Why Does the Right Embrace Ignorance as a Virtue?

[Uncensored2008]

Good, glad you know how to link, now about the meaning of that STRONG FEDERAL CONSTITUTION?

ROFL

You are an ignorant feral baboon.

The ratification of the Constitution involved serious debate, and compromise between the Federalist and Anti-Federalists, played out in the press, you mindless monkey.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE , and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Yes, you are an ignorant and uneducated monkey that thinks "general welfare" indicates the redistribution of assets. Part of the reason that neither I, nor anyone with a developed intellect, gives you any credibility or pays heed to your shit flinging.

Have a banana, you shit flinging feral baboon.

 

[Dad2three]

What the fuck?

ROFL

Are you tripped out on LSD at this very moment? BWAHAHAHA, that shit was right out of your ass with zero connection to the discussion.

I mean, I knew you were a fucktard - you're a leftest, but I didn't realize that you have no grasp of reality.



ROFL

You mean shit like;

you CAN'T give me one policy that conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on


Stupid is as leftist does...

So you STILL can't give me ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on. Got it

Conservatives have supported conservation efforts, from the protection of the Yosemite Valley, to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency. Happy now?

Nonsense, Conservatives haven't done that. That's like saying liberals supported cutting taxes for the rich because 2 guys voted with GOP and Dubya from the Dem party

Conservatives are ALWAYS on the wrong side of history, they ALWAYS claim a tax increase, a regulation or safety net will kill the economy, and they are ALWAYS wrong!

 

[Dad2three]

the question should be why does the left think they have a right to push off their hate and ignorance on everyone in this country?

and I really think they believe it's one of their better virtues...because they damn sure have no honor, civility, tolerance and for sure NO shame


and you can take this thread as the perfect example

Stop projecting rightie

 

[Dad2three]

Got it, you CAN'T give me one policy that conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on

What the fuck?

ROFL

Are you tripped out on LSD at this very moment? BWAHAHAHA, that shit was right out of your ass with zero connection to the discussion.

I mean, I knew you were a fucktard - you're a leftest, but I didn't realize that you have no grasp of reality.

False premises, distortions and lies, the ONLY thing conservatives have in their playbook...

ROFL

You mean shit like;

you CAN'T give me one policy that conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on


Stupid is as leftist does...

Conservatives, since they were loyalists standing with King George in 1776, have a LONG history of being on the wrong side of history


They were the slavers, the confederates, isolationists during both WW's, fought union rights, labor laws, woman's and civil rights, environmental laws, SS, Medicare, etc

 

[Dad2three]

Good, glad you know how to link, now about the meaning of that STRONG FEDERAL CONSTITUTION?

ROFL

You are an ignorant feral baboon.

The ratification of the Constitution involved serious debate, and compromise between the Federalist and Anti-Federalists, played out in the press, you mindless monkey.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE , and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Yes, you are an ignorant and uneducated monkey that thinks "general welfare" indicates the redistribution of assets. Part of the reason that neither I, nor anyone with a developed intellect, gives you any credibility or pays heed to your shit flinging.

Have a banana, you shit flinging feral baboon.

Weird, Madison wanted a STRONG federtal Gov't right? The federalist won right?


Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
By David Cay Johnston

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."




Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html


SOUNDS LIKE THEY HATED THAT REDISTRIBUTION RIGHT?

 

[itfitzme]

I found a great article that casts some light on the puzzling, reality-denying, seemingly insane behavior of so many of the rightwingnut AGW denier cultists who post on this forum. It could have been written with them in mind. It perfectly describes their rejection of science and evidence, as well as logic and rationality, in the service of their political/economic ideologies.

Why Does the Right Embrace Ignorance as a Virtue?
Dismissing facts and science has become a staple of conservative ideology.
AlterNet
By Amanda Marcotte
June 11, 2014
(excerpts)
Spouting off about stuff you know nothing about is traditionally considered unwise. But as the Republican war on science intensifies, ignorance has started to become not only less of a handicap, but a point of pride. In the face of expertise and facts, being belligerently ignorant—and offended that anyone dare suggest ignorance is less desirable than knowledge—has become the go-to position for many conservative politicians and pundits. Sadly, it’s a strategy that’s working, making it harder every day for liberals to argue the value of evidence and reason over wishful thinking and unblinking prejudice. ... But for modern Republicans, being downright proud of their ignorance has become a badge of honor, a way to demonstrate loyalty to the right-wing cause while also sticking it to those liberal pinheads who think there’s some kind of value in knowing what they're talking about before offering an opinion.

