Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Thursday, May 31, 2007

The Case For Conservatism

From George Will:

Today conservatives tend to favor freedom, and consequently are inclined to be somewhat sanguine about inequalities of outcomes. Liberals are more concerned with equality, understood, they insist, primarily as equality of opportunity, not of outcome.

Liberals tend, however, to infer unequal opportunities from the fact of unequal outcomes. Hence liberalism’s goal of achieving greater equality of condition leads to a larger scope for interventionist government to circumscribe the market’s role in allocating wealth and opportunity. Liberalism increasingly seeks to deliver equality in the form of equal dependence of more and more people for more and more things on government. . . .

This reasoning is congruent with conservatism’s argument that excessively benevolent government is not a benefactor, and that capitalism does not merely make people better off, it makes them better. Liberalism once argued that large corporate entities of industrial capitalism degraded individuals by breeding dependence, passivity and servility. Conservatism challenges liberalism’s blindness about the comparable dangers from the biggest social entity, government.

In short, conservatism seeks to make citizens freer by making them less dependent on government.  Liberalism seeks to make people more “equal” by making them more dependent on government.  And thus reducing us all to the lowest common denominators in our society as well.

Read the whole thing.

Comments

SC&A have an equally good post on this subject at:
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/05/
titled: Whacky Correspondents, Conservatives And Nazis.

The ten articles of belief reflecting the emphases of conservatives in America is pretty accurate.

Mickey on May 31, 2007 at 11:41 am
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

A quote from Mr. Will’s article:

This, conservatism insists, explains why government has grown, so has cynicism about it.

(emphasis mine)…

OK, now I know I am taking Mr. Will’s statement out of context, and I do agree with much, or at least some, of his above stated premise...but I have to draw question to the word “insists”...I’m assuming that Rob got this article from today’s “Minot Daily News”, as did I.  I also read on the same page the opinion of of Mr. Thomas Sowell, in his article “A War of Words”.  The topic paragraph for this article is “It has long been recognized that those on the political left are more articulate than their opponents.  The words they choose for the things they are for or against make it easy to decide whether to be for or against those things”.....I guess in my opinion, Mr. Sowell’s conservative premise, in light of questionable labeling such as “The clear skies initiative”, “No Child Left Behind”,and “The Healthy Forest Initiatives” sounds just a weeee bit hypocritical.  Once one really reads these documents, along with a glance at Newt Gringrich’s memo “Words with Power”, I would say the experience lends itself a little bit more clearly towards the explanation of the cynicism of the American people today, rather than Mr. Will’s economic principle insisting on it....just something to think about…

DeuceSoliloquy on May 31, 2007 at 02:55 pm

This is just silly:

It has long been recognized that those on the political left are more articulate than their opponents. 

Who exactly thinks this, and about whom?

Sounds like horsecrap to me.

Carrick on May 31, 2007 at 03:05 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

Who exactly thinks this, and about whom?

Sounds like horsecrap to me.

Yep, I think so also Carrick...Not sure where you are from, the George Will article appeared today in the Minot Daily News, along with a column by Thomas Sowell...Those words are Mr. Sowell’s topic paragraph....
DeuceSoliloquy on May 31, 2007 at 03:09 pm

Deuce: The truth is the truth, no matter who speaks it, and a lie is a lie, no matter who speaks it.
I have noticed that the lefties are a lot better at lying, and so will say anything to win people over, rather than telling it like it is.  Like “investments” for “tax hikes”, for instance…


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on May 31, 2007 at 03:10 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

Deuce: The truth is the truth, no matter who speaks it, and a lie is a lie, no matter who speaks it.
I have noticed that the lefties are a lot better at lying, and so will say anything to win people over, rather than telling it like it is.  Like “investments” for “tax hikes”, for instance…

Robert, while I agree with much of what your saying...mainly the former, It STILL goes to my original premise of us, as a country having a DESPERATE need to stop all the partisan BS.... something that you and I can’t quite seem to reach a conclusion on....and while I respectfully acknowledge your right for your belief of

Keep at it until the truth wins out.  In a “compromise”, truth is sacrificed for comity.  Not a good way to go, especially for a free country.

I will also point out that your absolute assertion that only you could possibly define “the truth” is exactly what led to me to make my opinion-driven “narcissism bordering on omnipotence” observation in the first place....
DeuceSoliloquy on May 31, 2007 at 03:20 pm

or the “death tax” for the “estate Tax” from you righties, R108.

Puzzlefeet on May 31, 2007 at 03:42 pm
Rob
Rob
17408 comments
Send a private message

Deuce, I don’t read the Minot Daily...nor did I know you were from Minot.  I got this article from the Washington Post, which is where I linked it.

Puzzle, it’s you lefties who call the death tax by the wrong name.  For what else is a tax levied on your property at the time of your death to be called but the death tax?

