The lefties want "equality". Is equality possible?

[LiberalNut]

Then prove de Toqueville wrong

Why would I have to do that? Earth to eagle...there aint no socialists here. BTW, if you actually read de Toqueville instead of quote mining, you'll find an excellent chapter where he credits INHERITANCE TAXES for the stability of American society. You don't really know anything about de Toqueville, do you?

 

[Full-Auto]

there aint no socialists here

Absolutely comical.

Perhaps you should have paid attention to the rallys the left has sponsored and then explain away those signs.

What a dufus!!!!

 

[JBeukema]

Demean? You betcha! :: Ooops, excuse the Palinese. I tend to demean undereducated drones who, acting according to their training, post straw man arguments. It's what i do.

Then prove de Toqueville wrong mr. smartass...

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Democracy requires servitude of 49% of the population if 51% says so.


There, done.

 

[LiberalNut]

there aint no socialists here

Absolutely comical.

You see, the drone absolutely needs his socialist strawman. He doesn't have the intellectual equipment to argue with a real liberal. So he builds a strawman and argues against his own creation.

::sigh::

His training is what it is.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Then prove de Toqueville wrong

Why would I have to do that? Earth to eagle...there aint no socialists here. BTW, if you actually read de Toqueville instead of quote mining, you'll find an excellent chapter where he credits INHERITANCE TAXES for the stability of American society. You don't really know anything about de Toqueville, do you?

I know that he was one of the smartest Frenchmen ever....not saying much, that....

If you are not a socialist advocate then i wonder why you attempt to derail an honest argument about equality as seen from two different perspectives.....and why you insult the right as well.....?

Make no mistake about it....equality under Democracy is very different from equality under Socialism....

 

[LiberalNut]

And there we have it. The drone doesn't have anything but the strawman and the pre-packaged quotes, so he will now go into infinite repeat mode, just as he is trained to do.

Man, this right wing religion is astonishing.

BTW, I aint French either. My ancestors came from Portugal.

 

[JBeukema]

What, then, does it mean to speak of equality? Do we mean to say one man is necessarily equal to another in any objective sense? Certainly not, for such an assertion is absurd on its face- men are not all equal in their build, their character (either in their natural or inherent disposition or in the sum of their natural disposition and their experience), or in their physical and mental capacities and potential. Indeed, the market itself, the division of labour, and the specialization which makes the modern age possible are built upon this very fact of nature. Equality, then is not to be misconstrued as the equal nature, potential, attributes, or value of all persons (consider the fair judge against the diseased thief), but is rather to be understood as the equality of all citizens before the law and the equal right of all members of our society to develop their own potential free of discrimination based upon their race, sex, colour, or place and caste of birth.

The Liberal and the ‘Progressive’ have long had great difficulty comprehending the concept of equality. The Liberal loves to speak as though men are widgets or some other mass-produced product of industry, ‘created equal’, built to within a micron of some standard, and devoid of individual variation and potential. Yet the very Laizze-Faire market they espouse depends upon the inequality of men in their shrewdness, ingenuity, ideas, industriousness, and mental and physical capacities in order to function. Furthermore, the birth of ill and misshapen children, the variation of human skin colour, and common experience with a number of individuals all show us the variation with our species and render absurd such assertions of human equality and uniformity. Only by appealing to vague metaphysics or simply refusing to address the issue can the Liberal respond to these realities. The ‘Progressive’ (as they dub themselves), on the other hand, takes the Liberal’s rhetoric of ‘equality’ as a commandment that men must be made equal by taking from the successful to enrich the incompetent and showing favour in all things to failures and the idle over the competent and industrious. Yet such measures of authoritarian collectivism as the ‘Progressives’ have enacted and continue to advocate have not resulted in the equal condition and results they promise, as the incompetent squander what is handed them and the successful become more cunning in protecting their earnings from seizure. Rather than moving us towards egalitarianism, they perpetuate class antagonisms and add fuel to class warfare- hinting, perhaps, at the neo-Marxian roots of much of their philosophy. Whether they do this merely to secure votes and further their own careers, or out of total ignorance, or for more nefarious reasons, I leave to your own judgment. Regardless, the results remain unchanged. And what is the result of this indefensible and intelligent preference shown towards the wicked, the incompetent, and the incredibly flawed? It's that the ills which afflict them and which they inflict upon the rest of humanity are perpetuated and magnified indefinitely as a culture of vice, laziness, and incompetence is cultured and nurtured. This is not equality and it is most certainly not progress. Doubtless, both the Liberal and the ‘Progressive’ have failed us.

