Really, it has. We can all pack up and go home now.
Just thought you should know...
Posted by Eric Earling at May 12, 2007 05:06 PM | Email ThisFrom Frank Rich's article: "Wrongdoing of this magnitude does not happen by accident, but it is not necessarily instigated by a Watergate-style criminal conspiracy. When corruption is this pervasive, it can also be a by-product of a governing philosophy. That's the case here. That Bush-Rove style of governance, the common denominator of all the administration scandals, is the Frankenstein creature that stalks the GOP as it faces 2008. It has become the Republican brand and will remain so, even after this president goes, until courageous Republicans disown it and eradicate it."
I couldn't have said it better....
Y'all need to clean up the corrupt filth that the GOP has morphed into.
America needs a right wing and a left wing to fly straight. If the right wing is all in prison, or facing prosecution, we will only go around in circles. I may not be as liberal as you think. One thing is for certain.
All Facts Support My Positions!
Posted by: Facts on May 12, 2007 05:27 PMThat, of course, makes you a rather worthless hypocrite, Lies... but then you already knew that, right?
And as for conservatives, Eric, I believe my pet cocker spaniel is more conservative then you are, so, perhaps, the discussions of conservatism, what it means, how it's implemented, should best be left to those who actually know something about it, and actually practice it.
Meanwhile, we'll muddle through somehow without you, much like we've muddled through without you for the pass 200 odd years or so.
Posted by: Hinton on May 12, 2007 05:48 PMEven thought some dems have problems, it seems another corrupt Republicon is found on a daily basis. Look at the governor of Nevada taking the $100,000 while a congressmen, and having a lobbyist pay for a cruise for his family, and a 727 to fly him to Florida.
If you can't admit the GOP is completely corrupt, and practices cronyism, instead of governing properly you must live on a different planet, or in a cave with no access to media.
Saying the dems are just as corrupt would mean you are totally insane.
Count the prosecutions. Imagine how bad it would be if Rove didn't handpick the Prosecutors....
Posted by: Facts on May 12, 2007 06:19 PMAnd shooting at each other makes no sense, either. Those of us on the right have more in common than not. Let's keep it that way.
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on May 12, 2007 06:59 PMInstead, aggressively, articulately, gleefully, good naturedly, humorously, joyfully, and righteously set out what we believe and propose and want to accomplish. I think we waste too much time trying to pick the lice of...those people...out of our hair. They're like tantrum driven childre...if you ignore them, after a while they calm down, go to sleep or suck their thumbs.
Besides...I make it a matter of policy not to engage in a battle of wit and words with someone who comes to the fray quite obviously unarmed, unskilled, and incompetent. When it's like that, it's not fun, its a brutal slaughter. Give me someone challenging, not...those people. Genuinely pathetic!
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on May 12, 2007 07:28 PMTheir motives are the hopes and dreams that the secular progressives will come in and take care of business and create their nanny state and judical anarchy to complement their agenda. They know that if they bet the drum often enough (without rebuttal from the right - who are really stupid if they don't rebut the left) that the sheeple will follow their lead for a Europeanization of America, which would be unbelievably stupid. The burden falls on the conservatives to regain the credibility that they lost since Bush took office - that's the reality.
In order to regain power, they will need to think outside the box for a change and be proactive and be able to point out the flaws (and there are many) of liberalism. They also need to stand strong for borders, language and culture and come up with an effective exit strategy from Iraq - except for the military bases that have been manned there, thanks to the Penagon. Neo-conservatives largely caused the mess that conservatives are in, and the traditional conservatives and denounce the neo-cons if thats what it takes. The right must come forward and walk their talk if the Republicans are going to mount a comeback in '08. Good luck with that - I have to say that based on the past 5 years, I am getting skeptical.
Posted by: KS on May 12, 2007 09:05 PMI noticed that I used they to describe both the right and the left, because I don't condone the actions by the right or the left much lately - both sides are wrong and I feel like the conservatives (subjugated by the neocons are also leaving me, like the Democrats did long ago.
Posted by: KS on May 12, 2007 09:11 PMThe problem is that while cutting taxes is somewhat popular, people tend to support most government programs. People want a government that delivers services effectively, whether that be education, war, or food stamps. People like to talk about limited government but when it comes to finding concrete things to discontinue it is hard to find many that are not popular.
Were conservative voices are needed is in ensuring efficiency and balance. Some things are best left to the private sector and some things are best left to the government. Fantasies aside private entities can't build roads. There are a lot of things however that work well in partnerships. Jet travel and the internet would be two that come to mind. Both came a bout as a result of both liberal and conservative impulses.
Posted by: Giffy on May 12, 2007 09:16 PMEvidence of this is how the new speaker of the house (Nan from Fran) engineered the recent take-back of congress by stocking the Democrat side with conservative Democrats. More proof that conservatism's is alive and well is that liberals still will not outline their full, end of the line goals for the country. If they did, they would be easily rebuked by a conservative nation. Instead, they use the courts and incrementalism to achieve their goals. Camel's nose under the tent . . .
At some space in time conservative politicians of the Republican stripe will figure out that trying to out liberal the liberals is no way to win back control.
That post may be the smartest thing you have left here.
I think that at some space in time you will realize that most any politician, Democrat or Republican, will sell you down the river for a vote or special interest cash. They do it every day with tariffs (that make it so you have to spend more money to by stuff), subsidies (ditto), and hundreds of laws that impinge on your freedom and cost you even more money. Once you realize that fact, you will understand that huge, ever growing intrusive government will bleed you until nothing is left. At that point you will probably start being a Republican voter.
There are a few decent candidates with the R in front of their name for President in 2008, but it is too early to really tell. Ron Paul is more of a cnnservative than anyone out there, but he will never win. Not sure about Fred Thompson - not a very dynamic speaker, but certainly more articulate than Bush. Mitt Romney sounded pretty good in the first so-called debate, so there may be hope, with new faces out there. Guilliani appears to be slipping and McCain - fuggetaboutit.
Posted by: KS on May 12, 2007 10:49 PMWhaaaaaaa????? Is she talking about the old Soviet Union, where only the party top guys lived well while everyone else stood in line for toilet paper and had to be grateful for a small, dingy apartment as "the good life for the average guy?" Or maybe she's talking about Castro's Cuba, where kids age 11 and up live the "good life" by being forced to go work in the fields?? And where they shoot you if you don't like living in Castro's dirty poverty? And where Castro's own daughter says the dream of everyone under 70 in Cuba is to leave Cuba?? Is that what she's talking about???
Sorry, lib girl not next door, but this country affords a shot at the good life for EVERYONE, if you're willing to work for it. And if what you earn doesn't get taken away by leftists who didn't feel it was yours to begin with!
Guilliani is the ONLY candidate who can beat Hillary in New York. Period! The rest are a fart in the wind.
This is a Guilliani vs Clinton battle.
Forget the babble, and get behind the fight.
Guilliani 2008
Heh Gregoire, where the F is our Property tax Bill you promised?
$1000 more this year alone.....
Thanks to King and Island counties, with a special reward going to the Island County assessor for his 11.4% increase in revenue collected this year from property taxes alone.
Stay tuned to November, where you will really be screwed!
