- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
As you wish. Whine and wriggle all you want, the fact remains that they pay at least their fair share.
You left out the word "FAIR".
REally? Who? Can you name them? Are you talking about getting paid every two weeks. Based on a salery in the top 1%? Who are these people?
I think for the most part, people making under a million do, but people in that top of the top group, not even close.
No whining, no wiggling, just facts.
As you wish. Whine and wriggle all you want, the fact remains that they pay at least their fair share.eace
The Reagan speech. Im sure you can corroborate the liberal race baiting and dog whistle theories with actual quotes from the parties involved in setting up the event right? Oh. You cant. Well then thats inferrence not proof, and hence manipulation. Im not picking through the entirety of the hard left sewage you call a post anymore, as I said before you just keep throwing things against the wall to see what sticks.
McCain and Rubio working on immigration reform that can pass. Several notable Republicans signing onto the gay marriage brief. How about the HHS flap over contraceptives and the Catholic Church, that may matter to a great many Hispanics. How about the immigrants, legal and illegal having to live near a border infested with crime--think they may want more secure borders? Just some examples.
Ahhh, grand irony.
Rezko, legalislative warfare on opposition campaigns, unsealing of divorce records harmful to both parties and children, quid pro quo I showed you, etc etc. I didnt assume anything. Obama has dealings some of the most corrupt people in Chicago. Obama has questionable dealings and engages in questionable ethical political tactics any time he fears he cant win at the ballot box. The amazing part is you blowing off an example of subtle quid pro quo then jumping straight forward to assume Im stereotyping poor, poor Obama. What a crock.
This pile of piss and wind. I didnt say any of that, thats you projecting again. Your a hardline ideologue portraying yourself as an intellectual free thinker. You aren't, not even close. Your criticism flows one direction and thats at your opposition. Btw, your circular logic here assumes from the start with little logical basis. Plus you present a whole host of thoughts and positions as mine that I have not presented. How many fallacies you want to go for in one paragraph?
So does liberalism.
The whole establishment thing earlier in the thread went right by you. Establishment republicans arent very conservative. Establishment DC on both sides want more power. Establishment GOP are just going along with the power plays and cementing their own positions. I honestly dont know how much smaller, since we havent actually cut government in decades, its pretty hard to tell. Maybe we ought to try it and see if it works before looking down nose dismissal begins.
Whether you like it or not, Liberalism and Democrats have become the party of bigger and bigger government. No one on the left is even making an argument for reduction of anything other than rate of growth and they dont even like that.
Bolded: LOL, smear smear smear. You cant seem to help yourself.
2nd Bolded: Of course you dont.
The Reagan speech. Im sure you can corroborate the liberal race baiting and dog whistle theories with actual quotes from the parties involved in setting up the event right? Oh. You cant
McCain and Rubio working on immigration reform that can pass. Several notable Republicans signing onto the gay marriage brief.
How about the HHS flap over contraceptives and the Catholic Church, that may matter to a great many Hispanics.
This pile of piss and wind.
I didnt say any of that, thats you projecting again.
Your a hardline ideologue portraying yourself as an intellectual free thinker.
You aren't, not even close
Your criticism flows one direction and thats at your opposition.
Btw, your circular logic here assumes from the start with little logical basis.
Plus you present a whole host of thoughts and positions as mine that I have not presented. How many fallacies you want to go for in one paragraph?
How many fallacies you want to go for in one paragraph?
So does liberalism.
Establishment republicans arent very conservative.
Maybe we ought to try it and see if it works before looking down nose dismissal begins.
Yep, typical liberal bull****, anything that points out facts and data is hatred for the person. What I do is confuse you by pointing out data the refutes the liberal rhetoric. You cannot figure out how an ideology that claims to promote compassion can be such an dire failure. You buy rhetoric and ignore data and facts. No wonder you have no interest in what anyone says that posts same.
No. Claiming that the White House was cheering the death toll of 6 year olds to promote a politial agenda...that's true hate in action. That's irrational hate. That kind of hate is pure evil. You have a very sick and cynical view of people and anybody that harbors that kind of hate, isn't worth the time of day. What you actually do is reveal yourself as vile. And you confuse nobody. You torpedoed any credibility you may have hoped to gain. Any message you try to offer is buried by your own hate. Maybe you'll learn to read what you write before posting and consider the damage that you do to your own credibility.
No. Claiming that the White House was cheering the death toll of 6
year olds to promote a politial agenda...that's true hate in action. That's irrational hate. That kind of hate is pure evil. You have a very sick and cynical view of people and anybody that harbors that kind of hate, isn't worth the time of day. What you actually do is reveal yourself as vile. And you confuse nobody. You torpedoed any credibility you may have hoped to gain. Any message you try to offer is buried by your own hate. Maybe you'll learn to read what you write before posting and consider the damage that you do to your own credibility.
In fact I can. Ronald Reagan, on the campaign trail in 1980, saying in Mississippi "I believe in states' rights" (a sentence the New Statesman later described as "perhaps the archetypal dog-whistle statement"), described as implying Reagan believed that states should be allowed, if they want, to retain racial segregation. In 1981, former Republican Party strategist and Reagan campaign manager; Lee Atwater, when giving an anonymous interview discussing the GOP's Southern Strategy said:
“You start out in 1954 by saying, "N, n, n." By 1968, you can't say "n" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N, n.” There is an audio recording of this.