You guys have this silly idea that wealth in this country is a zero-sum game, and that as the “rich” get more of it the poor have less.  That’s total nonsense as wealth is created in a free market society like ours.  I know you liberals all think like Marx and feel that large estates have to be broken up and redistributed, but that’s one of the foolish planks of an utterly failed political philosophy.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 31, 2007 at 05:37 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

Rob: 

I know you liberals all think like Marx and feel that large estates have to be broken up and redistributed

...Well, I have been accused before today of being Marxist (not by you) so It’s really starting to make me think...and then I realize, “Oh yeah, I haven’t read anything by him”..so I guess I SHOULD get a pass...How I’m breaking it down in my head right now is.....Have you ever read the book “What’s the Matter With Kansas”? by....I WANT to say Kevin Phillips, but I’m not sure...anyways, part of it’s premise was to call into question WHY all these small-town Mid-Western, “regular guys” without a GREAT deal of accumulated wealth, bought into the conservative party line hook, line and sinker without ever totally realizing how a lot of their economic policies aren’t in their best interests....Now, I have stated that I hold personal responsibility in high regard, and I have gone on record as saying that I’m the guy who dropped out of Econ 102, but I do have to wonder how many people out there totally subscribing to the fear of the professionally spun and labeled “death tax”, or many other economic policies, are aware of how, exactly, it applies to them.  There is a school of political thought that “people vote with their pocketbooks”...I’m not necessarily left, right, democrat, republican (with the voting record to prove it)...but I AM a guy totally fed up to HEREwith all the finger pointing and partisan bickering that in my perception is limiting my country (and yours) from being able to make ANY progress in our country...I’m just a citizen....
DeuceSoliloquy on May 31, 2007 at 05:58 pm

I’d call it an estate tax since it is levied on the remaining estate.  the point wasn’t to actually discuss the topic but to point out to R108 that the right doesn’t tell it like it is. please refer to his comments.

Puzzlefeet on May 31, 2007 at 06:08 pm
Rob
Rob
17408 comments
Send a private message

Deuce...not sure what your point is, but if you’re wondering why people in rural states like ours and Kansas oppose the death tax it’s because of the farmers.  Farming, while not necessarily generating huge amounts of income, does accumulate quite a few assets.  Assets that can often put someone’s estate within the bounds of this tax.

Most farmers and small business people avoid it by buying up life insurance with which to pay the tax.  The life insurance companies love this, which is why the contribute so much money to people like Earl Pomeroy (along with our other two congressmen) to support the death tax even though the majority of citizens in this state oppose it.

Go to Opensecrets.org some time and check out who Pomeroy’s big-money contributors are.  You’ll catch my drift.

But aside from worries about farmers and small businesses, there’s also the simple principle of the matter.  If I work hard my whole life and amass a fortune for my family why should the government get to seize most of it upon my death?  Why shouldn’t I be able to just leave it to my progeny without having to worry about greedy bureaucrats sticking their noses in?

The government doesn’t need the money.  Goodness knows they waste enough of our tax dollars as is.  The only reason it’s being done is this silly notion that large estates need to be broken up so that not too much wealth is concentrated with a small number of people (which is a plank of the communist manifesto).  But as I’ve already explained, that’s nonsense.

Rich people spend their money, and when they do they generate more wealth for the rest of us.  Even when they save or invest it it helps our economy, because in a free market all types of economic activity develop wealth and opportunity for the rest.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 31, 2007 at 06:13 pm
Rob
Rob
17408 comments
Send a private message

I’d call it an estate tax since it is levied on the remaining estate.

An estate representing wealth that has already been taxed multiple times as it was accumulated.

It is unconscionable to rob Americans of their right to pass what they earn over a lifetime of work on to their heirs without government interference.  And the fact that the tax only targets the “rich” (which is B.S. because the rich can afford the lawyers to get around it, it mostly hits the upper middle class business people) doesn’t make it any less disgusting.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 31, 2007 at 06:18 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

I’d call it an estate tax since it is levied on the remaining estate.

Yep, and I relatively certain (but hey, I DID buy a lottery ticket this week, you never know..) that I am not going to leave behind an estate in excess of $2,000,000...so, at least from where I’m sitting....no victim, no crime…
DeuceSoliloquy on May 31, 2007 at 06:25 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

Rob...

Deuce...not sure what your point is,

Lol… Well, I’ll be honest with you, after re-reading it myself, I’m a little bit fuzzy...(I really SHOULD cut down on caffeine)...but to try to sum it up is: just a total disgust at all the partisan BS...on BOTH side....
DeuceSoliloquy on May 31, 2007 at 06:29 pm
Rob
Rob
17408 comments
Send a private message

I am not going to leave behind an estate in excess of $2,000,000...so, at least from where I’m sitting....no victim, no crime…

Well, it’s not hard to reach that $2,000,000 mark when you’re a small business owner and you’ve got things like buildings, equipment, stock, and other assets to consider.

But for me it’s more of a matter of principle.  It’s wrong even if I’ll never pay the tax.

As for partisan B.S., you’ll probably here from a lot of people that I’m a rank partisan.  I’m not, though, really.  If you scroll through you my archives you’ll find all sorts of instances where I talk of corrupt Republicans, and absolutely blast Bush for this policy or that.  But I am a staunch supporter of my opinions.  If I think is Bush is right about something I won’t shy away from supporting him either.  Same with Republicans.

And heck, I’ll even support a Democrat now and then if I agree with them on something.  I’m not a party line guy.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 31, 2007 at 06:34 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

Rob:

I’m not a party line guy.

Nope, neither am I...(but I have seen opinions about that to the contrary...) but I’ll admit, I’m probably a little bit more left than a lot (but not all) of people around here...but hashing out everyone’s opinions and trying to reach a consensus is what this country’s about....
DeuceSoliloquy on May 31, 2007 at 06:39 pm
Rob
Rob
17408 comments
Send a private message

Well, right.  And sometimes things get harsh and nasty during that process, but the key is that we should all remain engaged and just try to remain as true to our own personal beliefs as possible.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 31, 2007 at 06:41 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

Rob,

It is unconscionable to rob Americans of their right to pass what they earn over a lifetime of work on to their heirs without government interference.