Posted by: GS on May 12, 2007 11:21 PMSeriously. She actually compared conservatives to people who think her dogs wear muzzles. But oh, i gets better. She reads off some quote and continues:
'We contemplate the meaning of right mindfulness, right view, right intention, right understanding. Self-reflection means genuinely asking what are we doing, and why are we doing it?' That is exactly NOT, NOT the modus operandi of the ruling Republican body of this country, the ruling Republican ethos of the news media, and, unfortunately, for about fifty percent of the population, how they live their life. They are actually anti-self-reflective, anti-socially responsible, and genuniely disinterested. They seem to have a genuine distaste for evidence.
If you agree with liberals, you perceive the world correctly. If you disagree with them, you perceive the world incorrectly. Also you don't reflect or think. Half the country has incorrect views and incorrect understanding and never reflects, and that half is the half that disagrees with the liberals. It's really that simple.
And I wish I was exaggerating her claim. Obviously, I am not.
(And yes, I do watch Henry Rollins' show ... it's not for those who are easily offended. Like Garofalo, the dude's a pseudointellectual hater of everyone who disagrees with him. He's right because he's angry!)
The saddest part, other than their closed-mindedness, is not so much when they disagree with conservatives, but when they ignore clear facts. Like when LiberalGirl blames conservatives because we "work harder for less": in fact, wages have gone up across the board under Bush. Yes, we have increased income disparity, but mostly because the rich are just getting richer at a faster rate, not because the poor are getting poorer.
And on health care, for crying out loud, this problem was caused by conservatives? On what planet?
And so on.
The revisionism I've read here about the French election is quite comical. Jacques Chirac, no liberal or socialist, ends his 12 year reign as President of France on May 16th. He will be replaced by Nicolas Sarkozy, once minister of Chirac's, for the next 5 years.
But if it fits your dream world view to believe that France has just ousted a socialist government, and that that portends the same will happen in this country next year, because what happens in France (or doesn't) ends up happening here, suit yourself.
Posted by: Daniel K on May 12, 2007 11:59 PMThat said, the Republican Party (esp. in DC) has become something that we conservatives never liked, never wanted, and have a responsibility to change. That something is not about corruption though; corruption is a mere symptom of the disease.
That's what happens when you act like a democrat instead of a republican (little d, little r, intentional), and seek to perpetuate yourself in office through pandering to the people rather than abiding by principles.
Or maybe they saw Rudy the Fruity in another dress.
Posted by: Independent voter on May 13, 2007 05:34 AMUnfortunately I can't say the same for the two Republican reps -- Bailey and Strow -- in the 10th District, which takes up the northwest corner of the county. They aren't terrible, but they certainly could hold more consistently to conservative principles.
I don't know where you live, but in SnoCo, the conservatives dominate the Republican party, and conservative voices get plenty of hearing. Of course, the one example you cite is Dino Rossi, who is also from SnoCo.
Anyway, I agree with you that moderate/liberal Republicanism -- not conservatism -- is what has failed, however, much of the reason the GOP turned more toward this liberalism is because us conservatives didn't hold our elected officials' feet to the fire: they knew they had us conservatives, they took us for granted, and they got to work selling themselves off to win other votes that were less certain. They became Democrats, in many ways.
The failure is with the ELECTED and TRYING TO BE ELECTED Republicans. The don't counter or create ugly political attacks. The don't fight the MSM when they know lies are being published. They have no courage in the face of losing power. They simply roll over.
The liberals are the most vicious inbred sort of pitbull trained to fight till death.
Conservative are like our little white lab: one loud bark then she falls to her back to have her belly rubbed because more than anything she wants to be loved.
Liberals don't care if they're "liked" as long as they accrue power.
Conservatives are afraid to be disliked.
Liberals lie, change their minds, change their story say one thing and gleefully do another and NEVER look back, never apologize... and they get away with it. Harry Reid is a great example of that and the MSM allows them to get away with it.
Conservatives wallow in the angst of their mistakes, their bad decisions, their mind changes all while singing "Mea culpa, Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa". Rudy and the abortion issue is perfect example of that and of the media having different standards for their guys.
We need the collective cajones to fight the lies, to fight the collective fluid standards of the MSM and simply to fight back. We need politicians to stand up to smarmy little creeps like Chris Matthew and say "Hey, that's not a question for a candidate" or "did you ask Liberal Larry that question"? We need to expose them and no longer get away with these vile tactics.
Guliani is no Conservative, but he is probably the one guy that still has enough testosterone to expose the fraud, the hatefulnes, they lying, manipulation of liberals by calling their bluff.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 13, 2007 09:40 AMWe need to find a balance where government does it's job, and has enough resources to do so, and we are free to prosper, without any excess waste of our tax dollars.
Liberals and conservative may differ on where to draw the lines, but everyone expects the government to help them out in hundreds of areas. This takes taxes. Sometimes it takes more taxes.
For instance, last night someone robbed and killed your wife. You had better hope the sheriff's department has enough resources to investigate, and find the killer. The courts have enough resources to prosecute the killer. The state has enough resources to imprison (or execute) the convicted killer.
Is it a stretch to insure the killer's dad had the ability to get a good job so his mom could stay home and raise him properly, if she wanted to? If the killer showed signs of having problems that mental help was readily available, and affordable? If problems continued that drug and alcohol treatment was available and easy to get? That there was a society that provided resources to help straighten out problem children before they kill?
Possibly not in a conservative world. They just blame the killer, and the parents. It is all their fault right?
Just remember. It may be your ass needing help someday. Ever heard of cancer? Outsourcing? Accidents? Divorce?
Posted by: Facts on May 13, 2007 12:10 PMIn other words, 80 percent of Americans are Conservative.
However, the other 20 percent, who want to accrete power, control the large media, and so they have made Conservative = Mr. Burns.
Look in the mirror. 4 out of 5 times, you will see a Conservative.
"Sometimes"?
Raising taxes is the liberal answer to every problem, perceived or real. Oh, and don't forget, it's "for the children".
Guilliani is the ONLY candidate who can beat Hillary in New York. Period!
Which is why Hillary consistently outpolled him in the 2000 NY senate election? Here's an excerpt from one:
February 23, 1999 - Hillary Clinton Doubles Lead In Senate Bid With Giuliani, Quinnipiac College Poll Finds; Mayor Leads In Understanding New York State Issues
First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton has doubled her lead over New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in their undeclared U.S. Senate race to 54 - 36 percent, an 18-point gap, with a 62 - 27 percent lead among women, according to a Quinnipiac College poll released today.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1318.xml?ReleaseID=707
Many Americans, including those of color are in fact conservative on many issues. Many voters of color have been sold a bill of goods about government programs. Why is it that Comrade Ivan and other secular progressives are conveniently absent when the discussion turns to helping low-income communities and communties of color become independent. They will never condemn hip hop thugs, they don't want enterprise zones, they don't want good and effective schools in low-income communities because that means ending the union stranglehold on education. They claim that communities of color are so stupid they can't be taught to properly register and obtain identity documents. Comrade Ivan and his ilk depend upon a permanent underclass to retain their power and privledges. Their livelihood depends upon their fat administrative jobs administering benefits to the underclass that they keep that way. Conservatism which would produce economic empowerment in communties of color is a real threat to them.
Another culprit is both parties ideological purity test. I would have voted for dem, Evan Bayh, but I won't vote for Obama and Hillary as they are socialists. If you think socialism works, go to Britain. I am looking at Thompson.
Conservatism has failed, not as a theory but because there has not been governance based on conservative principles.
No such thing! They love paying as much as they can!