What's so hard to grasp?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

And there we have it. The drone doesn't have anything but the strawman and the pre-packaged quotes, so he will now go into infinite repeat mode, just as he is trained to do.

Man, this right wing religion is astonishing.

BTW, I aint French either. My ancestors came from Portugal.

And there we have it....let's see what you have contributed to the argument.....

whine whine whine....and more whine....are u sure yer not french...?

 

[LiberalNut]

I'm sure I'm not French. Is this what you're trying to pass off as intellect now, mindless swipes at the French?

::sigh::

Go have some freedom fries drone.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I'm sure I'm not French. Is this what you're trying to pass off as intellect now, mindless swipes at the French?

::sigh::

Go have some freedom fries drone.

may as well.....better than listening to your idiotic whining....

 

[LiberalNut]

Yeah, have some freedom toast while you're at it drone. Then you can work on refining your fallacious arguments that anyone with the intellectual capacity above the common aphid will be able to shred as easilly as i have done.

Oh, and actually READ de Toqueville. Great stuff but you have to actually READ it.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Yeah, have some freedom toast while you're at it drone. Then you can work on refining your fallacious arguments that anyone with the intellectual capacity above the common aphid will be able to shred as easilly as i have done.

Oh, and actually READ de Toqueville. Great stuff but you have to actually READ it.

I'm sure I'm not French. Is this what you're trying to pass off as intellect now, mindless swipes at the French?

::sigh::

Go have some freedom fries drone.

may as well.....better than listening to your idiotic whining....

oops....left out a word.....

may as well....better than listening to your idiotic pseudointellectual whining...

 

[Sallow]

Yeah, have some freedom toast while you're at it drone. Then you can work on refining your fallacious arguments that anyone with the intellectual capacity above the common aphid will be able to shred as easilly as i have done.

Oh, and actually READ de Toqueville. Great stuff but you have to actually READ it.

I had the same sort of discussion with someone quote mining John Locke and yammering on about this nonsense called "Classical Liberalism". He said Locke would punt on "Social Justice" until I introduced him to some of Locke's real ideals.

 

[LiberalNut]

Locke's real ideals.

Oh yeah. They'd never take the time or effort to actually read Locke. They read some bone-headed libertarian screed that quote mines and/or completely misrepresents Locke. Introduce them to the real, radically liberal Locke and i can imagine that they'd be astonished and dismayed.

Then of course they would go right ahead and blather the same idiocy.

So it goes.

 

[rdean]

Or Obama getting into Harvard because he's black?

Except that being the Editor of the Harvard Law Review means he was in the top 10% of his class. He taught "Constitutional Law" at the University Level for 10 years. He went to Harvard based on "student loans" which he didn't finish paying off until his forties. They were "paid off" from the money he received when he wrote two best selling books.

The right just want to hate him so much, that fucking "black guy" in the "WHITE" House, they just can't see him as a hard working American who actually represents the American Dream going from "food stamps" to the nation's highest elected office. They will never see anything good from Obama. They refuse too. The hate is simply too deep.

Like I said before, his name could be "George Washington Lincoln" born in Washington DC under a Cherry tree and delivered by Ron Paul and the right would still hate him. They can deny it all they want, but they are a Conservative Confederate Party that is 90% white. That is the reality.

