creator. The irony is wonderful. The Divine Metaphor can defend herself without our dogmatic cover. The Myth will either reveal lifetruth or cover it up depending upon what we bring to it. The Story exists in human history and has meaning because it is part of our legacy of wisdom and not just the superstitions of the past swept away by our hip modern consciousness about reality. Some are. Some are things we need to recover for our own good.

If you would like to have a serious conversation about the nature of faith, and I mean intellectual and moral integrity, and not whether myths are history, etc., we could begin by appreciating that "BELIEF" is about "BELONGING" rather than about intellectual content. The Baptized agree to accept a common story as "theirs" and to identify with each other as "Christians," but it would be hard to get three in any congregation who could explain the words of the creeds they repeat as confessions of faith, etc. in worship. The three includes the pastor.

In a healthy faith community, Doubt is honored with Belief in a dialectic leading to Imagination and "Who do You say that I am?" rather than what do others tell you to believe. That, in turn, should lead to Mutuality from the stage of Self Development to Interdependence. It is here that each personal journey of faith joins in pluralism around being human together. What is "believed" throughout, is the mystery of Love and Grace, which I find truer that true to human life.

I will not repeat the realism point other than to repeat that it is not the definition, logical positivism certainty of objectivity--another rap on the secularism reductionism.

Be a "realist" by all means, but remember that it is a term for an explorer and discoverer and not for how definitive our ideas are in the real world. Don't accept any Truth other than the True Ones, and the same with Love. Life is full of those who have worshipped at the wrong altar or bed.

Religion does not go away because you abolish it. Religious institutions identify themselves, so we think of them in those terms. Wall St. is supposedly secular, but I think Mammon and Mars are working overtime in our secular world and we are in their thrall when we don't expose them as "false gods."

You don't have to adopt the "gods" part, but the false matters, and establishing the ground of the moral authority of Justice is part of the politics of achieving justice in the real world. When did "we" adopt our "exceptionalism" and become demonic about our use of violence? I think it helps to appreciate the dynamics of religion operating where "liberals" have desired a world of reason. Get over it. Being able to use reason is good, but we are not creatures of reason so get over the frustration and deal with it.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote drc2:
If you would like to have a serious conversation
about the nature of faith,
and I mean intellectual and moral integrity,
and not whether myths are history,

No ,please no, we don't.!

Nor do we want an endless debate about the precise meaning
of each word.
Words rarely have exactly the same meaning for everyone.

"Evangelical" has a religious background, but is often
taken to mean an ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause.
Could be converting the heathen or selling Tupperware. :)

Quote drc2:
The question I keep asking atheists is what difference does
it make that there is "no god" to them.
What difference would it make if god existed?

Actually that's a bit like asking what difference
dinosaurs or dragons make to most of us.

Some of us just like to think we know which of those are/were real.

The problem with God,is that so many people run their lives
according to their God's teachings, or an interpretation of them.

If the God is real,the teachings are real and must be obeyed
no matter how harmful.

Aldair's picture
Aldair
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 7:49 am

I find the same iron laws of dogma working in economics, for example. What is real is the question. Thinking we know what is real runs a dangerous risk of elevating our ideas over nature and the cosmos, so holding that loose grip of open-minded questioning is part of being certain enough to leave our bedrooms.

You do know that lovely joke about the particle physicist who feared getting out of bed lest he should slip between the holes in matter we call a "floor." What we perceive is less than the full picture, so have fun being a realist.

PS, I have many "problems with God" as used by most religious people and institutions. I think "God" has the same problems with the way "she" is being misused. But that begs the question of how my favorite story figures "exist." Their stories are real human stories, and so is "God" as the mirror of our image of who we are as human beings. It does not make us "God," but it does make "theology" more about what it is to be human than speculation about where in the cosmos some heavenly being, who mattered to us, could be found.

