‘We Need To Stand Up For What’s Right’: Leader of Religious Order Publicly Defends Convicted Philly Priest

As part of the settlement, the Oblates also released the names of 12 priests against whom there were admitted or otherwise substantiated allegations of sexual abuse. All served at Salesianum at least once during their ministries, but their assignments included schools and parishes in Delaware City, Philadelphia and other Pennsylvania towns, New York, Maryland, Virginia, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Uruguay, Ecuador and Mexico.”

 
I think Father Greenfield forgot to add the above information relating to the Oblate settlement with victim sin 2012.

August 2011

The Oblates of St. Francis de Sales have settled all 39 lawsuits against the order and its Salesianum School in Wilmington under the Delaware Child Victims Act for charges of sexual abuse of minors by its priests.

According to the settlement announced Aug. 4, the plaintiffs in the Delaware Superior Court lawsuits will share $24.8 million paid on behalf of the order with significant contributions from insurance carriers.

Oblate Father James J. Greenfield, provincial of the Wilmington-Philadelphia province, which includes 170 priests, brothers and seminarians, said that while he is grateful the suits are settled, he knows there is more work to be done toward healing and reconciliation.

LaunchCode, FKA publicly Publion, asked me many questions in the comments of two articles ago. I do not want to comply with his standards too much by answering in the way or to the extent that he would like. But I would like to say something on the theme of being good without god.

In his first question(s), LaunchCode asks for the grounding of my metaphysics of morals.

This is a huge question so I will give just a little summary idea of where I am coming from. I quickly look to Immanuel Kant for insight because he is arguably the best in this area. In his Groundwork, Kant argues that morality is based neither on the principle of utility, nor on a law of nature, but on human reason. Reason tells us what we ought to do.

The Lying Promise (Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Section I, 402-405) In writing about doing what reason requires and the good will, Kant gives an example of a person considering whether or not she should make a false promise. In asking herself whether she may make such a promise, she might be asking (1) whether so acting will promote her welfare or (2)  whether so acting is compatible with duty (what she ought to do). The first question is difficult to answer because it depends on so much that might not be able to be known. The second question, though, is more readily answered because it is really the question of whether she could consistently commend the considerations that would lead her to make a lying promise as principles that might guide everyone's action. (This is a statement of the Categorical Imperative.) That she could not commend the considerations as principles of action, Kant concludes, shows that acting on them is immoral, whatever the consequences might be.

This is reason. Thinking through whether we should do what we are contemplating doing. You might call it following your conscience and asking if this act can be universalized. Reason is the process that allows you to pick through the bible or catholic-church teaching for the morals/principles of action that you can accept/act on. For example, only a very small minority of christians are on board with strict biblical literalism. In most religions, fundamentalists are marginalized for their beliefs. I have heard it said that if being a fundamentalist is bad, then there is something wrong with the fundamentals.

Jesus is said to have advised that we do unto to others as we would have them do unto us. But the so called Golden Rule is morally inferior to the Categorical Imperative. Kant tells us (430, note 23) that the Golden Rule is only as good as the rule-giver or the utter-er. Stated in the negative, “Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.” So, the criminal would argue with the judge, “If you were the one who committed this crime, would you want me to punish you?”

So as not to be a man of one book or one author, I would also mention that I look to a mostly godless crowd in Plato, Hume, Spinoza, Locke, Mill, Descartes, Russell, Rawls, Quine, Putnam, Nozick, Dennett and Churchland, among many others. These are some of my sources of formation in ethics, social and political philosophy, epistemology, metaphysics, and philosophy of mind. John Rawls, Hilary Putnam and Robert Nozick were a few of my professors in the early 1990’s at . . . wait for it . . . Harvard. (Aside) I think it is super cool to take a class from the man or woman whose name is on the book. Whatever I read or hear, I then need to reason for myself and act accordingly. No god needed because everything functions very well without that assumption. Thanks, Ockham’s Razor!