Maybe it should. Promising them bread and circuses only works for so long.Yeah...that really won them over didn't it?:roll: Even after all that nonsense 74% of Latinos voted against you.
Nah, its not.Right. It's also true.
Sigh. You make blanket assertions like I believe conservatism cant be wrong. At no point did I say or assert that. In fact I disagree with a lot of socially conservative positions. If you could avoid making arguments about things Ive never said that would be super.Again you say "that". What is THAT which you're saying you didn't say? You're quoting me in which I haven't said that you SAID anything. My response that you quoted comes from you claiming that I need to be right on everything. I told you I know that I could be wrong about a lot of things. Can you? So what is THAT which you're referring to?
You hold liberal positions most often, and you havent bothered to clarify or voice any positions other than liberal ones. So Im going with liberal until you post something different. So far you sound like a liberal water carrier we see around here quite a lot, matter of fact you sound like an amalgamation of HoJ and Haymarket.What's my ideology? Haven't you seen my sig? I don't subscribe to or hold ideologies. You seem to be suggesting that a person without an ideology has an ideology of not having an ideology. That's like saying that atheism is a religion of non-belief in religion. It's pretzel logic.
DBAJ. Just one post, try it.And...you would know so much about "free thinking". I can see what an authority you are on that subject.
So far you are lodged pretty far into liberal territory. Its not "truth", or "sacred ground", its just ideology based upon a realm of political thinking. You also seem a lot more wedded to it, than I do, but less honest about it.My criticism points directly at absolutist statements because the people making them are really nuts, and they're easy to take apart and stand in the way of truth. So yes, that's my opposition. I oppose bull**** and expose it for what it is. That's my only interest. Is something logical and rational, or more fictional beliefs or absolutist dogma. The criticisms are aimed at only one thing; Is the claim true of false. Assertions are always claims and they must be justified rationally. If they can't be demonstrated as being true...then what makes them worth accepting as true? What are they based on? And then, what justifies that base, and what is that justification based on. All ideas are open to criticism. There are no sacred cows. Unless you're an ideologue in which that becomes "sacred ground". Like I said, I could be wrong. So I can be willing to put my own to that same criticism. If they're wrong, I dump them for something that is true.
You assume I believe conservatism is infallible and go about proving that without any argument from me to that effect. You assume Im wedded to conservativism on all issues, also not true.Can you demonstrate the circular logic that you refer to? I mean just saying that means nothing. Give me an example.
I haven't presented any as if they are yours. I'm not speaking for you. The only reference to you personally would be this: " If you ever had any interest in the truth...you'd look at your ideology and ask yourself, what is it based on? When you find out..then ask what that base is based on. You'll find yourself in a dilemma of infinite regress vs your dogma. You'll always be looking for another basis to justify the one that comes next. It's a black hole, and theres no way out of it, except to say I believe it because I believe it, which is circular reasoning." It's called Modus Tollens. IF/THEN. IF you had any interest in the truth, THEN you'd look at your ideology and ask what it's based on. What part of that is false?
Democrats treat minorities as voting blocks rather than people that have the same needs as other Americans.Show me one. Apparently you can list a bunch. I'm just asking for one.
Racism is racism. I dont think its a conservative or liberal concept, its a dehumanizing one. One I dont agree with on any level.Nope. Racism always has a conservative element to it. Racism isn't a liberal concept. Nice try, and I'm sure it makes you feel better to think that, but its not true. A conservative wants to preserve institutions and slavery, and Jim Crow, and Segregation were all conservative institutions. Liberalism is always a challenge to those institutions. Conservatives institutionalized racism. Liberals fought to eliminate it. The Civil Rights Act was a liberal idea. Not a conservative one. They fought against it. I find it amazing that on the very day that Rosa Parks statue is enshrined in the Capital Statuary Hall, the first women to be enshrined there, a woman from Alabama...and just down the street two Conservative Senators from Alabama sponsor Shelby County Alabama in a challenge to the Voting Rights Act in the Supreme Court. The very thing that Rosa Parks led the way toward. The timing was perfect. I'll tell you this, if the African/American community felt that liberalism was racist, why do you think 94% of them vote for liberals? They know where that hate comes from.
In fact, many of them are not conservative or only nominally so. If they WERE conservative they would not face primary challenges from the right so often, McCain amongst them.They don't run the Republican Party. Conservatives do. They nominated a "severely conservative governor". Remember? And there isn't a single Republican that doesn't call himself a conservative. If you aren't a conservative, you're destined to be primaried by one more conservative than you are. That's ideology run amok.Extremism in full bloom.
Actually, by Tea Party standards, it needs to be "small enough to drown in the bathtub"- Grover Norquist. It can't be small enough unless it's completely gone. It'll never be small enough to the Tea Party Conservative, until everything is dismantled. The problem is that the people don't want that. That's why you're losing elections. Which is also why it's not a smear. It's the truth as stated by people like Norguist. When the TeaParty conservatives tell me they hate the government; that goverenment is the problem; that they want to cut it to the bone, then this statement "Join the TeaParty and take down the entire government of the United States, and it'll be every man for himself", is no smear. Because if that's the goal, then that's going to be the result.
