A question for Conservatives

[Soggy in NOLA]

Common sense. Will you honestly tell me that Republicans are the champions of gay and minority affairs?

Republicans, like Democrats, are the champions of advancing the power and dominance of the party to which they belong.

Conservatives are the champions of all individual rights whether they be Democrats or Republicans. If you view Gays and Minorities as individuals, then Conservatives are thier champions. If you view Gays and Minorities as voting blocks, then Liberals are their champions.

Liberals veiw every group and every issue only in terms of us vs. them. Liberals identify groups in terms of wealth, race, gendre, religion, geography, education and you name it in order to pit one group against another. In this way, every person is both de-humanized and catagorized. Injustice is attacked, but justice is never sought.

For Liberals, there are no individuals, only demographics. Within the society, all demographics are either better or worse, richer or poorer, dominant or oppressed. Nobody is responsible for himself. Only groups can be granted rights and only members of groups can enjoy those rights.

So if you think that by segmenting and disecting society into component groups and then pitting one group against another we can establish justice, then you will be quite comfortable self-identifying as a Liberal.

If you feel that according all individuals equal rights and equal oppotunity and then allowing each individual to function as a free agent within the society, then you will be quite comfortable self-identifying as a Conservative.

If you see a person and then find it only interesting in passing that he is Gay, you are probably a Conservative. If you see a Gay and understand prima facia that he is oppressed, you are probably a Liberal.

By establishing rights for all individuals, the need for propping up or tearing down certain groups is diminished. By propping up or tearing down certain groups, the integrity and value of the individual is diminished. If the rights of all people to marry the person they love is guarenteed, the need for a law to "allow" gay civil unions is suddenly moot.

Group rights are by definition discriminatory. If one group is empowered, unnamed groups are disenfranchised.

I disagree. The modern Con movement has been more about dismantling programs that were meant to create an equalizing effect on opportunity - Not an equal end-result, but an equality of opportunity for all. They do this all in the name of "Freedom," but unfortunately the end result of laissez-faire economics is the establishment of a caste system and ultimately class revolution. You get so caught up in principle that you ignore ultimate results.

 

[boedicca]

The OP is a just a more wordy version of "when did you stop beating your wife" nonsense.

 

[The T]

Common sense. Will you honestly tell me that Republicans are the champions of gay and minority affairs?

Republicans, like Democrats, are the champions of advancing the power and dominance of the party to which they belong.

Conservatives are the champions of all individual rights whether they be Democrats or Republicans. If you view Gays and Minorities as individuals, then Conservatives are thier champions. If you view Gays and Minorities as voting blocks, then Liberals are their champions.

Liberals veiw every group and every issue only in terms of us vs. them. Liberals identify groups in terms of wealth, race, gendre, religion, geography, education and you name it in order to pit one group against another. In this way, every person is both de-humanized and catagorized. Injustice is attacked, but justice is never sought.

For Liberals, there are no individuals, only demographics. Within the society, all demographics are either better or worse, richer or poorer, dominant or oppressed. Nobody is responsible for himself. Only groups can be granted rights and only members of groups can enjoy those rights.

So if you think that by segmenting and disecting society into component groups and then pitting one group against another we can establish justice, then you will be quite comfortable self-identifying as a Liberal.

If you feel that according all individuals equal rights and equal oppotunity and then allowing each individual to function as a free agent within the society, then you will be quite comfortable self-identifying as a Conservative.

If you see a person and then find it only interesting in passing that he is Gay, you are probably a Conservative. If you see a Gay and understand prima facia that he is oppressed, you are probably a Liberal.

By establishing rights for all individuals, the need for propping up or tearing down certain groups is diminished. By propping up or tearing down certain groups, the integrity and value of the individual is diminished. If the rights of all people to marry the person they love is guarenteed, the need for a law to "allow" gay civil unions is suddenly moot.

Group rights are by definition discriminatory. If one group is empowered, unnamed groups are disenfranchised.

I disagree. The modern Con movement has been more about dismantling programs that were meant to create an equalizing effect on opportunity - Not an equal end-result, but an equality of opportunity for all. They do this all in the name of "Freedom," but unfortunately the end result of laissez-faire economics is the establishment of a caste system and ultimately class revolution. You get so caught up in principle that you ignore ultimate results.

Looks like they failed. it's a LIE...the Statists are exactly engaging in equal outcome for the whiners in society.

-WAKE UP-

(That is unless you are one of the whiners)...