The thing is, shameless lying and ignorance work surprisingly well as debate tactics. It’s hard to argue with someone who not only has signaled that he doesn’t care what the truth is but is downright proud of how little he actually knows. Such a person is not amenable to being educated. Once the pretense of really caring one way or another about what is right and what is wrong has been abandoned, all avenue of discourse is shut down. The problem here is that someone who is not only so catastrophically wrong but downright proud of being an ignoramus is not going to actually bother to listen to an explanation like that. That’s why the wall of ignorance is such a powerful rhetorical tool. When you have nothing but contempt for the facts, attempts to educate you will only make your pride in your own ignorance grow stronger. The more you try to educate the proudly ignorant, the dumber they get. At the end of the day, the problem is one of identity. The conservative identity is one of being opposed to everything liberal, to the point of despising anything even associated with liberalism. As liberalism has increasingly been aligned with the values of empiricism and reason, the incentives for conservatives to reject empiricism and reason multiply. To be a “conservative” increasingly means taking a contemptuous view of reality. And so the proudly ignorant grow more belligerent, day after day.

Which is why ther is no obligation to give a shit about them. All they are good for is target practice.

 

[Dad2three]

So you STILL can't give me ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on. Got it

You are on drugs, clearly. You post wild non-sequitur and wonder why normals look at you like you are a babbling fool. It's because you ARE a babbling fool.

You are filled with hate, rage, and stupidity. If I point to the warning the conservatives gave regarding Castro, as you leftists embraced him, you'll just scream and post idiocy from the hate sites. I believe America's own Goebbels - Ed Murrow - claimed Castro was the "new George Washington."

You are a mindless automaton, incapable of thought - much less reason.

Leftist did that?
Weird



That Time Ronald Reagan Hosted Those 'Freedom Fighters' At The Oval Office

Those 'freedom fighters' (Mujahideen) turned into the Taliban...HMM

 

[Stephanie]

the question should be why does the left think they have a right to push off their hate and ignorance on everyone in this country?

and I really think they believe it's one of their better virtues...because they damn sure have no honor, civility, tolerance and for sure NO shame


and you can take this thread as the perfect example

Stop projecting rightie

stop puking all over us, commie

 

[S.J.]

So you STILL can't give me ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on. Got it

You are on drugs, clearly. You post wild non-sequitur and wonder why normals look at you like you are a babbling fool. It's because you ARE a babbling fool.

You are filled with hate, rage, and stupidity. If I point to the warning the conservatives gave regarding Castro, as you leftists embraced him, you'll just scream and post idiocy from the hate sites. I believe America's own Goebbels - Ed Murrow - claimed Castro was the "new George Washington."

You are a mindless automaton, incapable of thought - much less reason.

Leftist did that?
Weird



That Time Ronald Reagan Hosted Those 'Freedom Fighters' At The Oval Office

Those 'freedom fighters' (Mujahideen) turned into the Taliban...HMM

Shame on Reagan for not being able to foresee the future.

 

[Dad2three]

the question should be why does the left think they have a right to push off their hate and ignorance on everyone in this country?

and I really think they believe it's one of their better virtues...because they damn sure have no honor, civility, tolerance and for sure NO shame


and you can take this thread as the perfect example

Stop projecting rightie

stop puking all over us, commie

 

[Dad2three]

You are on drugs, clearly. You post wild non-sequitur and wonder why normals look at you like you are a babbling fool. It's because you ARE a babbling fool.

You are filled with hate, rage, and stupidity. If I point to the warning the conservatives gave regarding Castro, as you leftists embraced him, you'll just scream and post idiocy from the hate sites. I believe America's own Goebbels - Ed Murrow - claimed Castro was the "new George Washington."

You are a mindless automaton, incapable of thought - much less reason.

Leftist did that?
Weird



That Time Ronald Reagan Hosted Those 'Freedom Fighters' At The Oval Office

Those 'freedom fighters' (Mujahideen) turned into the Taliban...HMM

Shame on Reagan for not being able to foresee the future.