No. Claiming that the White House was cheering the death toll of 6 year olds to promote a politial agenda...that's true hate in action. That's irrational hate. That kind of hate is pure evil. You have a very sick and cynical view of people and anybody that harbors that kind of hate, isn't worth the time of day. What you actually do is reveal yourself as vile. And you confuse nobody. You torpedoed any credibility you may have hoped to gain. Any message you try to offer is buried by your own hate. Maybe you'll learn to read what you write before posting and consider the damage that you do to your own credibility.
They have yet to adress Nationally the rising death toll in Chicago. I didn't see one crying Chicago parent holding up a sign of their kids in the Congressional Hearing yesterday.
Yes, the lefts obsession with gun control is nothing new. Obama's choice to ignore thousands of gangland murders which includes way more that 20 kids reaches a new level of demagoguery and selfishness.
Why didn't they start this anti Gun tirade after the Chicago 6 year old girl was killed in her living room last year ?
Oh I know why, they didn't care.
They have yet to adress Nationally the rising death toll in Chicago.
Do you have any data beyond "I think . . ."?:thinking
They have yet to adress Nationally the rising death toll in Chicago. I didn't see one crying Chicago parent holding up a sign of their kids in the Congressional Hearing yesterday.
Yes, the lefts obsession with gun control is nothing new. Obama's choice to ignore thousands of gangland murders which includes way more that 20 kids reaches a new level of demagoguery and selfishness.
Why didn't they start this anti Gun tirade after the Chicago 6 year old girl was killed in her living room last year ?
Oh I know why, they didn't care.
Originally Posted by Adagio
Claiming that the White House was cheering the death toll of 6 year olds to promote a politial agenda...that's true hate in action. That's irrational hate. That kind of hate is pure evil. You have a very sick and cynical view of people and anybody that harbors that kind of hate, isn't worth the time of day. What you actually do is reveal yourself as vile. And you confuse nobody. You torpedoed any credibility you may have hoped to gain. Any message you try to offer is buried by your own hate. Maybe you'll learn to read what you write before posting and consider the damage that you do to your own credibility.
exactly. and it should be obvious to anyone who cares to lookIt's not fair. that's the whole point.
Apparently you weren't watching the SOTU address. You know,
the one that this thread is all about? They're addressing the rising death toll in the country, not only Chicago. He spoke quite clearly about the murder of a young girl who sang at his inauguration, was shot and killed a mile from his home in Chicago. He even mentioned her parent's who happend to be sitting with the First Lady in the Gallery. He spoke of the killings in many cities including Chicago specifically. His former Chief of Staff is Mayor of Chicago. He's quite well aware of the murder epidemic in Chicago. That's his home remember?
So...are you suggesting that they were cheering the rising body count of 6year old kids? Is that what you're saying? Is this the new conservative talking point?
exactly. and it should be obvious to anyone
who cares to look
View attachment 67143506
and those who insist the elite pay the most taxes are absolutely correct
but what they fail to also recognize is that they also realize the most after tax income growth
View attachment 67143507
and let's see how that plays out in terms of accumulated wealth
View attachment 67143508
the data is quite clear. the very rich are doing very well. not so much the rest of us. and the obvious conclusion is that the rich are NOT paying their fair share while enjoying a disproportionate share of the prosperity
when that is no longer the circumstance, only then can it be said the rich are actually paying their 'fair' share of the tax burden
View attachment 67143509
trickle down my ass!
American Pie: Wealth and Income Inequality in America
Except you didnt include the part with the entire interview and the context of what Atwater is talking about is what politicians ran in the South. In the 50s it was pure race baiting, in the 60s it was voter rights/Jim Crow/forced busing, in the 70s, Atwater was describing what you would want to run on to appeal to voters. Hes not equating the things as being equal hes saying what strategy would work for voters. Voters werent just whites anymore, so the strategy going forward has to be different. Its a historical idea as much as anything else. The first 5 minutes are all about the context BEFORE he made those statements and places the context of what he meant.
That's quite a gymnastics routine. I haven't seen anything like that since the summer games :applaud Atwater is appealing to the very same mentallity, showing exactly how to appeal to the very same racist voter with new language. He explains clearly how you can't use the same words that you could in the 50's without painting the candidate and the party itself as hopeless racists. He explains in words that everyone can understand, that the term States Rights, would appeal to those people that know, that "States Rights" = the right of a state to decide for itself how it will handle segregation outside of the Federal Government and it's blasted constitution, leaving the issue up to the states. Ronald Reagan made that very appeal to States Rights at the Neshoba County Fair near the town of Philadelphia Mississippi. The place where Schwerner, Cheney, and Goodman were murdered for trying to register blacks to vote. In his speech he said this: "I believe that there are programs like that, programs like education and others, that should be turned back to the states and the local communities with the tax sources to fund them, and let the people [applause drowns out end of statement].I believe in state's rights.
I've heard the recording of that speech. That States Rights comment really went over well. Of all the places in the United States he could have kicked off his campaign, Reagan does it right in the heart of Klan Kountry, and appeals to the very same crowd that killed three young mend and buried them in an earthen damn. They shot Schwerner and Goodman but they saved something special for Cheney. The shot him after shoving the gun up his backside, and then shot him in the penis because he ( a black guy) should have known better. Great location to kick off a presidential campaign. And you wonder why blacks don't vote Republican? Those were the so-called "Reagan Democrats". Those same conservative Democrats are conservative Republicans today. Same ideology. Different tie.