No one needs the Ten Commandments to tell them that murder, theft and perjury are wrong. People knew these things before the Decalogue was supposedly issued. As Christopher Hitchens said in one of his debates, “And that we don't have an innate sense of right and wrong, children don't have an innate sense of fairness and decency, which of course they do. What is it like? I can personalize it to this extent, my mother's Jewish ancestors are told that until they got to Sinai, they'd been dragging themselves around the desert under the impression that adultery, murder, theft and perjury were all fine, and they get to Mount Sinai only to be told it's not kosher after all. I'm sorry, excuse me, you must have more self-respect than that for ourselves and for others. Of course the stories are fiction. It's a fabrication exposed conclusively by Israeli archaeology. Nothing of the sort ever took place, but suppose we take the metaphor? It's an insult, it's an insult to us, it's an insult to our deepest integrity. No, if we believed that perjury, murder and theft were all right, we wouldn't have got as far as the foot of Mount Sinai or anywhere else.” We evolved to think and act morally even before anyone could write things down. Truly, the people in primitive Palestine were far behind other parts of the world in developing technology and reading and writing. What a mysterious choice then, for the creator of the universe to take such an interest in these people and to come among them in the form of a fully human and fully divine son for revelation and redemption and proselytization. A message that 2000 years later still has not penetrated large parts of the planet.

That is as far as I will go on this question. I have neither the time nor the inclination to impress anyone with my knowledge of Kant or philosophy or moral reasoning because it is not that for which I come to TMR. Mostly, I just like to hear what the other side thinks.

Quickly, some thoughts on the other questions.

What authority makes one act morally when no one is present? Well, unless you are created and supervised by a supreme being, no authority. Individuals decide and act case by case, moment by moment using their brains and nothing else. You are your brain. Your conscience is your governor. Socrates called it his inner voice, his “daemon.”

Without one authority or one Truth, how can we judge others? In roughly Kantian terms, we can judge others in as much as they act on principles that can be universalized. Do they treat themselves and others as ends?

What about the problem of relativism? There can be different peaks and valleys on the landscape of human flourishing. (see The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris) As long as we are treating others and ourselves as ends (Kant) or promoting the “well-being of conscious creatures,” (Harris) there can be acceptable differences in how we act. It is a false dichotomy to say that without God there is only moral subjectivity/relativism.

Where does morality come from? It is innate in us. Is this your question or are you really asking WHY do we have morality? If it is human and internal, where did it come from? I will just say this, for economy, that we, homo sapiens, are mammals and higher primates, only about a chromosome away from chimpanzees. And just like other higher primates we have evolved to have, among other things, intelligence, emotion and solidarity.

Wow, maybe you should have taken 2 to 4 days before responding to my post!

The Aviatrix, FKA LaunchCode, AKA publicly Publion said in his critique of the Kantian conception of reason,  "This is not Aquinas’s ‘Reason’ as being the human mind working in concert with the revelation of God in Christ that provides humans with a clear example or – more accurately – instantiation of God’s Vision and Plan for humans. Indeed, to use my own imagery, in the Gospels and the Church’s further deliberation on the Gospels we get a basic blueprint of the human ‘vessel’ or ‘craft’, and the dynamics by which it operates and by which it is governed. And with that information – like pilots in flight-school – we are thus armed with the knowledge of how the craft fundamentally operate and thus the behaviors and maneuvers that support and enhance proper operation of the craft (Virtues) and the behaviors and maneuvers which hamper and harm that operation (Vices)."

The Aquinas bit sure does sound like white noise to me. "God's Vision and Plan?" Aquinas and you have all your work ahead of you in order to prove this key assertion that "God" has a "Plan." If you were to offer your Aquinas-based critique of Kant in a serious academic setting like a legitimate university (i.e. not a seminary), one where they study and teach science, no one would have any idea what you were talking about.

Also, please stop with the aviation analogies. Unnecessary and too much. More is not always better. The way that you weave anaology into each point that you make is too repetitive.

More bothersome than that though, is the implication that you know physics and might know something about science. Again, go into a legitimate university and say what you said about evolution by natural selection being random. You said/asked, "Where does it come from and how did we get it? Did it just pop up? Was it just a lucky coincidence? Was it the result of an accident or just the mechanical working-out of evolution? (If so, why don’t other animals have such a sense? Evolution was working on them long before it was working on humans.)" What are you talking about? What are these questions? The crowing achievement though of your statement is your assertion that evolution was working on other animals before working on humans. What is this nonsense?

You then compound the ignorance by saying "Nor does my question become anything less than acutely more vivid when LC then tosses in that “we are … only about a chromosome away from chimpanzees”. That must be one hell of a chromosome, . . . " You need to get informed on the subject of biology. One chromosome makes an enormous difference and you here imply that it would be crazy to think that it could! That you could be so cocky and yet so ill-informed on this subject, is amazing. By the way, so called Intelligent Design is just the smuggled-through-customs name for Creationism. Is it 1925? Because I think we may be back at the Scopes Monkey Trial.