While I agree with you as to how this applies to farm families in ND, I guess the point I started making way at the top of the thread was my feeling that it is ALSO fairly unconscionable to “spin” and label the estate tax as “the death tax” when too many ordinary citizens have no clue about the first $2,000,000.  And while I can see that it’s their “personal responsibility” to become informed, I just feel it distorts the national conversation...(and yes, BOTH sides are doing it) and (I feel) it needs to stop…
DeuceSoliloquy on May 31, 2007 at 07:20 pm
Rob
Rob
17408 comments
Send a private message

Well, I see it as a death tax.  We still call a sales tax a sales tax even though it doesn’t apply to all sales.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 31, 2007 at 07:25 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

Rob:

Well, I see it as a death tax.  We still call a sales tax a sales tax even though it doesn’t apply to all sales.

Well, I’ll point out under that reasoning, we call a sales tax a sales tax to all sales defined by the law...but not all death’s are applicable to the estate tax, so....I just think it’s misleading and distorting some people’s views on a lot of different issues...(but I’m no hypocrite, it’s done by the left AND the right)...but it’s diminishing people’s knowledge of the facts, in my opinion…
DeuceSoliloquy on May 31, 2007 at 07:32 pm
Rob
Rob
17408 comments
Send a private message

we call a sales tax a sales tax to all sales defined by the law...but not all death’s are applicable to the estate tax, so....I just think it’s misleading and distorting some people’s views on a lot of different issues…

With sales taxes the law defines some sales as taxable and some as not.  Like food sales, for instance.  Or certain items farmers buy.

With the death tax, some deaths are taxable and some aren’t.  If you’re rich, you get taxed.  If you’re not, you don’t.

I don’t see the difference here.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 31, 2007 at 07:39 pm

DeuceSoliloquy - Have you ever read the book “What’s the Matter With Kansas”? by....I WANT to say Kevin Phillips, but I’m not sure...anyways, part of it’s premise was to call into question WHY all these small-town Mid-Western, “regular guys” without a GREAT deal of accumulated wealth, bought into the conservative party line hook, line and sinker without ever totally realizing how a lot of their economic policies aren’t in their best interests....

That’s the book where the author made up a bunch of figures and invented his own reality so that he could fit his preconceived notions into it. Thomas Frank, the author, is also one of those people who believe that someone voting “in their best interests” means redistribution from the productive to the unproductive. A lot of “poor” people in the rural states recognize that for what it is - theft.

likwidshoe on May 31, 2007 at 07:43 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

A lot of “poor” people in the rural states recognize that for what it is - theft.

and I respectfully agree with their rights to their opinions on that matter....I guess my point was, and maybe I wasn’t that clear, is my concern that all the professionally spun propaganda (on BOTH SIDES) is limiting to a more rational discourse in this country...I understand everyone is responsible for getting their information themselves, but let’s be honest...Not every is, and it’s tough to ascertain the true facts of the matter in 30 second TV political ads…
DeuceSoliloquy on May 31, 2007 at 07:52 pm

I guess my point was, and maybe I wasn’t that clear, is my concern that all the professionally spun propaganda (on BOTH SIDES) is limiting to a more rational discourse in this country...

I agree. Like when someone from the left tries to convince “the poor” that voting “in their best interests” means voting for welfare. And if we don’t agree with that, we’re “selfish” and “heart less”. Where does one go from there? It makes rational discussion tough when one side has already demonized those who are conservatives.

Don’t get me wrong Deuce because I’m not talking about you; just adding to your point.

likwidshoe on May 31, 2007 at 07:59 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

Rob:  I guess what I’m trying to say is, you go out tomorrow, and buy a car, you pay tax on it...same if I do it, and likwidshoe, whistler, whoever, it’s always taxed the same...but, in the even of our death’s, some of us MAY be taxed with the professionally spun and labeled “death tax”, some of us won’t (but there’s always that chance on my lottery ticket)...So I guess where I’m going with this, the citizens of this country, they all generally KNOW that if they buy this certain product, this tax is applicable...but by labeling something as “the death tax”, I think some uninformed people are using this as a basis for their political decisions...and I don’t think it’s what is right for our country...Do you not concede that their ARE some, who by “spinning” the estate tax into “the death tax”
hoped to gain a political advantage by the misinformation?

DeuceSoliloquy on May 31, 2007 at 08:07 pm

Rob, I’ll bet you a dollar to a donut that your accountant has depreciated equipment and other items that are depreciated throughout the life of the business. Also it is more than two million when you consider both spouses. And is likely to increase to 5 million. 

B1, it also makes rational discussion tough when one side has demonized those who are liberals or union members or against the war.

Puzzlefeet on May 31, 2007 at 08:09 pm

DeuceSoliloquy - Do you not concede that their ARE some, who by “spinning” the estate tax into “the death tax”
hoped to gain a political advantage by the misinformation?

It’s not “misinformation”. Rob did a good job explaining the thinking up above. It is a tax that only occurs at death. It matters not that it doesn’t apply to all. Most taxes don’t apply to all anyways, so that was kind of a silly point.