Maybe it should. Promising them bread and circuses only works for so long.
Seeing Latino's as illegals doesn't help your cause.
Nah, its not.
Well then, here's my comment: "I don't think that works. I already admitted long ago, on this very thread that I knew I could be wrong. In fact, it was me that said I know I can be wrong. Can you say as much? How much more gracefully would you like than my own full admission? Conservatism is NOT infallibly correct. It's inherently flawed. The problem is when you accept that ideology you accept it all. And that means that when it comes to the truth or the ideology...the truth loses, because the ideology cannot be wrong. If you ever had any interest in the truth...you'd look at your ideology and ask yourself, what is it based on? When you find out..then ask what that base is based on. You'll find yourself in a dilemma of infinite regress vs your dogma. You'll always be looking for another basis to justify the one that comes next. It's a black hole, and theres no way out of it, except to say I believe it because I believe it, which is circular reasoning. A person that clints to a logical fallacy when he knows that it's a logical fallacy is irrational so why on earth would I or anybody want to accept irrationality as a way of life, or elect irrational people to govern this country?"
If it's wrong, then explain why it's wrong? Just you saying that it's wrong means nothing unless you can provide some explanation of what makes it wrong. That's called a critique. Or is it wrong, because you say it's wrong? I'm afraid that won't be enough. You can't very well appeal to yourself as your own authority? What would you base that on? So...if it's wrong you should be able to explain why?
Sigh. You make blanket assertions like I believe conservatism cant be wrong. At no point did I say or assert that. In fact I disagree with a lot of socially conservative positions. If you could avoid making arguments about things Ive never said that would be super.
That isn't what I said. I asked you if if YOU could be wrong. I never made any assertion that you believe conservatism CAN'T be wrong. Although there seems to be a whole lot of them that feel that way. No compromise at all. Very absolutist in principles and values that can't ever be compromised even though they can't be demonstrated as true. I asked you if YOU were fallible and if you are, then I know you are smart enough to know that any idea coming from a fallible source must itself be fallible. It can't be infallible. It's inherently flawed and prone to error.That means that if you know that about yourself, you have to also know that about conservatism as an ideology. If you can't ever compromise in your principles or values, you must believe that they're infallibly correct. You wouldn't hold values that you don't believe are absolutely true would you? So lets keep it real here ok? I never asserted that you think conservatism is infallible. I asked you about your own falliblity. Knowing the answer to that means that I know the answer to the other.
You hold liberal positions most often, and you havent bothered to clarify or voice any positions other than liberal ones.
You see me as holding liberal positions in relation to your own conservatism. What you see is that I don't hold conservative views. In your eyes that makes me a liberal by default. I'm certainly not a libertarian am I. (I've read Hayek, and actually read 4 of Ayn Rands novels including the two huge books, Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. It appealed to me the way a comic book appeals to a young kid) I take a Pancrtical rationalist perspective. I work from the premiss that you get closer to the truth by stripping away the things that are false. You do that not through trying to justify your positions. But to hold them up to criticism. Including your own. That means that every time I come across some absolutist comment I question it. And that...makes me a Liberal, at least in the eyes of a conservative that I'm directing the questions toward. Those that make those kind of statements tend to be conservatives, because they see their ideology as right. Infallibly right. They cannot ever ever ever be wrong. In fact they are so certain of their ideology, they'd be willing to tank the US credit and toss it in the trash rather than compromise on that absolutely certain idea that what they think IS the only way to do anything.
So Im going with liberal until you post something different. So far you sound like a liberal water carrier we see around here quite a lot,
I have no objections to being called a liberal.Look at my posts. I call myself that. I like being a source of irritation to conservatives. And have you considered that you and the others sound like conservative water carriers that lurk around here in my view? I don't need to carry water for anyone Mr. Owl. Like I said, I don't work off of talking points. Your friend Fenton...now theres a water carrier. When a liberal starts to tell me, "there can be no dout, no debate" "We know with complete certainty..." then I'll be more than happy to rip him a new one. Because no liberal knows with absolute certainty...anything. What we're dealing with are theories on how to govern. Not some utopian idea of perfection. That can't be done by either party. At least the liberals know that. As I said, " the difference between the conservative and the liberal is the conservative KNOWS he's right. The liberal knows he could be wrong. Which in your view is closer to the truth?
So far you are lodged pretty far into liberal territory. Its not "truth", or "sacred ground", its just ideology based upon a realm of political thinking. You also seem a lot more wedded to it, than I do, but less honest about it.
Yes. It would seem that way to a conservative. I'm not a conservative. That probably has something to do with it. But more to the point, I don't consider anything as sacred ground. I'm liberal because I'm open to change. That's all it is. Being open to change. Maybe I'll change if something convinces me that I should. So far I haven't seen that from either conservatives or libertarians, or fascists, commies or theocrats. The point is that I'm open to it. If it brings me closer to the truth, great. At my age, I'm tired of hearing bull****. I'd like truth and if it means chopping up some baseless ideology, I'm happy to do it. Conservatism won't do that. It's flawed, and truth isn't flawed. It won't compromise the ideology even when it conflicts with the truth. That brings us to liberalism doesn't it. It doesn't make claims of infallibility. It already accepts that it might make a mistake. The difference is that when you're open to the fact that your ideas didn't work, you can make the needed changes to correct that mistake. It takes a little more guts because you don't know the outcome until you try something. The conservative doesn't want to try something because it wants certainty. It wants to know the outcome before hand. But you'll never know that. You can't predict the future by looking at history. That's historicism and that's Karl Marx to the core. Marx was wrong about that. But being an ideologue he couldn't accept that. I'm not afraid of being wrong. But the conservative is. The conservative doesn't even acknowledge that there is a mistake, and despite the impact of reality on every good idea...they continue down the same path of pounding a square peg into a round hole for the sake of staying conservative. I find that dumb. It's like beating your head against the wall because it feels good when you stop.