Posted by: dcat on May 13, 2007 01:47 PMUh I believe Bill Richardson cut taxes in New Mexico.
To pay off the debts accrued during the disastrous Bush years, a return to the Clinton tax structure on the wealthy class and tightened tax law enforcement is needed. It would be helpful if the DOD could pass a GAO audit.
Posted by: John on May 13, 2007 02:32 PMThe problem is that we disagree with you about what the government's job is. Especially at the federal level, where we recognize most of what the government does as unconstitutional.
No one here thinks the government should not have the revenue, through taxes or other means, to be able to do its job effectively. Duh. Your implication that conservatives think we should not adequately fund the sheriff's department, through taxes if necessary, is a straw man.
Weren't you the poster that stated a few threads back that public education wasn't all that important. From your postings, I see why you feel that way.
I will only speak for my own group and my research and observations. The two largest real life examples of the failures of your ideology
are the Black family and low-income groups in Britain:
Monopolies and high taxes hurt the poor
By Janet Daley
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 05/03/2007
Lower taxes and more choice in public services: I expect that, in your heart of hearts, those are the things you would like to be offered by a future government. But I'll bet that you are embarrassed to say so.
If you are a reasonably affluent, socially competent person, you probably feel that even though such a regime would suit you down to the ground - enabling you to keep more of your own earnings and spend them on the basis of your own informed judgments - that it would be unfair to the poor, who must depend on governments to provide them with what they are ill-equipped to procure for themselves.
You may even feel that it is selfish and irresponsible to suggest breaking up centrally run government monopolies in health and state education on the grounds that only national distribution can ensure that the less well-off get access to the sorts of services that the rich may buy.
Would you be surprised to learn that poorer sections of the population have benefited disproportionately from privatised, deregulated services, but that they are getting distinctly inferior treatment from services still being run by the state?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/03/05/do0501.xml
That opinion is from the UK, famous for its welfare state.
I know that you and comrade Ivan would bust a gut at this next suggestion, but megachurches in the Black community are far more effective than the socialized programs that many secular progressives get big salaries to run. Potter's House run by Bishop TD Jakes, Dr. Creflo Dollar and Prophetess Julie Hitchen's Joshua Tree church are far more effective in turning around lives in my community that a boat load of secular progressive weasels ever could. So, at least when it comes to my community, Facts-why don't you get some facts?
Outstanding! Then one can concluded that the methods employed are so effective no taxpayer support is needed.
Great news for readers of this blog.
Posted by: John on May 13, 2007 04:00 PMThe Christian community has long had the tithe. Also, there are certain programs that are secular progressive that receive government funding like Planned Parenthood. I suppose you want their funding cut as well? I suppose you are referring to the faith based initiative? If you want all government funding cut for social programs, then let's do it and give a charitable donation deduction to all taxpayers, even those that don't itemize. In reality, many churches are not applying for federal funds because they don't want the regulation. Many conservative Black churches do not want government telling them what sermons to preach.
The answer is you just want funding cut to faith based groups and not Planned Parenthood for abortions including partial birth abortions, don't you?
A new book called Religous Faith and Charitable Giving by Arthur C. Brooks gave the following stats:
Giving and volunteering, by the numbers
How do religious and secular people vary in their charitable behavior? To answer this, I turn to data collected expressly to explore patterns in American civic life. The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (sccbs) was undertaken in 2000 by researchers at universities throughout the United States and the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. The data consist of nearly 30,000 observations drawn from 50 communities across the United States and ask individuals about their "civic behavior," including their giving and volunteering during the year preceding the survey.
From these data, I have constructed two measures of religious participation. First, the group I refer to as "religious" are the respondents that report attending religious services every week or more often. This is 33 percent of the sample. Second, the group I call "secular" report attending religious services less than a few times per year or explicitly say they have no religion. These people are 26 percent of the sample (implying that those who practice their religion occasionally make up 41 percent of the sample). The sccbs asked respondents whether and how much they gave and volunteered to "religious causes" or "non-religious charities" over the previous 12 months. Across the whole population, 81 percent gave, while 57 percent volunteered.
The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.
Socioeconomically, the religious and secular groups are similar in some ways and different in others. For example, there is little difference between the groups in income (both have average household incomes around $49,000) or education level (20 percent of each group holds a college degree). On the other hand, the secular group is disproportionately male (49 percent to 32 percent), unmarried (58 percent to 40 percent), and young (42 to 49 years old, on average). In addition, the sccbs data show that religion and secularism break down on ideological lines: Religious people are 38 percentage points more likely to say they are conservative than to say they are liberal (57 percent to 19 percent). In contrast, secular people are 13 points more likely to say they are liberal than to say they are conservative (42 percent to 29 percent).
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3447051.html
Posted by: WVH on May 13, 2007 04:19 PMREAL conservatives are libertarians like Barry Goldwater and Ron Paul. But if the R's nominate fiscal-conservative, anti-war Republican Ron Paul, they have a chance at beating Hillary or Obama, and recovering their conservative reputation.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on May 13, 2007 04:26 PMREAL conservatives are libertarians like Barry Goldwater and Ron Paul. But if the R's nominate fiscal-conservative, anti-war Republican Ron Paul, they have a chance at beating Hillary or Obama, and recovering their conservative reputation.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on May 13, 2007 04:26 PMDrive you car over one of those big earthen dams making a giant water reservoir, like Blue Mesa Dam in Colorado. Today you will see a Chev. Suburban and one or two armed guards. Same for all Nat-Guard posts, chemical plants, power stations, ports, you name them. The infrastructure all over the Nation, and much of the world is being protected from terrorists, but with our dollars.
That protection co$ts a lot, and it either had to take money from Government Welfare/Pork/Waste programs, or it had to come on top of worthless spending already given (mostly) by Democrats.
=============
IRAQ?
The entire Musilim world is ready to tip over, and there will be no "frendly" Musilim nations. Israel is being taken over slowly, just like Europe. Pakistan will go, along with Eygpt, and the House of Saud. War may break out with India and Pakistan. Russia is becoming our enemy again, and South America is getting Communistic. The UN is corrupt. China is using the Home Depot-Wal-Mart $$$ to build massive military strength to use against the USA.
Central Africa is in a musilim war, and south African countries are in corruption and race wars against whites and Christians.
Our American Liberals are in a War against America, and against Christian Values. They see nothing else, and know no History, and few facts.
They are paid wages with tax dollars levied on other workers and companies, and as a group, they produce little of any value.
I for one would keep the foothold in the Middle East for a long time.
You could make a case for interventionism both ways: certainly it should be the default reaction of conservatives to mind our own business unless it directly affects us, but sometimes, as in Iraq, the very question was whether our own best interests in the long term were better served by engaging, or not. I am normally a noninterventionist myself, but I found part of the case for intervention in Iraq (not the WMD stuff, though) compelling.
(Basically: that without some sort of intervention to remove significant roadblocks to progress in the Middle East -- and Hussein's Iraq was not merely a roadblock to his own people, but to most of his neighbors too, including Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and so on -- the entire region would not begin to see liberty [political, social, economic] and would therefore continue its trend toward fanatacism which will continue to spread unrest across Europe and Asia and ignite a new World War.)
Similarly, prohibition on some individuial liberties can be considered conservative, though I certainly think the weight is much greater on the personal liberty side of the scale, which is why I tend to be libertarian on such issues.