While the ever-needy philosophy/biology/legal wannabee is being schooled by the Master (can we bring back the paddle?), here's a little "tangential"  item that is of relevence to the topic -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339692/Pope-admits-gay-lobby-highest-levels-Vatican.html

Could it be that both sides of the Church abuse scandal debate are on to something; there may be a conspiring "corporate" church, but, it is more likely a little internal war being raged by the homosexual subculture that invaded our Church, against our Church?

The destructive leftist permissiveness (societal cancer) of the 60's comes a knocking on our hallowed doors… 50 years later, and counting.

When I posted my 510PM comment this afternoon, the last comment already published was the 1208PM comment by Learned Counsel.

Since that 1208PM we see more comments from JR and (the alleged elite college grad and practicing attorney) Learned Counsel.

They strike me as useful examples of the type of material and mentalities we would see on various sites where certain mentalities roam free-range. What we are seeing here, I would say, is material from an element that has played a substantial role in keeping the Abuse Matter going. But only on the internet; I think it is clear that in any other venue these types would have little chance to demonstrate the characteristics that the internet modality so easily enables.

It becomes clear why front-groups seeking to present themselves as serious organizations representing serious persons and trying as well to keep up the appearance of a moral high-ground keep their distance from such mentalities. Or – I think it would be more accurate to say – try to keep the existence and participation of these types far from the public eye (not to say hidden).

And there remains as well the remarkable and remarkably-displayed lack of self-insight: while one of them has never presented as anything but a one-liner ‘barfly’ type, the other continues to put himself forth with the credentials he has claimed yet can apparently put up a comment such as the 336PM today without the awareness (or perhaps the care) that such material so powerfully undermines the claims of education and professional competence and maturity.

Both seem quite satisfied with their performance.

Further, we see the Mental Shoebox phenomenon vividly demonstrated: Neither of these two can really think-through a subject. They have substituted for that a collection of mental 3×5 cards: if they come across a term or phrase, they simply pull out that phrase’s 3×5 card and try to pass it off as relevant thinking on the topic. In some venues that will work – but when it doesn’t we get what we see here.

Further, they have to somehow squash the topic into the (limited) range of the 3×5 card; and not only the comment but – if they are resisted – the commenter as well. Neat – but hardly unknown in the clinical universe.

That being said, I in no way seek to imply or infer that their comments belong elsewhere. It has always been my thought – since DP activated the Comments capability on this site – that comments would serve to enlighten readers through deliberation and analysis. But I think that there is clearly a second way that this site serves a useful purpose: it allows readers to see just what sort of mentation and mentalities actually constitute so much of the Abusenik universe of discourse.

And I’m all for that.

We are provided – as if on cue – further material in furtherance of my theory as expressed in my most recent comment.

Commenter Ecker said “Publion talks about natural selection”. Where did I discuss that, pray? Where did I even use the term, let alone discuss it? What we see here – again – is the Mental Shoebox at work: Ecker has a 3×5 on “natural selection” and somehow in his mind that connected to what I said (or was the 3×5 that came closest to what he thinks I said), and without further ado throws up a pile about “natural selection”.  Again, one wonders just how people so loose with reality and truth handled matters when it came to making allegations and assertions in that accusing-for-dollars game.

And now for more from ‘Learned Counsel’, allegedly a Philosophy Major grad from Harvard and a practicing attorney.

First, an I’m-Not/You-Are bit: it is I who am “in full retreat”. Supported not by explanation but by epithet (“with unwarranted arrogance and misplaced paternalism”). Apparently he was taught at Harvard that if people do not agree with you – and then have the gall to point out the problems with your position – then they are displaying “unwarranted arrogance”. Nicely, this would dovetail with Victimist dogma too – which for so many decades now has gotten a free pass (and more – and worse) from too much of the media.

Also, apparently if one points out that the quality of material one is looking-at is not really impressive, then one is “paternalistic”. I would say that if an adult cannot or cannot be-allowed-to distinguish between unimpressive material and impressive material then we are in a heepa-trubble. But no doubt Harvard, like San Francisco kiddie-ballgame leagues, simply lathers congrats on anybody who shows up on the field; to do otherwise would be ‘insensitive’ and “paternalistic”. Thus no score-keeping either – and thus we see the shock when score is kept or a report-card grade is issued merely on the quality of the material submitted. The horror.

