I don't fancy myself an expert on French society, so I'd refer you back to the article which apparently you haven't read. It contains some hypotheses about why such crimes among the rich and powerful in France hadn't resulted in outrage in the past.
I really wish there was a way that we could all just a accept the fact that mtierney is a contemptible monster and move on. This subject makes my blood boil and there is literally no chance that she will ever adopt anything like a decent response to it.
Surprised you haven't been banned; your personal attacks surpass all others. Are you sure Nan and Paul have been banned? Perhaps they gave up discussing their ideas in the 'All Politics' echo chamber.
Nice obfuscation. Real question: why does France not address pedophilia in a serious manner?
You mean, like it says in the article being discussed? "Mr. Matzneff has been summoned to appear in a Paris court on Wednesday, accused of actively promoting pedophilia through his books. Mr. Matzneff could face up to five years in prison"
There were many more revelations in the Times article relating to a long life of this pedophile, who wrote books on the subject. He was a member of the French cognizanti and has political friends in high places.
Knowing all this, you pointed out his court appearance as somehow an indication of a punishment. Maybe 5 years!
I really wish there was a way that we could all just a accept the fact that mtierney is a contemptible monster and move on. This subject makes my blood boil and there is literally no chance that she will ever adopt anything like a decent response to it.
Surprised you haven't been banned; your personal attacks surpass all others. Are you sure Nan and Paul have been banned? Perhaps they gave up discussing their ideas in the 'All Politics' echo chamber.
Klinker is on a long deserved time out - see you in a few days.
Trump accused the Stone jury forewoman if bias. If her name ever gets out her life will be hell. Constant social media threats and maybe "visits" to her house. Lots of sickness out there.
Trump knows what he's doing. Creating a chilling effect on future juries.
That and his denigration of the judge and prosecutors is so banana republic.
I agree with mtierney on nothing but I'll say this: for we libs, this thread is like going to the gym and working out. It hasn't sustained this length (21,000 posts) because people are revolted.
it's easier (and less stressful) than watching Fox News to find the right wing talking points du jour.
I agree with mtierney on nothing but I'll say this: for we libs, this thread is like going to the gym and working out. It hasn't sustained this length (21,000 posts) because people are revolted.
it's easier (and less stressful) than watching Fox News to find the right wing talking points du jour.
I wouldn't call mtierney right wing, rather a 'christian conservative' also, nohero: can someone be considered a troll on their own thread?
to some extent, the entire thread is mtierney trolling. Every so often drop a link accompanied by some sort of oblique comment, and then ignore most of the responses.
It's her blog, really. We don't have to read or comment on it, but we're often compelled to do it, because her hot takes are so typically way off the mark.
I was posting it as a compare-and-contrast between mtierney's reaction ("gobsmacked") to AG Lynch meeting with former President Bill Clinton on a plane in 2016 and her reaction (crickets) to AG Barr being directed to ask for lower sentences for Roger Stone by President Trump.
I actually had no idea that she had JUST used the term "gobsmacked" to describe the Gabriel Matzneff story, so I was confused as heck as to why her response was "Who amongst us is not linguistically challenged at times?"
Now I know.
Of course, she still hasn't actually read what I posted beyond the use of "gobsmacked," so I doubt she'll ever address the discrepancy.
I wouldn't call mtierney right wing, rather a 'christian conservative' also, nohero: can someone be considered a troll on their own thread?
They're interchangeable terms. Also, yes.
You'll find the terms right wing and christian conservative or left wing and christian liberal are not interchangeble for moderates or centrists. I think it's the perspective of where one lies on the political spectrum.
You'll find the terms right wing and christian conservative or left wing and christian liberal are not interchangeble for moderates or centrists. I think it's the perspective of where one lies on the political spectrum.
it doesn't really matter either way because I did not label mtierney a right winger. I noted that she tends to disseminate right wing talking points here, which she does. She could be a liberal or a Wookie for all the relevance it has. What she posts is what she posts.
I was posting it as a compare-and-contrast between mtierney's reaction ("gobsmacked") to AG Lynch meeting with former President Bill Clinton on a plane in 2016 and her reaction (crickets) to AG Barr being directed to ask for lower sentences for Roger Stone by President Trump.
I actually had no idea that she had JUST used the term "gobsmacked" to describe the Gabriel Matzneff story, so I was confused as heck as to why her response was "Who amongst us is not linguistically challenged at times?"
Now I know.
Of course, she still hasn't actually read what I posted beyond the use of "gobsmacked," so I doubt she'll ever address the discrepancy.
She doesn't address a lot of things most of the time, just posts. Maybe too numb from the constant personal attacks, IDK. I agree her use of gobsmacked for a potential misappropriate influence peddling - AG Lynch meeting with former President Bill Clinton and not being gobsmacked with the AG Barr crap is to be expected on this thread. I've seen the same blinkered approach from a few left leaning posters. Perhaps this thread is a good example of the current political polarization.
You'll find the terms right wing and christian conservative or left wing and christian liberal are not interchangeble for moderates or centrists. I think it's the perspective of where one lies on the political spectrum.
Sticking with "right wing" and "christian conservative", how would you distinguish them here in the United States?
There’s a difference between Christian conservatives and dominionists. The Dominionists have been around for a long time. I used to blog about them in 2006, but they’ve been around far longer than that. It’s a better term for those being described as ‘apocalyptic’ here.
There’s a difference between Christian conservatives and dominionists. The Dominionists have been around for a long time. I used to blog about them in 2006, but they’ve been around far longer than that. It’s a better term for those being described as ‘apocalyptic’ here.
Yes, the Dominionists are their own category. They infiltrate the right-wing when they express views that match the general right-wing policies.
One example is backing Netanyahu and Trump's "peace" plan. The Dominionists are fans because they think this will help bring about the Second Coming.
Ahem, if I wanted to get my head shrunk, I’ll make an appointment with a professional headshrinker, thank you.
Liberals actually cannot believe or understand how “others” might think or believe. Glaring deficit and impediment to understanding their own splintered party.
nohero, do “dominionists” use whips and wear leather?
Liberals also like to fight amongst themselves constantly, gaining no traction toward a game plan. Hence, we have the spectacle of the present Democratic nomination run-up — and the partisan impeachment debacle. What a way to try to win an election!
I don't fancy myself an expert on French society, so I'd refer you back to the article which apparently you haven't read. It contains some hypotheses about why such crimes among the rich and powerful in France hadn't resulted in outrage in the past.