 

[JakeStarkey]

The wacks on the first page, with two exceptions, prove the OP. These people do not understand the definitions or the historical context in which they are used. Such losers consider those who are far more educated than them to be "elitists". To be truly educated and ready to participate fully and worthily in the modern era, one should be extensively read in Smith, Mills, Goethe, Marx, Engels, etc., among the great works of Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian, and Modern times.

Anyone who is not educated (this has nothing to do with degrees) simply is dismissed.

Excellent OP and excellent exposure of the pseudo-intellectuals and pseudo-educated on the Board.

 

[mdn2000]

Have you ever read a complete text by Marx?

Have you ever studied Marx in a university context, where you unpacked his terms inside their historical context?

Here is why I ask.

I notice that Conservatives make constant references to Marx, but I never get the sense that they've studied his work in depth. I get the sense that they've been exposed to Marx mostly by interested 3rd parties (Talk Radio, partisan literature, the echo chamber) who provide only cherry picked quotes.

You fear? Ha, ha, it looks to me like you pick Marx as a launching point to attack Conservative Media, why dont your provide a quote and link to the Conservative Media taking Marx out of context.

I may be wrong but it seems like you are the one who does not know what he is talking about, instead of repeating a stereotype to denigrate good sources of news and editorials provide a link and lets discuss your misconceptions of those you accuse

 

[BlindBoo]

Oh, like I can't criticize crack smokers because I've never smoked crack? Well I don't have to because I've seen how it destroys people.

I don't need a degree in Communism to see how it's never worked in any place it's tried and destroyed millions of lives.

I know people who actually lived in actual repressive countries (Like Iran, China, Vietnam) so I don't need you spoiled, pointy headed intellectuals trying to lecture me.

Besides, you have a bigger problem: Islam is taking over your country. Enjoy your Sharia Law faggot.

Well you're certainly not qualified to comment on the effects of Free-Basing Cocaine then. (Free-base became Crack when the Raygun team flooded the market with Coke, via our man in Panama, to fund the terrorist cell they were supporting based in Costa Rica)

Jesus preached a form of communism.

The repressive authoritain countries you mentioned are not Marxist governments.

Did you just call someone a bundle of wood?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The wacks on the first page, with two exceptions, prove the OP. These people do not understand the definitions or the historical context in which they are used. Such losers consider those who are far more educated than them to be "elitists". To be truly educated and ready to participate fully and worthily in the modern era, one should be extensively read in Smith, Mills, Goethe, Marx, Engels, etc., among the great works of Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian, and Modern times.

Anyone who is not educated (this has nothing to do with degrees) simply is dismissed.

Excellent OP and excellent exposure of the pseudo-intellectuals and pseudo-educated on the Board.

Jake, you know you're defending Marxism, right?

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

If you were as well read as you claim... You would not be a young, urban, Latino, gay 'Republican.'

That's the whole reason I am, we use facts, and yall use talking points from Obama's ass. I go against the grain, cuz I see policies that you likely support, are destroying my communities, and this whole area.

Oh do you think so? I don't think you use any facts at all. If you do... Please, elaborate on what you just said.

FACTS:
*Welfare is no longer the temporary safety net it was originally designed to be, IT HAS BECOME A CRUTCH, A LIFESTYLE FOR FAR TOO MANY MINORITIES ROUND THIS NATION. That and unemployment, discouraging them from going out and gettin REAL JOBS, and a REAL FUTURE for themselves.

*The vast majority of blacks who voted for Obama VOTED FOR HIM JUST CUZ HE'S HALF-BLACK TOO. VIRTUALLY NONE of my black friends (who most of my friends are) sadly HAD/HAVE NO CLUE wtf Obama stood for, what he didn't, etc. Reverse racism sucks.

*The Dems clearly take our minority votes for granted, THEY'VE BEEN VOTING JACKASS FOR BOUT 80 YEARS NOW WITH NO REAL IMPROVEMENTS IN LIVING, ETC.

I can go on.......

 

[daveman]

The wacks on the first page, with two exceptions, prove the OP. These people do not understand the definitions or the historical context in which they are used. Such losers consider those who are far more educated than them to be "elitists". To be truly educated and ready to participate fully and worthily in the modern era, one should be extensively read in Smith, Mills, Goethe, Marx, Engels, etc., among the great works of Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian, and Modern times.

Anyone who is not educated (this has nothing to do with degrees) simply is dismissed.

Excellent OP and excellent exposure of the pseudo-intellectuals and pseudo-educated on the Board.

Your concern for the poor misunderstood Unkle Karl is noted and ascribed to your leftist tendencies.