Foresee the future? How about recognizing the past and what WOULD happen? Not like we didn't have decade and decades and decades of 'enemies of my enemies' crap to look at. But heck, he was probably to far gone with his Alzheimer anyways...

 

[westwall]

I found a great article that casts some light on the puzzling, reality-denying, seemingly insane behavior of so many of the rightwingnut AGW denier cultists who post on this forum. It could have been written with them in mind. It perfectly describes their rejection of science and evidence, as well as logic and rationality, in the service of their political/economic ideologies.

Why Does the Right Embrace Ignorance as a Virtue?
Dismissing facts and science has become a staple of conservative ideology.
AlterNet
By Amanda Marcotte
June 11, 2014
(excerpts)
Spouting off about stuff you know nothing about is traditionally considered unwise. But as the Republican war on science intensifies, ignorance has started to become not only less of a handicap, but a point of pride. In the face of expertise and facts, being belligerently ignorant—and offended that anyone dare suggest ignorance is less desirable than knowledge—has become the go-to position for many conservative politicians and pundits. Sadly, it’s a strategy that’s working, making it harder every day for liberals to argue the value of evidence and reason over wishful thinking and unblinking prejudice. ... But for modern Republicans, being downright proud of their ignorance has become a badge of honor, a way to demonstrate loyalty to the right-wing cause while also sticking it to those liberal pinheads who think there’s some kind of value in knowing what they're talking about before offering an opinion.

The thing is, shameless lying and ignorance work surprisingly well as debate tactics. It’s hard to argue with someone who not only has signaled that he doesn’t care what the truth is but is downright proud of how little he actually knows. Such a person is not amenable to being educated. Once the pretense of really caring one way or another about what is right and what is wrong has been abandoned, all avenue of discourse is shut down. The problem here is that someone who is not only so catastrophically wrong but downright proud of being an ignoramus is not going to actually bother to listen to an explanation like that. That’s why the wall of ignorance is such a powerful rhetorical tool. When you have nothing but contempt for the facts, attempts to educate you will only make your pride in your own ignorance grow stronger. The more you try to educate the proudly ignorant, the dumber they get. At the end of the day, the problem is one of identity. The conservative identity is one of being opposed to everything liberal, to the point of despising anything even associated with liberalism. As liberalism has increasingly been aligned with the values of empiricism and reason, the incentives for conservatives to reject empiricism and reason multiply. To be a “conservative” increasingly means taking a contemptuous view of reality. And so the proudly ignorant grow more belligerent, day after day.

Which is why ther is no obligation to give a shit about them. All they are good for is target practice.

Oh goody. Yet another internet tough guy. Real bullets flying at you are considerably different from playing Call of Duty silly person.

Best not tempt fate, you may get what you hoped for and really, not like the outcome.

And how unsurprising that a progressive is advocating for the murder of people who disagree with him. How Stalinist of you....

 

[Stephanie]

Stop projecting rightie

stop puking all over us, commie

well aren't you cute
got any cartoons with Muslims?

 

[S.J.]

Leftist did that?
Weird



That Time Ronald Reagan Hosted Those 'Freedom Fighters' At The Oval Office

Those 'freedom fighters' (Mujahideen) turned into the Taliban...HMM

Shame on Reagan for not being able to foresee the future.

Foresee the future? How about recognizing the past and what WOULD happen? Not like we didn't have decade and decades and decades of 'enemies of my enemies' crap to look at. But heck, he was probably to far gone with his Alzheimer anyways...

I know, your solution (like Jimmy Carter) would have been to let the Soviet Union kill everyone in the country.

 

[itfitzme]

I found a great article that casts some light on the puzzling, reality-denying, seemingly insane behavior of so many of the rightwingnut AGW denier cultists who post on this forum. It could have been written with them in mind. It perfectly describes their rejection of science and evidence, as well as logic and rationality, in the service of their political/economic ideologies.