Firstly, he had to get into Harvard before he became Editor. So that point is idiotic.

Secondly, he got a PolSci degree from Columbia. That degree, at best, showed a GPA of 3.3. That's not an overly brilliant or even vaguely decent score.

Third, the post of Editor - when Obama was at Harvard - was by vote - so you can't say he was top 10.

And... if he was "top 10", please 'splain where the extra intellect came from... cuz he sure as hell wasn't setting records at Columbia.

For the white wing, no black will ever be good enough to live in the "WHITE" House except as someone who cooks or cleans.

All evidence points to Bush and McCain being stupid, but it's Obama they trash. Such high standards are required, but only if you are black and not even then.

 

[u2scram]

""So he builds a strawman and argues against his own creation.""

ive noticed that nearly every thread started by a conservative does that. i suspect tho, that even when you explain it to them they just dont get it.

Researchers help define what makes a political conservative

07.22.2003 - Researchers help define what makes a political conservative

PDF : http://tinyurl.com/y99hy3

BERKELEY – Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?
Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:
Fear and aggression
Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
Uncertainty avoidance
Need for cognitive closure
Terror management

"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.

Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way, the authors commented in a published reply to the article.

While most people resist change, Glaser said, liberals appear to have a higher tolerance for change than conservatives do.
As for conservatives' penchant for accepting inequality, he said, one contemporary example is liberals' general endorsement of extending rights and liberties to disadvantaged minorities such as gays and lesbians, compared to conservatives' opposing position.

Although they concluded that conservatives are less "integratively complex" than others are, Glaser said, "it doesn't mean that they're simple-minded."
Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said. "They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm," Glaser said.
He pointed as an example to a 2001 trip to Italy, where President George W. Bush was asked to explain himself.

The Republican president told assembled world leaders, "I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right." And in 2002, Bush told a British reporter, "Look, my job isn't to nuance."

 

[uscitizen]

How can lefties ever have equality? There are so many more righties than lefties.
Is it educational differences? Nature or nurture is the main cause?

I mean once you start shooting a right handed rifle and get hot cartridges down your collar it sucks.
Gearshifts are on the right unless you buy a brit car, etc...

 

[Sallow]

Except that being the Editor of the Harvard Law Review means he was in the top 10% of his class. He taught "Constitutional Law" at the University Level for 10 years. He went to Harvard based on "student loans" which he didn't finish paying off until his forties. They were "paid off" from the money he received when he wrote two best selling books.

The right just want to hate him so much, that fucking "black guy" in the "WHITE" House, they just can't see him as a hard working American who actually represents the American Dream going from "food stamps" to the nation's highest elected office. They will never see anything good from Obama. They refuse too. The hate is simply too deep.

Like I said before, his name could be "George Washington Lincoln" born in Washington DC under a Cherry tree and delivered by Ron Paul and the right would still hate him. They can deny it all they want, but they are a Conservative Confederate Party that is 90% white. That is the reality.

Firstly, he had to get into Harvard before he became Editor. So that point is idiotic.

Secondly, he got a PolSci degree from Columbia. That degree, at best, showed a GPA of 3.3. That's not an overly brilliant or even vaguely decent score.

Third, the post of Editor - when Obama was at Harvard - was by vote - so you can't say he was top 10.

And... if he was "top 10", please 'splain where the extra intellect came from... cuz he sure as hell wasn't setting records at Columbia.

For the white wing, no black will ever be good enough to live in the "WHITE" House except as someone who cooks or cleans.

All evidence points to Bush and McCain being stupid, but it's Obama they trash. Such high standards are required, but only if you are black and not even then.

McCain was responsible for one of the worst accidents in naval history. He also crashed several planes.

 

[shintao]

To me, the fight isn't over equality, but major inequalities, and attempting to raise up society, against capitalism tearing it down. ie. off shoring, out sourcing, stock marketing, down sizing, etc.