Call it truth in labeling.

likwidshoe on May 31, 2007 at 08:10 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

Don’t get me wrong Deuce because I’m not talking about you;

No worries Lik, I’m not offended...but I’ll point out this:

It’s not “misinformation”. Rob did a good job explaining the thinking up above

OK, Lik, please don’t think I was attacking Rob on that, that was never my intent, but rather, I was commenting on everything that is distorting a RATIONAL conversation in this country...now, since I really haven’t talked to either of you two very much, I’ll offer this as an example:

Like when someone from the left tries to convince “the poor” that voting “in their best interests” means voting for welfare. And if we don’t agree with that, we’re “selfish” and “heart less”. Where does one go from there? It makes rational discussion tough when one side has already demonized those who are conservatives.likwidshoe

and

it also makes rational discussion tough when one side has demonized those who are liberals or union members or against the war.
Puzzlefeet

So...can you see my point about all the “finger pointing” that I believe needs to stop? Where do we go from here?
DeuceSoliloquy on May 31, 2007 at 08:31 pm

Where do we go from here?

We just ignore it and continue talking.

Your point was well made. There is too much division. But what can you do? It’s probably in our human nature. For better or worse, it has always been this way.

likwidshoe on May 31, 2007 at 08:38 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

There is too much division. But what can you do? It’s probably in our human nature

Well, I’ll concede that it’s probably in our human nature, but I’m also thinking that we, as a country as a whole, are getting lazier...and it’s too easy just to get made and blame the other guy. (hey, who am I kidding, sometimes it’s even fun, I’ve been guilty of it myself)....but, I’ve said before, their WAS a time in our country’s history that compromises were a celebrated part of our history...now it seems like it’s labeled as “a weakness” and the source of too many people’s anger…
DeuceSoliloquy on May 31, 2007 at 08:47 pm

With sales taxes the law defines some sales as taxable and some as not.  Like food sales, for instance.  Or certain items farmers buy.

With the death tax, some deaths are taxable and some aren’t.  If you’re rich, you get taxed.  If you’re not, you don’t.

I don’t see the difference here.

All taxes are arbitrary.  There are no “natural” taxes.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on May 31, 2007 at 08:58 pm

I will also point out that your absolute assertion that only you could possibly define “the truth” You lie; I said no such thing, nor do I believe it. is exactly what led to me to make my opinion-driven “narcissism bordering on omnipotence” observation in the first place.... Your personal attacks on me are your responsibility, not mine.  Grow up.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on May 31, 2007 at 09:18 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

Rob:

Well, right.  And sometimes things get harsh and nasty during that process, but the key is that we should all remain engaged and just try to remain as true to our own personal beliefs as possible.

Yes, I do agree that everyone needs to remain true to their personal beliefs...But do you think BOTH sides could take a responsibility to try to keep it from getting too harsh and nasty? Or am I just being too much of an idealist? Our founding fathers had some wide ranging opinions, but could it be that one thing that contributed to the success of our country early on was a greater importance placed on civility?
DeuceSoliloquy on May 31, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Rob
Rob
17408 comments
Send a private message

If you think there was a greater importance placed on civility in the founders’ day you’re fooling yourself.  Ever wonder where the term “tarred and feathered” came from?  It was the founders’ day, and they did it literally.

Heck, in the early days of Congress one member of the House beat another severely with a cane.  And politics were nasty even before the founders.  Think of Machiavelli.  The Romans.  And on and on.

Not saying it’s right, just saying that hearkening back to a “purer” day of politics is naive.  This is how it’s always been.

One just has to get used to it, I guess.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 31, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

Not saying it’s right, just saying that hearkening back to a “purer” day of politics is naive.  This is how it’s always been.

OK, I realize the Son’s of Liberty used tar and feathering in response to the Townshend acts, and later to defend our emerging republic (kind of like “enhanced interrogation techniques, that I’m not necessarily opposed to)...And I’m HONESTLY not playing a debating game here with you and laying out a trap like I might have been accused of doing with Robert...It’s just my opinion that as our Forefathers were planning our democracy, they took a look at things other democracy’s did and decided what worked, and what didn’t...And yes, I’ll admit that it might be naive to think that all through our history, there has never been any “nastiness”...But I’ll toss this out: With all the polling, focus groups, memo’s outlining “words with power” (and don’t get me wrong, I know the dems have corresponding memo’s such as this) and professionally spun propaganda (which I don’t think factored into our nation’s history until fairly recently) in your opinion, is this making it harder to reach a consensus in this country about matters that are important? Don’t get me wrong, I am all in favor of freedom of speech, it’s the one issue that attracted me to your sight in the first place...I was just wondering how you felt about it, because in my opinion, it’s part of the problem…
DeuceSoliloquy on June 1, 2007 at 10:48 am

Forefathers were planning our democracy…

Actually, it was, and is, a Representative Republic.  There is a big difference.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on June 1, 2007 at 11:25 am
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

Actually, it was, and is, a Representative Republic.  There is a big difference.

Yep, totally conceded on my part Robert, you are absolutely correct...but I’m still not sure if that takes away from the question I was asking....
DeuceSoliloquy on June 1, 2007 at 12:44 pm

..but I’m still not sure if that takes away from the question I was asking....

So, a wrong premise has no effect on the ensuing logic? 

Surely you jest.

Just in case: “democracy” is a group endeavor; factions are formed to establish political power.  A representative republic moderates this, and maintains the individual independence of the citizens.  For me, a profound difference.  Not the same at all.

So, the ongoing dialogue(or “partisan bickering” in your parlance) tends to be suppressed over time in a democracy, due to factional pressures silencing individual voices and opinions(like the Dems of today).  A representative republic encourages ongoing vigorous debate, and our Constitution ensures that everyone can be heard.  The “division” and “nastiness” that you fear is an essential feature of our Republic, and more power to it!
I repeat, compromise sacrifices truth for comity.
It’s all about “feelings”.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on June 1, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

Robert...you have no idea how much I want to play the nonsequiter card right now, but I TRULY CAN see SOME connection in your logic, so I"ll TRY to explain my opinions...(and, even you have said that sometimes people have to “agree to disagree”, correct?)