Why Does the Right Embrace Ignorance as a Virtue?
Dismissing facts and science has become a staple of conservative ideology.
AlterNet
By Amanda Marcotte
June 11, 2014
(excerpts)
Spouting off about stuff you know nothing about is traditionally considered unwise. But as the Republican war on science intensifies, ignorance has started to become not only less of a handicap, but a point of pride. In the face of expertise and facts, being belligerently ignorant—and offended that anyone dare suggest ignorance is less desirable than knowledge—has become the go-to position for many conservative politicians and pundits. Sadly, it’s a strategy that’s working, making it harder every day for liberals to argue the value of evidence and reason over wishful thinking and unblinking prejudice. ... But for modern Republicans, being downright proud of their ignorance has become a badge of honor, a way to demonstrate loyalty to the right-wing cause while also sticking it to those liberal pinheads who think there’s some kind of value in knowing what they're talking about before offering an opinion.

The thing is, shameless lying and ignorance work surprisingly well as debate tactics. It’s hard to argue with someone who not only has signaled that he doesn’t care what the truth is but is downright proud of how little he actually knows. Such a person is not amenable to being educated. Once the pretense of really caring one way or another about what is right and what is wrong has been abandoned, all avenue of discourse is shut down. The problem here is that someone who is not only so catastrophically wrong but downright proud of being an ignoramus is not going to actually bother to listen to an explanation like that. That’s why the wall of ignorance is such a powerful rhetorical tool. When you have nothing but contempt for the facts, attempts to educate you will only make your pride in your own ignorance grow stronger. The more you try to educate the proudly ignorant, the dumber they get. At the end of the day, the problem is one of identity. The conservative identity is one of being opposed to everything liberal, to the point of despising anything even associated with liberalism. As liberalism has increasingly been aligned with the values of empiricism and reason, the incentives for conservatives to reject empiricism and reason multiply. To be a “conservative” increasingly means taking a contemptuous view of reality. And so the proudly ignorant grow more belligerent, day after day.

Which is why ther is no obligation to give a shit about them. All they are good for is target practice.

Oh goody. Yet another internet tough guy. Real bullets flying at you are considerably different from playing Call of Duty silly person.

Best not tempt fate, you may get what you hoped for and really, not like the outcome.

And how unsurprising that a progressive is advocating for the murder of people who disagree with him. How Stalinist of you....

Now we know what a moron you are cuz liberal progressives want to ban guns.

Your making no sense.

Not to mention the psychotic fantacies about stalin. Whatever youb gotta to convince yourself thayt your not the obnoxious, whiney moron that you really are.

 

[Dad2three]

Shame on Reagan for not being able to foresee the future.

Foresee the future? How about recognizing the past and what WOULD happen? Not like we didn't have decade and decades and decades of 'enemies of my enemies' crap to look at. But heck, he was probably to far gone with his Alzheimer anyways...

I know, your solution (like Jimmy Carter) would have been to let the Soviet Union kill everyone in the country.

Is communism bad or not? If it 'fails' would it have failed in Afghanistan too? lol

 

[mamooth]

Dan Kahan, the researcher Westwall helpfully quoted before to show liberals had a better grasp of science than conservatives, went further with his studies. He found that the smarter a liberal gets, the more likely he/she is to be correct about global warming science. But the smarter a conservative gets, the more likely he/she is to get global warming science completely wrong.

Conservatives Don't Deny Climate Science Because They're Ignorant. They Deny It Because of Who They Are. | Mother Jones

Look at the conservatives here to confirm how it works. The duller ones can only rage mindlessly and parrot, so they only manage to be a little wrong, and are kind of boring. But the smarter ones, like Westwall, will obsessively devote all of their intelligence into being wrong on behalf of their party. Thus, they are far more successful at being spectacularly wrong concerning all types of science across the board.

 

[daveman]

Actually the Constitution does place limits on the states and the people. The states cannot deprive the people of rights enumerated in the Constitution and the people cannot violate the constitutional rights of others.

True. But most of the limitations are on the fedgov.

Why would the FF place limits on the fedgov if they wanted a huge powerful central government?

Dad2three can't answer that question. Maybe you could give it a shot.

The purpose envisioned by the FF was appropriate for the times. But they clearly understood that things would change in the future in a way that they could not foresee.

At the time of signing the Constitution the total population was 4 million. Today the military has 2.3 million (including reserves). Overall the government of today (federal, state and local) employs about 22 million people out of a population of 315 million. This averages to 7.3% of the population over the last 5 presidents. For the record under Obama it is only 6.9%.

