Buford T. Justice

Stefan is trying to bury his 12/27 call-in episode -- specifically the caller at 1:35:39 who OWNS Molyneux in a Trump debate. He's scrubbed it from YouTube and from these message boards -- any mention of it, including this message, won't last more than 15 minutes on the board. I encourage readers to listen to it for themselves.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vKOb-kmOgpI

Absolutely none. Yet true.

Every movement needs its brain or it withers. The right had its Buckley and Trump has Stefan -- whether he's aware of it or not. Sorry my subject line was unclear -- I meant why doesn't Trump thank Molyneux.

It was Molyneux who gave the Trump campaign its intellectual props. He swung my vote and those of hundreds of thousands of others -- that's good for a Trump steak at least.

Thanks much for the info.

Set curriculum as in prepackaged -- I find my own books. Bugs me how many people choose homeschool for the freedom of it and then hand that freedom right back to a curriculum company. But to each their own.

Not curriculum-based but be sure not to miss John Taylor Gatto's work, especially "The Underground History of American Education." I've gone ten years as a homeschooler without a set curriculum, except occasionally in math. Imho the idea of curricula works against the self-organizing principle of homeschooling.

Surprised I've never heard Stefan mention John Taylor Gatto, the spiritual leader of the homeschool movement. So many of their ideas are congenial to each other.

Yeah I guess so, fair enough.

Wish Stefan would go on this hit podcast. The sheer brainpower would fry my phone like a Samsung.

"Yeah well I voted for him anyway."

What argument or prejudice can be gleaned from a young woman standing over her dead father? As Ayn Rand said, "What a man does out of despair is not necessarily a key to his character."

No but identifying fallacies is. To wit: Ad hominem, false dichotomy, slippery slope and appeal to popular opinion -- not to mention plain meanness.

I follow and have had my mind changed by your reports on police shootings but really, you're going to full-quote the distraught rantings of a daughter whose father was just shot dead by the police? And just go on and on and on?

Amazing. http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/296680-house-panel-probes-web-rumor-on-clinton-emails

Re the "dark" moniker newly-floated against Trump: It wasn't engineered by think tank geniuses. It's a simple steal from Anne Widdecombe's highly-effective use of the term to disrupt the 1997 UK conservative leadership election. From Wikipedia: In 1997, during the Conservative leadership election of William Hague, Widdecombe spoke out against Michael Howard, under whom she had served when he was Home Secretary. She remarked that "there is something of the night about him". The remark was considered to be extremely damaging to Howard, who was frequently satirised as a vampire thereafter. He came last in the poll. Howard went on to become party leader in 2003, however, and Widdecombe then stated, "I explained fully what my objections were in 1997 and I do not retract anything I said then. But this is 2005 and we have to look to the future and not the past."

My bad. Thanks much!

Most -- did it get a mention? If so I'll go to it.

... and I'm wondering why. It's clearly the most news-packed couple of weeks in his candidacy.

To your points, especially Koroviev's: It's true we've had a year of the commentariat telling us he's done, put a fork in him -- and he's always triumphed. No candidate in Am. history has been so genius -- and I do mean genius -- at using the media swirl of condemnation against itself to make himself even more adored. But this one has thrown him and there seems to be a pile-on effect. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it's different and new, and I wonder what Stefan's take will be. Trump doesn't have to win the message boards, Fox or CNN: He has to persuade a majority of average folk he's electable -- and I think he took a serious hit on that this week from an unlikely source. Oh, and Shirgall: Exactly right.

Regret to say I think this latest controversy is a tide-turner for The Don: For the first time in the campaign Trump has lost control of the narrative. I'll be interested to hear what Stefan has to say about it.

Nice to hear Molyneux address his Trump arguments to the left. My hunch is he has more of their listeners than he knows.

Badabing. Thank you Shirgall.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5NI1UNNCuAY More interesting to me than the actual plagiarism is the GOP operative who wrote her speech. He clearly knew what he was doing and meant to sabotage her. It's like Chicago '68, only on stage this time instead of the streets.