The 3×5 Mental Shoebox method apparently works to the satisfaction of its Abusenik practitioners when they are merely gabbling among themselves: one puts up a pro-Abusenik comment (assertion or claim, almost never grounded or proven); then anybody who has a 3×5 card even modestly relevant to that stuff posts the content of his/her own 3×5; and that goes on for a while until everybody who cared to rummage through their personal Shoebox and post a comment is satisfied that they are all of them right and very clever.

But it doesn’t work well in any other type of venue; a venue, say, where material is examined and assessed and discussed. Thus we see the results of that collision-of-worlds here. Certain mentalities now find that when they bring their plastic pails and shovels to a serious and adult construction-site, they are not given the praise and oohs-and-ahhs that they are used to in the Sandbox. They are clearly not amused.

My “educational mission” is “unsolicited”. Well, teachers (and adults generally) never were welcome in the cafeteria. More to the point, my “mission” has not been rejected by the site-moderator and I will continue.

“God’s plan” is merely “your words” – that about says it, although I didn’t invent the term, which goes back a millennium or two.

My purpose – as I have recently explained – is not at all to “enlighten” the Mental Shoebox crowd (such a self-appointed task would indeed be “crazy” and hubristic); rather, my purpose is to further elucidate for everyone else just how the Mental Shoebox/cafeteria/dayroom crowd operates in the matter of the Catholic Abuse Matter. I shall continue doing so.

“Creationism” is a conceptual phenomenon that has only recently developed, as an outgrowth of (Protestant) Fundamentalist thought; that should have been especially clear to LC when he tapped-out  “in the last 100 or so years”.

Nor does “religion” (which is not the same thing as either ‘Christianity’ or ‘Catholicism’) continually “retreat” in the face of scientific advancement. Catholicism – let’s try to refine the focus here for the sake of clarity and accuracy – claims the right to talk about the Meta-physical (or Beyond/Above-physical), whereas the proper (and only) dimension in which Science operates is the Physical or Material.

This confusion was also operating in Modern philosophy’s effort to align itself with Science and try to take over Religion’s (and Catholicism’s and Christianity’s) job in Western civilization, which job was to connect Western civilization Vertically to that Beyond-physical and to God. The unhappy consequences of that ill-advised Modern gambit are – I would say – floridly demonstrated today.

As for LC’s personal assessment of God’s Plan – he’s welcome to it; he can write it up and put it with his Harvard philosophy-class notes (the existence of which are presumed here for the purposes of the present discussion).

He then gives a quickie-refresher course on “evolution”. In doing so it is he who takes a scriptural-literalist position and from that Cartoon tries explain how there is no way to identify an original human pair. Catholicism does not insist on the literalness of an original human pair; rather it insists on the ultimate Reality that human-beings are made in the Image of God and works from there. The material dynamics of how that Reality came about are open to discussion and Science is welcome to offer its discoveries. Would LC care to offer dispositive Scientific proof that humans are not made in the Image of God? I’m sure many here would like to see that. (References required in support.)

Rather, what LC would probably offer (it’s his only alternative) is some form not of Science but rather of Scientism: i.e. the Scientistic declaration that on the basis of this or that material hypothesis or discovery, claims are then made not about the Physical dimension, but rather about the Meta-physical dimension – usually to the effect that the Meta-physical dimension ‘therefore’ doesn’t exist. It wouldn’t be a stretch to note that Scientism is itself a form of “magical thinking” since it draws connections and conclusions unsupported by any sufficient evidence whatsoever.

The rest of the disquisition about “evolution” is interesting but anybody who paid attention in high-school or college would be familiar with it. Although I would note that compared to the age of the earth itself, humanity has been around for a very very short time in comparison. We are a very young species, as that sort of thing goes.

LC then notes that the questions I asked him “are not analysis”. To which I would have to reply: No, the questions I posed to LC are not analysis – they are (not to put too fine a point on it) questions and they are questions specifically designed to inquire as to where LC thinks “morality” and “conscience” come from.

And I offered him some of the currently marketable alternatives to the Aquinian vision, while not stating them as facts that I personally asserted as established.

