beastie wrote:I know people who actually believe that God will not protect us from terrorists if we continue to allow abortions and condone homosexuality, for example.
But don't you believe they're right--just that God won't protect us from terrorists anyhow?
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
But don't you believe they're right--just that God won't protect us from terrorists anyhow?
I don't believe there IS a God to protect us from terrorists.
I just wish they didn't believe there was a God sanctioning their actions. I kind of prefer people who take full responsibility for their evil. It's almost easier to reason with them although it often involves pointing a gun at their heads. Islamic terrorists are more complicated.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Loran, to the extent he isn't trolling, is just an ideologue. There's absolutely no reason he needs to be a global warming skeptic, for instance. It isn't in his interests per se. There isn't a formal connection between it and most of what else he thinks, but it is much more popular among those with his political views because of relationship between anti-science propaganda, business interests, and the religious right that emerged in the era of modern Republicanism. A quirk of political history has thus led him to those influences. I don't think he'd have much of a vested interest in global warming skepticism either way by itself, but it is a piece in the network of political ideology that he has bought into. He's so absolutely nutty it's difficult to for me to figure out to what extent he's being provocatively stupid and to what extent he is serious. But there are real Lorans in the world, so it's no harm in treating him as if he were one.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
EAllusion wrote:He's so absolutely nutty it's difficult to for me to figure out to what extent he's being provocatively stupid and to what extent he is serious.
I just wanted to say that I thought this was a great line.
"...to what extent he's being provocatively stupid..."
LOL, great stuff.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Gadianton wrote:I don't really understand Coggins's ardent conservativism. A friend of mine, who happened to be a friend of the late W. Cleon Skousen and as conservative as conservatives come, explained to me one day that no one will become a conservative until they first have something to conserve. The good-old-boy networks like to keep the money, power, and positions in the family and the group. While I might not agree with them, I understand them. I understand why people with money fear being taxed and forced to support the poor. I understand why they fear integration with other racial and social groups. I understand why they worry about their children associating with anyone different than them. I don't agree with them, I don't think they get what they think they are getting out of their values, though I see the motivation. But what about Coggins? From his own mouth, he's dead broke. I don't really care, personally, because if he's putting food on the table for his wife than I respect that and if he can be happy without the rat race more power to him. But one wonders why he'd have concern over capital gains taxes and welfare, and the things conservatives worry about? From what was intoned about his personal industry on Meridian, he could probably get away with never having to even file. And does he have kids? If he does, then he's done well not to get them involved in his discussions here, but if he doesn't, then he doesn't really have to worry about them befriending African-Americans or homosexuals. A huge stimulus for preserving the "white (and I mean white) picket fence" just doesn't apply. What is Coggins wanting to conserve? That's what I'd like to know.
The only thing I conclude is that he's a true true idealist. That he devotes his life to the self-study of belief systems that don't apply to him, that don't include him, and don't really benefit him materially in any way.
Loran is in the South and the South is a bastion for male conservatism across education and income demographics. It's more an ideology of pride than what can be given from the government. You STILL see (in the South) a deep disdain for government intrusion in many aspects of life outside of morality. There is family loyalty and it is passed down through the generations. The Civil Rights movement ensured that many blue dog Democrats became Republicans and their children and grandchildren would as well. It doesn't matter that it actually hurts them -- that they pay little to no taxes while getting the EIC and other benefits -- they rail against government intrusion and speak of returning to the days before the SC ruled the Interstate Commerce Clause allowed government more influence into state domains. The South is STILL about state rights, pride, and nostalgia for the good ole days. He's a perfect example of this mixed within his religious views. He also is heavily influenced by the right ideology rags he sucks down that doesn't challenge his notions. He's in school for poli-sci and his notions WILL be challenged in the next few years.
EAllusion wrote:Loran, to the extent he isn't trolling, is just an ideologue. There's absolutely no reason he needs to be a global warming skeptic, for instance. It isn't in his interests per se. There isn't a formal connection between it and most of what else he thinks, but it is much more popular among those with his political views because of relationship between anti-science propaganda, business interests, and the religious right that emerged in the era of modern Republicanism. A quirk of political history has thus led him to those influences. I don't think he'd have much of a vested interest in global warming skepticism either way by itself, but it is a piece in the network of political ideology that he has bought into. He's so absolutely nutty it's difficult to for me to figure out to what extent he's being provocatively stupid and to what extent he is serious. But there are real Lorans in the world, so it's no harm in treating him as if he were one.
He's the real deal. Yet, he doesn't seem nutty to me.... he's just one of many that read the same literature he does and doesn't see merit in opposing viewpoints. He adds his own quirks to some of his ideology that makes me find his rants about the 60's rather fascinating. The demonization of opposition to those on the other side of the political spectrum seems to follow suit with his other persecution mentality that comes from his own brand of LDS ideology. He's an odd mixture of these two and (for me) he's a fascinating case study....
I wonder where Coggins is? In mourning for William F. Buckley?
“The central question that emerges…is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.” —William F. Buckley, National Review, August 24, 1957