Sarah Palin Mobbed at Daytona Speedway
Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, February 15, 2010, 4:17 PM
Rock Star
Sarah Palin addresses the crowd before the start of the Daytona 500 at Daytona International Speedway in Daytona Beach, FL Sunday, February 14, 2010.
The democratic-media complex spent two weeks building up Danica Patrick’s appearance but in the Sarah Palin ate up all of the crowd’s attention at Daytona.
The Sun-Sentinel reported:
Palin-mania easily surpassed Danica-mania at Daytona International Speedway on Sunday.
While Patrick got all the headlines for the better part of two weeks, she had no stake in the Daytona 500. Palin did, and as a VIP guest for the race, she ate up all the attention.
When she arrived for the drivers meeting, Palin was immediately mobbed. She briefly chatted with Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, shook hands with supporters and smiled big.
She took a seat up front next to Harry Connick Jr., who sang the national anthem for the race. When NASCAR president Mike Helton acknowledged her as a special guest, she got the largest ovation from the room, packed from the front to the back with drivers, team members, support personnel and onlookers.
After sitting through the meeting, Palin could not get out the door. Fans mobbed her, asking for pictures and autographs. Her 12-person entourage, comprised of track security, a policeman, friends and spokespeople, tried to get her to the door and to her next appearance. But Palin could not help herself, and kept signing and posing for pictures.
Even when she was able to get out the door, she stopped every few feet to take pictures. One fan asked where her husband, Todd, was on Valentine’s Day. Palin said he couldn’t make it because he’s in Alaska preparing for the Iron Dog, the world’s longest snow-mobile race.
As she got moving again, Palin stopped when she saw a boy in a wheelchair to say hello and sign an autograph.
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Busted!… Obama Headlined a DEMOCRAT SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA Event in 1996 **FLIER**
Published May 24, 2012 at 8:46 pm - 60 Comments
Major Kong commented:
Sarah continues to be wildly popular. Bayh getting outta Dodge before November. Just another crappy day for the democrats. Life’s good.
Dell commented:
I realize it’s a long way from now until any possible 2012 (or beyond!) elections, but one thing I’m noticing more with each passing day. Sarah Palin could VERY easily slide right in to a VERY high paying, one-hour daily slot on TV and have a tremendous influence on anything she wants to have influence of!
She’s a looker. A dedicated Mom. Is down to Earth and has a common sense approach that absolutely connects with people from all walks of life.
Give her a month or two to learn the TV “ropes” and you’re looking at a ratings monster. If the cable folks think Bill “O”, Hannity and Beck pack in the numbers, just wait until they see the crowd this lady attracts.
I’m just secretly hoping they put her on opposite Keith Olberdork. I love to watch his head explode.
Peggy commented:
Danica Who?
gus commented:
Yeah that Sarah Palin sure is dumb.
HOPE AND CHANGE AND MARXISM.
ar05075 commented:
Sorry #2, Piglosi is’nt as popular as you imply.
gus commented:
Libs hate beautiful women unless they are Hollywood whores.
Libs are intimidated by something they could never have.
MainStreet commented:
Although I think Sarah is a little light on background and policy issues now, I agree with what she says and she has a way of connecting with us common folk. A couple years of seasoning and she will be a tough one to top.
And another thing, unlike the current resident of the White house, I trust her.
jcf commented:
“As she got moving again, Palin stopped when she saw a boy in a wheelchair to say hello and sign an autograph.”
I think back to the “Beer Summit”, the photo of Police Sergeant James Crowley assisting Professor Henry Gates down the stairs of the White House, as President Obama obliviously walks on.
The difference between how Sergeant Crowley behaved, compared to how President Obama behaved, is the same as the difference between President Obama and Sarah Palin.
Decency, and compassion!
Another “teachable moment”….
ar05075 commented:
jcf…..Great analogy.!!!!!!
Tom63010 commented:
I was rooting for Danica Patrick to have a good career with NASCAR but after her appearance in the disgusting Go Daddy commercials I could care less!
For a host of reasons Barack Obama could not go near a NASCAR race.
I used to watch NASCAR but got sick of watching an entire race only to see someone rear-end the leader causing them to wreck and then go on to win. I would just marvel that that was legal. One in particular driver comes to mind that was notorious fro doing this but knowing the passionate NASCAR fans I will refrain from using his name.
ar05075 commented:
Oh.!! #2 got deleted and replaced…Good.
neomom commented:
That Sarah is a Smart Woman. Hmmm, imagine that. People who know how to use tools, compete and make their own way through hard work and sacrifice love Mrs. Palin. Even with some track problems at Daytona, what a show. #4, Peggy, Danica Patrick is an up and coming female star on the NASCAR circut. She has already won a race at the highest level of open wheel competition (INDYCAR) and has 2 or 3 top 5′s in the Indy 500. She, like Sarah palin, is a great exaple of of what it means to be a free Woman in this country. These are two of the finest Women this country has to offer. 2010 will be a great year for NASCAR and a great year to enjoy watching the Progressive Marxists’ collective troll heads explode. YEEEE HAWWWW!!!!!!
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
Aside from popularity, what is it exactly that Sarah Palin offers? I’m not trying to sound confrontational here. I am truly curious as to what policies/philosophies/etc. she espouses that some find so intriguing. I must admit that I’m confused by terms like “common sense”. In general I am confused by many stances taken up by self-proclaimed conservatives. If anyone would be willing to enter into a real dialog that would be greatly appreciated.
OCBill commented:
I’m sorry, but a when a post says that the Democrat-controlled media built up Danica Patrick, it just comes off as stupid. Danica Patrick’s media build-up (capitalism at its finest) and Sarah Palin’s appearance have absolutely nothing to do with each other. If there is a connection, it’s that Sarah can learn from Danica that she needs to work her way up to the big time, that being a big fish in a small pond doesn’t mean she can’t be a big fish in a big pond, but she should think seriously about jumping into the big pond too soon.
Taqiyyotomist commented:
“As she got moving again, Palin stopped when she saw a boy in a wheelchair to say hello and sign an autograph.”
I guarantee you some flaming progressive has already used this as an opportunity to smear Sarah for “using the disabled as a photo-op.”
Guaranteed. If they’re not already wondering whether that boy shoulda been aborted or not.
Scrapiron commented:
#13: Have you been asleep of just in a dope fog as most democrats are? Palin has progressed through the ranks from city council to VP candidate. Alaska under her command was the best ran state out of 50 and she was the most popular governor. Don’t sell her short, Alaska truly command the first line of defense for the lower 48 and the National Guard is always on federal duty.
Match her record with the do nothing, know nothing, affirmative action POS in the white house and you’ll always come up with the short end of the stick. Some of you put him there and we all have to suffer for the next 50 years due to his stupidity and Islamic/Marxist teachings. You put him there, I pray an Islamist takes him out, permanetly.
Matt Helm commented:
Aside from popularity, what is it exactly that Sarah Palin offers? I’m not trying to sound confrontational here. I am truly curious as to what policies/philosophies/etc. she espouses that some find so intriguing.
Not so long ago, I would have taken you up on your offer, but now, I’ve pretty much written off most “self proclaimed liberals” as pretty much lost causes. But, if you’re really interested in conservative political positions and why we take the positions we take, then you can start off by reading John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government.” From there, move on to the “Federalist Papers” and the “Anti-Federalist Papers”–both have relevance in shaping our thought. Then you can move on to the Constitution, and toss in a bit of Edmund Burke’s “Reflections on the French Revolution”.
If you’re serious about understanding where we come from, then get started reading and come back and talk to me.
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
Well thank you #18 for pointing me at some things to read. I actually have read the Federalist Papers, some Locke, and the Constitution. But I’m still confused
In particular it seems to me that calls for smaller Government (big ‘G’) ignore all other forms of government (small ‘g’). Namely corporations make many decisions that end up governing our lives. However they have no moral obligation to make those decisions for the benefit of the population. Nor do we have any democratic controls over them.
Small government/anti-tax Conservatism, to me at least, appears to miss this fundamental point. While I’m all for freedom (balanced with responsibility) I see the Conservative argument as simply missing the boat.
So I’ll re-state my request for someone to help me understand. Or perhaps I’ll narrow my questions and ask: What makes _you_ a Conservative?
P.S. #17 I am well aware of Sarah Palin’s biography as I’m sure most folks are. Simply re-asserting that she is popular does nothing to answer my question. Also you call out Islamic/Marxism. I’m curious how you define those things and what evidence you have for each of those claims?
hinckleybuzzard commented:
I’m confused by terms like “common sense”.
Well, self-awareness is a start. Instead of trying to speak for Palin let me ask you to do some introspection based on this: Sarah Palin is a college grdauate, with experience of many years in both the private and the public service sector, highly successful in both. She lives by the highest morals and displays integrity in everything she does. She is a faithful practicing Christian, eschews any form of hatred or discrimination, and has never intentionally hurt a living soul. As governor she achieved significant progress for her state, fought corruption in both her own party and outside of it, successfully. She also took Exxon to the woodshed and made them pay. She loves the environment and unlike most of her detractors, she actually lives in it.
Now: Why is it that so many of you hate her? What has she ever done to anyone, including you and your friends, to deserve the personal attacks and attacks on her children by your Fellow “Liberals??”
Taqiyyotomist commented:
s.p.l., I’ve not been convinced that O is an Islamist or that those beliefs inform his policies, but I do think that he is quite the rabid Marxist.
From a wee lad he trained at the feet of nothing but Marxists and socialists and those who wished to overthrow the U.S.A. People who sympathized with the Soviet Union and its style of government. The people he surrounded himself with his entire life have all fit this mold. Even now, he is surrounded with the most anti-human, anti-freedom cadre of individuals that has ever inhabited the White House.
There appears to be a lot you need to read regarding his entire history.
He was trained for this from birth.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/a_further_inquiry_into_obamas_1.html
http://joytiz.com/2010/finally-somebody-remembers-obama-at-occidental/
Marxism and all its sick Socialist hybrids have ever been Obama’s dream.
Dude admitted in his/(Ayers’) book, one of the two, that he was telling kids in elementary school that he was going to be president. I don’t believe much of what was in ‘Dreams’ and ‘Audacity’ but I do believe that.
Taqiyyotomist commented:
s.p.l.
Check out John Holdren, Chief Science Advisor, and his sick, sick beliefs.
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #21: I neither hate nor love Sarah Palin. I have little emotion around here. I can’t speak for my other fellow liberals. I do however question her intellectual capacity.
However you simply assert that she “lives by the highest morals”. Huh? How can any one simply assert that about anyone they don’t know personally (unless you actually do know here personally)? And what does that really mean anyway? You also claim that she has never “hurt a living soul” … aside from the animals she killed while hunting? Again, I don’t say this to antagonize but only to question. There seems to be a lot of _implicit assumptions_ in your claims. I’m all for taking “Exxon to the woodshed and making them pay”. In fact I’d like to see them and many large corporations pay their fair share of taxes and pay for their effect on the environment. If this is Sarah Palin’s goal then great … but I think she’d best have a conversation with the rest of the Republican party that stands in the way of raising taxes on corporations and in the way of increased environmental protection.
But again your post is heavy on biography and light on policies and philosophies. You even seem to praise her for things that seem antithetical to the Conservative movement (i.e. protection of the environment and taxation/fining of corporations). So this still leaves me confused. I want to believe that there is more to Sarah Palin’s support than a “cult of personality”. But I’m not seeing it … at least not in any source I’ve sought out thus far.
And beyond Palin, I still struggle to understand the basic tenets of Conservatism.
Taqiyyotomist commented:
Wow.
Major Kong commented:
Conservativism
Richard M. Weaver, a native Tar Heel often considered the founder of post-World War II conservatism. At a Young Americans for Freedom award banquet on March 7, 1962, the man from Weaverville remarked: “It is our traditional belief that man was given liberty to ennoble him. We may infer that those who would take his liberty away have the opposite purpose of degrading him. . . There can be no worth of man unless there is an inviolable area of freedom in which he can assume the stature of man and exercise choice in regard to his work, his associates, his use of earnings, his way of life. Little by little this area has been traded away in return for plausible gifts and subventions, urged on by slogans. . . . The past shows unvaryingly that when a people’s freedom disappears, it goes not with a bang, but in silence amid the comfort of being cared for.”
http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/commentary/213/entry/
Craig Bardo commented:
Palin isn’t my candidate of choice for a variety of reasons but I love the way she sends the left into a frenzy. They hate the way she connects with the people who make this country great because she and her family are just like us. She makes the left feel vulnerable and exposed.
I understand her support of McCain but it concerns me. I am very concerned about how she reflects Obama’s populism with regard to “Wall Street greed,” which is highly problematic because for Obama it is a socialist tentacle but for Palin it shows a lack of understanding.
As she has said repeatedly, she doesn’t have to be in office to serve a very useful purpose.
daryl commented:
The “selfproclaimedliberal” does us all a favor and puts his bonafides right up front.
Man, it would have been tough to tell where he stood politically, otherwise, now wouldn’t it?
Reminds me of an old “contributor” at the old Rathergate site. That you “disinterested”?
Dell commented:
selfproclaimedliberal
February 15th, 2010 | 6:23 pm | #24
If you’re as confused as you suggest, allow me to ask “How did you become a Liberal”?
If you don’t know what a Conservative is, did you just throw a dart and it hit the “liberal ring” on a dart board?
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #22:
“From a wee lad he trained at the feet of nothing but Marxists and socialists and those who wished to overthrow the U.S.A. People who sympathized with the Soviet Union and its style of government. The people he surrounded himself with his entire life have all fit this mold. Even now, he is surrounded with the most anti-human, anti-freedom cadre of individuals that has ever inhabited the White House”
Hyperbole aside … I’m curious how you square a desire to, say, provide health-care for all as “anti-human”. Or as someone who wants, say, homosexuals to have the _freedom_ to serve openly defending our _freedom_ as anti-freedom? I could go on and on but I think you see the point.
I mean, I too share your desire to see a more humane society. It’s ironic that I see the Conservative movement as being the exact antithesis to that goal. What is it exactly about, say, Socialism that scares you so much? Let’s even take away the stigma of the word and just talk generally “about a system that recognizes the dignity of all humans and sets up systemic safeguards to protect society from an unfettered capitalist market”. And further if we say that it is the moral obligation of all citizens in that society to contribute to the construction and maintenance of such safeguards. Is it that you find that paying taxes to support such systemic safeguards would impinge on your freedom? Do you feel that some individuals should not have such dignity extended to them (like the dignity of seeing a doctor when sick, eating when hungry, sheltered when homeless, clothed when naked, etc.)?
Furthermore, do you honestly believe that our President secretly intends to overthrow the government that he’s sworn to protect? Seems like a lot of effort (becoming President) to do so. I think such grand conspiracy theories do a disservice to the true Conservative movement … which I have to believe is built upon something more principled than the plot of the Manchurian Candidate.
Very specifically though … what does Socialism mean to you? What does a Socialist America look like to you. And how would it be different from other democracies around the world that have strong Socialist systems in place to protect their citizens?