I repeat, compromise sacrifices truth for comity.

I am just seriously having trouble, under your assertion, how we would define “truth” ...and, to my original point, and I really would like to hear Rob’s opinion on it, is this:...is all the “professionally spun” propaganda ON BOTH SIDES, making it more difficult for our nation of citizens to reach THE TRUTH?...I truly would like to hear some opinions out there…
DeuceSoliloquy on June 1, 2007 at 03:20 pm

I am just seriously having trouble, under your assertion, how we would define “truth” That which is true, as opposed to that which is false.  Can’t get any clearer than that.  I know this is a difficult concept for a moral relativist, so if you’re one of those, I feel your pain....and, to my original point, and I really would like to hear Rob’s opinion on it, is this:...is all the “professionally spun” propaganda ON BOTH SIDES,I disagree with your assumption of equivalence here.  You seem to think “both sides” are somehow symmetrical, when they aren’t.  The lefties of today are fairly extreme(MoveOn, DK and DU, as well as HuffPo) and are getting more extreme as time goes on.  On the other hand, Conservatives believe in the Founding Principles of this country, which isn’t extreme at all, unless you think individual independence is extreme.  The real counterpart to today’s lefties are the Neo Nazis and the White Supremacists, along with the Black Separatists and the Black Muslims.  Conservatives are fairly moderate.  Much of the hate-filled propaganda from the Left is a lie that Conservatives are “extreme right-wingers”, which would have made King George III laugh, I’m sure. making it more difficult for our nation of citizens to reach THE TRUTH?...I truly would like to hear some opinions out there… Propaganda only works on those who don’t think for themselves.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on June 1, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

Robert, Robert, Robert...Where can I begin?...OK, let’s start here...

I know this is a difficult concept for a moral relativist, so if you’re one of those, I feel your pain....

..Well, I think the record WILL reflect that I certainly do factor in the human condition while I make my points, it’s my perogative to do so, and I’ll admit, I question those who don’t..in my opinion of lot of morality IS relative, such as those who legislate against a woman’s right to choose an abortion under any circumstances, but then except her to exercise “rugged individualism” in her efforts to support her child in the “fourth trimester”..I believe it is a FAR greater sin to bring a child into the world that you don’t want, can’t support, or aren’t fit to parent...if this is being a “moral relavist”, so be it, and while you have allready expressed your empathy, I DO call to question it’s sincertiy…

You seem to think “both sides” are somehow symmetrical, when they aren’t.

Well, let’s see...I guess I’ll have to say that our debate on that particular issue is “Old, cold, ground”...been there, done that…

So, while I TRULY do appreciate your debating skills and desire to obfuscate my original assertion, you and I could go on for another two pages without really getting to my original assertion...So, to paraphrase from another “Leftist”, or “Marxist” or whatever, (he certainly had a sizeable FBI file on him) Dr. Martin Luther King .."So right now, I want to get right down to it, in a language that everyone here can easily understand"…

With all the polling, focus groups, memo’s outlining “words with power” (and don’t get me wrong, I know the dems have corresponding memo’s such as this) and professionally spun propaganda (which I don’t think factored into our nation’s history until fairly recently) in your opinion, is this making it harder to reach a consensus in this country about matters that are important? Don’t get me wrong, I am all in favor of freedom of speech, it’s the one issue that attracted me to your sight in the first place..

...or, to clarify for Robert:

:...is all the “professionally spun” propaganda ON BOTH SIDES, making it more difficult for our nation of citizens to reach THE TRUTH?

...I honestly do not want to get into a long protracted debate with Robert, I would like to hear other opinions on this…
DeuceSoliloquy on June 2, 2007 at 07:45 am

...I honestly do not want to get into a long protracted debate with Robert…

That’s understandable, since I have refuted one of your key premises, which is that there is no essential difference between what you call “the two sides”.  I gave you plenty of references, Deuce, so you have no excuse for this latest avoidance of the real issue.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on June 2, 2007 at 07:53 am

Deuce: Notice I said ”if you’re one of those”, referring to being a moral relativist.  I wasn’t sure, but your ensuing rant has revealed you to be one.  If you can’t differentiate between killing a defenseless human being(abortion) and a “civil right”, I feel sorry for you.  We can allow such repellent practices, for practical reasons, but we don’t have to lie about the reality of abortion to protect the feelings of the killers.  Moral relativism is the inability to make a distinction between right and wrong, truth and falsehood.  Instead, the moral relativist is concerned with “feelings” and “perception”, thinking that it’s all a matter of opinion.  Like I say, you reveal yourself.
There is no debate here; only a difference in principle.  I’m not a moral relativist; I know the difference between right and wrong.
Your attempt to conflate responsible care of one’s child with the coldblooded killing of a helpless human fetus is ridiculous.  A true individualist would take responsibility for the consequences of her actions.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on June 2, 2007 at 08:08 am
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

Robert...

A true individualist would take responsibility for the consequences of her actions.

