Comment
This was left in the comments by Scott.
But I believe racism, sexism and bigotry are inherently conservative.
Discuss.
..But clearly, prejudice against those who are different from you is universal.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1116 hrs
I believe that liberalism is inherently conservative.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1119 hrs
From a social standpoint, they are conservative. Racism, sexism, and bigotry are all tools that majorities can use and have used to retain positions of dominance within society. They are tools to protect the status quo. But they’re not conservative from a political standpoint.
Conservative and liberal are such terrible political labels. It imposes a linear continuum that I don’t think really exists. For instance, most conservatives are very progressive/liberal on issues of free trade and most liberals are quite conservative when it comes to defending entrenched social programs (and let’s face it, defending Social Security and Medicare as-is is now the conservative position).
I guess it all depends on what Scott was intending when he used the word “conservative.” He’s usually not short on words so perhaps he’ll clear things up.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 02, 2010 at 1123 hrs
Racism, sexism, and bigotry are all tools that majorities can use and have used to retain positions of dominance within society. They are tools to protect the status quo.
So, you are of the school of thought that a minority can’t be racist, and a woman can’t be sexist then?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1126 hrs
So RS - you must then also believe that the current administration and congress are also sexist, racist, and bigoted? Right?
They are, after all, in the majority. They are also inventing incidents of racism and sexism to paint their opposition as evil to maintain their status quo of dominant power. I would argue that makes them bigoted as well. Right?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1145 hrs
Where’s Waldo?.....errrrr I mean Scott? Not like the Guest of Honor to miss his own roast.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1216 hrs
Before we “discuss”, let’s first establish a definition of “conservatism” for this forum. Otherwise, any further discussion is fruitless…
Better yet, let’s define: racism, sexism, bigotry and inherently.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1222 hrs
If you think of conservatism as a general political philosophy (separate from the current identification with “Conservatives” in contemporary American politics), there is a logic to describing positions that translate into appearances of racism, sexism and bigotry as conservative in nature.
Conservatism, as a philosophy, means a holding onto what is traditional, opposing any drastic changes in society, etc (conserve = to preserve). Thus, a conservative position would oppose radical changes to the social fabric such as women’s rights, minority rights, etc.
Note, all you attackers of Scott, that he didn’t say all Conservatives (ie, the Right in American politics) hare these things, but rather these kinds of positions tend to be conservative. THere is a meaningful difference.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1224 hrs
OK. George is in. “racism, sexism, bigotry and inherently” are still up for an agreed definition.
I’m not trying to be obstinate here as much as I am trying to establish a “jumping off point”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1233 hrs
Is this even worth talking about?
The key word in Scott’s statement is “believe.”
Belief can’t be countered by logic or refuted with proof.
I think Scott is mistaken in his belief. But I’m equally sure nothing I could write here would dissuade him from it.
Posted by elliot on August 02, 2010 at 1249 hrs
If you actually read the whole thread, instead of taking the one comment by scott out of context, you would know what he is talking about. See comment #90 by following the link at the top,
Of course everyone here is hypersensitive that I might be saying that they personally or modern American conservatives as a group, would like slavery back and would take away a woman’s right to vote. And of course I’m not saying that. It’s wrong on its face and only an idiot would say such a thing. I certainly never have.
There is a parallel, however, between conservative positions of the past and conservative positions today. They didn’t want to expand rights then; you don’t want to expand them today. It’s a different group of people on the table, the issues change a little. But the parallel does exist. And if it makes you a little uncomfortable, I think that’s just as it should be.
But, then again, it is more fun to take comments out of context. Because that hasn’t happened before.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1305 hrs
Jeez, who has time to read an entire thread out of a sense of fairness?
Posted by elliot on August 02, 2010 at 1313 hrs
The parallel scott refers to does not exist. It is created by taking reality out of context.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1334 hrs
The parallel scott refers to does not exist.
Again, look at the whole thread. Instead of using conservative, use conservatism. Conservatism wants to maintain existing views. So at the time of slavery, conservatism wanted to maintain slavery. Now, conservatism wants to maintain marriage between men and women. Scott described conservatism perfectly when he said they want to maintain the status quo.
There were conservative democrats too. I think that might be lost on some people. Instead of simply stating why the comment is wrong, just explain your point.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1352 hrs
I’d say that’s legit. Conservatism, when all the talk radio mumbo jumbo is stripped away, is about maintaining the status quo. Only relatively recently has the status quo recognized any rights in non-whites, women, or homosexuals. So if conservatism is about maintaining the status quo, and the status quo has clearly been racist, sexist and bigoted for most of human history, then those traits are inherent to the movement dedicated to defending it. Not a very flattering characterization, but accurate.