Matt Helm commented:
If you have read Locke, then you should understand his principle of natural rights as being inalienable and the purview of all rational individuals. You should have also understood that those individual rights include the rights to life, liberty and property. Corporations have a right to merchandise their products, goods, and services, I have the right to buy or not buy at my discretion–that’s called the free market and genuinely does work, far better than a command economy. The strong central government/nanny state you advocate is, by its very nature, destructive to individual freedom and liberty. I have the right to do or not do business with a corporation as I wish–I do not have that same luxury with the government.
If you seek true equality, you must give up liberty; if you see liberty, you must understand that while we all have equal opportunities, we are not all equal. Personally, I’ll go with liberty every time. I might fail at times, but my failures as well as my successes are my own.
Taqiyyotomist commented:
“You even seem to praise her for things that seem antithetical to the Conservative movement (i.e. protection of the environment and taxation/fining of corporations). So this still leaves me confused.”
Indeed. You have been brainwashed if you think that protection of the environment and corporate responsibility are antithetical to Conservatism. That’s the talk of someone whose opinions of political persuasions have been informed by watching too much Knight Rider, The A-Team, and a thousand other pavlovian conditioning shows since.
Do you think that conservatives think they have another environment they can move to when they destroy this one? That they don’t care about their kids?
Who was in charge when Enron’s shenanigans took place? Democrats. Enron: What was it? It was a GREEN Energy company. Claim to fame? Somehow made craploads of politicians extremely wealthy and somehow, coincidentally of course, went from “never heard of ‘em” to household word and economic (scam) powerhouse in a couple short years.
How about Global Crossing? Democrats.
The “care for the environment” that you ascribe to Democrats and their supposed avoidance of corporate malfeasance is a complete and utter MYTH. Oh, my. There is just so much in that post that needs addressing.
“Making them pay.”
Pay whom? To what end? Is there an “environmental maid service” that will clean up the supposed mess we’ve turned the ecology into, that we can pay to do this service? Or do we just fine them for the sake of it, some unimaginable number a jury can come up with arbitrarily, say, howsabout fine them FIVE BILLION DOLLARS! Reparations….for all they’ve done. Providing us with a service and products. How dare they. That’ll teach them. We won’t have their service nor their products anymore since we’ve made them bankrupt, but that’s okay, we didn’t need any of the things that Exxon worked their butts off and provided anyway. My car runs on H20, doncha know.
I didn’t even scratch the surface of that post, s.p.l., it’s a veritable gold mine.
ar05075 commented:
Hey selfproclaimed, howbout you self abort.
Taqiyyotomist commented:
This is too big for me to take on.
Seriously, s.p.l, have you seen ‘Groundhog Day’, Bill Murray?
Yeah, remember the scene at the Diner when he orders everything on the menu, and what his table looked like when they brought it all out?
I can’t eat all that!
Good night all. Have a blast.
Taqiyyotomist commented:
“From a wee lad he trained at the feet of nothing but Marxists and socialists and those who wished to overthrow the U.S.A. People who sympathized with the Soviet Union and its style of government. ”
THAT is no hyperbole. That is stone cold fact, if you would read and learn, for yourself.
Matt Helm commented:
If you don’t know what a Conservative is, did you just throw a dart and it hit the “liberal ring” on a dart board?
This is why I’ve stopped even trying to “dialogue” with “self-proclaimed liberals”–the only reason I chimed in on this discussion was because I was bored and after this, I’m chiming out, because I realize its hopeless to even try to get through to him and those like him. He and his fellows genuinely aren’t interested in understanding our point of view–he sees us in the same manner as an anthropologist would see a sub-culture. Sorry, “self-proclaimed liberal”–this “subject” is going to take a powder.
Taqiyyotomist commented:
Meanwhile Enron provided jack squat for a service, while the Pristine Wilderness that Exxon supposedly despoiled is still there, still pristine, caribou and arctic wolf populations BIGGER THAN EVER, according to Inuits, but what the heck do they know. They only live among them.
Taqiyyotomist commented:
Kool-aid stock just went up. Swear.
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #29:
“If you’re as confused as you suggest, allow me to ask “How did you become a Liberal”?”
Well as a child I was actually a staunch supporter of Reagan/Bush. But what’s that they say about putting away “childish things”
In all honesty though, it’s not that I “don’t know what Conservatism is”. I do … somewhat. I guess my point is _it just doesn’t make sense to me_. It seems to miss so many fundamental points and have a ton of self-contradictions. But to answer your question, I’m a liberal because I believe in a politics of empathy. I believe that policies that protect people from corporate and capitalist greed are good things. I believe that people fought and died for workers rights and that those should be protected. I believe that everyone is entitled to the basic necessities such as food, clothes, water, shelter, educations, healthcare, etc. I believe that as citizens of this country we have a moral obligation to our fellow citizens (and that obligation is taken care of _in part_ by paying taxes). I think an extremely good case must be made for “privatization” of anything (especially where the public good is at stake). I disdain “privateering” (i.e. the socialization of risk/cost and the privatization of profit). I support the right of all people to be of any religion or no religion; of any ethnicity; sexual orientation; etc and still be equally protected under the law. I believe in a “well regulated” economy (in the sense that the founding fathers believed in “well regulated” liberty) that is directed to serve the interests of the public rather than it’s own interest (i.e. the enrichment of a few).
I’ll leave it at that for now. But that was fair question … and one that I should have started off by answering. Thank you.
ar05075 commented:
Taqiyyotomist
February 15th, 2010 | 6:42 pm | #32
===========================
WOW.!!! 10 thumbsup.!!
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #31:
“If you seek true equality, you must give up liberty; if you see liberty, you must understand that while we all have equal opportunities, we are not all equal. Personally, I’ll go with liberty every time. I might fail at times, but my failures as well as my successes are my own.”
I actually do believe in the pre-existence of rights and so on. I also am not one that believes that equality of opportunity leads to the equality of results. Now if you are are all of the equality of opportunity then we _should_ agree on some basic things like public education and healthcare since these help provide and equal starting point for people.
However I would take note with the rest of your post. You go on to describe the traditional 19th century view of the “rational actor” in economics. I think this has widely been debunked. We are not rational actors. The invention of PR to manufacture desires and wants throws a monkey wrench in that whole argument. One could try to persist in this mistaken model … but it would be just that … a mistake.
P.S. I would suggest Drew Westin’s book”The Political Brain” to see how emotions and other irrationalities factor into political choices. Others have illuminated the same when it comes to buying merchandised items.
daryl commented:
Man oh man. This nut climbed right off the pages of some of those old HUAAC hearings minutes didn’t he?
In a perfect world, spl, your perfect society just might work except for that gene in some people that won’t allow them even to contribute to the best of their ability and had just rather take from those who can and do.
Like you who are taking much more bandwidth from this site than your contribution warrents.
Rick commented:
spl #30
“And how would it be different from other democracies around the world that have strong Socialist systems in place to protect their citizens?”
Conservatives don’t feel the need to be “protected” by their government. We realize that whatever “protection” the government provides comes with strings attached and the resulting loss of individual freedom. We prefer to keep what we earn through our endevours, rather than have government give it to fools like you, who are obviously incapable of self-direction and personal responsibility.
bg commented:
++
Go Sarah Palin, Go Sarah Palin, Go!!
==
ar05075 commented:
selfproclaimedliberal
February 15th, 2010 | 6:57 pm | #41
At #31:
========================
Go take a nap and your little blue pill, screwball.!
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #32:
“The “care for the environment” that you ascribe to Democrats and their supposed avoidance of corporate malfeasance is a complete and utter MYTH. Oh, my. There is just so much in that post that needs addressing.
“Making them pay.”
Pay whom? To what end? Is there an “environmental maid service” that will clean up the supposed mess we’ve turned the ecology into, that we can pay to do this service? Or do we just fine them for the sake of it, some unimaginable number a jury can come up with arbitrarily, say, howsabout fine them FIVE BILLION DOLLARS! Reparations….for all they’ve done. Providing us with a service and products. How dare they. That’ll teach them. We won’t have their service nor their products anymore since we’ve made them bankrupt, but that’s okay, we didn’t need any of the things that Exxon worked their butts off and provided anyway. My car runs on H20, doncha know”
Look, I’m not a partisan here. Liberal does not always equal being a Democrat (and vice versa as is I’m sure the case with being a Conservative and being a Republican). Now if what I’m getting from your post is that you applaud efforts to go after corporate malfeasance then we have agreement. As for “Making them pay” I was repeating what an earlier commenter had said. However it is an unfortunate truth than when a corporation like Exxon damages the environment owned by us collectively then the only recourse we have is to make them pay for the clean up and fine then a sufficient amount such that it is cheaper for them to do safe business then risky business. The environment belongs to all of us. They are fined not for providing services, but for doing so in a manner that protected shareholders without respect to stakeholders.
hermie commented:
Sarah Palin has plenty of time to make the rounds and give speeches to various civic and community events. Each day she drives liberals crazy and they waste their time and their last remaining brain cells attempting to attack her with ridiculous and childish accusations.
Reagan took years to hone his message and to meet the very people who would eventually vote for him. Palin has taken advantage of the advances in communications technology, and is using them wisely.
Give Sarah another year to fine tune her message and her attacks on Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Reid. In the meantime, enjoy watching Olbermann’s head explode every day she is in the news.
Major Kong commented:
Awww, bg, that’s not nice. You’re gonna make his/her head explode.
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #43:
“Conservatives don’t feel the need to be “protected” by their government. We realize that whatever “protection” the government provides comes with strings attached and the resulting loss of individual freedom. We prefer to keep what we earn through our endevours, rather than have government give it to fools like you, who are obviously incapable of self-direction and personal responsibility.”
Hmm … first off you do need protection by an entity larger than yourself. For instance how to you protect the air or the water or the ground from large corporate polluters? You also seem to think that you can protect yourself from large corporate interests? I just don’t see how.
Also, the idea that all that you have and earn is completely and solely by your own doing is another myth. We all benefit from public land, air and water. We benefit from public courts. We benefit from public roads. We benefit from publicly funded education. In short we all benefit, both morally and economically, from things that we didn’t personally have to go and create. From a purely economic point of view we _owe_ a debt to society. From a moral point of view we have an obligation to our fellow citizens. If we no longer feel that obligation then there is nothing that binds us together. Citizenship ceases to mean anything and thus we see the seeds of the undoing of our society. Perhaps this sounds overstated but that is exactly where I see the logical conclusion of the Conservative movement as being … this sort of selfishness that is in total disregard for others … which also is a direct contradiction to any purported moral underpinnings of Conservative belief.
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
To all in general: I’m saddened by the personal attacks towards me. I simply have a different point of view than many of you. I’ve not levied any personal attacks your way. I really honestly want to understand what I think are inherent contradictions in your positions. But that doesn’t mean that I think that you are bad people. Our inability to have meaningful dialog is a dangerous thing. Without personal attacks … we ought to be able to discuss these issues and leave in a way that has us at least understanding each other … not agreeing … just understanding.
bg commented:
++
“Intellectuals believe ideas are more important than people.” ~ P.J.
==
Major Kong commented:
You Lie!
Rick commented:
spl #43.
It must really suck to go through life feeling powerless. Corporations cannot harm me personnaly unless I allow it. If I don’t like their business practices, I don’t do business with them. Period.
We all enjoy the benefits of public education? Please. Public indoctrination is more accurate. My kids and grandkids are in private school where we can keep an eye on the curriculum.
I agree, to a point about public roads, courts and parks. They are for the common good. Taking my money to provide healthcare to someone who didn’t have the foresight to take care of it himself, is socialism plain and simple. Conservatives figure out how to take care of their families before they have them, not after the fact. We save money for rainy days, we don’t refinance McMansions two and three times with liars loans so we can have all the latest toys and keep up with the Joneses.
But this last one is the typical progressive strawman argue ment.
“. Perhaps this sounds overstated but that is exactly where I see the logical conclusion of the Conservative movement as being … this sort of selfishness that is in total disregard for others … which also is a direct contradiction to any purported moral underpinnings of Conservative belief.”
Just because we don’t believe government is the answer to our problems, does not mean we lack compassion. We are not selfish. We don’t have a disregard for others. We are the most prolific contibutors to charities, which is well established. We turn to family, church and community during hard times. We take care of each other without the government. We are not afraid to take risks and to fail. And we realize that we are responsible for the consequences of our failures.
ar05075 commented:
selfproclaimedliberal
February 15th, 2010 | 7:17 pm | #50
==========================
Is this where you start crying??
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #53:
I would challenge the belief the ideas and people are somehow competing entities. Ideas can help people and ideas can hurt people. My goal and my moral stance is that we ought to be looking to help people. In all the discourse here the one, and perhaps, only insight I’ve gained into Conservatism is “fear”. A “fear” that if we’re all asked to contribute to the common well-being that you personally will contribute more than others and somehow be on the losing end of the deal. I also hear a “fear” that a Government that attempts to help all of its citizens will be a Government that necessarily hurts all of its citizens by taking away their liberty (though I’ve not heard this idea fully spelled out. Like what liberties have to be taken away in order to provide for the common well-being?).
So, so far I’m getting “fear” as a necessary component to being a Conservative. And while not necessary … anger seems to be rampant as well. I don’t think that fear and anger lead to very _constructive_ movements. Powerful yes, but constructive no. But I’ve got to believe that there are some positive emotions and positive ideas that you (collectively) stand for? And that you can express them without being vitriolic, condescending, our just downright angry?
Rick commented:
This is my last attempt, and them I’m outa here.
Your inability to understand our independence and reliance on self, family, church and community will never allow you to understand us. You say we are contradictory. We are not. Most of us would gladly give up every single “benefit” provided by the federal government, including roads, courts etc. and turn those responsibilities over to our state governments, in exchange for the return of our personal freedoms, including the right to keep what we earn.
ar05075 commented:
selfproclaimedliberal
February 15th, 2010 | 7:30 pm | #55
At #53:
=======================
ROTFLMAO…How’s that for fear?…….Putz.
Rick commented:
#54, see #55. Yeah this is where he starts crying. They hear what they want to hear. Self righteous people tend to be that way.
bg commented:
++
that’s our resident concern, control freak, take your choice troll,
s/he/its gone by several recognizable id’, including troll slayer..
craves an inordinate amount of attention..
strives to be the topic of discussion vs any issue..
factually offers little substance related to subjects..
lots of self emotion expressed & others assessed, favors ad
hominem straw man flavors, i could go on, but won’t..
oh yeah, can be a bit obsessive,
loves playing victim victorious..
selfproclaimedliberal
SELF APPRAISED PSYCHIATRIST EXTRAORDINAIRE!!
ROTFLMBO!!
==
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #53:
“It must really suck to go through life feeling powerless. Corporations cannot harm me personnaly unless I allow it. If I don’t like their business practices, I don’t do business with them. Period.”
