Dan Peterson's Stock goes down again

[_harmony]

I thought he claimed to be Libertarian?

[_Kishkumen]

I thought he claimed to be Libertarian?

I would take issue with his self-identification as a Libertarian. Sure, he can claim such, but I think contemporary Libertarianism has devolved into crypto-fascism, which is an economic LIBERTINISM for a privileged economic elite, poorly disguised as Libertarianism.

[_Kishkumen]

Some of Daniel Peterson's writing is as informed, critical and articulate as one might expect from someone of his degree of education and intelligence.

Similarly, there were some really comfortable cabins on the Hindenburg, and I hear the menu was quite extensive. But eventually all that became irrelevant:

I think he has definitely taken a turn for the worse, but then my view is limited. Truth be told, the problematic side of his writing has been there from the beginning. But I think it is unfair to compare his present state to the Hindenburg. I maintain that he has written some good stuff, has been involved in many valuable projects, and will undoubtedly continue to do so. It is a shame that the good stuff has to be sullied, like a steady trickle of turds emptying from a sewer into a refreshing mountain stream, but there you have it.

[_Chap]

Some of Daniel Peterson's writing is as informed, critical and articulate as one might expect from someone of his degree of education and intelligence.

Similarly, there were some really comfortable cabins on the Hindenburg, and I hear the menu was quite extensive. But eventually all that became irrelevant:

I think he has definitely taken a turn for the worse, but then my view is limited. Truth be told, the problematic side of his writing has been there from the beginning. But I think it is unfair to compare his present state to the Hindenburg. I maintain that he has written some good stuff, has been involved in many valuable projects, and will undoubtedly continue to do so. It is a shame that the good stuff has to be sullied, like a steady trickle of turds emptying from a sewer into a refreshing mountain stream, but there you have it.

I am only referring to his activities in what we may call the 'Mopologetic' sphere, especially as he has chosen to present them on the internet.

There I would say that the comparison to a steadily inflating gas-bag that eventually performs a shockingly sudden self-destruction is not entirely unapt.

The only positive side of all this seems to me that he should now have more time left to do things like real scholarship.

[_Analytics]

So, Dan Peterson is now officially a tool of the Republican Party. How sad.

Did anybody comment on what the Deseret News's editorial board had to say about this? The position of the Church's newspaper (which can generally be considered a soft position of the church) is this:

The president is being hammered from all sides for his recent claim that "if you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Radio personality Rush Limbaugh claimed these words show that the president "hates this country" and is trying "to dismantle the American dream." Romney himself has gotten in on the action, excoriating the president for supposedly claiming that Steve Jobs didn't build Apple Computer; Henry Ford didn't build Ford Motor Company, and Papa John didn't build Papa John's Pizza.

The president's statement has provided plentiful rhetorical fodder for the GOP, but nobody seems to notice that the supposedly business-hating interpretation of the president's words rests on the wrong pronoun antecedent. When the president said, "if you've got a business, you didn't build that," the that he was referring to was not the business you've got. It was the all things he'd mentioned in his previous sentences.

Here's the whole quote, in context.

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that [i.e the roads, bridges, and unbelievable American system.] Somebody else made that happen."

It's pretty clear in the broader context that's the president's not claiming to have built Papa John's Pizza.

In our electoral system, it's entirely appropriate for political partisans to take issue with the positions of the other guy. What's not appropriate is to misrepresent an opponent's positions in order to score cheap political points.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7655 ... oints.html

I'm surprised that after the News said this, that Peterson would jump on the bandwagon of "misrepresenting an opponent's positions in order to score cheap political points."

[_harmony]

I'm surprised that after the News said this, that Peterson would jump on the bandwagon of "misrepresenting an opponent's positions in order to score cheap political points."

I think a pattern is being established, where What Dan Wants trumps what anyone else wants, and that includes his boss, his editor, and his leaders.

[_Nomomo]

So, Dan Peterson is now officially a tool of the Republican Party. How sad.

Did anybody comment on what the Deseret News's editorial board had to say about this? The position of the Church's newspaper (which can generally be considered a soft position of the church) is this:

The president is being hammered from all sides for his recent claim that "if you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Radio personality Rush Limbaugh claimed these words show that the president "hates this country" and is trying "to dismantle the American dream." Romney himself has gotten in on the action, excoriating the president for supposedly claiming that Steve Jobs didn't build Apple Computer; Henry Ford didn't build Ford Motor Company, and Papa John didn't build Papa John's Pizza.

The president's statement has provided plentiful rhetorical fodder for the GOP, but nobody seems to notice that the supposedly business-hating interpretation of the president's words rests on the wrong pronoun antecedent. When the president said, "if you've got a business, you didn't build that," the that he was referring to was not the business you've got. It was the all things he'd mentioned in his previous sentences.

Here's the whole quote, in context.

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that [i.e the roads, bridges, and unbelievable American system.] Somebody else made that happen."

It's pretty clear in the broader context that's the president's not claiming to have built Papa John's Pizza.

In our electoral system, it's entirely appropriate for political partisans to take issue with the positions of the other guy. What's not appropriate is to misrepresent an opponent's positions in order to score cheap political points.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7655 ... oints.html

I'm surprised that after the News said this, that Peterson would jump on the bandwagon of "misrepresenting an opponent's positions in order to score cheap political points."

What's surprising? Daniel Peterson fully well knew he was misrepresenting the Obama quote. DCP has no more ethics than Karl Rove. Being that he was intentionally lying about the quote, one wonders how stupid does he believe his blog followers to be.

[_Analytics]

What's surprising? Daniel Peterson fully well knew he was misrepresenting the Obama quote. DCP has no more ethics than Karl Rove. Being that he was intentionally lying about the quote, one wonders how stupid does he believe his blog followers to be.

In that Deseret News editorial, the Church signaled that there is a base-level of honesty that it expects from people in political discourse. Peterson disregarded the signal and went for the specific cheap political points that the Church rebuffed. Is he tone-deaf to what the Church was signaling? Was he deliberatingly going rouge? Is he so cynical and stupid that he honestly believes he's talking about a valid issue?

[_Kishkumen]

In that Deseret News editorial, the Church signaled that there is a base-level of honesty that it expects from people in political discourse. Peterson disregarded the signal and went for the specific cheap political points that the Church rebuffed. Is he tone-deaf to what the Church was signaling? Was he deliberatingly going rouge? Is he so cynical and stupid that he honestly believes he's talking about a valid issue?

I wonder whether the true motive here is to court the attention of a certain billionaire Romney supporter-MI donor.

[_Drifting]

Was he deliberatingly going rouge?

I love the idea of Peterson deliberately going rouge[/]

( but sadly, I suspect you meant [i]rogue )