Saturday, June 25, 2011

Time: Does It Still Matter?

The latest cover of Time Magazine tells you all you need to know about the agenda of the left-wing media establishment that installed Barack Hussein Obama in power so that he could oversee the "fundamental transformation" of America:
To ask a question like this is to give the answer, which is: not to our moonbat rulers it doesn't.
The July 4 cover date is reminiscent of the "Is God a Fairy Tale?" covers we see around Easter.

midnight rider UPDATES:

You can read the entire Time article here.


Damien said...


There's an old saying that goes "Don't Judge a book by its cover." Maybe we should read it first. It may actually be supporting the constitution. Maybe you're being too quick to judge. If you don't want to buy a copy, check it out at the library. I think I might do that.

midnight rider said...

Damien -- I did read quickly through it and wasnt't impressed. Essentially saying we need to interpret according to our thinking not the framers. I may be misunderstanding it but you can read it for yourself here

midnight rider said...

And I'm even less impressed with them shredding it on the cover and in the article itself.

Pastorius said...

The question is bad enough. The image is even worse.

All in all, it is socially, culturally, and mentally destructive, as a cover.

Additionally, we know what we need to know about Time Magazine already. Or, have you forgotten that Fareed Zakaria is the Editor at Large, for Time?

Damien said...

Midnight Rider,

Thanks. I have to admit I was disappointed by what I read. Its seems that Richard Stengel, really doesn't support the constitution, except when it supports what he wants, and thinks its okay to ignore it otherwise, thus making it worthless as far as protecting individual rights and limiting the federal government. He fails to understand that if the constitution was actually obeyed, the government would be much smaller. He does not mention the amendment process, something that the founding fathers put in place, because they understood the need their would be to change the constitution. As for the racism, and slavery in the time of the founding fathers, that was an unfortunate fact. However, Slaver was a controversial issue in the time of the founding fathers, and at least some of them opposed it. As bad as the 3/5th's compromise was, at the time, it may have been better than what the south wanted, which was to count each slave as a person only to increase the number of representatives for the south, even through even free blacks weren't allowed to vote. Under those circumstances, fighting slavery would have been even more difficult. Plus by counting them at all, it undermined the idea that the black slaves were mere property of their masters. After all, if they were, why count them at all? We don't count live stock when it comes time to how many representatives a state has. Even ignoring that, all of it was made null and void by the thirteenth amendment.

Damien said...


Not everything that time has written was bad.

They were one of the few news outlets to question why Islam wasn't brought up in the Military's report on the Fort Hood Massacre. Something that was very politically incorrect of them, but seriously needed to be done. Do you remember this article?
The Fort Hood Report: Why No Mention of Islam?

I just thought it would be fair to read the opinion piece first before judging it. Turns out in this case you were pretty much right about the opinion piece not supporting the constitution. However in fairness, it could have been that they were actually going to be defending the constitutions and only using that as a cover to get people's attention.

Alexander Münch said...

  ===" To ask a question like this is to give the answer "===

More questions ( and answes... ) here :-