Well that’s a fine and dandy thing to believe but it just doesn’t match up with reality. Corporations are insidious and all around us. They influence the decision we can make in extremely subtle ways. Also if a corporation decides to pollute the air or poison the water, you _personally_ have no power to stop them. Collectively _we_ do (though the enactment of laws). I mean, I suppose one could try to pull themselves off of the grid completely (including not using the publicly funded internet) but the reality is that we are all interconnected. Isolation is simply not an option.
“We all enjoy the benefits of public education? Please. Public indoctrination is more accurate. My kids and grandkids are in private school where we can keep an eye on the curriculum”
Many scientists, discoveries, doctors, lawyers, so and and so forth were/are the product of public education.
While you have the right to choose to put your children in a private school, all individuals (in my opinion) should enjoy the right to free and unfettered access to world class education. It is a basic human right that we be given the ability to develop our minds to our greatest potential. And that doing do should not be based on our parents ability to pay for it.
I take your larger point that it would be incorrect to suggest that Conservatives lack compassion. But there seems to be a clear line of us/them when it comes to your compassion. Those outside of whatever circle you’ve deemed acceptable are not entitled to your compassion. It seems like you easily construct “types” for all the “others” and are not willing to acknowledge that many of the people suffering and/or needing your empathy are just like you.
Espresso Logic - The 6th Sense commented:
I see stupid people.
selfproclaimedliberal
In particular it seems to me that calls for smaller Government (big ‘G’) ignore all other forms of government (small ‘g’). Namely corporations make many decisions that end up governing our lives. However they have no moral obligation to make those decisions for the benefit of the population. Nor do we have any democratic controls over them.
February 15th, 2010 | 5:57 pm | #20
Well thank you #18 for pointing me at some things to read. I actually have read the Federalist Papers, some Locke, and the Constitution. But I’m still confused
Nice try troll.
I’m changing your name to “Selfproclaimed Asshat”
Rick commented:
spl
Where do “basic human rights” come from. Who, or what, gives you those rights?
Nah, never mind. I’m done trying to reason with idiots today.
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #56:
“Your inability to understand our independence and reliance on self, family, church and community will never allow you to understand us. You say we are contradictory. We are not. Most of us would gladly give up every single “benefit” provided by the federal government, including roads, courts etc. and turn those responsibilities over to our state governments, in exchange for the return of our personal freedoms, including the right to keep what we earn.”
1.) I fail to see a real substantive difference between having the State government provide these services (which I acknowledge most of them do today) and the Federal Government. Tenth Amendment aside. It seems like as long as we acknowledge some form of Citizenship with an obligation to each other, and government as way to fulfill that … then we have some sort of agreement.
2.) I don’t see how the State Government gives you more freedom than the Federal Government? Seems a wash to me.
3.) And I’m all for keeping what you earn. Provided that you pay your fair share back to society for the ineffable benefits you derive from it.
Espresso Logic - The 6th Sense commented:
I’m holding my breath for “Social Justice” and “The Race Card”.
i see stupid people.
Major Kong commented:
It is a basic human right that we be given the ability to develop our minds to our greatest potential. And that doing do should not be based on our parents ability to pay for it.
Then, of course, you are in favor of school vouchers, yes?
Espresso Logic - The 6th Sense commented:
3.) And I’m all for keeping what you earn. Provided that you pay your fair share back to society for the ineffable benefits you derive from it.
Translation – I’m a parasite and I want some of yours.
I see stupid people.
Espresso Logic - The 6th Sense commented:
Your single mom warned you not to major in “Women’s Studies”
I see stupid people.
Dell commented:
Let me leave it at this:
I choose not to be protected by my government; I choose to be protected FROM it. I choose all power to the people to decide their own fate and destiny. I choose NOT to pay any other way other than my own and/or my immediate family. I choose to strive for success and to glean the rewards of same. I choose to work rather than even apply for my government’s handouts. I choose to honor the Ten Commandments and know that it is not only wise to walk softly but to also carry a big stick.
I reject an entitlement ideology and see no “rights” other than those clearly defined in my Consitituon.
I vote and there are millions more just like me.
bg commented:
++
one can lead a selfproclaimedliberal to knowledge,
but one cannot make a selfproclaimedliberal think..
==
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #62:
“Where do “basic human rights” come from. Who, or what, gives you those rights?
Nah, never mind. I’m done trying to reason with idiots today.”
Hey … I’m not calling you guys/gals names. It doesn’t do anything to help your movement that you can’t have a rational disagreement without resorting to name calling.
But to answer your more general question where rights come from is a very interesting topic. One that’s to involved for me to go into here. But there’s a good book on the 9th Amendment that goes into it (the book, I think is titled “Un-enumerated Rights” or something like that). Dawkins and (surprisingly) Sam Harris also write about where rights come from.
In short there tends to be a general societal consensus about rights. I don’t _think_ it’s controversial to suggest that all humans should have the right to medical care when sick. Or that children should have the right to an education. But perhaps these are controversial topics in some circles?
Espresso Logic - The 6th Sense commented:
Hey … I’m not calling you guys/gals names. It doesn’t do anything to help your movement that you can’t have a rational disagreement without resorting to name calling.
Most here have a “Don’t argue with idiots” rule. You are trying to drag us down to your level so you can beat us with experience.
I see stupid people.
tjexcite commented:
It Sarah went to the Daytona 500 as Governor she would have got at least 10 bogus ethic violations costing an cool million to defend just to have them dismissed without issue.
Rick commented:
#68
Bingo!
Rick commented:
“I don’t _think_ it’s controversial to suggest that all humans should have the right to medical care when sick. Or that children should have the right to an education. But perhaps these are controversial topics in some circles?”
in a word. Yup.
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #65:
“Then, of course, you are in favor of school vouchers, yes?”
Ah … good one. But no, not in favor of school vouchers. Implicit in the need for vouchers is the belief that some schools will be allowed to offer a substandard education to students which then prompts their parents to move them to another school. I think kids should be educated in their communities and that _every_ school be able to offer a world class education. If your local school is failing then the best thing you can do is volunteer to fix it. Not take your child out of it in favor of another. While you help your child in the short run, you do no service to society by allowing an institution to produce people that have had a substandard education.
Major Kong commented:
Or that children should have the right to an education
So, again, you are naturally pro-choice with regard to school vouchers?
Espresso Logic - The 6th Sense commented:
You can spew your Libtard talking points all night if you wish. Your day in the sun is over. The people have spoken.
daryl commented:
“But perhaps these are controversial topics in some circles?”
Only when the “asshats” show up and want to rant their socialist agenda, spl.
ar05075 commented:
Major Kong
February 15th, 2010 | 7:47 pm | #65
It is a basic human right that we be given the ability to develop our minds to our greatest potential.
?????????????????????????????
That we be given???..Given??
It’s a basic human right to develop our minds to our greatest potential.
….there, fixed it forya.
Major Kong commented:
Ah,just as I thought. A statist through and through. Just why are public school teachers in terrible school systems so terrified of competition?
Major Kong commented:
aro5075
Sorry about the confusion, it’s NOT my statement
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #68:
“I choose not to be protected by my government; I choose to be protected FROM it. I choose all power to the people to decide their own fate and destiny. I choose NOT to pay any other way other than my own and/or my immediate family. I choose to strive for success and to glean the rewards of same. I choose to work rather than even apply for my government’s handouts. I choose to honor the Ten Commandments and know that it is not only wise to walk softly but to also carry a big stick.”
Well again, the problem with this belief is that it does not take into account the affect that large corporations have on our every day lives. The belief that we can life our lives independent of that is a myth. Further, I hear from one posting that Conservatives are not selfish and lacking in compassion. But this post seems to contradict that. A lot of us choose to work. But, for instance, my choice to work doesn’t preclude me from feeling a sense of empathy towards others … many of whom also work but can’t afford things like healthcare, etc. As for the 10 Commandments that is your right (some might even say a “basic human right”) and one I won’t dispute.
“I reject an entitlement ideology and see no “rights” other than those clearly defined in my Consitituon.”
Funny … the 9th ammendment says (I’m paraphrasing) that it’s impossible to enumerate all our our rights in the constitution. So it’s up to society to continually introspect and come to new truths about what rights we think we have and what sort of society we want to create. I personally want one where we are not afraid of each other. One in which we are connected and acknowledge our connection with each other. Again … not something I’m hearing from the above posting.
“I vote and there are millions more just like me.”
Precisely why I decided to start this dialog. Because there are millions more like me and we vote too. But at the end of the day I’m more concerned with the society we’ve created than the party that won
bg commented:
++
ineffable selfproclaimedliberal
==
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #79:
“It’s a basic human right to develop our minds to our greatest potential.
….there, fixed it forya.”
Ah … yes, that sounds better. Thank you
ar05075 commented:
I did’nt think it was, I looked back to try to find it but I guess I missed it. Sorry back.
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
Hey all … it’s been fun. I’m signing off for the night. Perhaps I’ll pick this up again tomorrow. It’s been enlightening for sure.
ar05075 commented:
Don’t let the screen door hitchya.
Major Kong commented:
#85
It’s cool. Man with a site like this who the hell needs the news? We are going to kick some a$$ big-time come November.
Dell commented:
“Well again, the problem with this belief is that it does not take into account the affect that large corporations have on our every day lives.”
Forgive me but I just spewed a mouthful of coffee all over my monitor.
How about the “affect that the large corporation” called the Federal Government has on our every day lives??? Some would say the largest corporation of them all. The corporation that now owns auto makers and insurance companies.
If I am the government, I want my government OUT of private enterprise and as much OUT of my life as reasonably possible. I’m not stupid and I’m not about to allow my government to control my bowel movements, either.
Best you should take your ideology your way and I’ll go mine. You shall see just how popular your Socialist ideology is starting this November.
ar05075 commented:
#88
The Saints won the Super Bowl(Who dat).
……and THAT was just a prelude to November.!!
Taqiyy. commented:
“It’s been enlightening for sure.”
I’m guessing that’s not entirely honest, unless by enlightening, you mean, all your preconceptions have been confirmed in this thread, that conservatives are just downright mean, stupid people who can’t be reasoned with.
Because that’s the vibe I’m gettin’ there.
Patr commented:
Palin accomplishments: Agia 40 Billion $ Gas Pipeline PVT funds. Negative tax Ratein AK.
Reduced discr. spending by 1 million.2.2 Billion $ Budget surplus this yr. SHE MANAGED it!!!! Thats common sense.
red commented:
Self Proclaimed Liberal says “things that seem antithetical to the Conservative movement (i.e. protection of the environment”
Hey, unknowing liberal. You fall for one of your myths here. Protection of the environment is not antithetical to conservatism. Conservatives simply look for balance in our efforts to conserve the environment. Don’t put 40 thousand farmers into a dustbowl to save a snail. Don’t stop developing our national energy resources for reasons like phone global warming. Common sense things like nuclear power does not emit carbons – good for the environment.
Major Kong commented:
#91
He or she has merely done what agent provocateurs always do. Tried hard to stay out of it because I realized the pseudo Socratic questioning was simply a thinly veiled ploy to roil the waters. Clearly, there was no genuine desire to exchange ideas. BG nailed it with the can’t make them learn observation. You guys are really good. Felt like I was in the deep end a couple of times there.
Taqiyy. commented:
93 Red, great points.
94 Major Kong, that was like trying to catch an upended bucket of golf balls with one hand. There’s no way to get them all when they’re just dumped on ya like that. I just grabbed as many as I could.
pm commented:
One more for the reading list:
Dr. Lyle Rossiter’s, “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness”
red commented:
Self proclaimed Liberal says — What is it exactly about, say, Socialism that scares you so much?
What is it exactly that allows you to ignore the anti human, monstrous results of the socialist slave states of China – 35 million dead; Russia – 61 million dead; Cambodia – 2 million dead; North Korea – 2 million dead; Viet Nam 2 milion dead.
Thats what your inhuman, amoral socialism has wrought.
Tell me that conservatism is anti human.
Taqiyy. commented:
Here, y’all! Have 9,000 of my beliefs, most of them the opposite of yours, in a random, haphazard, completely devoid-of-focus or relevance manner. Answer me now! And with PROOFS!
red commented:
Oh, and Hitler was a National Socialist 15 million dead
Major Kong commented:
Taqiyy:
And isn’t that where we always get sucked in? Either we’re debating as we have allowed them to frame the argument, or the attempt is made to gets us back on our heels playing defense. Still, I believe the thoughts so well articulated this evening have been valuable to our cause.
Taqiyy. commented:
Hey, Kong, not only am I articulate…I’m CLEAN, too!
Rick commented:
Major Kong, Taqiyy and others
I’m always a sucker for trolls. I hope I aquitted myself well. I tend to let emotion cloud my writing.
red commented:
Self Proclaimed Liberal says “But to answer your more general question where rights come from is a very interesting topic. One that’s to involved for me to go into here.”
Yet another thing that sets liberals apart from Conservatives. For liberals, Freedom is a complex and interesting topic with arguements on both sides that are too complex to really discuss.
For Conservatives, our respected Forefathers told us where our rights come from. We are endowed with our rights by our Creator – we learn this from Jefferson in the worlds most novel document. For two hundred years, these rights have made men and women mentally strong enough to build a great country and a prosperous people. For liberals, this is a tragedy – apparently because they aspire to put us in chains or send us to the Gulag.
Rick commented:
red # 103
Well said!
Major Kong commented:
Taqiyy;
And with no discernible dialect, unless you want one, of course.
Rick,
Love the passion, man. Don’t change up we’re going to need it in the future.
red commented:
Self Proclaimed Liberal Says::::I don’t _think_ it’s controversial to suggest that all humans should have the right to medical care when sick.
Does this mean that a physician or a nurse is a slave and has to provide medical care for free? Didn’t slave owners have a right to their slave’s labor?
Why isn’t Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness enough?
Taqiyy. commented:
Whoa red, I’m guessing that part about the slave labor is going to be taken COMPLETELY the wrong way, and that you may want to elaborate or rephrase.
You know how it is.
Major Kong commented:
Red,
Aren’t we seeing that now when a would-be U S senator has the brass to suggest that a nurse shouldn’t work in an emergency room if she is pro-life? Or if a pharmacist is compelled to dispense the “morning-after” pill.
Liberty is in diametric opposition to control. Therefore so-called progressives will always be looking to take liberties away, never encourage and nourish them.
Richard Aubrey commented:
self says that if our local school system isn’t up to standard we should fix it.
Wonder if he’s ever tried. Talked to a principal about my daughter’s drunk middle school math teacher.
“He’s got to retire sometime.”
Public schools are deliberately, adamantinely proof against public influence.
Taqiyy. commented:
Rick, honestly, I don’t think that was a Troll, as defined by most online. Trolls do that stuff for fun – I believe that this person seriously thinks that’s the way to go about this internet discussion thingie, and seriously holds that cornucopia of TV-and-Big Education-fed beliefs, and seriously is that unfocused and random.
Knows not that he is a troll, this one.