Religion is a human phenomenon, and it transcends its identity, which is my point about secularism. I could put it another way, to be a true secular realist would be to achieve true realization in the discard of illusions and the temptations of "knowing." To avoid being seduced by attractive myths and theories that confirm what you already know comfortably, you also need to avoid being a cold cynic who suspects all truth and cannot decide to be for anything even if is easy to be against everything.

Fundamentalism and secular ideology are the same basic phenomenon. When I refer to evangelical atheists it is because I experience the same thing from religious evangelicals, so I am making the association in style and psychology. Sorry if that offends, but adamant atheism that does not stick to the ontology of the "divine being" takes on a subject much too large for its launching pad. Religion does not need theism to be, so there.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

Well, apparently I struck a nerve drc, you don't have to get snippy.

You use a lot of words but don't really say that much. I was not asking about your mystical, philosophical beliefs and conceptions of reality and humankind or the idea of a 'soul', we can't have a logical or scientific discussion about that.

It's not about what i 'wish' words mean, it's about what they actually mean. Sure, people often use exageration and stretch the meaning of words in order to make a point, that is being hyperbolic. When haveing a serious, intelligent, and honest discussion about a topic however, one should use terms for what they really mean and be clear about when they are using metaphor or hyperbole and when one is being literal. I understand what you and Thom and others of a 'mystical' or religious bent mean when you call atheism and secularism a religion and atheists evangelists, but if taken literally it is nonsensical and inaccurate. Atheism is the opposite of religion and dogma, and secular is the opposite of religious. Atheism is no more a dogma or religion than is the belief in gravity or in the nonexistence of Zeus or Santa or mermaids. Since you and Thom and others know what these words actually mean, you are being purposely intellectually dishonest and obfuscating the issure in order to convince others and to attack atheism and secularism. You are just muddying the waters and trying to change the 'frame' of the topic in order to try to prove your point. But that's not what one does when trying to have an accurate and intellectual discussion.

You can be religious or mystical all you want, but do not try to say that I and other atheists are religious or evangelical and are missing out on something important by not being religious or mystical, or trying to say we can't avoid being so by changing and stretching the meaning of certain words. That is what is offensive and insulting. It's not that it hurts my or other atheists feelings, but no one likes to be called something they are not and don't agree with. Plus it makes clear discussion on the issues difficult if not futile. You should be secure and honest in your beliefs and not try to play games with words in order to defend yourself and make others agree with you.

Spaceboy's picture
Spaceboy
Joined:
Dec. 1, 2010 12:45 pm

OK, let's try polite. Words do not "mean" what you want them to mean. When I suggest that "secular" has emerged from a heuristic division of reality into "sacred and secular," it is about what that actual word means in its reality context. If it has become abused in popular discourse or even in academic rhetoric, too bad. "Secular" is the other half of reality with "sacred."

If you wish to be "reality" based rather than secular, fine. You still have to deal with how objective "reality" can be apprehended by human beings and what the mystery of quantum/particle physics implies about our mental furniture, including language.

I do not wish to be misunderstood by atheists to think that I think that you are "missing out" on something special that only the religious can have. I actually think that clearing the ground of theism is a great starting point for serious "theology" around the question I posed, "how to make and keep human life human in this world."

You do not have to have an ounce of theism to be a full participant in that conversation, and it is about the best I can do to keep religion out of it. That is another matter, and it is not about you missing some special spiritual experience so much as being relatively unarmed in the "theology game" where "false gods" are waving power cards and badges of authority all the time to the detriment of our humanity and the future of this world. If you can take down these demons without metaphysics and myths, go for it!

Attempts to abolish religion are ill-fated and poorly conceived. Recognize it. Deal with it. Don't be beguiled by it. Keep the Faith. It is not about a brand of God, it is about being on the Reality wave length. It requires a lot of humility, listening and letting go, and I am not very good at it.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

No, "words do not "mean" what you want them to mean". That's been my whole point from the beginning. Atheism is in no way a religion. If it is then we need to make up new words to mean those things because your definitions for them are not the accepted or traditional meanings. They do not mean what you and Thom etc. want them to mean. Definitions matter, they are essiential for precise, cogent discussion. Yes, they can change over time and take on different meanings and connatations. But that only comes about when the majority of a people accept those changed meanings. They don't change just because a few, or relatively few, say so. And just because someone says something enough times does not make it true.