I've explained why it doesn't matter what Marx said. All that matters is what his followers have done...and it's nothing but murder. History shows this. You have to be willfully blind not to know it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Marxism is great look at how its worked out for the people in....um, er, well....

 

[KMAN]

Have you ever read a complete text by Marx?

Have you ever studied Marx in a university context, where you unpacked his terms inside their historical context?

Here is why I ask.

I notice that Conservatives make constant references to Marx, but I never get the sense that they've studied his work in depth. I get the sense that they've been exposed to Marx mostly by interested 3rd parties (Talk Radio, partisan literature, the echo chamber) who provide only cherry picked quotes.

I have a friend who has been referring to Marx for years. I finally found out he had never read anything by Marx and it scared me.

When I tried to investigate why he would do such a thing, I discovered something horrific.

First, I should mention, I understand that Conservatives have created a universe which circulates talking points to their members. [This is what all political parties do] These talking points, which contain references to Marx, are pumped through a vast media network and repeated endlessly until they are experienced as "facts". I get this, and I realize that these talking points are designed for lemmings who can't think for themselves. Both parties have this regrettable element.

The horrific part is that so many people do not experience any cognitive dissonance when they use a reference that they've never fully investigated.

Here is my question, again. Why do Conservatives use terms that they've never studied? Is there anything about their personalities that would explain this? Does the movement attract a certain type of person? Is it a quasi-religious thing whereby they trust "higher powers" for their information? Is it really enough that William F Buckley read some Marx at Yale, which lead to an industry of secondary criticism (twice removed from the source), which criticism has produced fully formed opinions in people who've never consulted the source?

Please help me understand.

[Please don't say "liberals do it too". We already know this. The question is not "why do commie liberals act stupidly or unethically?". We know why? -they're commie liberals. The questions is: "why do good conservative americans act stupidly or unethically?"]

Is it possible that huge portions of the Right have never studied a word that use daily? Is it really possible that the party of Lincoln has been taken over by morons?

(Lie to me. Tell me you've studied Marx. Stretch the truth. Invent some rationalization about how you don't need to read an author to understand him -- and how you can trust news personalities to educate you and your children. Anything. Just don't tell me that you've never directly studied one of your key terms)

(Conservatives rely on the term "Marx" more than anything in their lexicon -- it is their lynchpin to criticize the Left. What if most of them have never read Marx and don't even understand his theories?)

(Is the most powerful political movement in my lifetime -- the Reagan Revolution -- kept afloat by an army of useful idiots?)

I have never referred to Marx but I do know that I am against the complete take over of our economy by our Government and against taking from one group of people to give to another group of people... If Marx believes the same thing as me then I am a Marxist. If he believes the opposite then BHO is a Marxist... pretty simple to me...

 

[American Horse]

I also wouldn't generalize on the scope you are sir. I could just as well ask: "Why is this Briton's teeth so bad? Why is he so concerned with us, our politics, when his own nation is going to hell in a hand basket?"

See how easy that was?

As children there is just way too much thumb-sucking.
That's my own theory on that, and perhaps along with some vitamin/nutrition deficiencies.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Marxism, communism, socialism is like poison.

Why would anyone think that "it won't kill me" and take a drink, when there are over 1 billion bodies?

Stalin killed 40 million. Mao got at least 60 million. Pol Pot killed ~20 million. Hitler...

On and on. I don't need to know the details when I see the end results.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The wacks on the first page, with two exceptions, prove the OP. These people do not understand the definitions or the historical context in which they are used. Such losers consider those who are far more educated than them to be "elitists". To be truly educated and ready to participate fully and worthily in the modern era, one should be extensively read in Smith, Mills, Goethe, Marx, Engels, etc., among the great works of Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian, and Modern times.

Anyone who is not educated (this has nothing to do with degrees) simply is dismissed.

Excellent OP and excellent exposure of the pseudo-intellectuals and pseudo-educated on the Board.

Jake, you know you're defending Marxism, right?

CrusaderFrank, you demonstrate that you are the working example of a pseudo-intellectual with that remark. You can't talk intelligently about matters, principles, issues unless you understand them. Time and again I have been amazed at the witlessness of your and your comrades' remarks on the Board. Thank you for posting your comment, thank you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The wacks on the first page, with two exceptions, prove the OP. These people do not understand the definitions or the historical context in which they are used. Such losers consider those who are far more educated than them to be "elitists". To be truly educated and ready to participate fully and worthily in the modern era, one should be extensively read in Smith, Mills, Goethe, Marx, Engels, etc., among the great works of Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian, and Modern times.