/yoda off
Dell commented:
One of the well-planned debate tactics of the Libtards is to waltz in with a prepared litany of talking points, designed to (as it was well-said above) pump out as many talking points as possible (with a question in every one) and then sit back and laugh while commenters try to address them. I’ve seen this done in the Dallas-Fort Worth area blogs and it only tends to wear down folks who simply get tired of beating their head against the wall because it feels so good when they stop!
I think the very best way to combat this type of narrow mindedness is to suggest that if they’re so SOLD on their ideology they should write their own blog.
I love a good debate; don’t get me wrong. It’s just practically impossible to answer forty-six questions all at the same time.
Taqiyy. commented:
This one has never really heard the answers. Seems to be honestly searching for them, but will not listen to them, and somehow cannot understand them. Too many filters in the brain, I think. Too many prisms and preconceptions, and a need for the understanding RIGHT NOW.
Some folks have admitted, “I listened to Rush, as a lib, for YEARS before I finally got it, and understood this freedom thing.” There’s a blockage in there that takes a long time to get through, especially when that programming is strong. Boy oh boy is it strong in some.
Ronald Reagan’s speeches are a great start.
Sites like this are a great start, but you’re better off READING and ABSORBING and RESEARCHING for a LONG TIME if you KNOW that you don’t understand Conservatism, which this one has readily admitted, and amply demonstrated, rather than coming into the thread and dumping 10,000 beliefs and demanding answers and proofs.
Scott commented:
Self proclaimed liberals are re-branded communists…Here’s a clue for you, it was tried for a hundred years in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba and other places…Tens of millions have died at the hands of your socialist friends…Tens of millions died of famines caused by collectivist farming methods. Tens of millions were displaced as their farms and businesses were seized by socialists governments…The death and human misery spread by socialism, and remember, the Nazis were National Socialists too, is incalculable…By contrasts, our founders fought a Revolution to free this country from oppressive government. And, through freedom and respect for the individual, our nation has prospered beyond the bounds of human imagination…These United States achieved a standard of living unsurpassed in the world…We released the power of science and medicine that changed the fate of mankind, all mankind…We went to the moon, invented the airplane, computer and internet. And, the only death and destruction brought by our government has been meted out to enemies of our country…YOU and your liberal/communists friends have been sold a bill of goods…Your ideals are the same tired old socialists ideals that have failed spectacularly for a century now…Through your misguided utopian philosophies you wish to bring the human misery to our shores…I have to admit that democratic leadeship has done plenty of that over the decades…Now, its time to casts off the chains of socialism again, here at home this time…We will!
Dell commented:
Amen, Scott. I’ve got your six.
Taqiyy. commented:
Again, Dell, I don’t think what we just saw there was “tactics” at all, but someone scatterbrained and searching for all the answers at once to all the questions they had about conservatism, while at the same time psychologically unable to hear the answers, nor focus on them.
I’ve seen the seminar tactics too many times. That wasn’t it. And I agree with Kong here, I think the responses to the questions we could get to were valuable and needed, even if not for that character, maybe for someone who IS just reading, absorbing, and learning.
Opus #6 commented:
She stopped when she saw a boy in a wheelchair? I have said it before. Whaddawoman! I love her!
Taqiyy. commented:
Tens of millions of dead, murdered, worked-to-death, systematically slaughtered, and intentionally starved people can’t be wrong.
They say Socialism and all its twisted hybrids are a failure.
I agree.
red commented:
Taq 107, Maj Kong 108 fortunately more felicitously encapsulates what I was trying to say: that if a socialist says he has a right in the economic realm, like health care, then he can only have that right by taking my right from me.
Even in self bleating liberal’s right to an education, I am reminded of good students sitting in chaotic riotous schoolrooms because the ‘thugs have a right to education’ hmmm ….and the kids who want to learn don’t?
_____________________________________________________
Milwaukee Vincent High School was locked down Monday afternoon after a series of fights broke out inside the building, police and school district officials said.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/64040602.html
______________________________________________
Real rights (those that our forefathers gave us –life, liberty, freedom of speech, right to bear arms) do not require that another person’s rights be diminished.
TheScribbler commented:
A Nascar race is the LAST place you’ll ever see Obama. Lucky people, I could use a day without seeing him on the television myself.
Taqiyy. commented:
Yeah but what about the poor hunted animals, huh? HAVE YOU NO SOULS!?
//<–necessary? rrreally?
bg commented:
++
The Search For Utopia aka: Murder By Communism By Any Other Name
[But communists could not be wrong. After all, their knowledge was scientific, based on historical materialism, an understanding of the dialectical process in nature and human society, and a materialist (and thus realistic) view of nature. Marx has shown empirically where society has been and why, and he and his interpreters proved that it was destined for a communist end. No one could prevent this, but only stand in the way and delay it at the cost of more human misery. Those who disagreed with this world view and even with some of the proper interpretations of Marx and Lenin were, without a scintilla of doubt, wrong. After all, did not Marx or Lenin or Stalin or Mao say that. . . . In other words, communism was like a fanatical religion. It had its revealed text and chief interpreters. It had its priests and their ritualistic prose with all the answers. It had a heaven, and the proper behavior to reach it. It had its appeal to faith. And it had its crusade against nonbelievers.
What made this secular religion so utterly lethal was its seizure of all the state's instrument of force and coercion and their immediate use to destroy or control
all independent sources of power, such as the church, the professions, private businesses, schools, and, of course, the family.]
==
bg commented:
++
what the fascist left have been aiming for is to “equate” good with evil.. that’s the only way they can appease their conscience in the face of the harsh reality they are trying to escape from because it does not fit in with their ideological utopian matrix.. if there is no good vs evil, then all is good even if [the] all is evil.. ~ bg
==
Major Kong commented:
Red at #118,
Yes, that’s exactly correct. The kids who DO want to learn so that they can get out of those hell holes will forever be held hostage to the teachers’ unions and huge bureaucracies. School vouchers should be a plank for any tea party candidate. The only way generational welfare and despair will be ameliorated is through ridding our country of inferior schools and teachers. Sure, the answer is more complex than that, but it would be a damn good start. My heart goes out to Mr. Aubrey @ 109 and his daughter. Apparently, a tenured teacher has more protection than the children he is affecting.
Taqiyy. commented:
bg, I’ve said it for years: the pop-cultural catchphrase, you hear it all the time, “Hey, man, it’s all good.” is not just a catchphrase – it has become a philosophy and a way of life.
“Do you mind if I……..?”
“Hey it’s all good!”
No. No, it’s not all good. Some things are not actually good.
Then there are the folks who say that all is good and there is no wrong, who also claim that Christianity is wrong and bad, as well as Judaism, naturally. Every other belief system is equally good, though. I mean, except for corporations and profit. That’s bad and wrong. But everything else is good. Well, except incandescent lightbulbs and gasoline engines. Those are bad and wrong, and totally immoral. I’m totally cool with everything else, though – well, besides Republicans. Those are bad and utterly, horribly evil. Not that I believe there is such thing as evil, per se.
Taqiyy. commented:
Kong #123 many thumbs up.
John Gargano commented:
I am so glad to see that Gov. Palin is receiving a fabulous reception from the people. It is amazing the libs just don’t get it. So many people are attracted to her because she is one us us. She is more like most of us, and, with her record of accomplishment in government, we have reason to believe she could and would govern like we would want someone to govern.
I do not consider Gov. Palin to be a political elite, and with what we have gotten with elites running our government to date, I’m glad to see it. I wonder why some people still cling to the idea that someone who projects a shallow facade of cerebral depth would be better at governing than Gov. Palin.
It is indeed time for change. Leets have government by the people.
Taqiyy. commented:
Basically, when you grill them long enough, these “tolerant” folks are only tolerant when it comes to
1. whom one may fornicate with, and
2. killing. Killing for the state, religions which continually kill, dictators who constantly kill, killing for convenience of the mother, but just don’t kill killers, not even mass-murders, because that would be wrong, or animals, because they have more worth than humans, since we’re all just a planetary disease….well, YOU all are, anyway. Not us liberals, because we care.
And a HALE, HEARTY, WONDERFUL, GOOD night to you, kind sirs (and madames).
bg commented:
++
Taqiyy. @ 9:02 pm #107
re: red @ 8:57 pm #106
here you go..
attn: selfproclaimedliberal
the following obviously took a lot of time &
patience to write, hope you read it in kind..
Taxation is a Type of Slavery
==
Solaratov commented:
Taqiyy.
February 15th, 2010 | 9:06 pm | #110
Rick, honestly, I don’t think that was a Troll, as defined by most online. Trolls do that stuff for fun – I believe that this person seriously thinks that’s the way to go about this internet discussion thingie, and seriously holds that cornucopia of TV-and-Big Education-fed beliefs, and seriously is that unfocused and random.
Knows not that he is a troll, this one.
/yoda off
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We had a troll last year here on Gateway Pundit, one “Lou B M” (at first. then he became other people.), who sounded an awful lot like this one. (I’m sure that bg remembers ol’ Lou)
Lots of “concern” and “just wanted us to explain our position” – but wasn’t willing to concede that one word we said had validity.
What he basically wanted was to dominate the conversation and overpower everybody on the thread. He seemed to be genuinely surprised that there were a lot of people as smart as – and even smarter – than he. And he came up with the cutest little “I’m so hurt and disappointed” act when people wouldn’t accept his point of view as better – and, in fact, ridiculed him for it.
If this is the same little fellow – and it well could be, as he was a persistent devil – just wait until he suggests closing threads to outsiders and having “think circles”. You’re in for a real hoot then.
Of course, it could just be a new concern troll who’s anxious to “convert” us all to his “obviously superior” belief system.
Whichever it is, there is no way that s/he/it is in any way interested in an actual *dialogue*. It’s only interest is in trying to destroy our faith in our own beliefs and create what another writer has labelled “eeyores”, who are filled with fear.
All trolls are fair game and should be dealt with as harshly as possible.
Taqiyy. commented:
bg I’ve got it bookmarked, and I shall.
I admit, Solaratov, that I am fallible and subject to hoodwinking as well. I’ve seen some crazy stuff, too, in my time online, in that same vein.
Used to frequent chatrooms, years ago. There was a Christian chatroom, and these utterly evil psycho atheists would come in posing as people with problems and oh will you help me please, stringing people along, just for their kicks. It got to be where you didn’t know who was honest and who wasn’t. It was a very coordinated thing, too.
Look up the word “lulz” and figure out that there are a lot of truly cruel and quite insane folks out there whose greatest pleasure is causing chaos, disorder, and confusion in “places” like this.
I hear you, Sol, I keep my eyes open, or I try, to this sort of psychological trickery.
They’re like imps, this sort. Little laughing demons. And they love it.
Taqiyy. commented:
…last comment tonite:
and guess what it all stems from, these insane pranksters I mention?
“Hey, it’s all good.”
Taqiyy. commented:
bg, it was well-written, though I think a bit over the top.
Not sure what the author feels is an appropriate response, but the vibe at the site is a bit too out there or radical for me. A few questionable links from there, as well.
Taxation is a fact of life. Render unto Caesar.
Things will be set right, still.
down with dems commented:
I read about 75% of this thread, and I think I’ve learned the tenets of liberalism:
1. corporations are THE DEVIL, and must be punished and regulated or eliminated
2. corporations pollute, and must be punished and regulated or eliminated
3. we all “owe” some “moral debt” to society for all that has been paid in by people before us, even though we ourselves are paying into the very society we currently live in which will be passed on to our children
4. everything should be equal for everyone, everyone should have schools of identical quality (like that will ever happen), everyone should have health care of identical quality (even if that means lowering the quality for some in order to raise the quality for others), everyone is entitled to food and shelter and water etc as a fundamental right (regardless of their ability to provide these for themselves)
5. it is wrong to desire to keep what is yours
6. socialism is good
7. there is zero chance that anyone will ever take advantage of or game the utopian socialistic system that will ultimately govern our nation and the whole world
bg commented:
++
Taqiyy. @ 11:08 pm #132
lol, meant selfproclaimedliberal should read it, not you, i know you
know what red was talking about.. sorry about the confusion..
==
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
Well I’m glad to see so much conversation in my absence
So let me clear up some misconceptions. First off I’m not a troll. As one posting mentioned I really do believe the positions I’m espousing. And I really am trying to engage in a meaningful dialog here.
Also let me clear up some other confusion here. In particular #133. Let me take these point by point:
“1. corporations are THE DEVIL, and must be punished and regulated or eliminated”
No, I would not agree. Corporations are a means to an end. Not the end themselves. I believe in “well regulated liberty” as referenced in the Constitution. I do not believe in Corporate person-hood. And I do think that the larger they are and the more influence they have over our communities the more we have a right to demand that they be well behaved citizens as we would of any other individuals.
“2. corporations pollute, and must be punished and regulated or eliminated”
Some corporations do pollute. I think that’s a matter of fact. Should they be regulated so as to not damage our common wealth … yes. Should we eliminate the corporation? No.
“3. we all “owe” some “moral debt” to society for all that has been paid in by people before us, even though we ourselves are paying into the very society we currently live in which will be passed on to our children”
Well yes, I think that as Citizens we have a responsibility to our fellow Citizens. You assert here that we are all currently paying into society and in a sense I’m saying “yes we’re paying into society in a number of way and that’s right and correct that we do so”.
“4. everything should be equal for everyone, everyone should have schools of identical quality (like that will ever happen), everyone should have health care of identical quality (even if that means lowering the quality for some in order to raise the quality for others), everyone is entitled to food and shelter and water etc as a fundamental right (regardless of their ability to provide these for themselves)”
It’s easy to be cynical. But I think that we ought to set it as a goal to have a school system that consistently delivers a world class education to all of it’s students. I acknowledge that the equality of opportunity does not guarantee an equality of results. And that’s fine by me. But the opportunity piece is critical. And I certainly don’t believe in lowering anyone’s healthcare quality to increase it for others. I understand that there is a certain interpretation of the term ‘equality’ that would lead one to believe that. But that is not what I’m advocating. We can and should all have high quality healthcare. Cynicism aside do you disagree that on a basic human level if someone is sick they have the right to medical care? Also we can say that people are entitled to basic necessities without specifying how they should get them. Obviously the preferred way is that people should contribute and create in order to provide for themselves and others. But in recognition that some can’t … we should still recognize the humanity in them and provide.
“5. it is wrong to desire to keep what is yours”
Well I contested the definition of “what is yours”. Saying that we all benefit in innumerable and ineffable ways from existing (not just prior) publicly funded systems. I also assert that we have a moral obligation to each other as fellow Citizens. Put another way, if the choice is between a big screen T.V. and providing medicine for a sick child … I would hope the child’s needs win out.
“6. socialism is good”
Sure … or at least it’s not automatically/reflexively bad.
“7. there is zero chance that anyone will ever take advantage of or game the utopian socialistic system that will ultimately govern our nation and the whole world”
Oh, of course there will be those that try to “game” the system. Greed is an unfortunate part of human nature (in fact it seems to be a lot of what I hear motivating the statements I read in this thread). But the question is do we want to succumb to our cynicism and fear or do we let ourselves be motivated by empathy and good will towards others? Honestly I don’t know if some of you have felt so “burned” in the past that you feel that you have no choice but to look out for yourselves only?