By calling atheism a religion and atheists evangelical you, Thom and others are trying to level the playing field, to lump it and them in with religion and evangelicals, and all the negative aspects and every bad thing done by religion, because of religion. In a similar way people like to bring up Nazi Germany, China, and the Soviet Union. Nazi Germany of course not being atheist and Russia haveing a long history of very orthodox christianity, in any case they're a weak argument.

Again, if atheism is the same as religion, then the belief that there are no dragons or unicorns, or ghosts, is just as much a religion. You and Thom etc., can muddle things to try to weasel out of that but it's really that simple. If you did make such a claim it would at least be consistent.

There's nothing I have to 'deal with' or 'get over', neither I nor any of the so called 'evangelical atheists' think that religion can be 'abolished' or even think it should be no reasonable person thinks it can be, except for maybe far in the future, if then. And none of us thinks it should be abolished anyway, you can't ban religion, societies and individuals have to choose to not be religious, or 'mystical'. So that's a moot point.

You again try to muddle the argument with profound sounding words and phrases but i'm not trying to have philosophical, metaphysical argument, it effectively changes the subject and avoids the question.

Maybe you do not think and are not trying to imply, that atheists are "missing out on something special", but most of the others who conflate atheism with religion and atheists with evangelicals are.

All that said, you seem to be moving away from your original assertions, in any case, I find your statements below very insightful and thoughtful;

"I have many "problems with God" as used by most religious people and institutions. I think "God" has the same problems with the way "she" is being misused. But that begs the question of how my favorite story figures "exist." Their stories are real human stories, and so is "God" as the mirror of our image of who we are as human beings. It does not make us "God," but it does make "theology" more about what it is to be human than speculation about where in the cosmos some heavenly being, who mattered to us, could be found.

Religion is a human phenomenon, and it transcends its identity, which is my point about secularism. I could put it another way, to be a true secular realist would be to achieve true realization in the discard of illusions and the temptations of "knowing." To avoid being seduced by attractive myths and theories that confirm what you already know comfortably, you also need to avoid being a cold cynic who suspects all truth and cannot decide to be for anything even if is easy to be against everything."

I have many "problems with God" as used by most religious people and institutions. I think "God" has the same problems with the way "she" is being misused. But that begs the question of how my favorite story figures "exist." Their stories are real human stories, and so is "God" as the mirror of our image of who we are as human beings. It does not make us "God," but it does make "theology" more about what it is to be human than speculation about where in the cosmos some heavenly being, who mattered to us, could be found.

Religion is a human phenomenon, and it transcends its identity, which is my point about secularism. I could put it another way, to be a true secular realist would be to achieve true realization in the discard of illusions and the temptations of "knowing." To avoid being seduced by attractive myths and theories that confirm what you already know comfortably, you also need to avoid being a cold cynic who suspects all truth and cannot decide to be for anything even if is easy to be against everything.

- See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/06/comments-thom?page=1#comment-291426

I have many "problems with God" as used by most religious people and institutions. I think "God" has the same problems with the way "she" is being misused. But that begs the question of how my favorite story figures "exist." Their stories are real human stories, and so is "God" as the mirror of our image of who we are as human beings. It does not make us "God," but it does make "theology" more about what it is to be human than speculation about where in the cosmos some heavenly being, who mattered to us, could be found.

Religion is a human phenomenon, and it transcends its identity, which is my point about secularism. I could put it another way, to be a true secular realist would be to achieve true realization in the discard of illusions and the temptations of "knowing." To avoid being seduced by attractive myths and theories that confirm what you already know comfortably, you also need to avoid being a cold cynic who suspects all truth and cannot decide to be for anything even if is easy to be against everything.

