[QUOTE=Adagio;1061518489]Project much? Your opinion is noted but that is all it is an opinion based upon lack of total understanding. Further this is a thread about the Obama SOU rhetoric vs. results. You ran quickly when confronted with actual results as you continue to buy the rhetoric. You confuse posting actual results for hatred of the person which raises the question, what is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty that buys rhetoric and ignores results?
That's not circular logic. If what you just said were in fact true, then it would be called a Straw Man. Not circular logic. A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted.That's what it would be IF your premiss was true...which it isn't. I never assumed this: "I believe conservatism is infallible . I asked you if you thought you could be wrong. I may have even asked you if you thought conservatism could be wrong, however I never assumed that you thought that which is why I asked you specifically IF you thought you could possiblly be wrong? I don't make assumptions on people. I'm experienced enough on these forums and in touch with my own philosophical views to never make a positive assertion about people or things. I don't define people. I let them define themselves. When they do, (conservatives seem to like defining people) that definition can be criticized for it's truth. Whats the definition based on? What makes me a liberal, is that I dare to question a conservative. I'll challenge the premiss of their arguments. They don't like being on the defensive. I don't have any ideology to defend. They do.
I don't need to know what you believe. That's totally irrelevent to what I'm saying. Whatever it is that you believe...The moon is made of green cheese, there are pink unicorns on Mars... it doesn't make any difference. "" If you ever had any interest in the truth...you'd look at your ideology and ask yourself, what is it based on? What is your belief in the Moon and green cheese based on? What do you base the belief of pink unicorns on Mars on? I don't have to know what it is. That's totally up to you. But if you actually have any interest in the truth...then you must examine your ideology and ask yourself what is this belief based on??? If you don't do that, you are operating on the assumption that this ideology that you believe in IS the truth based on itself. And THAT is circular logic.
Either you follow that justification spiral into that black hole of infinite regress looking for the next justification for the next base...OR you stop the search for any justification and say that the ideology is based on itself. That is the definition of circular reasoning.It's called the dilemma of infinite regress vs dogma. If you hold to the dogma, you need bases to justify that to keep rationalizing your ideology. The more you are pressed for justification, the deeper into that hole you go looking for a base and that goes on forever as long as you hold the dogma of the ideology. You have two choices then. Dump the ideology becaise it is unable to demonstrate what makes it true, or take the leap into circular reasoning using the ideology to justify itself. And that is an irrational position to hold. Again...I haven't assumed that you hold these position. I asked you if you did. You dodged that question several times. I don't act on assumptions Mr. Owl. IF you hold those positions, this is what you would have to look forward to. If you don't, then you have no problem. But being a conservative isn't just a fashion statement. People beat each other to a pulp these days trying to out-conservative the other guy. I already know where a guy like Fenton is at. Same with Conservative. Maybe you aren't a conservative after all. We both know you know you and conservatism could be wrong, dont' we. We even know that you could be wrong about liberals.
There you go. First of all, I'm not a Democrat, so that may or may not be true. There is nothing to demonstrate that as true. It's just another absolute statement. Democrats are this. Democrats are that. Define, define, define. Assume assume assume. As a liberal, I do not. Furthermore, I don't see that minorities are treated as voting blocks. They are treated like real life human beings, no different than you or I. which is exactly why those minorities form voting blocs and turnout for democrats. But they aren't monolithic as you suggest (voting bloc) On the other hand, the conservatives DO in fact treat minorities as voting blocs. That very idea has already been articulated by Sean Hannity, and many others that recognize that they'll need to get serious on immigration if they want to attract Latinos.Treating them as a bloc. Where the Latino vote is concerned, Barack Obama crushed Mitt Romney. CNN’s exit poll shows Obama winning 71% of that vote, and the polling organization Latino Decisions measured even bigger gains for Obama, showing that Obama beat Romney by a whopping 75% to 23% among Latinos. In the electoral college, the Latino vote was crucial to Obama, particularly in the battleground states of Colorado and Nevada, which Obama won, and Florida. You won't get their vote if you see them as illegals or good enough to mow your lawn.
