Page 143 of 147 FirstFirst ... 4393133141142143144145 ... LastLast
Results 1,421 to 1,430 of 1467

Thread: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

  1. #1421
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    [QUOTE=Adagio;1061518489]
    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post




    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!
    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?

  2. #1422
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,927
    Blog Entries
    2

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptinSarcastic View Post
    Actually I have lots of data and have already shared it in this thread (apparently you missed it).

    But your question was subjective, so "I think" is a reflection of the subjective nature of the question.

    I know exactly how much taxes are paid by the group of people under a million, and over a million for that matter, but as I said, "I think" the people under a million are paying their fair share.

    Someone else with the exact same data might "think" that they pay more or less than their fair share.

    Criminy, you ask for my opinion and whine when I give you my opinion?
    I never asked for your opinion, and I remain uninterested in it. I would be happy to learn the facts on which your opinion is based.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  3. #1423
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    [QUOTE=Conservative;1061518981]
    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post

    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?


    I can see it went right over your head. I admit it was a lot to digest, but it wasn't intended for you. In your case I'd keep it REALLY simple. Mr Owl, doesn't seem to need the talking points. At least he posts from his own mind which is a plus, and wins points on that alone. Opinion based on a "total lack of understanding"?? The only lack of understanding here is you not understanding what was posted. I have a feeling most of the rational posters here, just might disagree with you. Your ideology ain't rocket science pal. It's all a rehash of garbage we've seen before. As for your "talkin points" addiction you should really get together with Fenton. Oh yeah...we ignore your results because, we've seen them already. That's why you lost the last two elections. People have longer memories than you think and nobody wants to go backward. We rejected stupid and voted for smart this time...again.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  4. #1424
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    This is "your" President and apparently someone you are proud of especially the results he has generated. More statistics from "hate radio?"


    24 Statistics Just to Verify Obama Has Been a Horrible President
    Wingnut talking points. Wow! What took you so long? How about "20 reasons to hate the Obama's dog"? do you have that one? You offer a list of 24 talking points. Did you prepare that list? No. So who gave it to you? So, I'm supposed to wade through each of the 24 points, and address these one by one? And first I would need to know who supplied them to you, and check their own credibility for oh...you know, bias. Then after determining that not only are they from a right wing website, I have to fact check each of your 24 points and respond to each one. And you think I'm going to indulge you in all that crap? They aren't even your own thoughts. Why not just debate with them instead of you? You have nothing to offer here worth debating. Like your twin that was separated from you at birth...you don't think for yourself. You require help from others. That's weak. When you do this you are appealing to a bias authority. It's called Argumentum ad Verecundiam. Appeal to Biased Authority. In this sort of appeal, the authority is one who actually is knowledgeable on the matter, but one who may have professional or personal motivations that render his professional judgment suspect: for instance, the source of your talking points. What you're asking me to do is to accept the authority of a biased source. Basing a substantial part of your argument on a source that has personal, professional, or financial interests at stake may lead to biased arguments. We already have biased arguments. Why would I want to accept your biased source? What is their authority based on? And you think I'm going to indulge in this kind of paper chase? Learn to think on your own. Come up with your own logical arguments. Lets see if you can do it.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  5. #1425
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    Wingnut talking points. .
    Just popping in Adaigo. All of your post show up on my profile page so I always glance at them.

    Sorry for the thread drift, but I've noticed how often those on the left keep using the word "wingnuts" as a noun instead of an adjective ?

    In my career I have purchased wingnuts that have a reverse thread. Have you ever noticed on heavy duty trucks like Peterbilt and Kenworth semi tractors that on one side the lug nuts for the tires/wheels have right threads and the other side are left threads ?

    Please inform us when you are referring to wingnuts if your referring to right wingnuts or left wingnuts.

    I'm willing to bet that left wingnuts are reversed thread wingnuts.

    Have a good one.

    Later.

  6. #1426
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    [QUOTE=Adagio;1061520540]
    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post



    I can see it went right over your head. I admit it was a lot to digest, but it wasn't intended for you. In your case I'd keep it REALLY simple. Mr Owl, doesn't seem to need the talking points. At least he posts from his own mind which is a plus, and wins points on that alone. Opinion based on a "total lack of understanding"?? The only lack of understanding here is you not understanding what was posted. I have a feeling most of the rational posters here, just might disagree with you. Your ideology ain't rocket science pal. It's all a rehash of garbage we've seen before. As for your "talkin points" addiction you should really get together with Fenton. Oh yeah...we ignore your results because, we've seen them already. That's why you lost the last two elections. People have longer memories than you think and nobody wants to go backward. We rejected stupid and voted for smart this time...again.
    What you don't seem to understand is Obama has no plan to put 22 plus million Americans back to work full time, lower the 16.6 trillion dollar debt, reduce the numbers of people on taxpayer assistances, and grow the private sector economy. Moving forward in your world is high debt, lower economic growth, high unemployment, and greater govt. dependence. Congratuations, you are getting the govt. you want.