To LC, as he reveals, the difference between a question and an assertion is merely “nuance” and he can’t be blamed for not picking up on such minor distinctions. (One wonders again what mentation went into the claims and allegations of abuse.) Nor was I ‘wiggling’ by asking questions: I was trying to move the discussion along. But to the Mental Shoebox, any effort to move the discussion beyond the (limited) range of the 3×5 has to be somehow avoided or ridiculed; preferably by putting on the ‘victim’ wig in the process (i.e. poor LC can’t be held accountable for actually reading and understanding the material I pose to his position – he’s only a Harvard grad and a practicing attorney, after all).

I am accused also of ‘lying’ – but just where I did so LC does not bother to say. Perhaps ‘lying’ and offering questions or alternatives is equal to lying in the Abusenik universe of discourse. That wouldn’t be surprising.  But ‘lying’ makes for a nice epithet – and as a two-fer, LC has now been ‘lied-to’ and how can he be expected to respond maturely to such an infamy?

Where do I not “stand by what [I] believe”? LC offered his view of a part of his universe and – in best philosophical (and scientific) style – I posed questions that seemed vitally relevant to the coherence and integrity of his position. This seems to confound him – and moves him, as we have seen, to all manner of not-philosophically and not-scientifically mature responses. It is what it is.

Where have I said that I “do not understand” what LC has said? I think I understand it very well, and have then posed questions stemming precisely from my comprehension of what he has said. Who is dodging the consequences of his position here – myself or LC? (As evidenced by his repulsion – as if from holy water – from my “aviation” metaphor and analogies which, as I said, are fatal to his position.)

He then tries to work in – as has JR on other occasions here – Emerson’s bit about “consistency”: that the truly enlightened and liberated are not bothered by “consistency”. But I have never used the word or concept of “consistency” in assessing LC’s material; I have used the concepts of conceptual incoherence and conceptual insufficiency and conceptual incompleteness. And – I would add here clearly – a demonstrated refusal to engage questions precisely designed to examine what I see as those incoherences and insufficiencies. This, apparently, is either an experience LC has never had in his academic or professional career (as an attorney, we recall) or else it is an experience that he does not want to have.

Alas. It goes with the territory in conceptual discussion and analysis. Is this news to LC?

I also point out that I do not and have not claimed that LC has inconsistently changed his opinions (which was Emerson’s point in his dictum about consistency being “the hobgoblin of little minds”) but rather that the position he continues to espouse has incoherences. I would refer him – it is apparently necessary to do so – to a competent dictionary for the difference between ‘inconsistency’ and ‘incoherence’.

This whole bit then concluded by an epithetical bit about my perhaps wanting to be a “Flat-Earther”. Which is also irrelevant to the particular discussion here. But it’s right out of the Playbook, is it not?

And I continue to say that I have indeed trying to make “progress” in this exchange by exploring LC’s assertions – thus my questions. But any such possible “progress” has been prevented by the various bits we have gotten by LC, as the record here will show.

LC then asserts that it is “utterly and completely wrong” to say that “humans came along rather late in the developmental course of things” (i.e. that roughly 14 billion years of the universe’s existence since the Big Bang, and the several billion years of the earth’s existence as a planet). We are told that, instead, “other animals and humans have been evolving together as long as there has been life on planet Earth”. Is he serious?

First, I said “humans” not “other animals and humans”, so he has already lost (or has ignored) the ball here and has (slyly?) created an assertion I did not make. And if he believes that there was not an extended period when the planet was forming and there were no discernible life-forms, except possibly – but dubiously – the most basic and primitive, monocellular kind, then I have to ask if he isn’t espousing here something rather very akin to fundamentalist flat-earthing himself.

Would he kindly care to identify the Harvard professor who told him that human life was evolving from Day One? Or even that as a demonstrated and proven fact moncellular life was present at Day One of the earth’s formation as an independent planetary entity? People are paying for this type of ‘information’ at Harvard?

And he concludes by merely taking all my observations and asserting that No-I’m-Not/ You-Are bit. We are back in the Sandbox. (And from Harvard and a practicing attorney … very not-impressive indeed.)

“Bring it on” … ???? I have been trying to get my questions about his positions answered for quite a while here. Let me even make it easy for him to do so and thus further “progress” here: take my aviation and flight-school analogy and tell us why you don’t agree with it, rationally and coherently. That rather nicely focuses the discussion for him and doesn’t require him to keep track of all my other material.