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #118:
“Taq 107, Maj Kong 108 fortunately more felicitously encapsulates what I was trying to say: that if a socialist says he has a right in the economic realm, like health care, then he can only have that right by taking my right from me.”
How do you figure? I’m super curious here. I think this gets at the crux of my “confusion”. How is it that extending rights to others necessarily takes rights from you? Presumably your right to high quality healthcare would be entailed by my support of my right to high quality healthcare. Is it that you feel that paying taxes is a form of taking a right from you? Do you then advocate every person for themselves? I’d really love to understand this point.
“Even in self bleating liberal’s right to an education, I am reminded of good students sitting in chaotic riotous schoolrooms because the ‘thugs have a right to education’ hmmm ….and the kids who want to learn don’t?”"
The problems with the education system in this country are many … no one can dispute that. Again, everyone has the right to the opportunity to learn. Obviously in the strawman you just put up the more ruckus kids would be interfering with the rights of the other students. So this wouldn’t fit my model. What seems to be implicit in your argument is that extending rights to all necessarily curtails rights for some. I just don’t buy that. All children should have the right to a world class education. Whether they and their parents make the most of it is a different matter. If they get to the point where they start disrupting other children’s rights then obviously you find a way to remove the disruptive child and get them the focused attention they need.
“Real rights (those that our forefathers gave us –life, liberty, freedom of speech, right to bear arms) do not require that another person’s rights be diminished.”
Well I’d take issue with the notion that we were “given” these rights. The Constitution simply acknowledges pre-existing rights that the Government agrees to respect (an agreement by the way Corporations have not made). Also “life” and “liberty” are not enumerated rights like freedom of speech … that’s just a nit-pick though. And I’m not going to get into the 2nd Amendment
Also see my earlier posting about the 9th Amendment and un-enumerated rights.
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
To those that equate Socialism with some grand plot to kill a bunch of people I’d say that you’re engaging in conspiracy theory if you’re suggesting that the goal of the American Left is to enact pogroms. What I’ve attempted to lay out in my many posts is a political philosophy based on empathy and dignity towards all. I don’t want to see anyone hurt or killed and I don’t think that advocating healthcare, education, food, water, shelter, etc. can/should be construed as an advocacy for mass killings. If this is truly what you hear when you listen to the Left then I dare say that it is you that has been brainwashed. And dangerously so. On many basic issues such as personal liberty and human dignity we agree. Yet we continue to find ourselves on opposite sides of the political divide. I think our inability to engage in civil conversation is the biggest problem we face as a nation today.
I know that perhaps others have come into your blogs and chatrooms with the express intent to rile you up and cause an argument. I’m here for another purpose. I really want the open and honest exchange of ideas. I’m willing to listen … albeit disagree … but I will listen because what I’d really like is to understand.
Thus far I’ve heard a lot of anger and fear. I’ve heard that extending rights to others necessarily curtails your rights (although what divides “you” from “others” isn’t clear). I’ve heard that Socialism equals pogroms in the minds of many. That taxation is a form of slavery. I think I’m hearing that Corporations have a completely unfettered rights. And that you (any ‘you’) as an individual are a completely rational actor in all economic situations with full access to knowledge. And that you are fully capable of protecting yourself and your family from whatever is out there that might harm them … even if such a think is systemic in nature.
Where am I misunderstanding?
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #113:
“By contrasts, our founders fought a Revolution to free this country from oppressive government.”
So let me see if I understand this … what exactly is the “oppression” faced from government today? Is it taxation? The standard matra that one learns in school is that the Revolution was about “taxation without representation”. Which of course implies that taxation with representation is probably ok
Which jives with exactly what was set up in the Constitution.
“And, through freedom and respect for the individual, our nation has prospered beyond the bounds of human imagination…”
The only issue I’d take here is that we, collectively, have had a continuing understanding of “freedom” (I recommend Lakoff’s book “Whose Freedom”). We’ve also continually extended the notion of who is deserving of freedom and rights. And there have by many factors that have contributed to our collective success. Rugged individualism is just one piece of a much more complicated story.
“The[se] United States achieved a standard of living unsurpassed in the world…”
I think we stopped being “these” United States after the Civil War
We are collectively one nation now, not a loose federation of States,
“And, the only death and destruction brought by our government has been meted out to enemies of our country…YOU and your liberal/communists friends have been sold a bill of goods…Your ideals are the same tired old socialists ideals that have failed spectacularly for a century now…Through your misguided utopian philosophies you wish to bring the human misery to our shores…I have to admit that democratic leadeship has done plenty of that over the decades…Now, its time to casts off the chains of socialism again, here at home this time…We will!”"
Well wait a minute here … on the one hand you’re saying that we liberals have a Utopian philosophy but on the other hand we wish to bring misery to our shores? How is putting safety nets in place to ensure that all people retain their human dignity no matter how bad the economy gets equate to “bringing misery”?
I think one would be completely misstating history to claim that the U.S. has been the paragon of capitalism since it’s inception. Our success is due to many factors. But again there’s this notion that your freedoms are being taken away. I seriously don’t get it. I mean, when the Patriot Act was passed did you feel the same way? Am I missing something? It is purely taxation that qualifies as “taking away your freedom”? What about your freedom from the indignities associated with being sick or poor? Or do you just figure that you’ll never be either and therefore it’s not worth worrying about? How about just human decency and compassion? And how do these positions square with the fundamental teachings of Christianity which says that above all else we’ll be judged on how we treat the poor?
I just don’t get this “attack” that several people here feel that they are under? Was the feeling the same under the Bush administration? Have things, on a personal level, really changed that much for you? How does paying taxes materially impact your life?
What is your Utopia like? No taxes and then what? Private education? Unfettered capitalism. We’re all in it for ourselves and anyone outside of our family be dammed? I’m desperately trying to see the “end game” for Conservatives?
I believe in a Just Society. One that is kind, respectful, and acknowledges the humanity and the dignity of all of its Citizens. That’s hardly a society that rounds up people to enslave and kill them. I can honestly tell you from the heart of every Liberal … that is not what we want for America or for any country.
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #89:
“How about the “affect that the large corporation” called the Federal Government has on our every day lives??? Some would say the largest corporation of them all. The corporation that now owns auto makers and insurance companies.”
Well that’s fine and dandy but you failed to answer my question. What if large MegaMart Corp comes into your community, undercuts the prices of your local merchants and forces them to go out of business. Then large MegaMart raises prices, takes profits back to headquarters, sharing very little with your community, pays its employees a barely livable wage, and doesn’t provide healthcare of any kind for them?
How do you personally protect your community from that kind of decimation? Because that kinds of stuff has and continues to happen. The examples are too numerous. The point is that there are large institutions that have a deep impact on your life and you have no ability to vote for their board or have them make different choices. How do you stop the local manufacturing company from moving it’s jobs offshore (or the local bank or IT firm from doing the same)?
“If I am the government, I want my government OUT of private enterprise and as much OUT of my life as reasonably possible. I’m not stupid and I’m not about to allow my government to control my bowel movements, either.”
Do you honestly think that the Government wants that sort of control over you (to control your every “movement”)? Where does this fear come from? When the President says “hey I think you should have a lower cost option for health care” what is it in your head that says “they’re trying to control me with this”? Again this perceived threat seems (to me at least) to be completely overblown. I know it sounds like I’m being argumentative here, but I’m honestly not understanding. From an outsiders point of view it simply seems irrational. And I’ve yet to hear anyone here really explain it. I honestly want to understand this. I hope that someone can _calmly_ and without name calling explain this mindset.
Also if the government doesn’t regulate business then who guarantees that they manufacture safe products? Or do so in a way that is environmentally friendly? Or that they do so without being able to outsource? Are you really saying that you want unfettered capitalism? Obviously I see the recent economic meltdown as the result of lack of regulation. Before that the outsouring that gutted our economy was the result of capitalism run amok. And it seems like it’s always us, the little guy, that gets stuck with the bill or bears the brunt. It’s not clear to me how Conservatives come down on this issue. One the one hand you have a Lou Dobbs that would generally agree with me on the scourge of outsourcing. But then other “market fundamentalists” would disagree. It sounds like the poster of #89 comes down in the latter rather than the former?
pontoon commented:
attn: selfproclaimedliberal
Brevity is the soul of wit.
You are verbose and nonsequitur.
Well regulated malitia not liberty.
No wonder you slurped up Barry’s tripe.
Government must be controled otherwise it will trample the freedoms of the governed.
Government will become totalitarian if left unchecked.
Have a nice life, you enjoy your freedom because someone else fought and died for you to have the rights you now enjoy. What are you doing with that gift? Oh, I’ll give my freedom away to the government.
your a waste of time.
cp commented:
selfproclaimliberal
If I ever do need help, i can always depend on a conservative person than a liberal person because conservative people are people who train themselves to be self reliant and responsible. And I thank all the conservatives who helped me when i needed help and most of all i thank them for not just providing me with fish but showing me how to fish.
All the compassion you talk about sounds to me are characteristics of conservatives. But since the ideas of showing compassion is something everyone can boldly demand or complain about, many leftists in communists countries used them as cheap slogans to convince the public that they are the ones who are going to show that compassion when they get into power. Unfortunately, when they get into power, they are always the ones with least compassion.
cp commented:
In order to get power, the leftists try to convince the public with flowery slogan like as if the hard working rich people can never show compassion but only they can show compassion better. They stir up hatred and FEAR against the people who believe in working hard to improve their own financial situation. After getting power, they make the population become so dependant on them for everything that in countries like north korea, people have to sing praises and thanks to dear leader who is the big provider. Finally, no one dares complain against the government (supreme governing body) not even the medias.
cp commented:
many of these leftist liberals rather than training themselves to be people who know how to be self reliant and responsible, they focused their energy on propagandas that are aimed on creating fear and distrust for business owners. So when they eventually have their way and are in power, their government feed on the public instead of feeding the public.
In the free world where the people still have power, not all business owners are good. But whenever there are disasters such as earthquakes in any parts of the world, conservative people under the free market system are always the first to offer aids.
cp commented:
This shows that there are still many business owners who are good. And there are business owners that are evil, believe me, the chances of bringing the bad business owners down (with the joint efforts of conservative government and good business owners and the general public) is better than the chances of bringing down big governments who have stolen power.
cp commented:
so, please don’t be brainwashed to think that all business owners are dishonest and selfish. The conservative person will not want to work for such dishonest business owner for long if he or she finds out that the company is using dishonest means to prosper. A liberal might be happy to continue working there (ACORN) but a conservative person prefers a company who is honest and fair and not use the short cuts of cheating others to prosper.
cp commented:
A conservative person knows that even though a company can prosper by using dishonest means, if he continues on supporting a dishonest company, his principles and values are compromised. And in a long run, he has not built anything in his character that trains him to be self reliant and responsible. He regards his internal God given potentials, values and principle as more important than short term benefits that makes him lazy and burdensome to others.
cp commented:
So, the slogan describing the need to show compassion is free for anyone to use. A liberal can use it. An Islamist can use it. A conservative can use it.
And anyone can also use it to accuse the other side of not capable of showing compassion.
But knowing how to accuse others of not capable of being compassionate does not automatically make us become a compassionate person.
In the end the conservatives in the free market system are still the most comapssionate people and that is why leftist liberals are allowed to play their games freely and make use of the generousity offered to them – a generousity they would certainly not enjoy if they were to live in some other places.
cp commented:
A conservative government who respect the free market system can regulates the business environment better than a leftist liberal goverment who are concern about being popular and seen as the great compassionate provider of housing loans for the poor.
PCM commented:
I’m a little late to this party (pardon the pun), but here’s the bottom-line difference between liberals and conservatives:
Liberals believe that people exist to serve the State.
Conservatives believe that the State exists to serve the people.
Everything else, all the specific issues, derive from this one truth.
cp commented:
Yet, in the end, the poor suffer more under the irresponsible liberals who tried to build up the image of the mordern day robin hood who is all compassionate and caring and who would steal from the rich and give to the poor. These liberals are fear mongers who manipulated the poor to hate the rich brainwashing them to believe that the rich are always stealing from the poor. In fact, in the legendary robin hood times, it is not the rich who are stealing, it is the big government who are taxing not jusrt the rich but also the poor. But now the ambitious liberals are twisting the story for their own purpose.
Taqiyyotomist commented:
Ayers et al. actually sat around and discussed, in the 1960′s, “liquidating” millions, according to an FBI informant’s testimony.
Whether Socialism has, as a goal, the liquidation of millions, pogroms, or not, is beside the point. The point is that socialism and all its twisted hybrids and byproducts has ALWAYS killed millions of its own citizens, through state murder, death-by-work at gulags and prisons, intentional starvations, shortages leading to unintentional starvations, and yes, pogroms.
What makes you think we’ll do it better this time, this forcing of Marxism upon an unwilling population.
You should read the entire thread. Again.
One of the things that marks you as a troll, to many, S.P.L., is that you, as I and others have noted abundantly, apparantly to no avail, is that you have come in here and dumped a thousand different beliefs, questions, beefs, and pleas, and have attempted to frame a conversation in your terms, among other completely newbish faux pas.
Forums are not the place for instant conversions. Nor are you likely to get all the answers you want, as thorough as you would like, or as honest (if they see you as a troll, which, honestly, I can’t blame them, because I’m beginning to as well…) from commenters here or anywhere else.
You would be better served reading and watching and listening for a few YEARS, to a number of blogs, authors, and yes, even Rush, who explains conservatism quite well every day of the week for three hours. Granted, you can’t harangue Rush with a thousand questions, but as any old guy would tell any young’un, as any master would tell any apprentice AT THIS STAGE: keep your mouth shut. That’s not meant at ALL to be offensive. It is, however, the best way to LEARN.
Better by far than asking loaded questions which are loaded to the GILLS with statements and presuppositions of dubious veracity, designed, subconsciously or not, to make it so you’ll always get the answer you’re looking to vindicate your beliefs about conservatives with.
Go online, look for the speeches of Ronald Reagan, and begin watching.
Rush can be listened to at WLSAM.com every day at noon.
daryl commented:
Hey spl!
You still sleeping??
selfproclaimedliberal asked : February 15th, 2010 | 5:29 pm | #13
“Aside from popularity, what is it exactly that Sarah Palin offers?”
It’s a conservative thang you liberals just can’t understand.
Kinda, sorta like conservitives can’t understand what the hell obama ould offer (and deliver) for you lefties.
Best way I can explain it. Left is left, and right is right, and ne’er the twain shall meet.
LimoLibsStink commented:
0bama:
This sucks. NASCAR sucks. Florida sucks. America sucks. Worse, Florida is a huge state with many electoral votes. Gad, I suck!
According to Axelrod’s polls, I should have sent Barney Frank. Those Typical White People would have liked him. Ah, crap, let’s face it they would not have like him. Axelrod is full of crap!