The Growth Of Government: 1980 To 2012 - Forbes

Big government" is actually not that big in real terms when you consider that the FF never envisioned a standing army capable of striking anywhere in the world at a moment's notice. They never foresaw a network of space satellites making it possible to know exactly where you are to within a couple of yards. They never anticipated a global internet that allows you and I to have this debate even though we have never met in person.

But if we look closer at the things that the FF's actually did we discover that they passed a law to register all guns. They implemented mandatory health insurance for sailors (including a payroll tax) with government run hospitals. They built libraries and encouraged education.

So to answer your question the FF's did sow the seeds for the government we have today and in real terms it isn't all that big. If you want to reduce it then you have to come up with a realistic alternative to the military, police, customs, parks, roads, etc, etc that we have today.

Can you do that?

I've given my ideas before, but I'm not sure why you're asking me to totally redesign the government.

 

[hunarcy]

True. But most of the limitations are on the fedgov.

Why would the FF place limits on the fedgov if they wanted a huge powerful central government?

Dad2three can't answer that question. Maybe you could give it a shot.

The purpose envisioned by the FF was appropriate for the times. But they clearly understood that things would change in the future in a way that they could not foresee.

At the time of signing the Constitution the total population was 4 million. Today the military has 2.3 million (including reserves). Overall the government of today (federal, state and local) employs about 22 million people out of a population of 315 million. This averages to 7.3% of the population over the last 5 presidents. For the record under Obama it is only 6.9%.

The Growth Of Government: 1980 To 2012 - Forbes

Big government" is actually not that big in real terms when you consider that the FF never envisioned a standing army capable of striking anywhere in the world at a moment's notice. They never foresaw a network of space satellites making it possible to know exactly where you are to within a couple of yards. They never anticipated a global internet that allows you and I to have this debate even though we have never met in person.

But if we look closer at the things that the FF's actually did we discover that they passed a law to register all guns. They implemented mandatory health insurance for sailors (including a payroll tax) with government run hospitals. They built libraries and encouraged education.

So to answer your question the FF's did sow the seeds for the government we have today and in real terms it isn't all that big. If you want to reduce it then you have to come up with a realistic alternative to the military, police, customs, parks, roads, etc, etc that we have today.

Can you do that?

I've given my ideas before, but I'm not sure why you're asking me to totally redesign the government.

Many of the things he mentions (police, parks, roads, etc, etc that we have today) can and are better managed by the States. The Federal government could give up it's role in those areas with no consequence for us.

 

[Dad2three]

True. But most of the limitations are on the fedgov.

Why would the FF place limits on the fedgov if they wanted a huge powerful central government?

Dad2three can't answer that question. Maybe you could give it a shot.

The purpose envisioned by the FF was appropriate for the times. But they clearly understood that things would change in the future in a way that they could not foresee.

At the time of signing the Constitution the total population was 4 million. Today the military has 2.3 million (including reserves). Overall the government of today (federal, state and local) employs about 22 million people out of a population of 315 million. This averages to 7.3% of the population over the last 5 presidents. For the record under Obama it is only 6.9%.

The Growth Of Government: 1980 To 2012 - Forbes

Big government" is actually not that big in real terms when you consider that the FF never envisioned a standing army capable of striking anywhere in the world at a moment's notice. They never foresaw a network of space satellites making it possible to know exactly where you are to within a couple of yards. They never anticipated a global internet that allows you and I to have this debate even though we have never met in person.

But if we look closer at the things that the FF's actually did we discover that they passed a law to register all guns. They implemented mandatory health insurance for sailors (including a payroll tax) with government run hospitals. They built libraries and encouraged education.

So to answer your question the FF's did sow the seeds for the government we have today and in real terms it isn't all that big. If you want to reduce it then you have to come up with a realistic alternative to the military, police, customs, parks, roads, etc, etc that we have today.

Can you do that?

I've given my ideas before, but I'm not sure why you're asking me to totally redesign the government.

The poster isn't, just pointing out right wingers OPINIONS on what the Founder wanted or not, are generally based on what right wingers base their opinions on, IDEOLOGY over history or facts!