  7. #1427
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    Wingnut talking points. Wow! What took you so long? How about "20 reasons to hate the Obama's dog"? do you have that one? You offer a list of 24 talking points. Did you prepare that list? No. So who gave it to you? So, I'm supposed to wade through each of the 24 points, and address these one by one? And first I would need to know who supplied them to you, and check their own credibility for oh...you know, bias. Then after determining that not only are they from a right wing website, I have to fact check each of your 24 points and respond to each one. And you think I'm going to indulge you in all that crap? They aren't even your own thoughts. Why not just debate with them instead of you? You have nothing to offer here worth debating. Like your twin that was separated from you at birth...you don't think for yourself. You require help from others. That's weak. When you do this you are appealing to a bias authority. It's called Argumentum ad Verecundiam. Appeal to Biased Authority. In this sort of appeal, the authority is one who actually is knowledgeable on the matter, but one who may have professional or personal motivations that render his professional judgment suspect: for instance, the source of your talking points. What you're asking me to do is to accept the authority of a biased source. Basing a substantial part of your argument on a source that has personal, professional, or financial interests at stake may lead to biased arguments. We already have biased arguments. Why would I want to accept your biased source? What is their authority based on? And you think I'm going to indulge in this kind of paper chase? Learn to think on your own. Come up with your own logical arguments. Lets see if you can do it.
    Talking points? LOL, results don't matter to people like you who buy rhetoric and ignore substance. Your liberal compassion is showing.

    Oh, by the way, tell me which "talking point" isn't accurate and cannot be verified?
    Last edited by Conservative; 03-01-13 at 09:23 AM.

  8. #1428
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,324

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptinSarcastic View Post
    I would say that the people earning the most money should pay the highest rate, and at the very least, no less than of a fraction than any group below them.
    That happens now, if you are talking earned income, vs. earned income. We allow a break for investment income because of at least two reasons, 1. The money being taxed on initial investment has already been taxed once. 2. We want to encourage investment. When that happens company's flourish, create jobs, and retirement funds benefit. This I know is elementary but, I have heard this meme before, and the demo's just got a tax hike on the top wage earners, and now immediately are hammering for another....So, the original question was, how much? How much do you feel that the wealthy should be allowed to keep of their money, that they earned?

    The top 1/10 of 1% earn about 8% of all income and pay about 9%% of total federal taxes. They big lie is that they pay 17% of the taxes, but that is sophistry, it requires one to pretend that no other taxes but income taxes exist, when of course other do exist, and those other taxes are regressive, so they are poored in greater percentages by people earning less than people making more.
    No, no....What sounds like 'sophistry' in this is that you want to on the one hand bring up a specific group of income earners, and what they make, as if it is a bad thing, acknowledging that they actually pay an enormous slice of the burden (if I accept your numbers), while on the other hand using the argument that, oh it is just so unfair that those making magnitudes less have to also pay taxes, when in reality the bottom 47% pay not one dime in income tax when you consider breaks and incentives applied to their withholding at the end of the year...

    Then you want to blur the discussion by including other taxes like sales, and property when that has nothing to do with income at all.

    When you add in state and local taxes, which are almost all regressive (sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, etc) then the it only gets better.
    I agree some states have enormously stifling taxation...I lived in Maryland for 20 years, and loved the area. Had some wonderful friends there, including my wife's family. But, we as a family just couldn't stand it anymore, and the Governor of that state Martin O'Malley has absolutely chased wealth out of that state. We moved to SC 5 years ago and couldn't be happier, or more free.

    One would have to willfully ignorant not to understand this, seriously.
    You can leave the personal attacks out of it. This is the first exchange between you and I, and I don't think this line serves any purpose at all in your point.