- See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/06/comments-thom?page=1#comment-291426

I have many "problems with God" as used by most religious people and institutions. I think "God" has the same problems with the way "she" is being misused. But that begs the question of how my favorite story figures "exist." Their stories are real human stories, and so is "God" as the mirror of our image of who we are as human beings. It does not make us "God," but it does make "theology" more about what it is to be human than speculation about where in the cosmos some heavenly being, who mattered to us, could be found.

Religion is a human phenomenon, and it transcends its identity, which is my point about secularism. I could put it another way, to be a true secular realist would be to achieve true realization in the discard of illusions and the temptations of "knowing." To avoid being seduced by attractive myths and theories that confirm what you already know comfortably, you also need to avoid being a cold cynic who suspects all truth and cannot decide to be for anything even if is easy to be against everything.

- See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/06/comments-thom?page=1#comment-291426

, I have many "problems with God" as used by most religious people and institutions. I think "God" has the same problems with the way "she" is being misused. But that begs the question of how my favorite story figures "exist." Their stories are real human stories, and so is "God" as the mirror of our image of who we are as human beings. It does not make us "God," but it does make "theology" more about what it is to be human than speculation about where in the cosmos some heavenly being, who mattered to us, could be found.

Religion is a human phenomenon, and it transcends its identity, which is my point about secularism. I could put it another way, to be a true secular realist would be to achieve true realization in the discard of illusions and the temptations of "knowing." To avoid being seduced by attractive myths and theories that confirm what you already know comfortably, you also need to avoid being a cold cynic who suspects all truth and cannot decide to be for anything even if is easy to be against everything.

- See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/06/comments-thom?page=1#comment-291426

, I have many "problems with God" as used by most religious people and institutions. I think "God" has the same problems with the way "she" is being misused. But that begs the question of how my favorite story figures "exist." Their stories are real human stories, and so is "God" as the mirror of our image of who we are as human beings. It does not make us "God," but it does make "theology" more about what it is to be human than speculation about where in the cosmos some heavenly being, who mattered to us, could be found.

Religion is a human phenomenon, and it transcends its identity, which is my point about secularism. I could put it another way, to be a true secular realist would be to achieve true realization in the discard of illusions and the temptations of "knowing." To avoid being seduced by attractive myths and theories that confirm what you already know comfortably, you also need to avoid being a cold cynic who suspects all truth and cannot decide to be for anything even if is easy to be against everything.

- See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/06/comments-thom?page=1#comment-291426

-With no offense intended,

Spaceboy's picture
Spaceboy
Joined:
Dec. 1, 2010 12:45 pm

Ignore the repeated pastes of your quotes at the end, i don't know why it did that and couldn't change it.

Spaceboy's picture
Spaceboy
Joined:
Dec. 1, 2010 12:45 pm

Some might think that was an "act of God," but I don't. Repeated texts happen here. Anyway, I am picky about how words get twisted and misused to start meaning what they don't, as in "secular." Try finding out what people mean when they speak of "faith." There is no identifiable core meaning I can find.

I hope the idea that atheism can be specific rather than cover the whole rejection of religion on the basis of this critique of theism. The point about an ontic being as God is on target. The idea that all the ideas of God have been foolishness is not.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

Hey, Thom. I'm a fan of the show, but I always tune out the "Rumble". Right wing bloviaters get more than enough air time. If I want to hear what Ted Cruz has to say, I'll tune in the network news and hear it from the horse's ass himself. I appreciate what you are trying to do, but a debate that I think would be more timely might involve center, left and MORE left folks.

That's the debate we really need to start having right now. Thanks for all you do. Chuck

chuckvw's picture
chuckvw
Joined:
Nov. 12, 2014 4:23 pm

Amen, Amen, let the People Say, AMEN!!!!!

