Please visit the new home of Majikthise at

« Bipartisan brutality: Senior Dems also got sneak peak at waterboarding in 2002 | Main | Religious vigillantes killed 40 women in Basra »

December 10, 2007

Kant attack ad

HT: Chris Bertram.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Kant attack ad:


That's funny. Its no contest, however; Kant's campaign manager will find more than enough incendiary, and politically suicidal statements in his opponent's writings to drum him out of the county.

On the other hand, Kant was pretty short, and we Americans don't like short candidates. This one could get nasty.

Why even bother? Kant makes Paul Simon look like Charlton Heston. Can you imagine the chaos the first time Tim Russert asks him a yes or no question?

You know, I heard that when Kant went for his daily walk, he was actually going to a brothel. Bentham's people dredged that up in the primary, arguing that the ends justified the means.

And just you wait until Lou Salome strikes a deal with the local Fox affiliate. We ain't see nuthin yet!

I think these ads need to be banned. They defy the categorical imperative. Thats enuff said. It isn't clear what Nietzsche is running for. I have felt for a long time the will to being political line is more in line for a FEMA job than elected officialdom. So Fred obviously has sold out.

I'm in stitches!

Too funny!

That Proust, what a tool ... he always goes negative and no one calls him on it.

Damn the media's Proustian bias!

Voltaire on hearing Romney's new mantra invoked in his "Freedom requires religion" line sat bolt upright. Actually he bumped his head which vexed him all the more.
"Theese Romney fellow is such a slut" he said. "He makes the liar, Karl Rove, seem pristine and chaste in hees willingness to throw the Constitution under the tumbrils."

You could, alas, make an ad attacking the genuine racism in Kant's anthropology -- but that isn't funny, so the ad wouldn't be, either.

This one's funny, but doesn't the doctrine of the noumenon belong to epistemology, not properly to metaphysics? To the extent that it is dogmatic at all, is its cash value anything more than to remind us that inquiries about the objects of science don't stop, that there are always more questions to be asked?

Now that's funny!

The comments to this entry are closed.