And things can move on from there. If that’s what you’d like to see happen.

If JR – in his comment of 311PM on the 13th – is hereby opening up the floor to psychological assessments, I’d simply like to ask him to confirm that. I certainly have some thoughts on that score that I think would land close to the bulls-eye and help clarify what some might already be thinking. So if JR says it’s OK, then some “clinical analysis” is on the table. And on top of his military “career” JR has also apparently now had an academic career, and is “smarter” than … and so on. And this is on top of the fact, from somewhere in the past week, that JR has been asked (by a “friend”) to proof-read or look-over a forthcoming “book” about “the saints”. Perhaps a book the publication of which will be celebrated at a publisher’s party attended by the Easter Bunny and a delegation of tooth-fairies. Kool-Aid instead of champagne will be served, perhaps.

I recall a cartoon in The New Yorker a few years ago: two dogs are in an office, one of them sitting at a desk in front of a computer. That dog says to the other: “On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog”. Just so.

But I also think of the general plot set-up of Hogan’s Heroes (which TV show readers of a certain age might recall): in the up-is-down world created in the Third Reich, there actually was no way anybody could be sure that some ridiculous event wasn’t actually true. Was Klink awakened in the middle of the night to be told that der Fuhrer himself had just driven in through the front gate – how could Klink really be sure it wasn’t true in the topsy-turvy, irrational, up-is-down world of that place and time? Was Klink told on the phone (by Sgt. Carter or Sgt. Kinchloe imitating der Fuhrer) that he had just been promoted to Chief of Staff of the OKW or the Wehrmacht? Who could say for sure it couldn’t be true?

This particular thought goes not so much to JR – there’s really not much of anything that’s even believably incredible there – but to Learned Counsel: given what they say has been going on in elite academia for the past few decades, who is to say definitively and dispositively that Learned Counsel hasn’t demonstrated all the characteristics necessary to graduate from an elite university in these up-is-down times? (Doubt, I would say, is far more easily justified in terms of the capacities required for the Bar … but then again Learned Counsel once informed us in comments that if I think he doesn’t have the chops, I should meet some of the other lawyers and/or law-students he knows. Charming. )

Anyhoo, it’s Learned Counsel, not “Council”; we have already discussed the “passive aggressive” bit above; I’ll continue with using the term “mentalities” because it’s a more polite word than – say – “diagnoses”; JR’s support for “Dennis” is what it is; “deliberation and analysis” will continue; the “clinical analysis” bit has been dealt with above and the ball is in JR’s court; the college bit has been dealt with; the juvenile bit about my alma-mater is up there on the flagpole for everyone to see; and it would seem that JR isn’t welcome in bars either – perhaps the Church controls them and has told all the bartenders and patrons to be against him.

Meanwhile, like the sturdy inmates of Luftstalag 13, we are constantly assured by the likes of Klink and Burkhalter and Hochstetter that our side is losing and they will soon be proven to have been right and honest and true about everything all along. Ovvvvvvvv coursssssssssssse.

"I look forward to your religion's adherents belly-crawling yourselves back into the sea, soon"

Death.

The good christian keeps offering us death.

Did anyone on our side offer your side death?

This is love?

Typical boar/bore (even a bully?) to distort a word (slang, at that) and then try to refocus the content with a bogus attack, for the purpose of putting the author on the defense, and deflecting the content.

I am not capable of being bullied, so, use that strategy where it may work- out there in Rainbowville, LoserLand.

That strategy is an overused chapter out of the Alinsky Rules for Radicals playbook – which is seriously backfiring on your president/god/idol, as we speak (or is that speek in your urban fictionary?).

If you are not able to effectively respond to the concept of a post, just pull a out a word, distort it to fit your own intent (and apparent biases?), and fling it on the wall along with all the other feces the [apparently still-evolving leftist] baboons will throw on the wall. I wonder if this ongoing evolution will eventualy bring the lefties to the right side of sanity?

Incidentally, Publion is providing a great service to the TMR contributors by encouraging the lefty haters to post as many words, principles and concepts as their ideaology will sustain without [laughably] self-destructing (as it usually does). The Master has successfully teased the little rat-eyed vermin from their holes in order to shine the light, for all to see, on the dysfunction of the thought process that leads to the lefts irrational hatred of all that is good, rational, and sane. 

Mo' words, principles and concepts, please, Publion!