    I know why rich people talk up the meme of the rich paying such a large share of income taxes, it is the only theoretically progressive tax we have, what I don't understand is why lower income conservatives buy into this big lie. The facts are out there, but not easy to find among all the rhetorical slight of hand, but a person intent on learning the truth can figure it out.
    No slight of hand, no tricks....It is what it is....Either you want a country where the dream is the freedom to attain wealth, and live well unfettered by government, and others that did nothing to earn the money you made but want to take it anyway, or you want to live in something else up to and including a communist state....Which is it?
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  9. #1429
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,810

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    More kitchen sink approach. Ahh joy.
    [QUOTE=Adagio;1061518478]
    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post


    That's quite a gymnastics routine. I haven't seen anything like that since the summer games Atwater is appealing to the very same mentallity, showing exactly how to appeal to the very same racist voter with new language. He explains clearly how you can't use the same words that you could in the 50's without painting the candidate and the party itself as hopeless racists. He explains in words that everyone can understand, that the term States Rights, would appeal to those people that know, that "States Rights" = the right of a state to decide for itself how it will handle segregation outside of the Federal Government and it's blasted constitution, leaving the issue up to the states. Ronald Reagan made that very appeal to States Rights at the Neshoba County Fair near the town of Philadelphia Mississippi. The place where Schwerner, Cheney, and Goodman were murdered for trying to register blacks to vote. In his speech he said this: "I believe that there are programs like that, programs like education and others, that should be turned back to the states and the local communities with the tax sources to fund them, and let the people [applause drowns out end of statement].I believe in state's rights.

    I've heard the recording of that speech. That States Rights comment really went over well. Of all the places in the United States he could have kicked off his campaign, Reagan does it right in the heart of Klan Kountry, and appeals to the very same crowd that killed three young mend and buried them in an earthen damn. They shot Schwerner and Goodman but they saved something special for Cheney. The shot him after shoving the gun up his backside, and then shot him in the penis because he ( a black guy) should have known better. Great location to kick off a presidential campaign. And you wonder why blacks don't vote Republican? Those were the so-called "Reagan Democrats". Those same conservative Democrats are conservative Republicans today. Same ideology. Different tie.
    Again, you have not provided proof of your assertions. You have supposition. Im not saying I have proof either. Im saying I offered my view.
    Your entire proof is based upon a logical leap, one you cannot prove conclusively.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    Well then, here's my comment: "I don't think that works. I already admitted long ago, on this very thread that I knew I could be wrong. In fact, it was me that said I know I can be wrong. Can you say as much? How much more gracefully would you like than my own full admission? Conservatism is NOT infallibly correct. It's inherently flawed. The problem is when you accept that ideology you accept it all. And that means that when it comes to the truth or the ideology...the truth loses, because the ideology cannot be wrong. If you ever had any interest in the truth...you'd look at your ideology and ask yourself, what is it based on? When you find out..then ask what that base is based on. You'll find yourself in a dilemma of infinite regress vs your dogma. You'll always be looking for another basis to justify the one that comes next. It's a black hole, and theres no way out of it, except to say I believe it because I believe it, which is circular reasoning. A person that clints to a logical fallacy when he knows that it's a logical fallacy is irrational so why on earth would I or anybody want to accept irrationality as a way of life, or elect irrational people to govern this country?"

    If it's wrong, then explain why it's wrong? Just you saying that it's wrong means nothing unless you can provide some explanation of what makes it wrong. That's called a critique. Or is it wrong, because you say it's wrong? I'm afraid that won't be enough. You can't very well appeal to yourself as your own authority? What would you base that on? So...if it's wrong you should be able to explain why?
    Its wrong because its circular reasoning. You set your thesis without proof other than your own assertions. Smoke, mirrors and bull****.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    That isn't what I said. I asked you if if YOU could be wrong. I never made any assertion that you believe conservatism CAN'T be wrong. Although there seems to be a whole lot of them that feel that way. No compromise at all. Very absolutist in principles and values that can't ever be compromised even though they can't be demonstrated as true. I asked you if YOU were fallible and if you are, then I know you are smart enough to know that any idea coming from a fallible source must itself be fallible. It can't be infallible. It's inherently flawed and prone to error.That means that if you know that about yourself, you have to also know that about conservatism as an ideology. If you can't ever compromise in your principles or values, you must believe that they're infallibly correct. You wouldn't hold values that you don't believe are absolutely true would you? So lets keep it real here ok? I never asserted that you think conservatism is infallible. I asked you about your own falliblity. Knowing the answer to that means that I know the answer to the other.
    What's real is a person that doesn't question their values as experience tempers them is a fool. I'm no fool.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    You see me as holding liberal positions in relation to your own conservatism. What you see is that I don't hold conservative views. In your eyes that makes me a liberal by default. I'm certainly not a libertarian am I. (I've read Hayek, and actually read 4 of Ayn Rands novels including the two huge books, Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. It appealed to me the way a comic book appeals to a young kid) I take a Pancrtical rationalist perspective. I work from the premiss that you get closer to the truth by stripping away the things that are false. You do that not through trying to justify your positions. But to hold them up to criticism. Including your own. That means that every time I come across some absolutist comment I question it. And that...makes me a Liberal, at least in the eyes of a conservative that I'm directing the questions toward. Those that make those kind of statements tend to be conservatives, because they see their ideology as right. Infallibly right. They cannot ever ever ever be wrong. In fact they are so certain of their ideology, they'd be willing to tank the US credit and toss it in the trash rather than compromise on that absolutely certain idea that what they think IS the only way to do anything.
    Yeah, Im not making those sorts of statements, you seem to be. I question your ability to be self critical, its lacking from what I can see.