Because, I am so mad and Barney Frank is still in the area, I am going to give his butt a good fisting with my wife’s diamond ring. He will love it.
My limousine is running and I am going to do some doughnuts on the White House lawn to prove I am a NASCAR fan. Let the taxpayers pay for the damage to the lawn. I must look busy. Good day.
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
Mornin’ all
Let me clear up some more misconceptions.
I still maintain that I’m not a troll. Just someone who is asking real questions aimed at understanding.
I do not believe that people live to serve the State. I believe that there are “freedoms to” and “freedoms from”. Government (whether Federal, State, City, etc.) should protect both freedoms. I have the freedom to start a company; or the freedom to travel where I want; but I should also have the freedom from the indignities associated with sickness and poverty. This just seems like basic moral “common sense”.
I’ve seen a lot of people here attack my views, which is fine. However to do so you simply have to assume that I’m lying. You resort to cynicism. Is it too difficult to believe that the Left really wants to help and believes in the dignity and worth of all people?
I also think that there is a common misconception that I’ve seen in a lot of these postings which assumes the “rational actor” model when it comes to economic choices. I assert that none of us is truly rational … or at least not as rational as we think we are. And that large corporate forces, left unchecked, would do things outside of our knowledge that would still have a direct impact on our lives. Boycotting is fine (as someone earlier mentioned) but regulation is better (in my opinion).
Also, I’m not going to get into whose more compassionate as individuals. I think there are compassionate people of all political/theological/ethnic/etc. stripes. The larger point I’m trying to make is how does the philosophy espoused play out. If we did away with labor laws, public education and all other public good … and privatized all public lands roads, water, etc. then I think we’d be in a world of hurt and beholden to non-democratically controlled corporations who would work in their best interest and not ours.
For as much anger as you have against the Government … at least you have democratic controls over it. The same can’t be said of large health insurance companies, big oil, the few media companies still around, etc. And yet these companies exert a tremendous amount of control over our lives. How does the free market square with maintaining personal liberty in the face of unchecked Corporate power?
JLawson commented:
SPL -
We all have a responsibility – but there are responsibilities which take precedent. Would you argue that it’s right and fair to take money you need to spend on you and your own family’s needs and toss it elsewhere at the orders of someone in ‘authority’? What responsibility do we have to take care of someone who won’t take care of themselves, who won’t provide for themselves, who have manifestly avoided learning how to be capable, competent citizenry?
Voluntary charity is one thing. I’d love to see the tax code changed so donations to recognized charities are 50% tax credits – that would be social engineering via legislation that’d be quite appropriate. But then again – it comes down to what your point of view is.
Does all money earned by the citizen belong to the government, so it’s appropriate for the government to take back without hindrance whatever it feels to be approprate? Or is the majority of the money/wealth created/earned by the citizenry their OWN – to do with as THEY decide, even if it doesn’t meet with YOUR approval?
At one time I was a skeptic of the tea party movement, and the Flat Tax. The more people see of what’s going on in Washington, and the stunning incompetence of the ‘intelligentsia’ in the Democratic party, much less the sheer denial of reality evidenced by ‘progressive’ thinking, the more liberal credibility erodes, and the better conservatism looks.
You can only get by so long by saying you’re compassionate and the other guy (or side) isn’t. When the results of your ‘compassionate’ policies fail, you change your policies – you don’t double down.
JLawson commented:
“I have the freedom to start a company; or the freedom to travel where I want; but I should also have the freedom from the indignities associated with sickness and poverty.”
Why? Because you want them? Because you believe you should have them? Your ‘should also have’ is not my responsibility to provide.
I don’t like poverty – been there, and it sucks 16 lb bowling balls through a garden hose. I worked, and I learned, and built on my strengths. I stayed employed, stayed away from drugs, showed up when I was supposed to, worked longer than I had to.
I didn’t feel like I was owed ANYTHING but the right to look for a job I could do, that paid me what I wanted to be paid. And if I couldn’t find one that paid me what I wanted, (you’ll never get $25 an hour working in a bookstore) then I had to change my own expectations or my career path.
The world owes no one a living. Or a guarantee of security or comfort. It seems to me you expect such – and want others to stand ready to pay for it if you can’t.
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
Also thanks to the person that posted the link about Taxation being a form of slavery. I read the blog post (yes the whole thing). The person who wrote it was off on their math
They also failed to distinguish between income and consumption taxes. They also ignored the fact that we have a progressive tax system in this country not a flat tax. And they didn’t deal with the real effective tax rate (minus deductions, tax credits, etc.). This person also erroneously assumed that if taxes were lower companies would pay higher wages. While some would, for sure, many others would simply pocket the profit. For instance companies that offshore in countries with low/no taxes don’t pay those workers more money … they pay them less and pocket the profit. This person also claimed that taxes were taken out of his/her paycheck automatically without their consent. Again this is not true. One can choose not to have any taxes withheld. It’s typically the company that withholds taxes on your behalf. You can ask them not to. And the post did nothing to speak to civic obligation or support for public goods. The post also seemed to have an anti-elitist theme running through it (i.e. these “masters” are getting rich off of our backs) but I fail to see how having less regulation, and fewer labor laws makes things any better. In fact it makes it quite worse. Which is one of the main conundrums I have with Conservatism. Now you can say that I’m just dense and not getting it. But I have yet to have anyone fully explain how a truly free and unregulated market(s) squares with the anti-elitism expressed here.
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #157:
“We all have a responsibility – but there are responsibilities which take precedent. Would you argue that it’s right and fair to take money you need to spend on you and your own family’s needs and toss it elsewhere at the orders of someone in ‘authority’? What responsibility do we have to take care of someone who won’t take care of themselves, who won’t provide for themselves, who have manifestly avoided learning how to be capable, competent citizenry?”
The basis of a progressive tax system is that the people that make more pay more. So no I don’t believe that taking money from a family barely making it to give to another family barely making it makes sense. Nor do I think anyone on the Left would make that proposal. However as we saw with the last major set of tax cuts they were aimed at people making over $250K a year … certainly not people that were struggling to get by.
“Does all money earned by the citizen belong to the government, so it’s appropriate for the government to take back without hindrance whatever it feels to be approprate? Or is the majority of the money/wealth created/earned by the citizenry their OWN – to do with as THEY decide, even if it doesn’t meet with YOUR approval?”
The money earned doesn’t _belong_ to the government. But we have an obligation to pay into public services for the collective benefit. We as a society choose what those public services are and then we fund them. The rest of our money is our to do with as we please (within moral bounds of course). Again, though, those that make more should pay more in my opinion.
At #158 (same poster)
“Why? Because you want them? Because you believe you should have them? Your ’should also have’ is not my responsibility to provide.”
Well in a sense ‘yes’. Not just that I believe that I have those rights. I believe that _you_ have those rights. Whether you choose to exercise that right or not is your decision. But yes, I think that a society that has the means to see to the well being of its citizens should be moral enough to do so.
I’m all for people “pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps” and all of that. But while that’s happening … how ’bout at least covering their medical expenses? We have a lot of working poor in this country. Now we can either spend time being self-righteous and blaming them for their situation or we can get past it and help. Even for the middle class though, I don’t think it hurts to have systems in place that make our lives easier and see to that our human dignity is preserved.
“The world owes no one a living. Or a guarantee of security or comfort. It seems to me you expect such – and want others to stand ready to pay for it if you can’t”
Ah, and here I would disagree. This comes off as cold, callous, and selfish to me. And it’s statements like this that steer me in the direction of saying that the Conservative philosophy lacks compassion. In a sense it’s like a Social Darwinism. It says that humans don’t have the right to be fed, clothed, sheltered even on the most basic level. I agree that people that can work should work. A lot of people that want to work right now can’t because of economic conditions out of their control. So what do we allow to happen to those people in the interim? Do we let them die when they get sick? Go homeless when they can’t pay the rent/mortgage? It just doesn’t seem humane to do so. Again if you’re one of these people just barely making it by I’m not talking about raising your taxes (and neither is anyone on the Left), but there are certainly people pulling down big bucks that I think should be taxed _fairly_ so that we as a society can meet our moral obligations.
JLawson commented:
From an interview w/Thomas Sowell on intellectualism…
Now oftentimes intellectuals are extremely intelligent people. So, how do they end up not seeing that they’re coming up with so many bad ideas that work out so poorly?
Well, one of the advantages of high intelligence is the ability to rationalize. We can all make mistakes and again, if you don’t pay for those mistakes, there’s not really a strong reason to make a correction. In fact, to admit a mistake among intellectuals and moreso among politicians, will do you more damage than persisting in it.
Now, I want to read something you wrote in a column that many people who consider themselves to be intellectuals would certainly take issue with. Here’s the quote, “But certainly, for the 20th century, it is hard to escape the conclusion that intellectuals have on net balance made the world a worse and more dangerous place.” Now if someone said to you, “Gosh, Thomas Sowell, I don’t think that’s true” what would you say?
I would say read the history of intellectuals in western democracies making it difficult for these democracies to arm themselves while the dictatorships were clearly arming themselves as fast as they possibly could. Of all the crack brained ideas to preserve peace that intellectuals had, almost all of them not only did not preserve peace, they made war more likely because they made war look more winnable to people on the other side. I mean to think that there was an international renunciation of war — well, isn’t that a lovely thought? But, just who is that going to deter?
http://rightwingnews.com/2010/02/interviewing-thomas-sowell-on-intellectualism/
The ‘elite’ haven’t proven their worth, or the workability of their ideas. I realize that real-world functionality isn’t really a necessary part of an academic construct, but without real-world applicability and utility, all the theories in the world are so much waste paper.
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #161:
Not sure if that was directed at me or not. But I would say first off that I’m not an intellectual. Nor am I an elite. And there are intellectuals on all sides of the political spectrum (I’m thinking of Irving Kristol, and Bucklee for example just to name a few on the Right). Whether they have been right or wrong more often than not??? Dunno, you’d have to look at what they espoused and how it played out I suppose. But I don’t see, in general, how anti-intellectualism gets us anywhere.
JLawson commented:
“Ah, and here I would disagree. This comes off as cold, callous, and selfish to me.”
Too damn bad. It’s reality – not a reality-based feel-good rhetorical construct. Drop you in the middle of the Arctic, you’ll freeze without protection. Drop you in the middle of the ocean without flotation, and you’ll drown. The world doesn’t care.
Go out in the middle of a vacant lot. Demand from the air that it build you a house. Demand from the squirrels in the trees that they feed you. Demand that the ground split open and provide you with free, fresh, clean water.
Does it happen? Is the world providing for you when you demand it? It owes you a living, why isn’t it providing?
Well, then just maybe it’s people who provide. People who care.. So you can either force them or persuade them to provide for your existance.
Go to your landlord – tell him you’re OWED a place to stay without paying for it. Go to your local grocery store – tell them you’re OWED food without having to pay for it. Go to any retailer – tell them you’re OWED their product.
See how much you get from them.
“Again if you’re one of these people just barely making it by I’m not talking about raising your taxes (and neither is anyone on the Left), but there are certainly people pulling down big bucks that I think should be taxed _fairly_ so that we as a society can meet our moral obligations.”
The moral obligations as determined by you? Or by those who reject the idea that YOU are somehow entitled to what THEY produce? Or some middle ground that all can agree to, but satisfies nobody completely? And what is ‘fair’?
You haven’t figured out yet that the ‘Soak the Rich’ meme only works when there are rich to be soaked. California’s figuring it out – the putative rich are pulling up stakes. NYC’s figuring it out – there’s no reason for the putative rich to stay in the city, and they’re leaving. 1 in 7 taxpayers so far have bugged out.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/item_qb4pItQ71UXIc0i6cd3UpK
I didn’t think it was that bad. Wow.
New Jersey’s lost $70 billion in revenue.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/study_the_rich_are_leaving_new_jersey_a5E4Ti0z6CxWelbf6nGwOL
Perhaps next are laws restricting movement of the rich? And what level qualifies one as ‘rich’, anyway? Do you ever expect or hope to reach that level?
“But I don’t see, in general, how anti-intellectualism gets us anywhere.”
I don’t see how worshipping the social ideas propounded by an unfunctional elite gets us anywhere.
You’re not here to learn. You’re here to expound your own beliefs. That’s pretty clear.
Well, troll, you’ll figure it out someday. Good luck to you, and may it not be too painful when reality gives you the wake-up slap.
pm commented:
Please read this:
http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5785
A University of Chicago educated psychiatrist – with no skin in the game – and who has treated thousands, concludes the liberal mind is a sick one.
This post is not long, and sums it up. Obama is corrupting America with his socialism. He also notes Bush got us started, and I agree.
The Tea Party movement is a sign of the health of our nation – or a large portion of it.
(Note the way the self-proclaimed one tried to label us as “fearful” — I think that’s addressed in this post as well. If not, it’s what the Left hopes to achieve…)
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #163:
“Too damn bad. It’s reality – not a reality-based feel-good rhetorical construct. Drop you in the middle of the Arctic, you’ll freeze without protection. Drop you in the middle of the ocean without flotation, and you’ll drown. The world doesn’t care.”
Well some people care. People with compassion and empathy for others. Look it’s fine that you feel the way you do. I simply disagree. On this thread I’ve been told both that compassion is not incompatible with Conservatism and on the other hand that it is? I’m just trying to understand the seeming contradiction.
Look there are many religious traditions that talk about honoring and respecting the humanity in each of us. Christianity talks about this a lot. There are philosophical underpinnings of the belief that people ought not be allowed to starve or die from lack of health care.
“The moral obligations as determined by you? Or by those who reject the idea that YOU are somehow entitled to what THEY produce? Or some middle ground that all can agree to, but satisfies nobody completely? And what is ‘fair’?”
Well that’s the issue isn’t it? Collectively we as a society have to determine what these obligations are. I’m asserting what I think the obligations ought to be. You disagree. But there are things that we socialize the cost of and are non-controversial. We have a socialized military, socialized police, and socialized fire departments. All of that goes pretty well uncontested. Implicit in that is that as citizens we have the right to certain levels of protection provided by all of those entities. And that we get those protections regardless of how much we make. The poorest and the richest alike are (or should be) equally protected under the law. Then we enter gray areas and that’s where we are today. I assert that education and health care are basic rights. You disagree. I think that lacks compassion. You don’t seem to care. Others seem to think that a free market approach would be more compassionate. I disagree.
I am hear to listen. Listen doesn’t mean agreeing. Do I understand your position correctly though? You feel that nothing is owed to anyone. That, in a sense, we all get what we deserve and owe nothing to anyone else aside from perhaps our immediate family?
Solaratov commented:
As I said – and has been so amply demonstrated – the object of the troll is *not* to engage in an actual dialogue, or give due consideration to your answers, statements, or positions; but, rather, to dominate through obfuscation and sheer volume.
The troll simply wants to take over a thread and become the focus thereof. Hence, the abundance of long, windy, repetitious posts – rather than a couple of short posts which ask cogent questions and then discuss the reply.
