Jack Kemp
-
Kemp was an old-style Republican. Financially conservative, but socially liberal. He agreed with Thomas Jefferson that the government that governs least governs best and so, while he was the architect of Reagan's tax-cuts, he also fought long and hard for equality under the law for all Americans - even when that meant that banks couldn't automatically charge higher interest rates to anyone who wasn't white. The N Y Times once characterised him as a throwback to JFK's capaigning on family values, patriotism, sports and defense. He supported affirmative action, believing it was necessary for awhile to even the playing field, and opposed abortion. He supported the gold standard and supported civil rights legislation as well. Today he will be eulogised by many Republicans who, if he had still been active in politics, would have attempted to drive him out of the party for being so politically incorrect. But the liberals wouldn't have wanted him either. His stance on abortion would probably been enough, but he also thought soccer was a waste of time and money, saying: "I think it is important for all those young out there — who someday hope to play real football, where you throw it and kick it and run with it and put it in your hands — [that] a distinction should be made that football is democratic capitalism, whereas soccer is a European socialist sport." (He was joking, but there really was a scream of outraged from soccer moms and their elected representatives.) I fear there is no place in American politics these days for the likes of Kemp or his Democratic rival and friend, Bill Bradley. These days, neither party is looking for original thought or iconoclasts who vote their conscience not the political agenda.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Kemp was an old-style Republican. Financially conservative, but socially liberal. He agreed with Thomas Jefferson that the government that governs least governs best and so, while he was the architect of Reagan's tax-cuts, he also fought long and hard for equality under the law for all Americans - even when that meant that banks couldn't automatically charge higher interest rates to anyone who wasn't white. The N Y Times once characterised him as a throwback to JFK's capaigning on family values, patriotism, sports and defense. He supported affirmative action, believing it was necessary for awhile to even the playing field, and opposed abortion. He supported the gold standard and supported civil rights legislation as well. Today he will be eulogised by many Republicans who, if he had still been active in politics, would have attempted to drive him out of the party for being so politically incorrect. But the liberals wouldn't have wanted him either. His stance on abortion would probably been enough, but he also thought soccer was a waste of time and money, saying: "I think it is important for all those young out there — who someday hope to play real football, where you throw it and kick it and run with it and put it in your hands — [that] a distinction should be made that football is democratic capitalism, whereas soccer is a European socialist sport." (He was joking, but there really was a scream of outraged from soccer moms and their elected representatives.) I fear there is no place in American politics these days for the likes of Kemp or his Democratic rival and friend, Bill Bradley. These days, neither party is looking for original thought or iconoclasts who vote their conscience not the political agenda.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
:thumbsup::thumbsup: (for your comments on Jack and the Republican Party, not for his passing...) I was saddened by reading of his passing. He was a good man who will be missed.
-
Kemp was an old-style Republican. Financially conservative, but socially liberal. He agreed with Thomas Jefferson that the government that governs least governs best and so, while he was the architect of Reagan's tax-cuts, he also fought long and hard for equality under the law for all Americans - even when that meant that banks couldn't automatically charge higher interest rates to anyone who wasn't white. The N Y Times once characterised him as a throwback to JFK's capaigning on family values, patriotism, sports and defense. He supported affirmative action, believing it was necessary for awhile to even the playing field, and opposed abortion. He supported the gold standard and supported civil rights legislation as well. Today he will be eulogised by many Republicans who, if he had still been active in politics, would have attempted to drive him out of the party for being so politically incorrect. But the liberals wouldn't have wanted him either. His stance on abortion would probably been enough, but he also thought soccer was a waste of time and money, saying: "I think it is important for all those young out there — who someday hope to play real football, where you throw it and kick it and run with it and put it in your hands — [that] a distinction should be made that football is democratic capitalism, whereas soccer is a European socialist sport." (He was joking, but there really was a scream of outraged from soccer moms and their elected representatives.) I fear there is no place in American politics these days for the likes of Kemp or his Democratic rival and friend, Bill Bradley. These days, neither party is looking for original thought or iconoclasts who vote their conscience not the political agenda.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Kemp was an old-style Republican
Oakman wrote:
original thought or iconoclasts
So all old-style republicans were original thinking iconoclasts? All of them? How does that work exactly?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Kemp was an old-style Republican
Oakman wrote:
original thought or iconoclasts
So all old-style republicans were original thinking iconoclasts? All of them? How does that work exactly?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
You have mastered the art of cherry picking fragments from quotations. You should immediately apply for work as a talking head for the News Organization of your choice. I'm sure you thought that was cute, but actually you come across as ridiculous or absurd.
-
You have mastered the art of cherry picking fragments from quotations. You should immediately apply for work as a talking head for the News Organization of your choice. I'm sure you thought that was cute, but actually you come across as ridiculous or absurd.
Thanks. Its just that the amazing number of free thinkers who all agree with each other never ceases to amuse me. I mean, on an average day, wouldn't you think that most people would disagree with a free thinker? Otherwise, what would be the point?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Thanks. Its just that the amazing number of free thinkers who all agree with each other never ceases to amuse me. I mean, on an average day, wouldn't you think that most people would disagree with a free thinker? Otherwise, what would be the point?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Its just that the amazing number of free thinkers who all agree with each other never ceases to amuse me.
The herd of independent minds is an amazing thing to behold, isn't it? It's rather like watching the vast mass of individualists expressing their individuality ... by all thinking, acting, behaving, dressing, adorning and/or modifying their bodies identically.
-
Oakman wrote:
Kemp was an old-style Republican
Oakman wrote:
original thought or iconoclasts
So all old-style republicans were original thinking iconoclasts? All of them? How does that work exactly?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote: So all old-style republicans were original thinking iconoclasts Once again, you show a woeful ignorance of logic. It is possible to be a member of the group, 'old-style Republicans' and the group 'original thinkers' and the group 'iconoclasts,' without membership in any one group automatically implying membership in the others. For instance, Jack Kemp was also a football player. That does not mean that all football players are old-style Republicans or that all iconoclasts are football players. Do you see how it works, now? Faulty thinking, such as you displayed, calls into question almost every conclusion you arrive at. Have a real nice day. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Its just that the amazing number of free thinkers who all agree with each other never ceases to amuse me.
The herd of independent minds is an amazing thing to behold, isn't it? It's rather like watching the vast mass of individualists expressing their individuality ... by all thinking, acting, behaving, dressing, adorning and/or modifying their bodies identically.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: So all old-style republicans were original thinking iconoclasts Once again, you show a woeful ignorance of logic. It is possible to be a member of the group, 'old-style Republicans' and the group 'original thinkers' and the group 'iconoclasts,' without membership in any one group automatically implying membership in the others. For instance, Jack Kemp was also a football player. That does not mean that all football players are old-style Republicans or that all iconoclasts are football players. Do you see how it works, now? Faulty thinking, such as you displayed, calls into question almost every conclusion you arrive at. Have a real nice day. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
No, really, I very carefully looked up all the terms in wikipedia. I'm actually pretty damned confident that being 'old style' and rejecting established dogma and conventions mean pretty much exactly the opposite things. Perhaps you could ask one of your mensa buddies to explain it all to you.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
No, really, I very carefully looked up all the terms in wikipedia. I'm actually pretty damned confident that being 'old style' and rejecting established dogma and conventions mean pretty much exactly the opposite things. Perhaps you could ask one of your mensa buddies to explain it all to you.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote: I'm actually pretty damned confident that being 'old style' and rejecting established dogma and conventions mean pretty much exactly the opposite things. The fact that you are confident really doesn't mean a whole lot, Stan. Indeed, when you say, "Being 'old style' and rejecting established dogma and conventions mean pretty much exactly the opposite things," you demonstrate how little it takes for you to be confident - and how badly you abuse the English language sometimes. Stan Shannon wrote: Perhaps you could ask one of your mensa buddies to explain it all to you. The fact that I belonged in my youth - and still could join if I thought it was at all important - seems to bother you a lot. Maybe you should try focusing less on me and worrying more about you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I'm actually pretty damned confident that being 'old style' and rejecting established dogma and conventions mean pretty much exactly the opposite things. The fact that you are confident really doesn't mean a whole lot, Stan. Indeed, when you say, "Being 'old style' and rejecting established dogma and conventions mean pretty much exactly the opposite things," you demonstrate how little it takes for you to be confident - and how badly you abuse the English language sometimes. Stan Shannon wrote: Perhaps you could ask one of your mensa buddies to explain it all to you. The fact that I belonged in my youth - and still could join if I thought it was at all important - seems to bother you a lot. Maybe you should try focusing less on me and worrying more about you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
The fact that you are confident really doesn't mean a whole lot, Stan. Indeed, when you say, "Being 'old style' and rejecting established dogma and conventions mean pretty much exactly the opposite things," you demonstrate how little it takes for you to be confident - and how badly you abuse the English language sometimes.