    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    I have no objections to being called a liberal.Look at my posts. I call myself that. I like being a source of irritation to conservatives. And have you considered that you and the others sound like conservative water carriers that lurk around here in my view? I don't need to carry water for anyone Mr. Owl. Like I said, I don't work off of talking points. Your friend Fenton...now theres a water carrier. When a liberal starts to tell me, "there can be no dout, no debate" "We know with complete certainty..." then I'll be more than happy to rip him a new one. Because no liberal knows with absolute certainty...anything. What we're dealing with are theories on how to govern. Not some utopian idea of perfection. That can't be done by either party. At least the liberals know that. As I said, " the difference between the conservative and the liberal is the conservative KNOWS he's right. The liberal knows he could be wrong. Which in your view is closer to the truth?
    Incorrect views dont hold to one political philosophy. Thats a narrow, shallow view you have there.


    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    Yes. It would seem that way to a conservative. I'm not a conservative. That probably has something to do with it. But more to the point, I don't consider anything as sacred ground. I'm liberal because I'm open to change. That's all it is. Being open to change. Maybe I'll change if something convinces me that I should. So far I haven't seen that from either conservatives or libertarians, or fascists, commies or theocrats. The point is that I'm open to it. If it brings me closer to the truth, great. At my age, I'm tired of hearing bull****. I'd like truth and if it means chopping up some baseless ideology, I'm happy to do it. Conservatism won't do that. It's flawed, and truth isn't flawed. It won't compromise the ideology even when it conflicts with the truth. That brings us to liberalism doesn't it. It doesn't make claims of infallibility. It already accepts that it might make a mistake. The difference is that when you're open to the fact that your ideas didn't work, you can make the needed changes to correct that mistake. It takes a little more guts because you don't know the outcome until you try something. The conservative doesn't want to try something because it wants certainty. It wants to know the outcome before hand. But you'll never know that. You can't predict the future by looking at history. That's historicism and that's Karl Marx to the core. Marx was wrong about that. But being an ideologue he couldn't accept that. I'm not afraid of being wrong. But the conservative is. The conservative doesn't even acknowledge that there is a mistake, and despite the impact of reality on every good idea...they continue down the same path of pounding a square peg into a round hole for the sake of staying conservative. I find that dumb. It's like beating your head against the wall because it feels good when you stop.
    How clever. You use the word sacred ground, then pretend as though I used it to refer to something I said when I did not bring it up. I prefer to learn from history, not repeat it.

    This entire post is an incredibly lame verbose attempt to prove something that has not been asserted. As I said, kitchen sink approach.

  10. #1430
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,810

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Number one: my name on this forum is Opportunity Cost, use that name and that name only.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    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.
    Yet you repeatedly linked me, over and over again to conservatism. You seem more keen on labeling me. You are most definitely showing an ideology, you just aren't being honest about it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    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.
    I also know your posts are full of arrogance, pomposity, and lecturing tones. You aren't very good at acknowledging others as equals. You also arent within the margin of error on turning your self critical eye on yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    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.
    Did you actually just assert that I back up an opinion that I said liberalism is racially motivated, then say you arent one to dispute my answer? Then as soon as you were done denying you were a democrat use WE to refer to me as a republican, and in the same paragraph say I engage too much in labeling? So much projection and hypocrisy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    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.
    There you go again. You have a lot more invested into labeling me than the other way around. What you are missing is that people dont adhere 100% to a political bent, they tend to support some ideas more than others. YOU want to toss the entire set of ideas at them and personalize it directly to them. Its a pretty dishonest way to debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    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:

    Deleted the seccession because the post was so wordy it wont even allow for replies without redaction, its hitting the charcter limit :P


    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!
    LOL thats your thesis? That conservatism is rotten to the core and racist because slavery was in the constitution...over 200 years ago? And you call ME an absolutist?
    You going to square that logical circle or did you miss that movements, people and ideas can change over time?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •