Who is the conservative?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
That isn't what you said. You said that you would not accept any divergence from your political ideal, and that anyone who did not accept them should live in gated communities.
That is a flat out pathetic lie.
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:
That is a flat out pathetic lie.
Not at all. I think the problem is that you simply fail to comprehend what you are saying.
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:
This entire thread has been about you saying that to us...
Not once did I say that Cheney wasn't a Republican or shouldn't be a Republican. I can't decide whether you have a comprehension problem, simply don't read but every other sentence in the posts of mine you respond to, or are so drunk you are just making it up as you go along.
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:
Not once did I say that Cheney wasn't a Republican or shouldn't be a Republican.
No, but you are completely mischaracterizing events so that you can make an argument about why conservatives should all support your 'centrist' political postion. Which is as far from being centrist as Obama's is. We conservatives are the centrists. Always have been, always will be. There is nothing even remotely extremist about anything we support.
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.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
I realized a long time ago that it was pointless debating the merits of Republican conservatism with the likes of you and Stan. However, you're the types who feel that no response is agreement and I'm just here to add a voice of disagreement. Post an intelligent interesting topic and you'll get intelligent responses from me.
You have always been the type who thought getting a blow job in New Orleans was the most profound possible expression of englightenment principles.
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:
You have always been the type who thought getting a blow job in New Orleans was the most profound possible expression of englightenment principles.
Well, I know you're too uptight to know that it was merely a drink just as Sex on the Beach and Screaming Orgasm are. If fact, you're just plain uptight and begrudge anyone doing something you're afraid you might enjoy.
"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!!! -
Tim Craig wrote:
I seem to remember you calling for the destruction of the Democrats in this very forum. We know you'd wet your pants if you had a one party system AND it was YOUR party.
I do call for the destruction of the democrat party. However, it is obvious that the republicans are never going to fight for that. But there is no such thing as a one party political system unless the democrats become fully tyrannical (which is always a possibility). But the democrat party will implode otherwise into two camps. The leftists will again begin defining everything they disagree with as 'right wing' and the process will go on until all the 'centrist' get it through their thicks skulls what is really going on. There is no 'right wing' anywhere in the American political system. Never has been. Not me, not Palin, not Cheney, not you.... No 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:
There is no 'right wing' anywhere in the American political system. Never has been. Not me, not Palin, not Cheney, not you.... No one.
Well, you're right. Right now you're by your own definition Unamerican. And if Cheney and Palin are right wing, I wouldn't want to even contemplate what is.
"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!!! -
Oakman wrote:
reserved powers to the people
As a collective, not as individuals.
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:
As a collective, not as individuals.
Stop interpreting the Constitution, You're as bad as the Supreme Court in the way you make things up. If Madison had wanted to say "The people as a collective entity," then that's what he would have said.
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:
That is a flat out pathetic lie.
Not at all. I think the problem is that you simply fail to comprehend what you are saying.
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 think the problem is that you simply fail to comprehend what you are saying.
Troy thinks he's a better writer than Robert Bloch; you think you understand what I say better than I do, even though I'm smarter, better read, more widely traveled, and more reflective than you. (I'm also better-looking, but that's not important in this context. :laugh: ) Just because the two of you are considered examples of intelligentsia in the boondocks, doesn't mean either of you can compete nationally. For starters, the two of you need to learn to spell.
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
modified on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 8:05 AM
-
Oakman wrote:
Not once did I say that Cheney wasn't a Republican or shouldn't be a Republican.
No, but you are completely mischaracterizing events so that you can make an argument about why conservatives should all support your 'centrist' political postion. Which is as far from being centrist as Obama's is. We conservatives are the centrists. Always have been, always will be. There is nothing even remotely extremist about anything we support.
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:
you are completely mischaracterizing events so that you can make an argument about why conservatives should all support your 'centrist' political postion.
Along with your inability to grasp the idea that someone should have the right to live they want to as long as they do no harm to others; you simply can't understand the concept of accepting other points of view as having some validity at least for those who hold them, can you?
Stan Shannon wrote:
We conservatives are the centrists.
1. You are not a conservative; you are a reactionary dreaming fondly of a world that hasn't existed since the 19th century. 2. A conservative is not a centrist, any more than a liberal is. It may be hard for you to grasp this, too, but there really are other political points of view besides wanting to live in log cabins and wanting to live in communes.
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 Republican party has not always been the party of old white men - only.
tru dat - it is simply that Democrats lie far better, market far better and folks of color continue ... oh never mind, but: The Republican Party was formed in 1854 specifically to oppose the Democrats, and for more than 150 years, they have done everything they could to block the Democrat agenda. In their abuses of power, they have even used threats and military violence to thwart the Democrat Party’s attempts to make this a progressive country. As you read the following Republican atrocities that span three centuries, imagine if you will, what a far different nation the United States would be had not the Republicans been around to block the Democrats’ efforts. March 20, 1854 Opponents of Democrats’ pro-slavery policies meet in Ripon, Wisconsin to establish the Republican Party May 30, 1854 Democrat President Franklin Pierce signs Democrats’ Kansas-Nebraska Act, expanding slavery into U.S. territories; opponents unite to form the Republican Party June 16, 1854 Newspaper editor Horace Greeley calls on opponents of slavery to unite in the Republican Party July 6, 1854 First state Republican Party officially organized in Jackson, Michigan, to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies February 11, 1856 Republican Montgomery Blair argues before U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of his client, the slave Dred Scott; later served in President Lincoln’s Cabinet February 22, 1856 First national meeting of the Republican Party, in Pittsburgh, to coordinate opposition to Democrats’ pro-slavery policies March 27, 1856 First meeting of Republican National Committee in Washington, DC to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies May 22, 1856 For denouncing Democrats’ pro-slavery policy, Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) is beaten nearly to death on floor of Senate by U.S. Rep. Preston Brooks (D-SC), takes three years to recover March 6, 1857 Republican Supreme Court Justice John McLean issues strenuous dissent from decision by 7 Democrats in infamous Dred Scott case that African-Americans had no rights “which any white man was bound to respect” June 26, 1857 Abraham Lincoln declares Republican position that slavery is “cruelly wrong,” while Democrats “cultivate and excite hatred” for blacks October 13, 1858 During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny tha
My mother, a transplanted Carolinian, was one of two people in Massachusetts who voted for Strom Thurmond in 1948. (She, personally, wasn't in the news, only the fact that two people in the state cast dixiecrat votes.)
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 care about Powell because he is a genuine hero.
So was Benedict Arnold.
Oakman wrote:
I care about Cheney because he contributed to the detahs of a lot of good soldiers.
Compared to who?
Oakman wrote:
You seem to always think in terms of groups, Stan. Criticise one conservative and one is trashing the entire philosophy; praise one liberal and one has gone over to the dark side.
I see. SO you come on here ranting about conservatives and I'm the one thinking in groups. yeah, right. Nice try sticking with the narrative, mensa boy.
Oakman wrote:
This kind of colletivist thinking is what leads to fascism and communism.
No, it is absolutist principles that lead to fascism and communism. Such as 'radical individualism', for example.
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:
Oakman wrote: This kind of colletivist thinking is what leads to fascism and communism. No, it is absolutist principles that lead to fascism and communism. Such as 'radical individualism', for example.
Are you defending collectivist thinking?
This statement is false
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Oakman wrote: This kind of colletivist thinking is what leads to fascism and communism. No, it is absolutist principles that lead to fascism and communism. Such as 'radical individualism', for example.
Are you defending collectivist thinking?
This statement is false
Well, radical individualism is defined as a belief in the primary importance of the individual and in the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence. One would have to assume that Stan, at the least, doesn't think any of them is very important, proclaiming instead the primary importance of the collective; and the virtues of relying on others and personal dependence. He doesn't actually say that he wants to be told when to get up in the morning and what to eat, and which doctor to go to, but obviously if he chooses to rely on others to make decisions for him, you'd have to assume he was a collectivist, through and through.
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
-
Well, radical individualism is defined as a belief in the primary importance of the individual and in the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence. One would have to assume that Stan, at the least, doesn't think any of them is very important, proclaiming instead the primary importance of the collective; and the virtues of relying on others and personal dependence. He doesn't actually say that he wants to be told when to get up in the morning and what to eat, and which doctor to go to, but obviously if he chooses to rely on others to make decisions for him, you'd have to assume he was a collectivist, through and through.
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
-
BoneSoft wrote:
What we need is a non corrupt government, and I don't know how you pull that off.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Brilliant! I'm only through the fourth vid, but I'm on board. Much-os grassy-ass for the el-link-o.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Oakman wrote: This kind of colletivist thinking is what leads to fascism and communism. No, it is absolutist principles that lead to fascism and communism. Such as 'radical individualism', for example.
Are you defending collectivist thinking?
This statement is false
Yes. I'm defending the principles American civilization was founded upon - grass roots, bottom up, collectivism. That is what has always defined Jeffersonian democracy. The only possible alternative is Marxist style, top down collectivism by a ruling elite. The notion that a civilization can be maintained by individuals living free of any moral restraint other than what they themselves feel appropriate, which oakman and other libertarians propose, might sound nice, but is simply unworkable.
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:
you are completely mischaracterizing events so that you can make an argument about why conservatives should all support your 'centrist' political postion.
Along with your inability to grasp the idea that someone should have the right to live they want to as long as they do no harm to others; you simply can't understand the concept of accepting other points of view as having some validity at least for those who hold them, can you?
Stan Shannon wrote:
We conservatives are the centrists.
1. You are not a conservative; you are a reactionary dreaming fondly of a world that hasn't existed since the 19th century. 2. A conservative is not a centrist, any more than a liberal is. It may be hard for you to grasp this, too, but there really are other political points of view besides wanting to live in log cabins and wanting to live in communes.
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:
Along with your inability to grasp the idea that someone should have the right to live they want to as long as they do no harm to others; you simply can't understand the concept of accepting other points of view as having some validity at least for those who hold them, can you?
No, I simply recognize bullshit when I hear it. Who gets to define 'harm'? I think openly practiced and unrestrained sexual perversion harms my civilization. It might not harm me directly, but it most certainly harms me indirectly, as HIV attests. Your position is identical to that of every other libertarian I have ever encountered. You want a political system that defends your definition of 'harm' against any possibility of discussion on the part of anyone who might disagree with you. You do not want a democratic consensus, you want some sort of absolute power to assure yourself of absolute freedom to do what ever you damn well please. Ulitmately, you do the same thing to a civilization that any theocratic demagogue would. Except just a lot less sustainable.
Oakman wrote:
1. You are not a conservative; you are a reactionary dreaming fondly of a world that hasn't existed since the 19th century.
Yes, I am. In fact, I just recently discovered that I am a Paleoconservative[^] with only very reluctant acceptance of the need for neo-conservatism.
Oakman wrote:
. A conservative is not a centrist, any more than a liberal is. It may be hard for you to grasp this, too, but there really are other political points of view besides wanting to live in log cabins and wanting to live in communes.
Well, neither are libertarians. If simply being anti-abortion and pro-traditional marriage makes someone a right wing extremist of some kind than the term has lost its meaning altogether.
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:
As a collective, not as individuals.
Stop interpreting the Constitution, You're as bad as the Supreme Court in the way you make things up. If Madison had wanted to say "The people as a collective entity," then that's what he would have said.
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:
If Madison had wanted to say "The people as a collective entity," then that's what he would have said.
And if he had wanted to say 'The people as individuals' than that is what he would have said. And virtually every reference Madison makes to "the people" refers to them explicitely as a group. The country did not become a libertarian society, ever. Madison could have fought to make it one, but he did not. He was obviously comfortable with the notion that "the people" was intended to mean a collection of indiviudals using their freedoms together to arrive at their own definitions of 'unalienable rights' without concern for a centralized ruling authority, includeing the courts, telling them what to do.
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 think the problem is that you simply fail to comprehend what you are saying.
Troy thinks he's a better writer than Robert Bloch; you think you understand what I say better than I do, even though I'm smarter, better read, more widely traveled, and more reflective than you. (I'm also better-looking, but that's not important in this context. :laugh: ) Just because the two of you are considered examples of intelligentsia in the boondocks, doesn't mean either of you can compete nationally. For starters, the two of you need to learn to spell.
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
modified on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 8:05 AM
Oakman wrote:
even though I'm smarter, better read, more widely traveled, and more reflective than you
No, you're not. I'm sure you are better read on material that supports your pre-concieved positions, but you have certainly not bothered to read anything contradictory to those positions. I, on the other hand, being a true student, avail myself of material from as many divergent points of view as possible. This is especially important in the study of history, btw.
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:
Along with your inability to grasp the idea that someone should have the right to live they want to as long as they do no harm to others; you simply can't understand the concept of accepting other points of view as having some validity at least for those who hold them, can you?
No, I simply recognize bullshit when I hear it. Who gets to define 'harm'? I think openly practiced and unrestrained sexual perversion harms my civilization. It might not harm me directly, but it most certainly harms me indirectly, as HIV attests. Your position is identical to that of every other libertarian I have ever encountered. You want a political system that defends your definition of 'harm' against any possibility of discussion on the part of anyone who might disagree with you. You do not want a democratic consensus, you want some sort of absolute power to assure yourself of absolute freedom to do what ever you damn well please. Ulitmately, you do the same thing to a civilization that any theocratic demagogue would. Except just a lot less sustainable.
Oakman wrote:
1. You are not a conservative; you are a reactionary dreaming fondly of a world that hasn't existed since the 19th century.
Yes, I am. In fact, I just recently discovered that I am a Paleoconservative[^] with only very reluctant acceptance of the need for neo-conservatism.
Oakman wrote:
. A conservative is not a centrist, any more than a liberal is. It may be hard for you to grasp this, too, but there really are other political points of view besides wanting to live in log cabins and wanting to live in communes.
Well, neither are libertarians. If simply being anti-abortion and pro-traditional marriage makes someone a right wing extremist of some kind than the term has lost its meaning altogether.
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 think openly practiced and unrestrained sexual perversion harms my civilization.
You sound like some Harvard freshman crying because the world isn't everything his mommy and daddy told him it was.
Stan Shannon wrote:
as HIV attests
Here's a clue: heteros who practice only missionary sex can get HIV. You really ought to get a basic grounding in viruses before yappinbg on about what you don't understand.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You want a political system that defends your definition of 'harm' against any possibility of discussion on the part of anyone who might disagree with you.
Once again, you attribute to me things I have never said. Harm is really easy to define, Stan and it doesn't mean hurting somebody's itty bitty feelings. Using force against me harms me. Everything else may irritate me or disgust me, or make me feel sad, but I am not harmed by it. Every kid that hears 'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me' has learned this lesson - why can't you? I am so tired of collectivists running aound saying that if someone's feelings are hurt by what is said or done by other people it needs to be outlawed. Grow the fuck up, people.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, neither are libertarians
Damn straight. Libertarians, even modified ones like me are so far out there, it takes an extra day for the light of the sun to reach us. We actually believe that you shouldn't run around depending on society to tell us when to eat and when to sleep and when to take a dump. Shocking eh?
Stan Shannon wrote:
If simply being anti-abortion and pro-traditional marriage makes someone a right wing extremist of some kind than the term has lost its meaning altogether
Plenty of people, some of them regs on this board, believe in those things. What makes you an extremist is your great hunger to force everyone else to live within the narrow confines of your fears and nighmares.
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:
If Madison had wanted to say "The people as a collective entity," then that's what he would have said.
And if he had wanted to say 'The people as individuals' than that is what he would have said. And virtually every reference Madison makes to "the people" refers to them explicitely as a group. The country did not become a libertarian society, ever. Madison could have fought to make it one, but he did not. He was obviously comfortable with the notion that "the people" was intended to mean a collection of indiviudals using their freedoms together to arrive at their own definitions of 'unalienable rights' without concern for a centralized ruling authority, includeing the courts, telling them what to do.
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:
And if he had wanted to say 'The people as individuals' than that is what he would have said.
Not at all. Any grouping of humans is made of individuals. I realise that collectivists like you findly imagine that we are all joined at the hip, but it's safe to assume that Madison, child of the enlightenment that he was, understood that groups do not exist separately from the individuals in them.
Stan Shannon wrote:
He was obviously comfortable with the notion that "the people" was intended to mean a collection of indiviudals using their freedoms together to arrive at their own definitions of 'unalienable rights' without concern for a centralized ruling authority, includeing the courts, telling them what to do.
ROFL, talk about spin! You must have Jimmy spinning in his grave. But Earl Warren would understand you interpreting the Constitution to suit your personal foibles, oh yes, indeed he would.
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:
even though I'm smarter, better read, more widely traveled, and more reflective than you
No, you're not. I'm sure you are better read on material that supports your pre-concieved positions, but you have certainly not bothered to read anything contradictory to those positions. I, on the other hand, being a true student, avail myself of material from as many divergent points of view as possible. This is especially important in the study of history, btw.
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:
No, you're not.
Yes, I am.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, you're not.
Yes I am.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, you're not.
Yes, I am, yes, I am; YES I AM! ;P Stan, you really need to develop a sense of humor. Not only am I all that, I also make better blueberry pies than you do. ;P
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:
No, you're not.
Yes, I am.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, you're not.
Yes I am.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, you're not.
Yes, I am, yes, I am; YES I AM! ;P Stan, you really need to develop a sense of humor. Not only am I all that, I also make better blueberry pies than you do. ;P
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:
Yes, I am, yes, I am; YES I AM!
No, you're not.
Oakman wrote:
Stan, you really need to develop a sense of humor.
See, I do have a sense of humor... I win...
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.