No, really. What exactly is an 'old style iconoclast'? Is that what libertarians call each other in their secret meetings?
Oakman wrote:
The fact that I belonged in my youth - and still could join if I thought it was at all important - seems to bother you a lot. Maybe you should try focusing less on me and worrying more about you.
Sure, Jon, sure.... whatever you say. :rolleyes:
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
The fact that you are confident really doesn't mean a whole lot, Stan. Indeed, when you say, "Being 'old style' and rejecting established dogma and conventions mean pretty much exactly the opposite things," you demonstrate how little it takes for you to be confident - and how badly you abuse the English language sometimes.
No, really. What exactly is an 'old style iconoclast'? Is that what libertarians call each other in their secret meetings?
Oakman wrote:
The fact that I belonged in my youth - and still could join if I thought it was at all important - seems to bother you a lot. Maybe you should try focusing less on me and worrying more about you.
Sure, Jon, sure.... whatever you say. :rolleyes:
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote: Is that what libertarians call each other in their secret meetings I admit that you have been somewhat more creative than Troy is, but really, Stan, your insults are become as repetitive as his. If you can't think of something new and insulting, I could probably help you out. Stan Shannon wrote: Sure, Jon, sure.... whatever you say. Sorry, Stan, you're not my type.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Its just that the amazing number of free thinkers who all agree with each other never ceases to amuse me.
The herd of independent minds is an amazing thing to behold, isn't it? It's rather like watching the vast mass of individualists expressing their individuality ... by all thinking, acting, behaving, dressing, adorning and/or modifying their bodies identically.
Ilíon wrote:
The herd of independent minds is an amazing thing to behold, isn't it? It's rather like watching the vast mass of individualists expressing their individuality ... by all thinking, acting, behaving, dressing, adorning and/or modifying their bodies identically.
As with so many things, one group gives itself some kind of cool sounding label like 'iconoclast' or 'free thinkers'. Its complete horseshit, of course. Kemp was no iconoclast. He may have been an old style republican, if that means the sort that TR helped turn the party into. But it is time now to finally free ourselves from the legacy of the progressive era, rip the reins of government out of the hands of libertarians, collectivists and humanists, salvage what we can of our Jeffersonican traditions, and move forward. And doing that will certainly mean having people who are true free thinkers and iconoclsts. And, ironically, the Obama era provides a perfect opportunity to achieve that if handled properly.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Is that what libertarians call each other in their secret meetings I admit that you have been somewhat more creative than Troy is, but really, Stan, your insults are become as repetitive as his. If you can't think of something new and insulting, I could probably help you out. Stan Shannon wrote: Sure, Jon, sure.... whatever you say. Sorry, Stan, you're not my type.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
I admit that you have been somewhat more creative than Troy is, but really, Stan, your insults are become as repetitive as his. If you can't think of something new and insulting, I could probably help you out.
What insult? Where? I mean, hell, I can't even call you a traitor any more since I'm one myself. I was just having a little fun...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Thanks. Its just that the amazing number of free thinkers who all agree with each other never ceases to amuse me. I mean, on an average day, wouldn't you think that most people would disagree with a free thinker? Otherwise, what would be the point?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Otherwise, what would be the point?
Free thinkers have a better chance of agreeing, the same as people that aren't colour-blind have more chance of agreeing on colour issues.
h
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Otherwise, what would be the point?
Free thinkers have a better chance of agreeing, the same as people that aren't colour-blind have more chance of agreeing on colour issues.
h
Brady Kelly wrote:
the same as people that aren't colour-blind have more chance of agreeing on colour issues.
I don't see how that analogy applies. 'Free thinking' implies a fundamental disregard for agreement. Free thinkers might occassionally agree, but that is not their goal. Free thought is essentially the ability to question the intellectual orthodoxy which pervades a society. At one time, that would certainly have meant questioning religious dogma. But today the intellectual orthodoxy doesn't come from any church, it comes from our educational institutions, the media, the press, from government. I consider myself to be the quintessential free thinker. When I lived in a small, rural community I was an athiest who questioned the tenats of that society. Now that I live in a much different world, I question the tenants of those who hold the power to promote their agenda over others. I see very little difference between the Christian moral authority that held sway in a small town, and that of secularism which holds sway now across much of western society. Except, of course, the former represented a Jeffersonian ideal, and the latter a Marxist one.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
the same as people that aren't colour-blind have more chance of agreeing on colour issues.
I don't see how that analogy applies. 'Free thinking' implies a fundamental disregard for agreement. Free thinkers might occassionally agree, but that is not their goal. Free thought is essentially the ability to question the intellectual orthodoxy which pervades a society. At one time, that would certainly have meant questioning religious dogma. But today the intellectual orthodoxy doesn't come from any church, it comes from our educational institutions, the media, the press, from government. I consider myself to be the quintessential free thinker. When I lived in a small, rural community I was an athiest who questioned the tenats of that society. Now that I live in a much different world, I question the tenants of those who hold the power to promote their agenda over others. I see very little difference between the Christian moral authority that held sway in a small town, and that of secularism which holds sway now across much of western society. Except, of course, the former represented a Jeffersonian ideal, and the latter a Marxist one.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I see very little difference between the Christian moral authority that held sway in a small town, and that of secularism which holds sway now across much of western society.
I would say the biggest difference is that secularism is generally willing to accept harm reduction strategies (like sexual education), which makes it objectively more successful than any Christian moral authority that generally does not.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I consider myself to be the quintessential free thinker.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a willingness to question authority makes your views more likely to be right. You further conflate the issue by setting up a false equivalence where questioning religious dogma == questioning educational institutions/media/press/government which may be your opinion but the approach to acquiring knowledge used by educational institutions in particular differs um, shall we say significantly from maintaining religious dogma.
- F
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I see very little difference between the Christian moral authority that held sway in a small town, and that of secularism which holds sway now across much of western society.
I would say the biggest difference is that secularism is generally willing to accept harm reduction strategies (like sexual education), which makes it objectively more successful than any Christian moral authority that generally does not.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I consider myself to be the quintessential free thinker.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a willingness to question authority makes your views more likely to be right. You further conflate the issue by setting up a false equivalence where questioning religious dogma == questioning educational institutions/media/press/government which may be your opinion but the approach to acquiring knowledge used by educational institutions in particular differs um, shall we say significantly from maintaining religious dogma.
- F
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I see very little difference between the Christian moral authority that held sway in a small town, and that of secularism which holds sway now across much of western society.
I would say the biggest difference is that secularism is generally willing to accept harm reduction strategies (like sexual education), which makes it objectively more successful than any Christian moral authority that generally does not.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I consider myself to be the quintessential free thinker.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a willingness to question authority makes your views more likely to be right. You further conflate the issue by setting up a false equivalence where questioning religious dogma == questioning educational institutions/media/press/government which may be your opinion but the approach to acquiring knowledge used by educational institutions in particular differs um, shall we say significantly from maintaining religious dogma.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
I would say the biggest difference is that secularism is generally willing to accept harm reduction strategies (like sexual education), which makes it objectively more successful than any Christian moral authority that generally does not.
Just because Stan believes his sisters weren't running around doing the nasty doesn't mean they weren't. :laugh:
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Stan Shannon wrote:
I see very little difference between the Christian moral authority that held sway in a small town, and that of secularism which holds sway now across much of western society.
I would say the biggest difference is that secularism is generally willing to accept harm reduction strategies (like sexual education), which makes it objectively more successful than any Christian moral authority that generally does not.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I consider myself to be the quintessential free thinker.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a willingness to question authority makes your views more likely to be right. You further conflate the issue by setting up a false equivalence where questioning religious dogma == questioning educational institutions/media/press/government which may be your opinion but the approach to acquiring knowledge used by educational institutions in particular differs um, shall we say significantly from maintaining religious dogma.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
I would say the biggest difference is that secularism is generally willing to accept harm reduction strategies (like sexual education), which makes it objectively more successful than any Christian moral authority that generally does not.
And I would say that is no difference at all. Religion has a much longer and successful history of maintaining human civil order than does secularism, and that is an irrefutable scientific fact. If anything, our current experiement with secularism is not going well at all. Our civilization is collapsing on nearly every front as we become ever more secular and less religious.
Fisticuffs wrote:
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a willingness to question authority makes your views more likely to be right.
No more so than you assume that it makes them more likely to be wrong.
Fisticuffs wrote:
the approach to acquiring knowledge used by educational institutions in particular differs um, shall we say significantly from maintaining religious dogma.
No, in fact it does not. The only time it did, ironically, was when our society was more religious than now. The current system proves that any system is vulnerable to being taken over by true believers who are told they are free thinkers because they agree with the status quo.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.