But I don't see how big government social programs like NCLB and Medicare could possibly be seen as conservative. I frankly think anyone who believes these are conservative simply does not understand conservatism. At all.
Note on faith-based initiatives though: I believe that most of those were not new programs, but new efforts to have existing programs funnel more funds to religious organizations, as long as they didn't use those funds for evangelism and so on. While I am against the programs themselves, I do firmly believe that if they exist, religious groups should not be discriminated against. Which may, indeed, be an argument for why they should not exist.
But I digress: the point is that most of those programs are not created by the current Republicans in Congress, but by previous Democratic and Republican administrations.
"59. Ahh! So many right-wing canards, so little time."
1. List the canards
2. Cite your sources
Otherwise, STFU.
Posted by: WVH on May 13, 2007 07:42 PMOh, were it true. Here is the next secular progressive constituency. Bet a nice bottle of wine that King County will be mining their votes in five years :-):
"Animal law courses are now taught in 79 out of 180 United States law schools, [7] and the idea of extending personhood to animals has the support of some senior legal scholars, including Alan Dershowitz [8] and Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School.[6] The Seattle-based Great Ape Project is campaigning for the United Nations to adopt a Declaration on Great Apes, which would see gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees and bonobos included in a "community of equals" with human beings, extending to them the protection of three basic interests: the right to life, the protection of individual liberty, and the prohibition of torture.[9] This is seen by an increasing number of animal rights lawyers as a first step toward granting rights to other animals...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights
Posted by: WVH on May 13, 2007 08:53 PMI don't take orders from you and I don't have the time to answer your tired talking points.
Your citations are right-wing. Hoover is a right-wing stink tank. The Telegraph is jokingly referred to in Britain as the Torygraph.
Posted by: John on May 13, 2007 09:27 PMDo you have any secular progressive cites that would enlighten the discussion? Hi Ivan, is this your new nom de plume? The secular
progressive argument is a bit like the Goebels disinformation campaign:
1. Insult demean or disparage any opponent
2. The big lie told over and over again
3. Never cite any facts from any source,
disparage any fact that is put forth, then
see point 2
So, John/Ivan do you have any information to back
up your opinions, or is telling any form of the truth just to difficult for you?
http://www.slate.com/id/2165980/
Posted by: Facts on May 13, 2007 11:03 PM2. Those who bemoan the notion that conservatives have done nothing to cleanse the RINOS out of the GOP ranks have not been paying attention. Of course, neither have the RINOs who have taken over the GOP.
3. Facts, anyone who presents himself/herself as something they are not and refuses to answer a challenge for proof is a liar. So yeah, I'm calling you a liar. And a dork. A BIG dork.
4. John, you're just a dork.
5. Each side accuses the other of corruption. Both sides are run by unscrupulous and spineless dorks. Is it any wonder that our country is as fouled up as it is?
Posted by: NurseWilliam on May 14, 2007 04:50 AMYes, please, please do!
We have a right wing nurse here. Interesting. Practices compassionate and attentive nursing in the clinic and reads Little Green Footballs in his off time. The content of his comment can be summed up in two words: RINO and dork.
Posted by: John on May 14, 2007 07:52 AMPeople with character flaws are distributed across the spectrum. They come in all flavors. So, naming crooks and corrupt people of either party, all colors and all religions is not helpful. This thread is about the discussion of conservativtism as a philosophy. The issue is which philosophy is best for running a successful society and culture. There are two real life examples of the failure of the secular progressive ideology that are current and one huge one in the past. The current failures are the British welfare system and the destruction
the Black family. The huge past failure is the Soviet system. So, John/Ivan you don't like conservative cites. Can either of you provide cites about how well the secular progressive ideology you espouse is doing in our society with family formation, education of children, and moving people out of dependency? Thought so.
Fine. Let's turn to one of the fathers of the post-WWII conservative movement in this country: Barry Goldwater:
Barry Goldwater once wrote that flying an airplane is "the ultimate extension of individual freedom." He neglected to note that a pilot not hemmed in by the intricate regulatory apparatus of the skies may get only as far as the plane he collides with in midair.
Of his family he would say, "We didn't know the federal government. Everything that was done, we did it ourselves." But Big Mike's [BG's grandfather] rise came from knowing the federal government intimately. The Arizona Territory he traveled to in 1860 to follow a gold strike developed as a virtual ward of the federal government, used as a base for fighting the Indian Wars. "Hostilities in Arizona are kept up with a view of protecting inhabitants," a general sardonically observed, "most of whom are supported by the hostilities." The money to build Big Mike's first Goldwater's store in 1872 came largely from contracts for provisioning Army camps and delivering mail.
His [BG's] generation's coming marked the greatest confluence of all federal largesse to Arizona and Goldwater fortune: the Roosevelt Dam, begun in 1905. The population of nearby Phoenix, fattened by construction money, doubled in five years.
Washington operated fifty different federal agencies in Arizona, in addition to the Hoover Dam project. Federal Funds totaling $342 million went to the state, and less than $16 million in taxes were remitted in return.
Imagine that.. Arizona on welfare.
Posted by: John on May 14, 2007 11:34 AM1. You still haven't produced in cites regarding
how effective your philosophy of choice,
secular progressivism is in creating and
maintaining a successful society and
culture.
2. You have by chance stumbled on to a legitimate
question for discussion which is the role
of government and what services should
government provide and fund? That is
truly a worthy of discussion.
So, since you have stumbled on to a discussion topic, what services should government provide and fund in your world of ideology? Where should the money go?
Posted by: WVH on May 14, 2007 11:47 AMAccording to you. I'm for anything that works - the greatest good for the greatest number, i.e. utility.
"clerical conservatism" was tried in the middle ages. It didn't work.
It's ironic that we're supposed to be fighting "clerical conservatives" of the Islamic flavor. But it makes sense - a war waged between two armies of "clerical conservatives".
Posted by: John on May 14, 2007 12:09 PMYou live in Florida by any chance?
" I'm for anything that works - the greatest good for the greatest number, i.e. utility."
Does your secular progressive philosophy really give the greatest good for the greatest number?
What is that based on, your opinion? Do you have any liberal studies or articles or are you simply going to claim that you don't respond because you don't take orders from anyone?
A secular progressive is:
".... "secular-progressives" are individuals who are not content with the current state of affairs in the United States. Secular-progressives wish to "mold [America] in the image of Western Europe." In Chapter 1, [1], O'Reilly describes secular-progressive goals as:
The redistribution of wealth via systems such as the progressive income tax, which disproportionately tax the wealthiest members of society
A decrease in school discipline in order to promote "their so-called liberties"
An increase in hostility towards religious values and their expression (accomplished through the support of legal organizations in their efforts to remove religious icons from publicly-owned spaces)
The implementation of a one-world approach to foreign relations by promoting a foreign policy in which American interests are not necessarily considered first
The furtherance of an emotion-based society that places individual self-expression and rights over self-sacrifice and adult responsibility...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_Warrior
What is clerical conservatism, can you define it?
The Anger Of The Left
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
That people on the political left have a certain set of opinions, just as people do in other parts of the ideological spectrum, is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is how often the opinions of those on the left are accompanied by hostility and even hatred.
Particular issues can arouse passions here and there for anyone with any political views. But, for many on the left, indignation is not a sometime thing. It is a way of life.