The weird thing is that modern “liberals” tend to be just as closed-minded and defensive as the other team, which is antithetical to traditional liberalism. I think we’re a very conservative country, but people love to pair off and talk smack about each other, so we’ve adopted these red and blue distinctions within our conservatism. Both bigoted against and hostile toward different groups. Both clinging to a different idea of what the status quo is and should continue to be. The blues hate rich, white, religious people. The reds hate poor, brown, gay people. It’s all the same general conservative ideology, just the dogma and the targets of the bigotry are different.
But that’s why these labels are so stupid and meaningless to begin with.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1402 hrs
That is incorrect, liberalssavetheworld. The status quo as scott describes it does not and did not exist. I do not accept scott’s view that man is born into slavery to be granted rights. Man is born into a free state already possessing all the rights he can ever have. The fight for rights is fight for a return to the status quo that existed before groups of men under the guise of government decided that all men weren’t equal. Also that fight is inextricably tied to the natural economic freedom that scott would deny faster than any other commenter on this board.
Scott chooses a terrible example to illustrate his point; women’s rights. If you want to track the history of women’s then track the history of people’s natural economic freedom. The modern women’s rights movement has its’ roots on the Great Plains among some of the most conservative elements in the country. It sprung there precisely because that was the one part of the country that never bought the idea that a person couldn’t practice their trade or calling as they saw fit without government imposing a favored social outcome. A woman could become whatever the hell she wanted, which was a return to tradition, not some great liberal invention.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1413 hrs
Conservatism, when all the talk radio mumbo jumbo is stripped away, is about maintaining the status quo.
precisely.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1422 hrs
Any TED fans out there? This discussion reminds me of a TED presentation by Jonathan Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives.
You might want to start by taking the morality quiz first: http://www.yourmorals.org/ You’ll probably want to do it after viewing the video anyway, and this way, you won’t corrupt your own results.
Then, head over to TED: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
WARNING: it’s all socio-sciencey and stuff.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1502 hrs
So, you are of the school of thought that a minority can’t be racist, and a woman can’t be sexist then?
Absolutely not, and it’s an unfortunately commentary on your train of thought that you would even assume that out of my argument.
Of course a racial minority can be racist or a woman can be sexist. But racism or sexism without power is, in the realities of life, a fairly worthless and inconsequential sentiment. A black slave who hated white people because of how his master treated him wasn’t, for instance, much positioned to disadvantage whites because of his feelings. But because of the prevailing power structure and social dynamic, whites were very much in the position to use identical feelings to systematically oppress blacks for centuries.
@neomom: While I don’t think either is acceptable, I think we need to make sure we’re not lumping in people using bigotry as a means of oppression with people who exploit established feelings of oppression among certain groups for political gain. In other words, shoving blacks into their own schools and forcing them to use different drinking fountains isn’t quite the same as politicians who exploit residual resentment among certain minority groups about how they feel they may have been treated by other groups. Again, I think both are less than savory, I just think we should be careful not to conflate the two.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 02, 2010 at 1523 hrs
But racism or sexism without power is, in the realities of life, a fairly worthless and inconsequential sentiment. A black slave who hated white people because of how his master treated him wasn’t, for instance, much positioned to disadvantage whites because of his feelings.
I do have a question or 3 for clarification purposes. According to what you said, it is all about power. If one that does not have power utters say a racial slur, then it is not as a bad of racism as say a cop does it? I guess I always thought that racism was racism no matter who does it. It didn’t matter who has the “power” and what the definition of power is. In fact, in my opinion, I can see calling someone a racist when nothing racial happened is power. They use that “power” to shut up the opposition. I guess I am saying I don’t understand your point of view and ask for some clarity. Thanks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1604 hrs
What’s there to discuss? He believes it because he wants it to be true, and has insulated his worldview in arbitrary definitions meant to reinforce left-wing revisionism.