You assume I believe conservatism is infallible and go about proving that without any argument from me to that effect. You assume Im wedded to conservativism on all issues, also not true.
That's not circular logic. If what you just said were in fact true, then it would be called a Straw Man. Not circular logic. A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted.That's what it would be IF your premiss was true...which it isn't. I never assumed this: "I believe conservatism is infallible . I asked you if you thought you could be wrong. I may have even asked you if you thought conservatism could be wrong, however I never assumed that you thought that which is why I asked you specifically IF you thought you could possiblly be wrong? I don't make assumptions on people. I'm experienced enough on these forums and in touch with my own philosophical views to never make a positive assertion about people or things. I don't define people. I let them define themselves. When they do, (conservatives seem to like defining people) that definition can be criticized for it's truth. Whats the definition based on? What makes me a liberal, is that I dare to question a conservative. I'll challenge the premiss of their arguments. They don't like being on the defensive. I don't have any ideology to defend. They do.
The part where you assume to know what I believe without actually finding out. You are most definitely speaking for me by assuming what I believe without delving into any specifics whatsoever. Ive taken very few positions here, in point of fact, and Im tired of dealing with your lecturing, cajoling and overbearing crap.
I don't need to know what you believe. That's totally irrelevent to what I'm saying. Whatever it is that you believe...The moon is made of green cheese, there are pink unicorns on Mars... it doesn't make any difference. "" If you ever had any interest in the truth...you'd look at your ideology and ask yourself, what is it based on? What is your belief in the Moon and green cheese based on? What do you base the belief of pink unicorns on Mars on? I don't have to know what it is. That's totally up to you. But if you actually have any interest in the truth...then you must examine your ideology and ask yourself what is this belief based on??? If you don't do that, you are operating on the assumption that this ideology that you believe in IS the truth based on itself. And THAT is circular logic.
Either you follow that justification spiral into that black hole of infinite regress looking for the next justification for the next base...OR you stop the search for any justification and say that the ideology is based on itself. That is the definition of circular reasoning.It's called the dilemma of infinite regress vs dogma. If you hold to the dogma, you need bases to justify that to keep rationalizing your ideology. The more you are pressed for justification, the deeper into that hole you go looking for a base and that goes on forever as long as you hold the dogma of the ideology. You have two choices then. Dump the ideology becaise it is unable to demonstrate what makes it true, or take the leap into circular reasoning using the ideology to justify itself. And that is an irrational position to hold. Again...I haven't assumed that you hold these position. I asked you if you did. You dodged that question several times. I don't act on assumptions Mr. Owl. IF you hold those positions, this is what you would have to look forward to. If you don't, then you have no problem. But being a conservative isn't just a fashion statement. People beat each other to a pulp these days trying to out-conservative the other guy. I already know where a guy like Fenton is at. Same with Conservative. Maybe you aren't a conservative after all. We both know you know you and conservatism could be wrong, dont' we. We even know that you could be wrong about liberals.
.Democrats treat minorities as voting blocks rather than people that have the same needs as other Americans
There you go. First of all, I'm not a Democrat, so that may or may not be true. There is nothing to demonstrate that as true. It's just another absolute statement. Democrats are this. Democrats are that. Define, define, define. Assume assume assume. As a liberal, I do not. Furthermore, I don't see that minorities are treated as voting blocks. They are treated like real life human beings, no different than you or I. which is exactly why those minorities form voting blocs and turnout for democrats. But they aren't monolithic as you suggest (voting bloc) On the other hand, the conservatives DO in fact treat minorities as voting blocs. That very idea has already been articulated by Sean Hannity, and many others that recognize that they'll need to get serious on immigration if they want to attract Latinos.Treating them as a bloc. Where the Latino vote is concerned, Barack Obama crushed Mitt Romney. CNN’s exit poll shows Obama winning 71% of that vote, and the polling organization Latino Decisions measured even bigger gains for Obama, showing that Obama beat Romney by a whopping 75% to 23% among Latinos. In the electoral college, the Latino vote was crucial to Obama, particularly in the battleground states of Colorado and Nevada, which Obama won, and Florida. You won't get their vote if you see them as illegals or good enough to mow your lawn.
Racism is racism. I dont think its a conservative or liberal concept, its a dehumanizing one. One I dont agree with on any level.
Racism is racism. Thats a pretty weak and simplistic definition for a person that likes defining people. There is a predisposition to why people hold the views they hold. They don't just randomly pop into a persons way of life with no reason. I've laid out a few things about conservatives that come from them. Not from me. I don't define them. I let them define themselves. Basic to conservative thinking is the preservation of existing institutions.Tradition. that's core to the belief.