Anyone who is not educated (this has nothing to do with degrees) simply is dismissed.

Excellent OP and excellent exposure of the pseudo-intellectuals and pseudo-educated on the Board.

Your concern for the poor misunderstood Unkle Karl is noted and ascribed to your leftist tendencies.

I've explained why it doesn't matter what Marx said. All that matters is what his followers have done...and it's nothing but murder. History shows this. You have to be willfully blind not to know it.

Your "explanation" dismisses you as the fool you are. Thank you for making that point absolutely clear with your posting.

 

[earthling01]

Well, I find a lot more OPINIONS than FACTS here, Righteous1:

*Welfare is no longer the temporary safety net it was originally designed to be, IT HAS BECOME A CRUTCH, A LIFESTYLE FOR FAR TOO MANY MINORITIES ROUND THIS NATION. That and unemployment, discouraging them from going out and gettin REAL JOBS, and a REAL FUTURE for themselves."

Ah, yes. It's the minorities taking govt handouts and ruining our country. To clarify "minorities", do you include disabled veterans, single-parent families, the massive number of unemployed, victims of bank foreclosures? That's a lot of "minorities". Closer to a "majority" wouldn't you say?

"The vast majority of blacks who voted for Obama VOTED FOR HIM JUST CUZ HE'S HALF-BLACK TOO. VIRTUALLY NONE of my black friends (who most of my friends are) sadly HAD/HAVE NO CLUE wtf Obama stood for, what he didn't, etc. Reverse racism sucks."

True, but when you look at the other 2008 presidential candidate, let's face it, Obama was a no-brainer! Enough said there....

"The Dems clearly take our minority votes for granted, THEY'VE BEEN VOTING JACKASS FOR BOUT 80 YEARS NOW WITH NO REAL IMPROVEMENTS IN LIVING, ETC."

Oh, yes. All those Socialist programs like Medicare, Social Security, Disability Insurance, EDD, Veteran Hospitals. No improvements in living there...

"I can go on......."

Please do!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well, in the case of R1, I don't think he exists as we know him. I think, actually it's rather obvious, that it's a character somebody is playing. Possibly somebody else's sock, but not necessarily.

And no, I demand obedience from nobody, unless I sign their paycheck. I find it discouraging and sad to see people tricked into voting against their self-interests, though.

...

Aey I gotta idea you lil lying, spamming, trolling, piece of shit, how bout you bring your loser self over to Reading, and I'll show you JUST HOW FUCKIN REAL I AM.

Denver aint that far away last time I checked......

R1 is every bit as melty as Sammy and bigreb. They are fun to watch go off the rails.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marxism, communism, socialism is like poison.

Why would anyone think that "it won't kill me" and take a drink, when there are over 1 billion bodies?

Stalin killed 40 million. Mao got at least 60 million. Pol Pot killed ~20 million. Hitler...

On and on. I don't need to know the details when I see the end results.

The modern industrial revolution, integral to capitalism, has resulted in scores of millions of death, caused by the ism's, right and center and left. Don't think an intelligent person believes unregulated capitalism to be any more wonderful than a communist state. Both capitalism and socialism, properly managed, have created decent societies: Denmark, Sweden, and Canada are examples of the latter and the USA and other countries examples of the former.

A society good to all mandates an educated understanding of definitions, theories, and the historical construct in which they are used. Anyone who starts arguing about "elites" is a person who intends to take far more than his or her share.

 

[daveman]

The wacks on the first page, with two exceptions, prove the OP. These people do not understand the definitions or the historical context in which they are used. Such losers consider those who are far more educated than them to be "elitists". To be truly educated and ready to participate fully and worthily in the modern era, one should be extensively read in Smith, Mills, Goethe, Marx, Engels, etc., among the great works of Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian, and Modern times.

Anyone who is not educated (this has nothing to do with degrees) simply is dismissed.

Excellent OP and excellent exposure of the pseudo-intellectuals and pseudo-educated on the Board.

Your concern for the poor misunderstood Unkle Karl is noted and ascribed to your leftist tendencies.

I've explained why it doesn't matter what Marx said. All that matters is what his followers have done...and it's nothing but murder. History shows this. You have to be willfully blind not to know it.

Your "explanation" dismisses you as the fool you are. Thank you for making that point absolutely clear with your posting.

Poor, misunderstood Unkle Karl.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here is daveman struggling with his own explanations: priceless!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH1Dk-rZ1IE[/ame]

He will declare himself the victor!