Well, I’m probably handing out for personal info out here on the web than I probably should be, but here’s a little personal info on me: I am a single (male) parent with the custody of my son.....I won’t bore you with the long ugly details of it all, and I can’t speak informed about others, all I can tell you is that I, personally have taken responsibility for MY actions...I guess at this juncture, all I can say is that in my opinion, a “true individualist” CAN’T LOGICALLY be in favor of legislation that denies a woman’s right to choose, but then demands her to exert her “rugged individualism”..(that’s how it looks from this “moral relavist”, but I thought you were always in favor of all things rational, NOT RATIONALING)..but we digress, and while I would actually like to continue this particular talking point with Robert, or anyone else, I do see it as distracting to my original question:

With all the polling, focus groups, memo’s outlining “words with power” (and don’t get me wrong, I know the dems have corresponding memo’s such as this) and professionally spun propaganda (which I don’t think factored into our nation’s history until fairly recently) in your opinion, is this making it harder to reach a consensus in this country about matters that are important? Don’t get me wrong, I am all in favor of freedom of speech, it’s the one issue that attracted me to your sight in the first place..

...or, to clarify for Robert:
:...is all the “professionally spun” propaganda ON BOTH SIDES, making it more difficult for our nation of citizens to reach THE TRUTH?

Robert’s already weighed in with his opinion, anyone else out there?
DeuceSoliloquy on June 2, 2007 at 09:21 am

...legislation that denies a woman’s right to choose…

You mean “the right to choose to kill her unborn child”?  That’s just an obscenity.  Since you have broached the subject of your parenthood, Deuce, how would you like it if your child had been aborted?
For the record, I don’t think anyone has “the right to choose” to kill another human being.  The only exception would be self-defense, and trying to spin abortion as self-defense is just ridiculous.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on June 2, 2007 at 09:29 am

Deuce: First, to avoid any misunderstanding, I applaud you doing the right thing by your son.  Parenthood is one of the most important things we can do.

...or, to clarify for Robert:
:...is all the “professionally spun” propaganda ON BOTH SIDES, making it more difficult for our nation of citizens to reach THE TRUTH?

To clarify for you, Deuce:
I don’t think propaganda affects those who think for themselves and who take responsibility for the information they possess.  It’s more of a factor for those who only use the MSM for their information.
I don’t think “both sides” are equally represented in the propaganda war, either.  The real equivalent to the radical Left, which is the NeoNazis/White Supremacist/Black Muslim/Black Separatist faction(the real extreme right-wing), is almost completely censored in the public forum, so there is no balance there at all.  We are bombarded every day with the far-Left message, with very little from any other source.  Because of that imbalance in coverage, the real moderate element, the Conservatives, is not well represented at all, even if you consider representing the Founding Principles of this country, like individual independence, to be “propaganda”.  I just don’t agree with your assumption of symmetry here.
The truth is still available to all those who seek it.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on June 2, 2007 at 09:39 am
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

I gave you plenty of references, Deuce, so you have no excuse for this latest avoidance of the real issue.

Well Robert, while at times I gotta admit, I truly love our exchanges for the pure entertainment value for my dollar, my TRUE reasoning behind my “avoidance” as it were, is that during our initial “debate” or discussion, or “exchange of ideas”...I think I pretty much had you on the ropes on at least ONE point I made, and you made absolutely no attempt to at least say that you were wrong (but, to be fair, we weren’t sure if their was a declared winner or loser in this particular forum, or if it goes with the territory)...and while I certainly appreciate the fervor you put into making your points, (as do I) my reasoning for the “avoidance” is that my past experience dictates to me that even after all the effort put forth, we’ll probably just wind up “agreeing to disagree"…
DeuceSoliloquy on June 2, 2007 at 09:47 am
Avatar for deucesoliloquy

Robert:

I don’t think propaganda affects those who think for themselves and who take responsibility for the information they possess.  It’s more of a factor for those who only use the MSM for their information

While I respectfully agree with the first part of what you are saying, I think the “MSM” plays right to my point...what would YOU have said if I made the same point while substituting “Fox News”? or “The Rush Limbaugh Show”?
As to your quote of

We are bombarded every day with the far-Left message, with very little from any other source.  Because of that imbalance in coverage, the real moderate element, the Conservatives, is not well represented at all

I guess all I can say it’s a matter of perception, I honestly do not have any scientficly quantifiable data to argue with one way or another, and don’t get me wrong, Move On.org, some greenpeace literature I’ve read...PETA?...I can see very clearly how a LOT of this is ALSO distorting the national conversation...my original question is STILL...is ALL the parisan BS, making it more difficult for our country? Robert has weighed in heavily, but I’m still looking for answers from others....
deucesoliloquy on June 2, 2007 at 10:04 am

On the Left: ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, AP, Reuters, the NYT, Boston Globe, etc.

You can only furnish Fox News(not all Conservative, by any means), and Rush Limbaugh?  The imbalance is obvious.

Back when the news media had a monopoly on coverage, it is understandable that the public was deceived by the lies about the outcome of the Tet Offensive, to use one example.  You had to have a connection with the military to know the truth.  Now, with other sources available, only a willingly ignorant person would be unaware of the truth behind the lies, half-truths and fabrications of the Mainstream Media.

BTW, in case you don’t know, neither Fox News nor Rush Limbaugh are considered to be part of the Mainstream Media.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on June 2, 2007 at 10:13 am
Avatar for deucesoliloquy

BTW, in case you don’t know, neither Fox News nor Rush Limbaugh are considered to be part of the Mainstream Media

...Well, all I can respond to this is...BTW, in case you didn’t know, my original major in college was advertising and broadcasting, so...by the actual definition of the words, at least how they were explained to me in my classes, is....yes, they are...I also find it curious that “conservatives” if we MUST get into partisan labels, are always the first to champion “rugged individualism” and market-driven principals, while oddly enough bemoan a great “left wing media conspiracy”...I’m not sure if you can have it both ways, if you really do the math...but that IS just my opinion…
deucesoliloquy on June 2, 2007 at 11:32 am
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

Robert:

only a willingly ignorant person would be unaware of the truth behind the lies, half-truths and fabrications of the Mainstream Media.