In his lecture on “The Origins of the Modern American Conservative Movement” given to the Heritage Foundation in 2003, Dr. Lee Edwards cited Russell Kirk, author of The Conservative Mind as providing the central idea upon which American conservatism is essentially based, calling it ordered liberty.
Kirk described six basic “canons” or principles of conservatism:
1. A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society;
2. Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing uniformity;
3. Civilized society requires orders and classes;
4. Property and freedom are inseparably connected;
5. Man must control his will and his appetite, knowing that he is governed more by emotion than by reason; and
6. Society must alter slowly.
Edwards states that “the work established convincingly that there was a tradition of American conservatism that had existed since the Founding of the Republic. With one book, Russell Kirk made conservatism intellectually acceptable in America. Indeed, he
gave the conservative movement its name.
Kirk was Reagans ideological guru. Lest we minimize the writings of Kirk, we should point out that one of his biggest supporters
was “Mr.Conservative”, President Ronald Reagan. Reagan said this of Kirk:
“As the prophet of American conservatism, Russell Kirk has taught, nurtured, and inspired a generation. From . . . Piety Hill, he reached deep into the roots of American values, writing and editing central works of political philosophy. His intellectual contribution has been a profound act of patriotism. I look forward to the future with anticipation that his work will continue to exert a profound influence in the defense of our values and our cherished civilization.”
—Ronald Reagan, 1981
Kirk is really warmed over Burke. If you've read Burke you know that. Mark Levin loves to quote Burke. Burke was an aristocrat and the leading anti-Enlightenment voice in history. Levin also wrote his own Manifesto for Conservatism. ( Can't get more ideological than that...the Conservative Bible according to Rush Limpballs)
So what does all this have to do with racism? The US Constitution set up this country as a White Supremacist nation. That racism is embedded into our constitution in Article 1.sec 2, Article 1 sec 9, and Article 4 sec 2. Slavery was an institution in this country. It flourished in the south which was our only true American aristocracy. Obviously slavery couldn't last, however the abolition of slavery would have an impact on the eonomy and lifestyle of southerners. The conservative South fought to maintain that institution. They lost. But here was Mississippi's reasoning for secession:
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of
Mississippi from the Federal Union.
“In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. “
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”
A pretty solid example of the reluctance to let go of existing institutions. The other states had very similar reasons all based on racism. Since that time, the very notion of a race of people that was; at our beginnings as a country, only considered to be 3/5’s of a human being, now having equal footing with those that actually believed in this idea, is a direct challenge to a long held social concept. It denied the idea of white supremacy as legitimate. It’s surprising how many people still cling to this idea, and will go to extreme lengths to perpetuate it.
The idea that a person that could have been your slave at one time, could today be your boss, or even President of the United States, is more than some people can deal with on an emotional level. White supremacy as an institution is renounced, discredited, and dismantled, and that is a major blow to an existing order, and conservatism is always a reaction to a challenge to an existing order. These are people that desperately need somebody to look down to in order to validate their own self-worth. “Sure, life is tough. But at least I’m White.” They can no longer rely on a policy that used to be institutionally enforceable. When that is removed by law, hostility is the result; hostility for those that have been emancipated by law and elevated to equal status, and hostility for the law itself including those that proposed it and passed it. Which is why we see the Voting Rights Act being challenged right now in the Supreme Court by two conservative Senators from Alabama, sponsoring Shelby County Alabama in the court. And with a conservative Court...looks like theres going to be a problem. I can tell you that African/Americans that have lived through this and bled and died and been lynched all for the sake of the simple right to vote...to have come this far...they aren't going to accept having their voting rights compromised. But then, conservatives didn't want their votes anyway. Did they? Liberals aren't doing this Mr. Owl. This is the conservatives. The same mentallity that never got over losing the war 120 years ago. States Rights!
In fact, many of them are not conservative or only nominally so. If they WERE conservative they would not face primary challenges from the right so often, McCain amongst them.
These aren't conservatives. At least not in the mold of Reagan. He couldn't have gotten nominated today. These are extreme ideologues. If they seen as working with the President, they'll get primaried. And they all know it. Look at Christi. The C-Pac snubbed him, and he has 72% approval rating in blue state New Jersey. But then he has no time for their nonsense. He has a state to rebuild. So they say what's on their mind, and the next day, they're on the phone genuflecting to Rush Limbaugh. A drug addict with a microphone and no class. What a pretty picture.
So, now Im supposed to believe exactly what Grover Norquist believes? Really? Its GOT to be all or nothing eh? Did I argue that? I argued we should be making cuts because the spending we are at is not sustainable. I didnt say every man for himself, YOU said I did. So many misrepresentations in one post, how pathetic.
Did I say you were a Teabagger? No.All I know is that you take the conservative line. Do you disagree with him? Do I hear anybody from that group telling Grover to take a hike? No. How do the Teabaggers see government? No tax increases. All tax cuts. Shrink the size of Government. And Grover would take it down to the size of a bathtub and drown it.
Other pearls of wisdom from Grover:
"Our goal is to inflict pain. It is not good enough to win; it has to be a painful and devastating defeat. We're sending a message here. It is like when the king would take his opponent's head and spike it on a pole for everyone to see." from the National Review, quoted in The Republican Noise Machine by David Brock, Crown Publishers 2004, pg. 50
"Bipartisanship is another name for date rape." Farrell, John A., "Rancor becomes top DC export: GOP leads charge in ideological war", The Denver Post, 26 May 2003, p. A-01.