Never – at any time – will you answer the troll’s question in any way which will cause them to pause and say, “well, you seem to have a better point there than I.” And, of course, when you denounce socialism/fascism.communitarianism/et alia, the stock retort is that you are all “angry and afraid”. (Go back to spl’s posts and count the number of times that phrase is used.)
Now, I don’t want to hurt spl’s feelings (like hell) but – despite his/her/its protestations – it’s a troll. Albeit a pretty good one – but still a troll. As such, it can be ignored and discounted – or ridiculed unmercifully.
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
“You haven’t figured out yet that the ‘Soak the Rich’ meme only works when there are rich to be soaked. California’s figuring it out – the putative rich are pulling up stakes. NYC’s figuring it out – there’s no reason for the putative rich to stay in the city, and they’re leaving. 1 in 7 taxpayers so far have bugged out.”
I’m not for soaking the rich. But I’m for fair taxation. More importantly though if your not rich I’m not talking about soaking you.
Another theme running through some of these post is that of greed (and selfishness). That some rich people are leaving these states to go places with less taxes is true. That they are, in some cases, motivated by greed is also true. I don’t think that greed is a healthy motivator. Again it all comes down to the kind of society we want to create. I don’t want one where people are fearful of each other, selfish in their goals, and blind to the suffering of others. Perhaps you disagree? Or perhaps I’m overstating your lack of compassion. But I would hope that we’d at least be able to agree on some level of collective “binding” in that we’re all Americans and have a stake in the future of this country?
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
“Never – at any time – will you answer the troll’s question in any way which will cause them to pause and say, “well, you seem to have a better point there than I.””
There’s a post above where I thanked someone for correcting a misstatement where I said that rights had be “given” to us. And I was sincere in my thanking of that person for making the point they made.
Look, I’m not trying to say that Conservatives are afraid or fearful. Though I admit that is a stereotype that the Left has of the Right. But help me understand then. I’ve heard themes of “us” vs. “them”. Of “keeping what’s mine” and “not helping out the free-loaders”. And of “stopping the liberals/socialists from enslaving and killing us”. Now that all says fear to me. I haven’t heard anything in the positive. Just a lot of cynicism about the motivations of the left and a borderline paranoia about the Left’s desire to control your lives (for what purpose though no one has said).
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #166:
“Now, I don’t want to hurt spl’s feelings (like hell) but – despite his/her/its protestations – it’s a troll. Albeit a pretty good one – but still a troll. As such, it can be ignored and discounted – or ridiculed unmercifully.”
Well you all collectively can choose any response to me that you want. I came into this with the expressed intent of being open minded and looking for responses that dispelled my preconceived notions of what Conservatives are like. Unfortunately I have found much that has confirmed those prejudices. I also came in looking for the line of logic that ties together Conservative ideologies. I’ve read books, listened to interviews, etc. But rarely do the real important questions get asked or answered (like how does anti-elitism and free market fundamentalism fit together? Or how doe support for Christianity fit together with the perceived disregard for the dignity of “others”?). These are real conundrums for me.
Look the Right will win elections. That’s a given. But I’m more concerned with what sort of society gets created after those elections. I think we all have an interest in seeing America be the best it can be. So how do we define “the best it can be” and how do we get there? All of my questions are designed to get at that answer and understand the Conservatives vision on that topic.
cp commented:
selfproclaimedliberal
only the conservatives are greedy? the liberals are never greedy?
there are non greedy conservatives and greedy conservatives. Liberals are also the same.
there are rich conservatives and poor conservatives. There are rich liberals and poor liberals. When a conservatives is poor he doesn’t go around and accuse the rich conservatives or the rich liberals and expect them to help. When the rich conservatives offer help, he is thankful and make sincere efforts to improve his own conditions.
When a liberal is poor, he goes around and accuse the rich conservatives and expect them to help. If the rich conservative helps him, rather than feeling grateful, he will demand even more. If the rich conservative refuse to help him, he will insist that the government forcefully increase tax on the rich to help him.
Then there are many hollywood liberals and leftists who never pay taxes.
as for paying taxes and following regulations, the poor, middle and rich conservatives have better records in doing their part for the nation than the poor, middle and rich liberals and leftists.
The leftists thinks that the government are immune from becoming greedy. They think that people who believe in the free market system are necessarily greedy.
The leftist liberals think that they should be the ones who makes the regualtions and that their regulations will work better.
I rather trust a conservative to make the regulation because poor people in places where conservative people who believes in free market system are always better off.
pm commented:
“I came into this with the expressed intent of being open minded…” (selfproclaimedliberal)
Yet we agree with the good doctor, “…the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.”(Rossiter)
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #170:
“there are non greedy conservatives and greedy conservatives. Liberals are also the same. ”
Agreed
“When a liberal is poor, he goes around and accuse the rich conservatives and expect them to help. If the rich conservative helps him, rather than feeling grateful, he will demand even more. If the rich conservative refuse to help him, he will insist that the government forcefully increase tax on the rich to help him.”
Disagree
Actually I think it’s not the correct way to think about or frame my argument. Though I understand that I’ve been harping on the needs of the poor (after all I do believe in the basic rights of all humans to certain things) I’d say that the middle class and the rich are also entitled to the same protections.
As for whether or not liberals or conservatives are more grateful … I don’t think that’s relevant. I think there are many grateful people of all stripes (echoing your statement about greed). But the deeper question is, do we withhold basic necessities from people simply because we think they won’t be grateful if we give it to them? That sounds petty to me (which is again where I come back to the lack of compassion). Personally I give because it enriches my spirit to do so, not because I need a thank you from the person I’m giving to.
And let me also back up for a minute and say that rich people benefit greatly from tax supported services. The SEC that allows the stock market to operate in an (ostensibly) fair manner is paid for by all of us. The patent office that protects their company’s intellectual property; the courts that enforce it; our gun boats that protect their oil shipments are paid for by us; the roads used by companies to ship their goods; may parts of the internet that allow them to do commerce are paid for by us; In short there’s a lot of stuff that we pay for that companies call “externallities”. Things that they benefit from that all the rest of us pay for. I think it’s fair that if they are deriving profit, in part from these things, that they pay their fair share back into society to help continue those services.
cp commented:
selfproclaimedliberal,
For a person to know how to be grateful when someone helps him he has a mind that thinks that the world owes him anything.
A person who thinks that the world owes him or her, then he or she expects that the world should help him or her. Why should he or she feels grateful?
cp commented:
sorry typing error
I am not an american but an asian living somewhere in asia so forgive my english.
selfproclaimedliberal,
For a person to know how to be grateful when someone helps him he has a mind that thinks that the world doesn’t owes him anything.
A person who thinks that the world owes him or her, then he or she expects that the world should help him or her. Why should he or she feels grateful?
pontoon commented:
Fair is a word children and liberals use alot. LIFE is not fair, IF you make it out of the liberal womb alive.
cp commented:
The liberal who thinks that the world owes him, he feels that it is only natural that the world should help him. If people don’t help him then he complains that this person doesn’t have compassion.
So if there are greedy people in both conservative people and liberal people then why are you just complaining like as if only conservative people are the problem?
Why are you boasting like as if you as a liberal thinks of the poor and conservative people don’t think of the poor?
cp commented:
spl,
why do you speak like as if only liberals knows how to make regulations to take care of the poor and people who are conservatives don’t know how to make regulations to take care of the poor?
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #173:
“For a person to know how to be grateful when someone helps him he has a mind that thinks that the world doesn’t owes him anything.”
I’d like to frame this a different way. When we’re talking about who we are as a society for each other then I think conversations about whether certain individuals are grateful or not is irrelevant. I mean, we’ve all agreed to socialize the cost of our military, police, and fire fighters. And we do so without regard to how much people make. And the military protects everyone … even the people that disagree with some of it’s actions. So why not put health and education (though we do, thankfully, have public options for education) in that category?
Again, it just seems like a strawman to make everyone else out to be ungrateful and that somehow justifies your unwillingness to pay taxes. I just don’t think that flies. We pay taxes for the collective benefit of all. Over time we as a society and culture have come to deeper levels of understanding as to what rights are and to whom they should be recognized in. That’s all this is.
If I were to paraphrase your argument it would be like saying “hey let’s not free the slaves … some of them won’t be grateful”. Or “hey let’s not let women vote because some of them won’t do it.” I’m sure at the time some made those arguments. Those people were wrong. I think not having low cost/subsidized public options for health care is also wrong. I don’t think that the profits of insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies should be put ahead of people. Do you disagree? Would you say that the insurers have the right to make whatever profit they want even if pursuing their self-interest has the result of millions of people un(der)insured? Or the tens of thousands of people that die every year from lack of health care due to lack of insurance coverage? What does the Conservative ideology say that we do about that? I really am curious. What I’m hearing is that we ought to just let those people die because “life is tough” and “the world owes you nothing”. Is that the answer? If so that’s fine. I just want to make sure I get it right.
cp commented:
spl
are you trying to brainwash people and make them isolate and demonize conservatives thinking people?
I don’t see how it is logical to say that leftist liberal care for the poor and people who respect the free market system doesn’t care for the poor?
If you care for the poor then that is good. Many people who respect the free market system also care for the poor. You don’t think so?
You think poor people living in countries where leftist who hates the free market system makes the regulations are better off?
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #177:
“why do you speak like as if only liberals knows how to make regulations to take care of the poor and people who are conservatives don’t know how to make regulations to take care of the poor?”
Because a theme I’m constantly hearing (here and elsewhere) from Conservatives is “free market”. In fact I hear a lot of “market fundamentalism”. Which seems antithetical to regulation. I also hear that individuals aren’t entitled to anything. Not food, shelter, health care, education … nothing. So how does the Conservative ideology deal with such things? Is it all based on volunteerism? One could make that argument … I wouldn’t necessarily agree. But it is a “logical” argument on some level. Is that what I should get out of the Conservative ideology?
I see that earlier posters say (I’m paraphrasing) “hey I’ll help me and my immediate family and that’s it … everyone else is on their own.” Am I to understand that’s an isolated feeling and in general Conservatism has a plan that deals with health care, education, basic necessities for all?
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #179:
“are you trying to brainwash people and make them isolate and demonize conservatives thinking people?”
If I were trying to brainwash people I think I’m doing a poor job of it
Look I’m not trying to demonize conservative _people_. I’m trying to figure out how the _ideology_ deals with these issues.
Beyond just the poor I’ve brought up a lot of uses of taxes that benefit all of us in society. I’ve brought up examples of large corporate power that any of us individually is powerless to protect against. If you have answers from a Conservative point of view then I’m all ears.
- How do you protect against corporate greed and abuse in a free market?
- If people don’t have the right to affordable health care, then how do we deal with those that can’t afford it?
- Do the rich and corporations owe anything back to their stakeholders?
- Do the rich and corporations owe anything back to the rest of us for supporting many of the basic services that enable them to be profitable?
cp commented:
The conservative thinking people are the ones who always fight to free the oppressed people or the slaves or fight for the right for women to vote. because we believe that they are God’s children and they should have equal opportunities to contribute to society.
The leftist pretends to be concern about their situation but then go on to enslaves them and tells them to serve the government then the government will provide for them. And then expects them to sing hyms of thanks to the great provider – the government who is immuned from becoming greedy.
They
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #183:
“The conservative thinking people are the ones who always fight to free the oppressed people or the slaves or fight for the right for women to vote. because we believe that they are God’s children and they should have equal opportunities to contribute to society.”
Ah, well if we take it as a given that we are all God’s children then shouldn’t that entail a basic set of rights that we all have as children of the Divine? And shouldn’t those rights include health care, food, shelter, etc.?
And also, for the record, it was the conservatives of the time that opposed the abolition of slavery and womens right to vote. Even though the modern Conservative movement is much more libertarian in it’s views I still see this argument against basic rights as a throwback to those old arguments on which conservatives were on the wrong side.
“The leftist pretends to be concern about their situation but then go on to enslaves them and tells them to serve the government then the government will provide for them. And then expects them to sing hyms of thanks to the great provider – the government who is immuned from becoming greedy.”
Again, this sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. No one in the American Left is intent on enslaving or killing millions of people. But perhaps that’s the only way that you can oppose what otherwise seem like good and decent proposals … by choosing to buy into a cynical belief that nothing the Left says is true and that you know better. I call that paranoia.
cp commented:
“Beyond just the poor I’ve brought up a lot of uses of taxes that benefit all of us in society. I’ve brought up examples of large corporate power that any of us individually is powerless to protect against. If you have answers from a Conservative point of view then I’m all ears.”
Who says that conservative people are not thinking about how to tax fairly? And who says that conservative people don’t like to pay tax in order to support the government who then use the tax money in a responsible and accountable ways to serve the public?
“- How do you protect against corporate greed and abuse in a free market?”
Who says that the conservative thinking people agrees with corporates that cheats the public?
“- If people don’t have the right to affordable health care, then how do we deal with those that can’t afford it?”
Who says that the conservative thinking people don’t care about finding better and better ways to make health care more affordable? Obama, reid, pelosi says that?
“- Do the rich and corporations owe anything back to their stakeholders?”
Of course the corporations owes to the stakeholders who contributed but the corporation don’t own anything to those who did not contributed. The corporation can chose to help or not to help those it don’t owe anything to. They also can chose the way and methods they like to offer help to those who didn’t contribute and thus the corporation don’t owe anything to.
“- Do the rich and corporations owe anything back to the rest of us for supporting many of the basic services that enable them to be profitable?”
there are many rich corporation that are grateful for those who use their products and services and in return they work harder to provide better products and services.
cp commented:
spl
to you it is the liberals who fought to free the slaves but to me it is the conservative thinking people who fought to free the slaves because we believe no one has the right to use another person as slaves.
All God’s children are precious but that doesn’t mean we have the right to steal from the rich or to make false accusations that the rich are stealing from us when the rich are doing honest work to become rich.
cp commented:
if a liberal care enough to fight for freedom of slaves then in my eyes they are not liberals anymore but they have the mind of a conservative.
Taqiyyotomist commented:
“How do you protect against corporate greed and abuse in a free market?
- If people don’t have the right to affordable health care, then how do we deal with those that can’t afford it?
- Do the rich and corporations owe anything back to their stakeholders?
- Do the rich and corporations owe anything back to the rest of us for supporting many of the basic services that enable them to be profitable?”
You don’t do anything good OR JUST about any of these things by utilizing the failed systems that have sprung from Socialism.
This bears repeating:
“You think poor people living in countries where leftist who hates the free market system makes the regulations are better off?” – cp
I would also ask, do you think that there are less poor people in these places, where socialism and its ideological brethren are in control (per capita, mind you…) ? Barring that, do the poor in other places have a better standard of living than the poor people in free(-er) market systems?
I would say no. The poor in America have long had toilets, kitchen appliances, televisions GALORE, satellite TV, drivable vehicles, and more. The poor in China, Cuba, and every other Statist society have all this? Other societies, like India, for example, who know what poor really is, LAUGH at America, and shake their heads, because our poor are FAT.