Well, I’m not sure about the “willingly ignorant” part, but it is my perception that we in America, as a society are getting lazier (look at the statistics about how many hours are spent each night watching TV), Now, don’t get me wrong, because I am TOTALLY aware that both sides of the political spectrum are currently doing it, but I think we, as a society as a whole (while I hate to speak in generalizations) are getting too much of our info indirectly from the “gatekeepers” (to use a term from communications 101) and recieve it with whatever “spin” the gatekeepers intended, without truly putting in the time and getting ALL the facts straight for themselves....and I call to examination my earlier stated philosophy of “if your not part of the solution, your part of the problem” (again, I paraphrase)...Now, we’ve allready covered the “perceived” socio-political origins of that particular question, and heard from many who felt it IS an applicable view to solving life’s daily problems..I also think we have spent a considerable enough time trying to figure out how many sides there are in a debate, and if all sides are equal, but I gather that you are an intelligent enough man to understand how I’m applying it this to my original premise...(whether you will admit it or not, is probably another matter)...so, I throw it out AGAIN, and TRULY would like to hear from more people on this sight...is all the “professionally spun” propoganda on BOTH SIDES limiting a healthy, national converstaion? Because to me, it IS part of the problem…
DeuceSoliloquy on June 2, 2007 at 12:53 pm

...both sides of the political spectrum are currently doing it…

There you go again.  As soon as someone other than the Left has as powerful an information-disseminating tool as the MSM, your “both sides” meme is nonsense.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on June 2, 2007 at 03:07 pm

...Well, all I can respond to this is...BTW, in case you didn’t know, my original major in college was advertising and broadcasting, so...by the actual definition of the words, at least how they were explained to me in my classes, is....yes, they are...I also find it curious that “conservatives” if we MUST get into partisan labels,It’s a definition. are always the first to champion “rugged individualism” and market-driven principals,A hint: when you are claiming educational superiority, don’t misspell words; it’s “principle”.  A principal either runs a school or is the main investor; the guy with the money. while oddly enough bemoan a great “left wing media conspiracy” I never used the word “conspiracy”, because it isn’t.  That doesn’t mean that the MSM isn’t dominated by the Left, though.  It’s not a conspiracy. ...I’m not sure if you can have it both ways, if you really do the math… What does math have to do with it?  Market forces are at work here; the really intelligent people go into business for themselves; leftie journalism school graduates go to work for big news corps as news readers.  No mystery there. but that IS just my opinion…


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on June 2, 2007 at 03:21 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

Robert:

A hint: when you are claiming educational superiority, don’t misspell words; it’s “principle”.  A principal either runs a school or is the main investor; the guy with the money.

I never claimed superiority, just my background to refute what you deemed “not mainstream media”...(allthough, in light of Rush’s hypocracy, you just very well be correct with that one...sorry, couldn’t resist it...) I TRULY do not hold much of a high regard for formal education as it pertains to common sense..I’ve gone on record as stating that one of the men I’ve admired most in my life had a fourth grade education, and I’ve met my fill of doctorate degree holders that I really couldn’t say had anything intellectually superior to offer me...I’ve spoken to and debated with other people here without breaking out the three dollar poly-syllabic words, but my inclination to use them with you had to do with what I perceived to be YOUR claiming intellectual superiority with some others, so I figured I better fight fire with fire (lest all the “conservatives” out there think that all the “dems” are just undeducated, tax-dollar sucking welfare state lovers) .. If you see any typos here right now, please try to understand that it is the heat of the moment during our often frequent exchanges, my lack of firefox for today’s debate,discussion, or exhange of ideas, and, quite possibly, my current profession that led me to make that misspelling......But we REALLY don’t want to go down this particular road again, do we? Because I think history is on my side, at least a couple of times....
DeuceSoliloquy on June 2, 2007 at 05:51 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

There you go again.  As soon as someone other than the Left has as powerful an information-disseminating tool as the MSM, your “both sides” meme is nonsense.

..Well, to paraphrase your own response: Nice Reaganesque response but no soap? was it?...This sounds about as close to “RATIONALING” to me from a man who claims he has no interest in it, that I’ve ever seen from you Robert…
DeuceSoliloquy on June 2, 2007 at 05:59 pm

Deuce: Of course you claimed educational superiority; that’s why you mentioned your educational background.  Try to be truthful, especially when you are so obviously denying what you just wrote.  BTW, it’s “hypocrisy”.  If the word “hypocracy” existed, it would be “rule by lefties”, I think.  Oh, well.  When I repeated Reagan’s response to another leftie, it wasn’t “rationalizing” in any way at all; it was an appropriate usage with another leftie doing the same sort of obfuscation.
I don’t like the present-day national Dem Party because it has sold out to far-left extremism, as illustrated by Hillary’s latest paraphrase of Marxism.  After all, it is essentially bankrolled by a foreign national(George Soros), who has publicly stated that he wants to see the US become a socialist country.  As a Conservative, I support the Founding Principles of the US, not Marxism or any form of socialism.  If the Dems ever come back to America, I will welcome them.  Look what they did to Joe Lieberman for having one diverse view.  The Dems have earned my contempt.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on June 2, 2007 at 06:07 pm

Deuce: My apologies; I realize that you didn’t misspell “principal”, you just used the wrong word.  Now, you did misspell “rationalizing”.  So, while you might try blaming “rationaling” on your browser or your haste(in itself a rationalization), you just didn’t use the right word when you used “principal” when you should have used “principle”.  Now I know that kids who have a “modern” education were afflicted with that obscenity known as “hooked on phonics”, and so, since the words are pronounced alike, that may explain it.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on June 2, 2007 at 06:12 pm

Deuce: Once again, I must apologize; when I wrote:

As soon as someone other than the Left has
as powerful an information-disseminating tool as the MSM, your “both sides” meme is nonsense.