How often have you seen conservatives or libertarians take to the streets, shouting angry slogans? How often have conservative students on campus shouted down a visiting speaker or rioted to prevent the visitor from speaking at all?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=the_anger_of_the_left&ns=ThomasSowell&dt=05/15/2007&page=full&comments=true
I don't think conservatism is dead, but many of the angry progressives might eventually be from heart attacks and strokes because of their anger.
Posted by: WVH on May 14, 2007 11:55 PMMay 15, 2007
Congress Approval Down to 29%; Bush Approval Steady at 33%
Both ratings are slightly lower than 2007 averages
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27589
Since you clearly harbor visceral revulsion towards "secular-progressives", clearly the "clerical conservative" must be its opposite and the paragon of virtue, but you don't need me to tell you that.
Just look in the mirror.
You've labeled me from the start. That's ok. It's the habit and conceit of the small-minded.
Posted by: John on May 15, 2007 08:56 AMThat is, if one accepts my definition of "success".
Posted by: John on May 15, 2007 09:06 AMWhat was rather humerous about The (liberal)Girl Next Door's rant is that she like most liberals tends to get easily confused and thinks that all Republicans are conservative...
Usually when I try to wade through a site like her's I keep another window open with the Liberal Lexicon
A Conservative's Dictionary of Libberish handy so I can interpret what she and her fellow travelers are try to say...
Also, your comment comparing Christian conservatives to Islamic terrorists or anything that was going on in the Middle Ages is nonsense. In other news, George Bush is Hitler.
You're either a really bad troll, or you're really stupid.
Oh my Latin. Now we're getting into some serious discussion here.
And you've crafted a little song that you're promoting. No conceit there.
Let me state at the outset - I believe Bush is NOT Hitler - being George W. Bush should be enough for anyone or more than enough as it appears that a super-majority has had it to the eyeballs with the delusional incompetent.
"Clerical Conservatives" of both the Islamic and the Christian varieties indeed bear disturbing similarities to one another. Both see themselves as locked in a existential battle to end all battles and both have eschewed all reason in pursuit of their respective manias.
Posted by: John on May 15, 2007 09:34 AMThe secular progressive argument, the Islamofacist argument and David, et al. is a bit like the Goebels disinformation campaign:
1. Insult demean or disparage any opponent
2. The big lie told over and over again
3. Never cite any facts from any source,
disparage any fact that is put forth, then
see point 2
So, John, et al. do you have any information to back up your opinions, or is telling any form of the truth just too difficult for you?
Posted by: WVH on May 15, 2007 09:36 AMOmigosh! First I was Ivan, then I was Dave and now I live in Florida.
Wrong on all three counts and dangerously wrong on just about everything else of consequence.
I missed on Ivan, possibly wrong on Florida, I said you were close, very close to David et al.
So, are you local, Detroit, Syracuse, D.C. or LA?
Do you have any liberal tracts supporting your statements or your version of truth. Do you have any cites from any source to back your opinions?
What the heck is a clerical conservative, please define?
I did a tete a tete many, many threads ago with David et al, who use to claim to be a Christian about the evils of religion and the fact that there was a moral equivalence betweeen Islamofacist thugs and Christians. Is that also your position?
Also, you probably will disagree with this but there is no moral equivalence between an Islamofacist murdering thug or a hip hop murdering thug for that matter and most people of faith.
Posted by: WVH on May 15, 2007 10:08 AMHm? What did I say about conceit? Nothing. I quoted you saying it. I never implied I have no conceit; I was merely noting the fact that you were doing precisely what YOU called "the habit and conceit of the small-minded."
If what you really meant is that you yourself are small-minded, so be it, because that is what you actually said, and I was just pointing that out.
"Clerical Conservatives" of both the Islamic and the Christian varieties indeed bear disturbing similarities to one another.
Not to people capable of perspective, no, they do not.
Both see themselves as locked in a existential battle to end all battles and both have eschewed all reason in pursuit of their respective manias.
That's the question-begging fallacy, of course. If you disagree with something, therefore it is the abandonment of reason! (Hint: it is only an abandonment of reason if you can identify something that you can objectively analyze as unreasonable.)
It's also a red herring. The danger posed by Islamist extremists is not in some vague existentialist notions. By that standard, Richard Dawkins poses the exact same threat, because he seems himself also fighting this mythical battle (and, of course, it's quite clear in many ways that he, too, has abandoned reason, himself making scores of fallacious claims in his latest anti-God book).
The danger posed by extremists is not in what they think or believe, but in what they are willing to do to accomplish their goals: namely, kill or subjugate everyone who disagrees with them. While there are certainly some Christians who feel similarly, you would be hard-pressed to find them at large, and they are completely rejected by all mainstream Christian groups.
Indeed, conservative Christians almost universally believe strongly in democracy, not force (at least, they would use no more force to push their agenda than most liberals do: making cigarettes, cell phones, cars, guns, and so on illegal, forcing teachers to contribute to Democratic candidates, control over alcohol purchases, and so on).
Calling an Islamist extremist -- one who wants to implement big-government fascism and destroy nearly all civil liberties -- "conservative" stretches the meaning of "conservative" beyond usefulness. Which, I suspect, is your goal. It's called the fallacy of equivocation: comparing two things that are "conservative" that are only "conservative" in very different senses of the word.
Hmmm. You must be consulting site meter.
First the obsession with putting me into a box then there's pinning down my location. I won't indulge you. Stefan might help you but even he must tire of never-ending requests for the identity of people with the temerity to express a differing point of view.
On moral equivalence - I see the end-results: needless death, carnage, misery and hatred resulting in even more violence. On that score, I see little difference between the Islamist thug, the drug-gang enforcer and the "clerical conservative" christian cadet in the air force academy who yearns to obey the dictates of his god over those of his "secular" commander with his finger on the trigger of a weapon of mass death.
I would never ask Stefan to out your location, part of the fun of blogging is finding out things.
What the heck is a clerical conservative, you have never defined it? I remember going round and round with David et al. about defintions. What is your defintion of clerical conservative?
Clearly. WVH might have a bit to learn from your command of rhetoric but your application of it leaves little to be desired.
You believe that people who disagree with you think Bush is Hitler. I hear this countless times from people on the right. This belief has inspired you to craft a song. How inspiring indeed. A song born of the echo chamber.
Well, I refuted that but no matter.
Posted by: John on May 15, 2007 11:07 AMYou like to ask that question. Take another smart pill. I answered it in 80.
But I'll boil it down further for you. You disdain "secular-progressives". A clerical conservative is someone more within your comfort zone.
Posted by: John on May 15, 2007 11:12 AMThis is what you said:
" "clerical conservative" must be its opposite and the paragon of virtue, but you don't need me to tell you that."
"You disdain "secular-progressives". A clerical conservative is someone more within your comfort zone."
Now, let's dispense with the Goebels playbook of insults. What traits does a clerical conservative exhibit? Do you have any sources for your definition, is there a dictionary defintion? Is there a Wikapedia definition? Can you even cite Al Franken or Michael Moore?
Back to the Goebels plan, repeating a lie over and over again does not make it truth.
Surely, Al Franken must have defined the term, you could quote him, can't you?
Posted by: WVH on May 15, 2007 11:23 AMI did try to get David et al banned from the site, is that why your group is so upset? Check the quotes for Al Franken, I believe he is running for the senate from Minnesota, he might be able to help you define clerical conservative
and give you a source for your definition.
Thanks! (If you didn't intend to compliment me, then perhaps you could learn a bit from my command of rhetoric, as well.)
You believe that people who disagree with you think Bush is Hitler. ... This belief has inspired you to craft a song.
That wouldn't even make sense. Then the song would just be a straw man, and what fun is that? No, the song makes fun of people who literally make such comparisons, not people who merely disagree with me. And don't tell me that no one says Bush is Hitler, or Big Brother, or a Fascist, or Stalin, or whomever. People do it all the time, and those are the people I am making fun of.
And I brought it up because you are doing something similar. Here's a new verse to the song that I just made up, that makes fun of your view:
Christians are religiofascists
They want to kill everyone
Christians are religiofascists
They shot my grandma with a gun
Christians are religiofascists
They blew up the World Trade Center towers
And everybody knows
Christians are religiofascists
That's the case you are making, that you want us to believe, that there is some reasonable comparison between Christian "clerical conservatives" and the enemy we face in Islamic terrorists. And it is obviously nonsense.
I'd record that verse for you on the spot, but I have a throat infection.
This is too funny. Why am I not surprised?
Posted by: John on May 15, 2007 02:18 PMWell if you have any constructive purpose with your artistic creation then perhaps you should have changed the title but since your audience is the right wing echo chamber and that's where you feel at home, it's probably more or less perfect.
As for me I've heard this Bushitler meme from the right for YEARS. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz....
that there is some reasonable comparison between Christian "clerical conservatives" and the enemy we face in Islamic terrorists.
Yes there is. GWB looks to guidance from his "higher father" to craft foreign policy. OBL does the same. Some radical Christians at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs would also be guided similarly in tactical or strategic planning. Mikey Weinstein, a former Reagan administration official, has formed an organization to expose and oppose this.
Underlying all of this is fear, hatred and lust for power. Both sides use each other to advance their aims.
Write all the disparaging jingles you want about this. It doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Posted by: John on May 15, 2007 02:49 PMYou are assuming it is not constructive to take someone's absurd argument and point out why it is absurd. I contend that it is.
As for me I've heard this Bushitler meme from the right for YEARS. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz....
Yes, it is tiring to hear leftists say that Bush is Hitler. That's the point: to have a little fun with it, and hopefully show them how stupid they are being.
Yes there is. GWB looks to guidance from his "higher father" to craft foreign policy. OBL does the same.
Yes, that's precisely my point. This is not a reasonable comparison. That's like saying, "Hitler wanted the government to control the train system, and so do Democrats. Therefore Democrats are comparable to Hitler." It's the equivocation fallacy.
Underlying all of this is fear, hatred and lust for power. Both sides use each other to advance their aims.
As do liberals and Democrats, of course. You're doing it right now: you are trying to make people fear and hate conservative Christians in order to keep and maintain power and advance your aims. Indeed, you engage in this spreading of fear and hatred to advance your aims far more than most "conservative Christians" I know.
Write all the disparaging jingles you want about this. It doesn't mean it isn't happening.
You're right, a song doesn't mean it isn't happening. The fact that it isn't happening means it isn't happening. Again, that is the point. Simply saying that Bush eats eggs, and OBL eats eggs, does not mean they are both bad.
You would have to actually show that seeking guidance from God in foreign policy is itself a bad thing that necessarily leads to terrible outcomes. I don't think George Washington would agree, as he sought guidance from God. As did, one presumes, most Presidents throughout history, such as the one who said:
And in our own search for peace and good will, in spite of setbacks and criticisms and sometimes the undertaking of tasks that are not easily performed, I have a sense of confidence that if we emphasize and reinforce those ties of mutual faith and our subservience and humility before God and an acquiescence in his deeply sought guidance, that we can prevail.
That would be Jimmy Carter, in 1978. So is Carter comparable to OBL too? Perhaps you should call him Osama Bin Carter?
Posted by: pudge on May 15, 2007 03:03 PMYou are assuming it is not constructive to take someone's absurd argument and point out why it is absurd. I contend that it is.
As for me I've heard this Bushitler meme from the right for YEARS. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz....
Yes, it is tiring to hear leftists say that Bush is Hitler. That's the point: to have a little fun with it, and hopefully show them how stupid they are being.
Yes there is. GWB looks to guidance from his "higher father" to craft foreign policy. OBL does the same.
Yes, that's precisely my point. This is not a reasonable comparison. That's like saying, "Hitler wanted the government to control the train system, and so do Democrats. Therefore Democrats are comparable to Hitler." It's the equivocation fallacy.
Underlying all of this is fear, hatred and lust for power. Both sides use each other to advance their aims.
As do liberals and Democrats, of course. You're doing it right now: you are trying to make people fear and hate conservative Christians in order to keep and maintain power and advance your aims. Indeed, you engage in this spreading of fear and hatred to advance your aims far more than most "conservative Christians" I know.
Write all the disparaging jingles you want about this. It doesn't mean it isn't happening.
You're right, a song doesn't mean it isn't happening. The fact that it isn't happening means it isn't happening. Again, that is the point. Simply saying that Bush eats eggs, and OBL eats eggs, does not mean they are both bad.
You would have to actually show that seeking guidance from God in foreign policy is itself a bad thing that necessarily leads to terrible outcomes. I don't think George Washington would agree, as he sought guidance from God. As did, one presumes, most Presidents throughout history, such as the one who said:
And in our own search for peace and good will, in spite of setbacks and criticisms and sometimes the undertaking of tasks that are not easily performed, I have a sense of confidence that if we emphasize and reinforce those ties of mutual faith and our subservience and humility before God and an acquiescence in his deeply sought guidance, that we can prevail.
That would be Jimmy Carter, in 1978. So is Carter comparable to OBL too? Perhaps you should call him Osama Bin Carter?
Posted by: pudge on May 15, 2007 03:12 PMYour box has a bit more class FWIW even though by the definition you've provided I don't believe I fit very well into it.
Additionally, if I was a student in Mr. Pudge's rhetoric class, I'd drop it in a hot minute.
Posted by: John on May 15, 2007 03:19 PMRightists repeat the same tired talking points.
Indeed, you engage in this spreading of fear and hatred to advance your aims far more than most "conservative Christians" I know.
Yes you only "know of" Monica Goodling, Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Sun Myung Moon.
It's the equivocation fallacy.
Made all the time by the right in numerous propaganda outlets. One that comes to mind is Instapundit positing Ward Churchill as the face of the Democratic Party.
The fact that it isn't happening means it isn't happening.
Any comment about Mikey Weinstein? Of course not. Then you'd have to acknowledge something is happening.
Here's a taste:
When I began asking questions about what I saw going on at Colorado Springs in 2004 I never expected that the inquiry would lead me to the horrifying conclusion that our country had been taken over by people who have used our own freedoms to enslave us. But that is what happened. When I began I, like most people, was focused on the personal. I believed that what was happening at the United States Air Force Academy, the harassment of cadets and staff with unwanted evangelism, was limited in scope. As the months passed, however, I found myself forced to constantly reassess my basic assumptions
And
I undertook this campaign to oppose those who were violating the principle of separation of Church and State head on and to make the public aware. I now understand that to undo the damage done Americans must come together to organize the dispersed elements opposing these forces that have gone so far in converting America into a theocracy that substitutes one parochial world view of the Bible as law, displacing the democratic foundation of our nationhood.Posted by: John on May 15, 2007 03:42 PM
Sure, some do. So write your own song! Here, I'll get you started.