"The president was committed; elected on the basis that he was not Romney and Romney was a poopy head." quoted in "The Slatest" Blog Post, Josh Voorhes, November 12, 2012 [1]
"Don Sherwood’s seat would have been overwhelmingly ours, if his mistress hadn’t whined about being throttled.” quoted in Caroline Daniel et. al., Financial Times, November 10, 2006 [2]
"We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals -- and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship." quoted in John Aloysius Farrell, "Rancor becomes top D.C. export: GOP leads charge in ideological war," Denver Post, May 26, 2003
"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
That's not circular logic. If what you just said were in fact true, then it would be called a Straw Man. Not circular logic. A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted.That's what it would be IF your premiss was true...which it isn't. I never assumed this: "I believe conservatism is infallible . I asked you if you thought you could be wrong. I may have even asked you if you thought conservatism could be wrong, however I never assumed that you thought that which is why I asked you specifically IF you thought you could possiblly be wrong? I don't make assumptions on people. I'm experienced enough on these forums and in touch with my own philosophical views to never make a positive assertion about people or things. I don't define people. I let them define themselves. When they do, (conservatives seem to like defining people) that definition can be criticized for it's truth. Whats the definition based on? What makes me a liberal, is that I dare to question a conservative. I'll challenge the premiss of their arguments. They don't like being on the defensive. I don't have any ideology to defend. They do.
I don't need to know what you believe. That's totally irrelevent to what I'm saying. Whatever it is that you believe...The moon is made of green cheese, there are pink unicorns on Mars... it doesn't make any difference. "" If you ever had any interest in the truth...you'd look at your ideology and ask yourself, what is it based on? What is your belief in the Moon and green cheese based on? What do you base the belief of pink unicorns on Mars on? I don't have to know what it is. That's totally up to you. But if you actually have any interest in the truth...then you must examine your ideology and ask yourself what is this belief based on??? If you don't do that, you are operating on the assumption that this ideology that you believe in IS the truth based on itself. And THAT is circular logic.
Either you follow that justification spiral into that black hole of infinite regress looking for the next justification for the next base...OR you stop the search for any justification and say that the ideology is based on itself. That is the definition of circular reasoning.It's called the dilemma of infinite regress vs dogma. If you hold to the dogma, you need bases to justify that to keep rationalizing your ideology. The more you are pressed for justification, the deeper into that hole you go looking for a base and that goes on forever as long as you hold the dogma of the ideology. You have two choices then. Dump the ideology becaise it is unable to demonstrate what makes it true, or take the leap into circular reasoning using the ideology to justify itself. And that is an irrational position to hold. Again...I haven't assumed that you hold these position. I asked you if you did. You dodged that question several times. I don't act on assumptions Mr. Owl. IF you hold those positions, this is what you would have to look forward to. If you don't, then you have no problem. But being a conservative isn't just a fashion statement. People beat each other to a pulp these days trying to out-conservative the other guy. I already know where a guy like Fenton is at. Same with Conservative. Maybe you aren't a conservative after all. We both know you know you and conservatism could be wrong, dont' we. We even know that you could be wrong about liberals.
.
There you go. First of all, I'm not a Democrat, so that may or may not be true. There is nothing to demonstrate that as true. It's just another absolute statement. Democrats are this. Democrats are that. Define, define, define. Assume assume assume. As a liberal, I do not. Furthermore, I don't see that minorities are treated as voting blocks. They are treated like real life human beings, no different than you or I. which is exactly why those minorities form voting blocs and turnout for democrats. But they aren't monolithic as you suggest (voting bloc) On the other hand, the conservatives DO in fact treat minorities as voting blocs. That very idea has already been articulated by Sean Hannity, and many others that recognize that they'll need to get serious on immigration if they want to attract Latinos.Treating them as a bloc. Where the Latino vote is concerned, Barack Obama crushed Mitt Romney. CNN’s exit poll shows Obama winning 71% of that vote, and the polling organization Latino Decisions measured even bigger gains for Obama, showing that Obama beat Romney by a whopping 75% to 23% among Latinos. In the electoral college, the Latino vote was crucial to Obama, particularly in the battleground states of Colorado and Nevada, which Obama won, and Florida. You won't get their vote if you see them as illegals or good enough to mow your lawn.
Racism is racism. Thats a pretty weak and simplistic definition for a person that likes defining people. There is a predisposition to why people hold the views they hold. They don't just randomly pop into a persons way of life with no reason. I've laid out a few things about conservatives that come from them. Not from me. I don't define them. I let them define themselves. Basic to conservative thinking is the preservation of existing institutions.Tradition. that's core to the belief.
In his lecture on “The Origins of the Modern American Conservative Movement” given to the Heritage Foundation in 2003, Dr. Lee Edwards cited Russell Kirk, author of The Conservative Mind as providing the central idea upon which American conservatism is essentially based, calling it ordered liberty.