Racism is racism. Thats a pretty weak and simplistic definition for a person that likes defining people. There is a predisposition to why people hold the views they hold. They don't just randomly pop into a persons way of life with no reason. I've laid out a few things about conservatives that come from them. Not from me. I don't define them. I let them define themselves. Basic to conservative thinking is the preservation of existing institutions.Tradition. that's core to the belief.
In his lecture on “The Origins of the Modern American Conservative Movement” given to the Heritage Foundation in 2003, Dr. Lee Edwards cited Russell Kirk, author of The Conservative Mind as providing the central idea upon which American conservatism is essentially based, calling it ordered liberty.
Kirk described six basic “canons” or principles of conservatism:
1. A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society;
2. Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing uniformity;
3. Civilized society requires orders and classes;
4. Property and freedom are inseparably connected;
5. Man must control his will and his appetite, knowing that he is governed more by emotion than by reason; and
6. Society must alter slowly.
Edwards states that “the work established convincingly that there was a tradition of American conservatism that had existed since the Founding of the Republic. With one book, Russell Kirk made conservatism intellectually acceptable in America. Indeed, he
gave the conservative movement its name.
Kirk was Reagans ideological guru. Lest we minimize the writings of Kirk, we should point out that one of his biggest supporters
was “Mr.Conservative”, President Ronald Reagan. Reagan said this of Kirk:
“As the prophet of American conservatism, Russell Kirk has taught, nurtured, and inspired a generation. From . . . Piety Hill, he reached deep into the roots of American values, writing and editing central works of political philosophy. His intellectual contribution has been a profound act of patriotism. I look forward to the future with anticipation that his work will continue to exert a profound influence in the defense of our values and our cherished civilization.”
—Ronald Reagan, 1981
Kirk is really warmed over Burke. If you've read Burke you know that. Mark Levin loves to quote Burke. Burke was an aristocrat and the leading anti-Enlightenment voice in history. Levin also wrote his own Manifesto for Conservatism. ( Can't get more ideological than that...the Conservative Bible according to Rush Limpballs)
So what does all this have to do with racism? The US Constitution set up this country as a White Supremacist nation. That racism is embedded into our constitution in Article 1.sec 2, Article 1 sec 9, and Article 4 sec 2. Slavery was an institution in this country. It flourished in the south which was our only true American aristocracy. Obviously slavery couldn't last, however the abolition of slavery would have an impact on the eonomy and lifestyle of southerners. The conservative South fought to maintain that institution. They lost. But here was Mississippi's reasoning for secession:
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of
Mississippi from the Federal Union.
“In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. “
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”
A pretty solid example of the reluctance to let go of existing institutions. The other states had very similar reasons all based on racism. Since that time, the very notion of a race of people that was; at our beginnings as a country, only considered to be 3/5’s of a human being, now having equal footing with those that actually believed in this idea, is a direct challenge to a long held social concept. It denied the idea of white supremacy as legitimate. It’s surprising how many people still cling to this idea, and will go to extreme lengths to perpetuate it.
The idea that a person that could have been your slave at one time, could today be your boss, or even President of the United States, is more than some people can deal with on an emotional level. White supremacy as an institution is renounced, discredited, and dismantled, and that is a major blow to an existing order, and conservatism is always a reaction to a challenge to an existing order. These are people that desperately need somebody to look down to in order to validate their own self-worth. “Sure, life is tough. But at least I’m White.” They can no longer rely on a policy that used to be institutionally enforceable. When that is removed by law, hostility is the result; hostility for those that have been emancipated by law and elevated to equal status, and hostility for the law itself including those that proposed it and passed it. Which is why we see the Voting Rights Act being challenged right now in the Supreme Court by two conservative Senators from Alabama, sponsoring Shelby County Alabama in the court. And with a conservative Court...looks like theres going to be a problem. I can tell you that African/Americans that have lived through this and bled and died and been lynched all for the sake of the simple right to vote...to have come this far...they aren't going to accept having their voting rights compromised. But then, conservatives didn't want their votes anyway. Did they? Liberals aren't doing this Mr. Owl. This is the conservatives. The same mentallity that never got over losing the war 120 years ago. States Rights!