Hillary's a Commie
She took everything from you
Hillary's a Commie
She murders Christians, too
Hillary's a Commie
Her underwear is red
And everybody knows
Hillary's a Commie
Feel better? Of course, I can't record that song: ignorant people might think I was serious. Like one idiot who was mad at me after I made this fake campaign ad I made in 2004 using actual footage of a Kerry supporter hitting a Bush supporter in Everett.
Yes you only "know of" Monica Goodling, Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Sun Myung Moon.
Wow. Two lies in one sentence, neat. First you deceptively misquoted me, saying I said "know of" when I said "know;" second, you said Moon is -- in the sense of what conservatives Christians think -- a conservative Christian. Not even close.
That said, I do sortof know(of) James Dobson. I know of him and he knows of me (I am friends with his son Ryan, and do audio commentaries on Ryan's podcast). Not that this means anything, but while I am asserting that I said "know" and not "know of," I don't want to make any false implications the other way.
Made all the time by the right in numerous propaganda outlets. One that comes to mind is Instapundit positing Ward Churchill as the face of the Democratic Party.
I don't follow any right-wing media outlets except for Sound Politics, and National Review (the paper magazine, not the web site). Most of my news I get from CNN and PBS NewsHour. So ... shrug. That's got nothing to do with me.
Funny that your arguments here all directed at other people essentially unaffiliated with me, instead of me. Why do you think that is?
Any comment about Mikey Weinstein?
No. I do not, as a rule, respond to unsubstantiated allegations. It's a waste of time. That's why I watch NewsHour instead of MSNBC/CNN/Fox.
Nice dodge. Continue to stick your head in the sand if you wish.
Also please know that while I have hovered my mouse cursor over your links to discern their content, I have not clicked on them nor intend to ever do so.
Posted by: John on May 15, 2007 05:45 PMUm ... in fact, there is nothing to dodge. Provide some evidence, and I will consider it.
You can think anything was actually established ... continue to stick your head in the sand if you wish.
You see, I am a rational person. If there is no possibility I can reasonably judge the validity of something, then I do not bother trying. You only believe his story because you want to; this is obvious. It is not possible that you were convinced by the evidence, since none was presented.
Shrug.
Also please know that while I have hovered my mouse cursor over your links to discern their content, I have not clicked on them nor intend to ever do so.
Hm. So you're admitting that you are the small-minded one. Neat!
I should be more clear. I find you boring and deceitful. You want to avoid the issues I raise by picking to pieces HOW I raise them. I don't find you funny or even mildly interesting. So I avoid the links to your website. Nothing personal, I just have better things to do.
Provide some evidence, and I will consider it.
Mikey Weinstein is a former Reagan administration official and a staunch Republican. His son was hazed in the Air Force Academy by Christian extremists. The kind that I'm talking about. At least one accused him of killing Jesus Christ.
In the course of his investigations Weinstein discovered that Christian proselytizing during on-duty hours was rampant throughout the ranks of the military.
Since Weinstein has formed his organization many in the military have come forward to testify to the truth of these allegations.
Weinstein makes the argument that in the private sector, a corporate officer would risk a catastrophic lawsuit if corporate policy included proselytizing to employees during work hours. Currently, there are no such proscriptions in the military. He wants to change this.
If you look at Weinstein's website you will see parts of a video produced by an organization called Christian Embassy. The content of the video is targeted at officers and enlisted men who the organization wishes to convert to Christianity, the "un-churched" as one Chaplain associated with CE puts it. It is important to note that the video shows men in uniform presenting its message of religious conversion.
I don't expect you to take this seriously because it supports my position about conservative Christian extremism. You will of course denigrate the evidence I've provided and all but dismiss Mikey Weinstein as a liar and a crackpot. Interesting that you would do this to a staunch Reagan man and Republican.
Huh. Maybe you should actually describe in what ways you have "found" me to be deceitful. That oughtta be good. Fire away!
You want to avoid the issues I raise by picking to pieces HOW I raise them.
Talk about deceit! In fact, you were attempting to create issues BASED merely on HOW you described them, rather than pointing out actual problems. So instead of trying to show that Bush's religious views are dangerous, you simply note that Osama Bin Laden also has religious views that are vaguely similar (along with most of the rest of humans on the planet). That is textbook deceit.
And my picking apart those nonsensical characterizations is certainly fair game, at any level. It's called challenging the premise.
I don't find you funny or even mildly interesting.
Shrug. I guess it was already obvious that you completely lack any sense of humor. So sad.
So I avoid the links to your website. Nothing personal, I just have better things to do.
Shrug. So go do them, and stop trolling soundpolitics with your nonsense. Be my guest.
If you look at Weinstein's website you will see parts of a video produced by an organization called Christian Embassy. ...
Ah, so you're a hypocrite. You won't look at my links, but expect me to look at yours. Typical liberalism.
And even better, you don't even link to the evidence you claim exists, but want me to hunt it down instead.
The answer is, of course, no.
If you actually show me the evidence, I will consider it, because obviously I am a far more rational person than you are. However, I will once again note the fact that you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence. You've merely claimed it exists.
You gave me the guy's bio, as if it has anything to do with his allegations that America is being turned into a "theocracy" that is "displacing the democratic foundation of our nationhood." Saying he worked for Reagan and that he claims he was proselytized is not evidence. A document that verifies this actually happened, eyewitnesses, audio tapes, those are evidence.
I don't expect you to take this seriously because it supports my position about conservative Christian extremism.
I don't take it seriously because there's no evidence being presented. That is a common theme with rational people, unlike you liberals who ignore science and rely merely on your blind faith in your perception of the truth.
You will of course denigrate the evidence I've provided
You did not provide any evidence, so there is literally nothing to denigrate.
and all but dismiss Mikey Weinstein as a liar and a crackpot. Interesting that you would do this to a staunch Reagan man and Republican.
Wow. How incredibly sad for you that just because I demand evidence in order to consider his claims, that this somehow implies to you that I think he is a liar. And probably even worse is that after reading my reply, you probably still think your conclusion is remotely logical.
In the real world, rational people -- that is, people who are not controlled primarily by faith (like you), but rather by facts and logic (like me) -- do not come to conclusions one way or another without evidence. My default position on Weinstein is not "he's a crackpot," and then I look at evidence to convince me otherwise. I do not have a default position. If I ever have a position, it will only be after considering all of the available evidence, none of which has yet been provided.
Florida John:
"WVH - I think I prefer your "secular-progressive" box to Mr. Pudge's "Bush is Hitler" box."
I suppose if one lives long enough, there is something to like about just about everyone.
This is a long thread, but did my other favorite Floridian ever show up? Any how, new topics to review, this is my coda for this comment. Best to all, until we discuss again.
I have a bit of a rationality test.
Can you tell me in your opinion the approximate age of the planet earth? Is it in the thousands?, millions or billions? On what do you base this estimate?
If the patriarch Noah in the Old Testament existed, did he or his ancestors "walk with the dinosaurs"?
Now to your responses (the interesting parts only).
my picking apart those nonsensical characterizations
GWB's professions of faith may have played well to his political base but it didn't give me and many others any confidence in his or his team's ability to make sound decisions or policy. In fact there's substantial evidence that policy making in his White House is completely subservient to crafting political gambits, the well-documented experience of John DiIullio being a case in point.