It should have been:  Until someone other than the Left has as powerful an information-disseminating tool as the MSM, your “both sides” meme is nonsense.
Sorry if I confused you.  I have never claimed educational superiority.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on June 2, 2007 at 06:17 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

Sorry if I confused you.  I have never claimed educational superiority.

Robert...SINCERELY, thank you for the clarification...Nor, I honestly think I have of you (just my love for debate making a few pointed asides, but seriously no advert nonsequiters intended)....So, if 2 people like us, with as diametrically opposed ideologies as ours can have a moment like this, do you think there might still be hope in this country if we can all just cut the partisan BS and have a decent conversation?..(and I’m STILL WAITING for others to join in on this thread....Rob??? Are you out there?)
DeuceSoliloquy on June 2, 2007 at 07:12 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

you just didn’t use the right word when you used “principal” when you should have used “principle”.  Now I know that kids who have a “modern” education were afflicted with that obscenity known as “hooked on phonics”, and so, since the words are pronounced alike, that may explain it.

Yes, and it might be more likely due to the fact that I’m a teacher, and in my line of work I use the word frequently...We’ve both been guilty of “red pen” mistakes, (I believe you didn’t fully grasp perhaps quite inadvertantly, the difference of a thesaurus and a dictionary...but I don’t want to spoil my perceived breakthrough moment between us, Robert....
DeuceSoliloquy on June 2, 2007 at 07:19 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

Deuce: Of course you claimed educational superiority; that’s why you mentioned your educational background.  Try to be truthful, especially when you are so obviously denying what you just wrote.

..Well, for a man who claims he loves all things rational, not rationalizing, it was more of an attempt on my part to clear up your statement of

Deuce: Of course you claimed educational superiority; that’s why you mentioned your educational background.  Try to be truthful, especially when you are so obviously denying what you just wrote.

which to me was pretty much “your perceptions” and I thought you would just like it quantified from a semi-reliable source....
DeuceSoliloquy on June 2, 2007 at 07:27 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

aaauuugghhhh....sorry, not my ‘puter...that second quote should read

BTW, in case you don’t know, neither Fox News nor Rush Limbaugh are considered to be part of the Mainstream Media

and yes, I allready KNOW I’m rationalizing…
DeuceSoliloquy on June 2, 2007 at 07:30 pm

(I believe you didn’t fully grasp perhaps
quite inadvertantly, the difference of a thesaurus and a dictionary...but I don’t want to spoil my perceived breakthrough moment between us, Robert....

You may believe anything you want, but in this case, your belief is in error.  I know the difference.  It was simply irrelevant to what I wrote, so I ignored your attempt at obfuscation, that time.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on June 2, 2007 at 07:58 pm

Deuce: When you speak of “partisan BS”, I take you at your word.  Since you don’t speak for me, and only for yourself, your statement certainly doesn’t apply to me.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on June 2, 2007 at 08:01 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

Robert:

When you speak of “partisan BS”, I take you at your word.  Since you don’t speak for me, and only for yourself, your statement certainly doesn’t apply to me.

but I’m applying it to your assertion of:

Keep at it until the truth wins out.  In a “compromise”, truth is sacrificed for comity.  Not a good way to go, especially for a free country.

and there DOES seem to be some confusion as to how we, as a country should or would define “the truth” and who, exactly, gets to make that call...(certainly not me, I’m a “moral relativist” and we all know how shady those guys can be...)
DeuceSoliloquy on June 3, 2007 at 06:12 am
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

I know the difference.  It was simply irrelevant to what I wrote, so I ignored your attempt at obfuscation, that time.

Yep, perhaps...but I DID notice you gave me the definition instead of a synonym at the time, which is what led to the confusion on my part...but hey, we’re nitpicking here again, we are both intelligent men, and we both didn’t come here to argue the finer points of linguistics, did we???...so, if you can see your way clearly to accepting an occaisional spelling error while I don’t have Firefox at my disposal, I can let other trivialities slide, also...let’s stay focused…
DeuceSoliloquy on June 3, 2007 at 06:21 am

Yep, perhaps...but I DID notice you gave me the definition instead of a synonym at the time, which is what led to the confusion on my part… Your “thesaurus” crack was made after I gave you the definition, so it’s all you. but
hey, we’re nitpicking here again, we are both intelligent men, and we both didn’t come here to argue the finer points of linguistics, did we???… As I said, you introduced the subject. Don’t include me in your stuff. so, if you can see your way clearly to accepting an occaisional spelling error while I don’t have Firefox at my disposal, I can let other trivialities slide, also...let’s stay focused…

I’m focused, so once again, you speak only for yourself.

Keep at it until the truth wins out.

There’s nothing partisan about that statement.  It’s not about “sides”, it’s about determining the truth by sticking to the discussion until the truth is reached.  It can’t be decided beforehand(which seems to be your hangup), because it’s not a matter of ideology, but of facts.  I do think your moral relativism just doesn’t recognize that there is a truth in every situation, and that it can be known.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on June 3, 2007 at 08:23 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?