Kirk described six basic “canons” or principles of conservatism:
1. A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society;
2. Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing uniformity;
3. Civilized society requires orders and classes;
4. Property and freedom are inseparably connected;
5. Man must control his will and his appetite, knowing that he is governed more by emotion than by reason; and
6. Society must alter slowly.
Edwards states that “the work established convincingly that there was a tradition of American conservatism that had existed since the Founding of the Republic. With one book, Russell Kirk made conservatism intellectually acceptable in America. Indeed, he
gave the conservative movement its name.
Kirk was Reagans ideological guru. Lest we minimize the writings of Kirk, we should point out that one of his biggest supporters
was “Mr.Conservative”, President Ronald Reagan. Reagan said this of Kirk:
“As the prophet of American conservatism, Russell Kirk has taught, nurtured, and inspired a generation. From . . . Piety Hill, he reached deep into the roots of American values, writing and editing central works of political philosophy. His intellectual contribution has been a profound act of patriotism. I look forward to the future with anticipation that his work will continue to exert a profound influence in the defense of our values and our cherished civilization.”
—Ronald Reagan, 1981
Kirk is really warmed over Burke. If you've read Burke you know that. Mark Levin loves to quote Burke. Burke was an aristocrat and the leading anti-Enlightenment voice in history. Levin also wrote his own Manifesto for Conservatism. ( Can't get more ideological than that...the Conservative Bible according to Rush Limpballs)
So what does all this have to do with racism? The US Constitution set up this country as a White Supremacist nation. That racism is embedded into our constitution in Article 1.sec 2, Article 1 sec 9, and Article 4 sec 2. Slavery was an institution in this country. It flourished in the south which was our only true American aristocracy. Obviously slavery couldn't last, however the abolition of slavery would have an impact on the eonomy and lifestyle of southerners. The conservative South fought to maintain that institution. They lost. But here was Mississippi's reasoning for secession:
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of
Mississippi from the Federal Union.
“In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. “
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”
A pretty solid example of the reluctance to let go of existing institutions. The other states had very similar reasons all based on racism. Since that time, the very notion of a race of people that was; at our beginnings as a country, only considered to be 3/5’s of a human being, now having equal footing with those that actually believed in this idea, is a direct challenge to a long held social concept. It denied the idea of white supremacy as legitimate. It’s surprising how many people still cling to this idea, and will go to extreme lengths to perpetuate it.
The idea that a person that could have been your slave at one time, could today be your boss, or even President of the United States, is more than some people can deal with on an emotional level. White supremacy as an institution is renounced, discredited, and dismantled, and that is a major blow to an existing order, and conservatism is always a reaction to a challenge to an existing order. These are people that desperately need somebody to look down to in order to validate their own self-worth. “Sure, life is tough. But at least I’m White.” They can no longer rely on a policy that used to be institutionally enforceable. When that is removed by law, hostility is the result; hostility for those that have been emancipated by law and elevated to equal status, and hostility for the law itself including those that proposed it and passed it. Which is why we see the Voting Rights Act being challenged right now in the Supreme Court by two conservative Senators from Alabama, sponsoring Shelby County Alabama in the court. And with a conservative Court...looks like theres going to be a problem. I can tell you that African/Americans that have lived through this and bled and died and been lynched all for the sake of the simple right to vote...to have come this far...they aren't going to accept having their voting rights compromised. But then, conservatives didn't want their votes anyway. Did they? Liberals aren't doing this Mr. Owl. This is the conservatives. The same mentallity that never got over losing the war 120 years ago. States Rights!
Project much? Your opinion is noted but that is all it is an opinion based upon lack of total understanding. Further this is a thread about the Obama SOU rhetoric vs. results. You ran quickly when confronted with actual results as you continue to buy the rhetoric. You confuse posting actual results for hatred of the person which raises the question, what is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty that buys rhetoric and ignores results?
Actually I have lots of data and have already shared it in this thread (apparently you missed it).
But your question was subjective, so "I think" is a reflection of the subjective nature of the question.
I know exactly how much taxes are paid by the group of people under a million, and over a million for that matter, but as I said, "I think" the people under a million are paying their fair share.
Someone else with the exact same data might "think" that they pay more or less than their fair share.
Criminy, you ask for my opinion and whine when I give you my opinion?
Project much? Your opinion is noted but that is all it is an opinion based upon lack of total understanding. Further this is a thread about the Obama SOU rhetoric vs. results. You ran quickly when confronted with actual results as you continue to buy the rhetoric. You confuse posting actual results for hatred of the person which raises the question, what is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty that buys rhetoric and ignores results?
I can see it went right over your head. I admit it was a lot to digest, but it wasn't intended for you. In your case I'd keep it REALLY simple. Mr Owl, doesn't seem to need the talking points. At least he posts from his own mind which is a plus, and wins points on that alone. Opinion based on a "total lack of understanding"?? :lamo The only lack of understanding here is you not understanding what was posted. I have a feeling most of the rational posters here, just might disagree with you. Your ideology ain't rocket science pal. It's all a rehash of garbage we've seen before. As for your "talkin points" addiction you should really get together with Fenton. Oh yeah...we ignore your results because, we've seen them already. That's why you lost the last two elections. People have longer memories than you think and nobody wants to go backward. We rejected stupid and voted for smart this time...again.
This is "your" President and apparently someone you are proud of especially the results he has generated. More statistics from "hate radio?"
24 Statistics Just to Verify Obama Has Been a Horrible President
Wingnut talking points. .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?