What I would love to hear more from Thom are the real Lefties left out so we can go to the water cooler with some real live rounds. Greg Palast does fund-raisers for KBOO. So does Amy Goodwin. There is a Left Out worth featuring.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

Dear Thom,

I'm not sure if you have editorial control over which ads get shown at the breaks during The Big Picture, but I have noticed that your show is the only one that consistently shows what I call the 'rape is cool' promo featuring Lee Camp kissing a girl without her consent after brazenly attacking her companion by punching him in the stomach. I have decided therefore to stop watching your show until after you have succeeded in having this disgraceful promo for Redacted Tonight removed from the break that happens 1/2 way through your show. Thank you.

Sincerely,

John T.

Eugene, Oregon, USA

peacemovies's picture
peacemovies
Joined:
Oct. 14, 2014 8:37 am

Just saw the segment about smart tVs that have cameras that download images to a 3rd party. Just wondering what are the ramifications to that third party if they capture and download images of a young child unclothed. Could they be prosecuted for creating child porn?

bfcnavigator's picture
bfcnavigator
Joined:
Jun. 28, 2010 5:14 pm

Why isn't The Big Picture airing on Free Speech TV? For the past few days it is no longer on at 7pm and can't be found on the guide.

Onespirit's picture
Onespirit
Joined:
Nov. 17, 2014 6:28 pm

On the November 20th show, Thom took www.politifact.com
to task for rating his,
"The Kochs stand to make around $100 billion if the
government approves the Keystone XL pipeline."
statement as,
"pants on fire", untrue.

Thom accepted that the $100 billion was likely to be a great
exaggeration, but said that politifact had
"missed his point" , that big money can afford to buy influence.

As I see it, politifact.com does not aim to judge a whole item,
just this key statement, which was, simply, wrong.

Thom should consider an apology to politifact.com
and get his researches to do a better job in future.

Who can we trust if we can trust Thom ?

Aldair's picture
Aldair
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 7:49 am

"Politifact"(sic) has a very imperfect record at nailing substance and often can be found missing that to score a trivial point. They also trend Rightward, but the big point is that they are not a great source unless you just want to have a fight.

The apology for exaggeration is enough. The substance of the big money story is true enough to question why Pfact got so upset by the hyperbole. They could have gone moderate with their pants on fire, which it was not.

It is important to save "pants on fire" for lies of substance and real damage. Like "weapons of mass destruction," and we still get people on claiming that Bush/Cheney had real reasons to believe that Saddam had these weapons when they went after him. It begs the question of why they did not let the weapons inspectors do their job.

When you get lies that do this level of damage, you might even go "house on fire," but the point is that there is something more than hyperbole for something true instead of cover for what is not.

Thom continues to be a trustworthy and informed person whom you can trust. As it is true for every honest person, honesty does not guarantee accuracy in everything, so your trust is that Thom has integrity, not that every word he speaks can be taken to the bank. Oh, of course, not the banksters.

Thom also has a business in radio and there are subjects that tend to be avoided for good to bad reasons. I would never get into a discussion of building engineering around 9/11 on the air because it doesn't go anywhere. I think he does know that Clarke warned the Cheney about bin Laden and al Qaeda, and why nothing was done before the "new Pearl Harbor" comes from the PNAC Playbook, not from speculation.

Anyway, Thom is also a human being with all the limitations we all share, but a lot more accomplished than the rest of us, so as a mentor who wants us to think rather than cheer, I listen carefully and respect his words. I don't always agree, but I rarely am opposed to his point of view.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

The Koch figure I heard was 3 billion a year, if it's a 33 year expected production run, 99 is close enough to a 100. Rachel has called poitifact out so much I don't even bother with them. We're not talking opinions, but facts supporting issues they claim are lies, and lies exposed that they excuse for no reason and give it a mostly true or whatever weasel rating they have.