As I said earlier, and bears repeating, the system may not be designed by man to effect the deaths of millions of humans, but that is and always will be end the result of Socialism and all it’s kin.
100,000,000 in the 20th century. While American intellectuals denied it was happening. Far as I know, Walter Duranty, may he rot, still has his forever-tainted Pulitzer, for actively working with the Russians to cover up the Ukranian famine.
Meanwhile, what GOOD did the nations and philosophies of these systems produce? Beside the point that NO good could offset the evil of one hundred million dead at the hands of Communists, socialists, and fascists (“Its all good, bro!”<–fascism's start.), there is nothing good that has come from the deceptions of these folks for the last hundred or more years.
The West, Israel, and the systems which were guided by freedom, on the other hand, have produced more goodness for the world than is MEASURABLE. You speak insanities, if you think that socialism, AND NOT Capitalism and freedom, is a NET GOOD THING. Insanities, illogic, no perspective.
Lots of good vs. NO GOOD, and the no good column gets your vote. The hundred million dead column is better than the hundred million cured and saved and liberated column in your mind. That's incredible.
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #185:
““- How do you protect against corporate greed and abuse in a free market?”
Who says that the conservative thinking people agrees with corporates that cheats the public?”
Ok, so _explain_ to me how free market capitalism and de-regulation, etc. deal with unscrupulous corporations?
““- If people don’t have the right to affordable health care, then how do we deal with those that can’t afford it?”
Who says that the conservative thinking people don’t care about finding better and better ways to make health care more affordable? Obama, reid, pelosi says that?”
Ok, so _explain_ to me what these answers are. Years back I read a book by Newt Gingrich (I’m sure I misspelled that there) where he had some somewhat plausible thoughts on health care. In the current debate the only thing I’ve heard from the Right is to allow selling policies over State lines (which allows companies to relocate to States with the fewest restrictions on them which would general lead to lower quality insurance). So is that the only idea out there on the Right? Isn’t providing a fully funded public option and letting it compete a “free market” solution? I’m really curious as to what the real ideas are … not just counter accusations that I’m somehow stereotyping all conservatives.
“Of course the corporations owes to the stakeholders who contributed but the corporation don’t own anything to those who did not contributed. The corporation can chose to help or not to help those it don’t owe anything to. They also can chose the way and methods they like to offer help to those who didn’t contribute and thus the corporation don’t owe anything to.”
My point is that we all contribute in someway directly or indirectly to the success of many companies. Asking them to be productive “corporate citizens” is, I think, reasonable. Paying their fair share of taxes is one way in which they can pay back society.
“All God’s children are precious but that doesn’t mean we have the right to steal from the rich or to make false accusations that the rich are stealing from us when the rich are doing honest work to become rich.”
No one is talking about stealing from the rich. That implies that all that they have is completely of their own making. That just doesn’t jive with the real world. Things are much more complex than that. Again it’s about choosing what we want our society to look like and then asking all people to contribute in someway, financially or otherwise, to help us construct that society.
bg commented:
++
cp, thanks..
you always make a lot of sense..
however..
selfproclaimedliberal does not want debate,
selfproclaimedliberal is doctor dominate..
blah, blah, blah, yada, yada,yada, i i i , me me me, echo echo echo.. gonna go round in circle’s..
blah, blah, blah, yada, yada,yada, i i i , me me me, echo echo echo..
see me, feel me, touch me, heal me..
Y-A-W-N
==
cp commented:
“Again, this sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. No one in the American Left is intent on enslaving or killing millions of people. But perhaps that’s the only way that you can oppose what otherwise seem like good and decent proposals … by choosing to buy into a cynical belief that nothing the Left says is true and that you know better. I call that paranoia.”
It is a conspiracy theory that american left can be different and that people in communist country had the intent of enslaving people when they push the society to accept their so called perfect system.
what happens internally affects externally and what happens externally can also affests internally. But when we use the external to change the internal, the effect will only last a while and then it wears off. The greed inside comes out again and this time even more intense.
I can wear nice clothes to make me feel confident inside. But the effect will last a while and than wears off. If i have not build up real confidence from inside, then by the time the effect wears off, i will feel not confident again.
Communist think that when it finally force the whole country to practice its system, then automatically people will loose their greediness and the new human being comes about. It doesn’t work! When the effect wears out, the greed inside especially among the leadership comes out because it was never dealt with and the problem is that the greed becomes even more intense. So communism is a blind belief.
Taqiyyotomist commented:
“And also, for the record, it was the conservatives of the time that opposed the abolition of slavery…”
FOR THE RECORD, and ACCORDING TO IT, you believe the opposite of what is true!
You’re all over the map, dude/dudette! You’ve done been down every road on the map of the nation of WRONG AS HELL in one thread!
Natan Forrest started the KKK, he was a Democrat. You really need to learn the truth of the matter. If you had asked why the Rev. MLK, Jr. was a Republican, he would have told you because it was the Democats who passed every single racist law ever written into law, and the Republicans who fought them tooth and nail. He would have told you he was a Republican because it was the Democrats who manned the firehoses and the Republicans like himself who were marching hand-in-hand for freedom. He would have told you about the KKK and how it was founded to fight against black ex-slaves and their descendents who were RUNNING AS REPUBLICANS and winning, and the Republicans who saw blacks as their equals under GOD. He would have told you that the Democrats who lost their precious slaves were angry about it enough to lynch anyone who stood in their way. If he had been prescient he would have told you that the Democrats one day will intentionally re-enslave the black man for his vote, while convincing him and a GULLIBLE NATION that the reverse was true.
You wish to label every one of these Democrats “Conservatives” because that’s your favorite proxy word for bad and evil.
Dems and Republicans never switched places in the conservative/liberal spectrum, as you have been deceived into believing. Democrats today are the same racist slaveholding party they have always been. And Republicans have been, historically and today, the ones who have tried their BUTTS off to get them out of it. As they ever have and will.
MLK, God bless him, woulda probably rethought his peaceful demeanor had he heard you say what you just said. Good grief Kennedy and the Democrats had him investigated for being a Commie!
Democrats = Cross-burners and sheet-wearers.
Democrats = Those who have run the inner-cities for the last 50 years.
Democrats = Those who have run the schools in those cities for the last 50 years.
I guar-an-frikkin-TEE you if the Republicans had been running those schools, or, better yet, the individual states!, the inner city schools would be churning out black scientists and doctors and mathemeticians like it was Ivy league, becuase we’re not satisfied with failure, and we don’t assume, like Liberals do, that blacks are inferior, and we, unlike liberals, don’t wish to keep them in the ghetto as mindless voteslaves.
Astounding to me, how people think.
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #188:
It’s a gross over simplification to look at other countries that have called themselves socialist/communist/etc and then equate their politically repressive policies with the core motivating spirit of socialism. I won’t disagree that the countries listed have done horrific things. I think this is antithetical to what the American Left believes and in fact what most Americans believe.
But again, you fail to deal directly with what I’m espousing. You’ve failed to offer a cogent solution to the issue of health care. You’ve failed to square rugged individualism with respect for human life and human dignity. You’ve failed to talk about what rights we have to the basic necessities of life.
Like I said before it’s paranoia to think that the American Left wants to set up concentration camps or pogroms. Perhaps this makes it easier to ignore my/our express desire to see to it that all people are treated fairly under the law and with dignity.
Does the West enjoy a higher standard of living … yes. Do we call ourselves capitalists … many of us yes. Have we at times used protectionism and other anti-market techniques to gain an advantage … yes. And are there other countries in the West that have greater social safety nets than the U.S. … yes.
I still have yet to hear how increased social safety nets, paying taxes, or market regulation are bad or would necessarily lead to pogroms.
Btw, I once read an article by Che Guevara saying how it was a misnomer to call the USSR or Cuba Communist. To him they had never evolved beyond state managed capitalism. Now I’m not for state management or central planning. but social safety nets based on respect and dignity for all humans … I can’t see how that’s a bad thing. And deep down I don’t think you guys think it’s bad either … but you invent this grand conspiracy theory to “make it ok” in your minds to reject what would otherwise seems like humane things to do … but I admit I’m biased here
Taqiyyotomist commented:
COME ON 200!
This is a long trainwreck!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvizgSKTaVE
Taqiyyotomist commented:
You got a hell of a plank in your eye to be accusing me of “failing to” regarding anything here.
Besides, now you’re quoting Che, who shot children for the political beliefs of their parents, among other heinousness.
I don’t want to debate someone who would quote Che for any reason other than to demonstrate or illustrate great evil or deception.
Good bye.
selfproclaimedliberal commented:
At #192:
I think it is you who is confused. In all of my posts I’ve explicitly stayed away from political labels. To say that the Republicans have _always_ been the party of Conservatives is as incorrect as saying the Dems have always been the party of Liberals.
That’s why I’m not talking about parties. I’m talking about ideologies. The same ideology that says that gays can’t get married, that says they can’t serve openly in the military, that says that people don’t have a right to health care … these are _conservative_ (small ‘c’) ideals. They also seem to be Conservative (big ‘C’) ideals. This is independent of Party.
So you’re critique falls flat. Just becomes conservatives once called themselves Democrats doesn’t mean that conservative views as the time were against social and political liberalization.
cp commented:
Liberals and leftists are always complaining about not doing enough to deal with the symtoms.
Conservative thinking people are alwasy serious about doing something to deal with the symptoms but at the same time finding out what are the causes and how to deal with the causes so that the there will be less symptoms. Unfortunately, one of the causes is the liberal and leftists lies. The more people insist on believing in those lies, the more the contribute to the symtoms.
Thanks bg!
I have always enjoyed your post as well and also all the valuable educational links you shared. Recently, the links about infiltration are very important. I hope many people clicked on those links.
bg commented:
++
just a sample:
Why Socialism Failed
[Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.
[..]
The Marxist admitted that many “socialist” countries around the world were failing. However, according to him, the reason for failure is not that socialism is deficient, but that the socialist economies are not practicing “pure” socialism. The perfect version of socialism would work; it is just the imperfect socialism that doesn’t work. Marxists like to compare a theoretically perfect version of socialism with practical, imperfect capitalism which allows them to claim that socialism is superior to capitalism.
If perfection really were an available option, the choice of economic and political systems would be irrelevant. In a world with perfect beings and infinite abundance, any economic or political system–socialism, capitalism, fascism, or communism–would work perfectly.]
Murder by Perfectionism
[With the passing of communism into history as an ideological alternative
to democracy it is time to do some accounting of its human costs.
Few would deny any longer that communism--Marxism-Leninism and its variants--meant in practice bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal gulags and forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and show trials, and genocide. It is also widely known that as a result millions of innocent people have been murdered in cold blood. Yet there has been virtually no concentrated statistical work on what this total might be.
For about eight years I have been sifting through thousands of sources trying to determine the extent of democide (genocide and mass murder) in this century. As a result of that effort** I am able to give some conservative figures on what is an unrivaled communist hecatomb, and to compare this to overall world totals. ]
==
cp commented:
Liberals and leftists really don’t know how to be grateful for what the free market system has done for the people in America. not only are the poor and the sick better taken care of in America but also america has helped to take care of so many poor and sick in other countries.
If the liberals and leftist in america think that the free market system is so bad and under the system the poor are intentionally ignored then they should try going to some communist countries and live there. they will be happier.
Taqiyy. commented:
As I implied, I’m done arguing with you. As a general rule, I don’t attempt to debate people who see monsters such as Che as a source of any sort of wisdom at all, about who ever got what “right” in history.
I’m sticking to that rule, because it’s a good rule.
bg commented:
++
#184 re: [or the record, it was the conservatives of the time that opposed the abolition of slavery]
History of civil rights – In a nutshell
[●The Republican Party - From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks.
● The Democratic Party - As author Michael Scheuer stated, the Democrat Party is the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.]
#196 re: [but I admit I’m biased here]
yes, we know, it’s all about you and how you can
string people along with your nonsense, whatever..
==
bg commented:
++
cp, your (& Taq) posts are the only
reason i’ve strung along this far..
thank you & you’re welcome..
==
cp commented:
corporation that cheats? show us that corporation. show evidence that they are cheating. report them to the police. and whether the ceo are conservatives or liberals, we will put them in jail.
And i will not be surprise if many liberals and leftists ceos going to jail.
cp commented:
bg
ha ha. it the post is getting quite long and refreshing the page is a little burdensome. it is fun to share something in this post because i have also learnt so many things from you and other honest posters.
Thanks to all. My side of the world is nearly morning. so i think i will just drop by sometime later and see if there are any more strange twisted reasonings by liberals and leftists.
Jo commented:
Sarah for President.
Taqiyy. commented:
It was indeed fun, cp & bg.
An exercise is needed sometimes, of the reasoning and debating skills, and that was like a batting cage with a Tim-Taylor-ized pitching-machine gone haywire!
red commented:
Yeah, self absorbed liberal never addressed the horror of socialism.
Che is just one more mass executioner, shooting the rich so the poor can be raised up. Everyone will be equally miserable – except the elite. And self-absorbed liberals always have the fantasy that they will be in the elite.
cp commented:
The liberal and leftist who thinks the world owe them something are more likely to be the ones who keep slaves because they think that the slaves owe them. The liberal and leftist government thinks that the citizens owes them and should be their slaves.
The conservatives don’t believe that it is proper to have slaves because these people don’t owe us anything. If we want something we have to work for it ourselves and not make slaves out of people and expect them to work for us for free.
If a conservative thinking person needs someone to work then he will want to pay that person the proper pay for his service offered.
cp commented:
And the conservative thinking person will rather die than allow any leftist liberal goverment make them become their slaves and decide for them what healthcare or education is good and what is not good.
cp commented:
The communists vietnamese realised that they can’t deal with these type of of conservative thinking people so what did they do? They send millions of them including women and children as boat people to drown in the perilous ocean.
No communist Vietnam lost their chance to show that they can win the war because the liberal leftist in America has demoralized their own military and caused them to pull out prematurely. They should thank the conservative thinking Americans who agreed to pull out just in order to accomodate these selfish liberal leftists in america – hoping that they will grow up once they see the cruel result of the pull out – when millions of innocents are drowning in the sea.
cp commented:
Yes, I rather die as a freeman than live as a slave to big government!
bg commented:
++
cp @ 11:35 pm #210
liberals are also cocky folk.. something like that could never happen to them, i mean, in their version of America, they’re way too “smart” & too “feeling” for any wool to be pulled over their eyes, i mean, in their own eyes.. that’s why they’ll be the first ones rounded up if & when the IslaMarxists are running the gulag, i mean, caliphate..
==
bg commented:
++
red @ 10:45 pm #207
same goes for the horrors of Islam..
Islamists & Marxists live on “one way streets”..
everyone else must follow their
“dictated directions or die”..
cp @ 11:37 pm #211
Amen..
==
Nikki Oldaker commented:
Just finished Sarah’s book Going Rogue on audio…she is and was more qualified than both Obama & Biden combined. Do not listen to MSM – they get paid to sell candidates. If Sarah does run for President -she will be carried into office by a tital wave of reform voters – count me in as one of them.