One would hope GWB would be as "rational" as you profess to be but instead we read he makes judgements with "gut checks" and looking to his "higher father". I see lots of bad or absent policy that results in needless death, carnage and spiraling cycles of violence.
The resulting chaos plays perfectly into OBL and al-Qaeda's agenda.
any sense of humor.
There's quite a bit here I find humourous, darkly humourous that is, and even too funny. See comment 96.
So go do them, and stop trolling soundpolitics
I don't take orders from you. I'll continue here as long as I care to or as long as Stefan doesn't ban me as he did to Ivan Weiss (who WVH mistaked me for, must have not gotten the memo) - whichever comes first.
You won't look at my links,
I don't care about what you have to present on pudge.net and I don't want to give you my ip address. If I didn't provide a link you'd probably just attack me for not supporting my assertions.
you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence.
I have provided a link to Weinstein's website and some summary of the material on it. You don't want to go any further. Fine. This tells me your mind is closed to the issues this website raises. I find this "typical" of people on the right.
A document that verifies this actually happened, eyewitnesses, audio tapes, those are evidence.
There's plenty of material on the website. There would be even more if Weinstein could get a day in court. I have some confidence that he will get that day.
and that he claims he was proselytized is not evidence.
I never said that HE (Weinstein) was proselytized.. Weinstein claims that many men and women in uniform have come forward to him and verified that THEY have been proselytized while on duty. I'm sure you'd agree that one's career whether in the military or the private sector should never, ever depend on your acceptance of your commander's or supervisor's religious faith.
If I ever have a position, it will only be after considering all of the available evidence,
How about considering "some" of the evidence by visiting the website? Who knows? You might demonstrate to me and others reading this that you're not "typical" of the right.
I thought we were sorta getting along. I think Stefan only yanked Ivan for one thread. I admitted you aren't Ivan, you are you, whoever that is. But, in my defense, can't you see the resemblence? I really don't want get in the way of the discussion and I really have no clue how old the earth is. However, Genesis is good enough for me and I'll leave it there. So, bash away.
Posted by: WVH on May 16, 2007 12:01 AMNo, you really haven't. I've been quite tame here.
I have a bit of a rationality test.
Unfortunately, I do not believe you are capable of administering such a test.
Can you tell me in your opinion the approximate age of the planet earth? Is it in the thousands?, millions or billions? On what do you base this estimate?
I was right! You're not! This "test" is, of course, based on both the question-begging fallacy, and the red herring fallacy. The real test of rationality is the ability to make rational arguments, not to share certain beliefs.
You may agree with what my answer would be, but you won't get a chance to find out. I do not respond to red herrings, as a rule. I am not going to recite some shibboleth to prove I am a member of some mythical Rationalist Club.
GWB's professions of faith may have played well to his political base but it didn't give me and many others any confidence in his or his team's ability to make sound decisions or policy.
Again, question-begging fallacy. Since YOU did not have confidence, therefore he was wrong. Illogical.
In fact there's substantial evidence that policy making in his White House is completely subservient to crafting political gambits, the well-documented experience of John DiIullio being a case in point.
Huh. So you reject your earlier statement that it was based on communications with a higher power? Interesting.
The resulting chaos plays perfectly into OBL and al-Qaeda's agenda.
Sure it does ... that's why al Qaeda is holding U.S. soldiers hostage until we meet their demands of leaving Iraq.
Oh wait.
I don't take orders from you.
I didn't give orders to you. The imperative tense does not necessarily imply ordering, but may also be a suggestion. Since I have no power on soundpolitics, it is not reasonable to assume I was ordering anything.
You just seem to find your time so valuable you can't click on a link, yet you spend a lot more time in here accomplishing nothing useful. I was giving you a helpful suggestion.
There's quite a bit here I find humourous, darkly humourous that is, and even too funny. See comment 96.
The humor in George Bush is Hitler, the fake anti-Kerry ad, and Osama Bin Laden, You Ruined My Birthday is nothing if not dark. The sad parts to me is not that you don't check them out, but that you lied about it: you made a statement about the intent of my song without even having listened to it, implying that you knew what it was about, when obviously you didn't.
I don't care about what you have to present on pudge.net and I don't want to give you my ip address.
Of course, YouTube does not allow me to track your IP, so that's a copout for the video I posted. Also, the George Bush is Hitler song is featured on the Living Life as a Gay DJ in the UK podcast, episode 8. Or you can listen to it, and the Osama Bin Laden song (also featured on several podcasts), on myspace, which also does not allow me to track IPs.
If I didn't provide a link you'd probably just attack me for not supporting my assertions.
In fact, you did not support your assertions.
I have provided a link to Weinstein's website and some summary of the material on it.
You mentioned a video, but there is no video on that site that is labelled as containing the content you reference. I suppose I could try to watch all the videos until I find it, but some of them are quite long.
You don't want to go any further. Fine. This tells me your mind is closed to the issues this website raises. I find this "typical" of people on the right.
You're a liar. I never stated, nor implied, I "don't want to go further," and in fact I explicitly stated that if you provided a link to the actual "evidence" you claim exists, I would look at it. I was quite clear on that.
The question is, why do you feel the need to lie by claiming I said something I specifically and explicitly claimed the opposite of? Are your points that weak that you feel you need to support them with such obvious deceptions?
There's plenty of material on the website.
Plenty? Then why have you only referenced a single example of evidence, this mythical video they don't link to? What other material constitutes evidence? You're the one trying to make the case, I am not going to do your research for you. That is how it works.
There would be even more if Weinstein could get a day in court.
Lots of people say that, of course. It is irrational for me to take their (or your) word for it. Indeed, even looking at the evidence (if you ever provide it), even if I think it is strong, chances are I wouldn't come to a conclusion until I heard the other side of things. "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him." Proverbs 18:17.
I'm sure you'd agree that one's career whether in the military or the private sector should never, ever depend on your acceptance of your commander's or supervisor's religious faith.
No, I do not. In the military, yes, I agree. But as to the private sector, I believe in the First Amendment right to Freedom of Association, and am against all antidiscrimination laws, except for those that forbid discrimination based on race and gender (and those I except only temporarily: because of the longstanding government-sponsored institutionalized discrimination and its effects, the government therefore has a responsibility to put protections in place until such time as those effects are signicantly mitigated; we may be fast approaching the point where those protections are no longer needed).
I fully support the right of anyone, in the private sector, to fire anyone for any reason. In government, of course, no discrimination based on factors not directly related to job performance can be allowed.
I wouldn't personally discriminate for any such reasons. My closest coworker (been programming with him for six or seven years) is a liberal gay atheist vegan. He's opposite from me in those, and many other, respects. If I had a nonpartisan, nonsectarian business, I'd hire him in a heartbeat. But I don't think the government should force me, or any other private person, to do so. That's not liberty.
How about considering "some" of the evidence by visiting the website? Who knows? You might demonstrate to me and others reading this that you're not "typical" of the right.
That you have failed to provide links after I told you if you provided them I would consider them, tells me you either cannot read what I wrote, or are incapable or providing those links (perhaps because they don't exist).
I already told you in the last post: I will not try to hunt down this evidence. I already did look, and failed to find anything clearly labelled as a video containing anything about "Christian Embassy." I will not look through all the videos to see if any of them contain that information.
And again, I don't know why you use the word "some" above because you only made reference to once piece of evidence on the web site.