Some atheists proselytize, most don't. Socrates was an atheist because he was a monotheist and that meant less gods than the standards. Atheos is godless, so against polytheism, monotheism is godless or atheist. Against monotheism godless is no god. Xenophanes was a kind of pantheist, where nature is god, or god is nature, and a pantheist's temple is the forest or the mountains or the seas.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote drc2:
"Politifact"(sic) has a very imperfect record at nailing substance
and often can be found missing that to score a trivial point.
They also trend Rightward, but the big point is
that they are not a great source unless you just want to have a fight.

Politifact may not have a perfect record,
but apparently , Thom doesn't need to be 100% accurate
to be credible.

Thom didn't try to defend the $100 billion, he clearly could not.
It seems someone saw a nice big figure and ran with it.

Quote drc2:
Thom continues to be a trustworthy and informed person
whom you can trust. As it is true for every honest person,
honesty does not guarantee accuracy in everything,
so your trust is that Thom has integrity,
not that every word he speaks can be taken to the bank.

Which is why Thom should have admitted to the error, not
attacked politifact.com for pointing it out.

Quote douglaslee:
The Koch figure I heard was 3 billion a year, if it's a
33 year expected production run, 99 is close enough to a 100.

Indeed it is, but that just underlines one point made in the
article, namely , that multiplying two guesses
does not give a fact.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/19/thom-hartman...

The way I read the article, the $100 billion figure was the real target,
Thom was just a big name that used it.

Aldair's picture
Aldair
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 7:49 am

Admitting that there was hyperbole is not buying the liar label or the hot pants.

douglaslee has given substance to the original figure, so maybe it isn't even that much of a stretch. It sure ain't hot pants.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

I just watched Thom's ,"Interview with great minds"
with Norman Lear.

It was so boring I feel moved to comment.
Watching Thom, I would have assumed he was nodding off,
except that during the breaks he gushed about how great Norman is.

Thom said Lear's programmes were amongst the greatest of the
20th Century.
He should have limited that to American T.V... as far as I know
none of them is well known outside N.America.

Thom also said Lear was the creative force behind these legendary shows.
Two of his best known, "All in the family" and "Sanford and son"
were based on the BBC shows, "Til death us do part" and
"Steptoe and son".
Adapting is not really "creative".

Aldair's picture
Aldair
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 7:49 am

How long are we going to talk to people that don't know how or want to listen?

Arrgy's picture
Arrgy
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

ThanksThom, As much as I appreciate many of your guests and their views whether I agree with the views or not, your Conservative Commentator guest who appears to be an expatriate Australian was a major disappointment. He had very little to share with you and the panel, he appreared to have little understanding of the American political system. But what I really found objectionable was his xenophobic and bigoted views of Muslims and the Koran. The US has enough of its own bigots without giving a platform the an expatriate bigot who exhibited very little intelligence.

johnangus's picture
johnangus
Joined:
Apr. 16, 2015 1:28 am

Recently, Thom compared ISIS to the IRA that
terrorised Northern Ireland during "the troubles".

Neil McCabe was clearly offended by the idea
and Thom took it no further.

Looking back, I can see that
ISIS and the IRA have/had much in common.

Both are/were sadistic killers lacking in humanity.
Allowing for differences of scale,every ISIS
atrocity had an IRA equivalent.

Both used violence to intentionally create a backlash.
They then claim(ed) to be defending the people whose
lives they ruined.

Both claim(ed) a greater purpose, but in reality
are/were motivated by personal gain or empowerment.

I would like to see Tom press Neil further
on this subject.

Aldair's picture
Aldair
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 7:49 am

This evening Thom mentioned Nigel Farage's visit to the Republican convention.

Thom described Farage as being far right wing.
Farage is only on the right (not far right) in terms of British politics,
for America, he is much closer to the centre.

This could be a great opportunity for Thom to interview him
and widen the scope the show.

I think Thom would discover that he has more in common
with Farage than say, Neil McCabe or many of his other guests.

Aldair's picture
Aldair
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 7:49 am

Organized Money Is Dangerous To Democracy

The question that is constantly being asked, particularly on the talking heads on television, is "what do the Democrats have to do to regain political power?" What does it take?

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system