Socially speaking, “conservatism” does mean preserving what already exists, at least in part. But a.) that doesn’t make bigotry “inherently” conservative, and only a political bigot would say otherwise, b.) in America, conservatism means conserving the classical liberalism of the American Founding, making attempts to identify American conservatism with “tradition” alone all but useless, and c.) in America, what we currently call “liberalism” hasn’t had much of anything to do with liberty for…oh, the past 100 years or so. The progressive thinkers upon which the modern Left is founded were strikingly candid about how they rejected constitutional separation of powers and natural rights as independent of government power.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 02, 2010 at 1606 hrs
nd has insulated his worldview in arbitrary definitions
Kinda like you just did you your comment
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1631 hrs
Kinda like you just did you your comment
You are welcome to explain how…
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 02, 2010 at 1649 hrs
In other words, shoving blacks into their own schools and forcing them to use different drinking fountains isn’t quite the same as politicians who exploit residual resentment among certain minority groups about how they feel they may have been treated by other groups. Again, I think both are less than savory, I just think we should be careful not to conflate the two.
Unfortunately, that is what has happened since the “post-racial” President won the nomination. If you disagree with him or your policies you are racist.
scott can try to hide behind his dictionary semantics, but he knew damn well what he was doing equating conservatism with racism, bigotry, and sexism and putting it “out there”. Mr. MA in Education isn’t that stupid. Neither are we.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1710 hrs
@brainstew: What any of us believes in our heart is of very little consequence to the world around us unless we are in a position to somehow take actions that would affect those around us. So while the sentiments might indeed be equal, the consequences of those sentiments are often very different, and in terms of others, it’s usually the consequence that matters the most.
If someone is the racist to end all racists, but never takes any actions in regard to his beliefs, then what he believes is of negligible consequence. But take that same person and put him in charge of a big company or elect him to public office, and now all of a sudden what he believes has significant consequences. The sentiment hasn’t changed but the availability of power greatly increases its effect.
Certainly in your example of calling someone a racist, there might be an attempt to use shame or intimidation to keep someone from expressing their thoughts or sentiments. But at the same time, without any power over you, the only real consequence is how you choose to allow that expression to affect you. If you choose to ignore it, then there’s no negative consequence. And if there’s no negative consequence, then what does it matter what he yelled at you? Then he’s just a harmless, screaming idiot.
I think we are fortunate today that in many respects, the racism that does exist in today’s society largely resides within classes of people with relatively less power, especially when compared to where we were at just a few generations ago. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that when we’re talking about overt racism now, the context usually seems to be urban minorities or rural whites. And the thing that typically links both of those groups is a lack of formal education and a lack of racial integration. The thing that usually breeds acceptance is familiarity and knowledge.
I do think that some minorities (certainly not all) use racism as a crutch to excuse bad things that have happened to them. At the same time, we’re still dealing with communities in the south that want to ban interracial proms, so it’s equally foolish to suggest that the battle is over. So while we’re not there yet, I think we can at least be grateful for the enormous progress that we’ve made. After all, we’re just two generations removed from the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 02, 2010 at 1753 hrs
It’s refreshing to know that some people here actually got what I’ve been saying.
Some people wanted to free black slaves, others didn’t. Which was the conservative and which the liberal view?
Some people wanted to let women vote, others didn’t. Which was the conservative and which the liberal view?
Some people wanted to pass laws making it illegal to refuse service to black Americans, others didn’t. Which was the conservative and which the liberal view?
Some people want to let gay Americans marry one another, others do not. Which is the conservative and which the liberal view?
While I’m not using the word conservative as a synonym for the right half of contemporary American politics, it’s obviously true that there is a relationship there. And—as has been previously quoted—I am by no means asserting that today’s conservative Americans wish to take voting rights away from women or enslave black people. That’s just dumb. What I am saying is that when you want to expand the circle of enfranchisement, include more people in the “it” group, that is characterized as liberal. When you do not wish to do so, an apt descriptor is conservative.
I’ve already written hundreds of words on the subject in another thread, so I don’t feel like I need to add much at this point. It is really interesting to me, however, the amount of angry denials this idea generates from conservatives here. It’s as if you had no idea that many people understand this quite well and see you as part of a long (and losing) resistance to the forward march of social liberalism in the world.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 1857 hrs
It is really interesting to me, however, the amount of angry denials this idea generates from conservatives here.
It’s because you’re committing historically-ignorant, borderline political slander. I would elaborate, but “I’ve already written hundreds of words on the subject in another thread, so I don’t feel like I need to add much at this point.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 02, 2010 at 1901 hrs
Upon reflection, I want to clarify and correct something. Someone asked if black people can be racist. Of course they can. I’m not sure this qualifies as conservative impulse, however. The conservative aspect of racism is derived from an impulse to keep historically disenfranchised people down; resisting the changes necessary for them to become fully enfranchised. Black racists in America lack this resisting-change aspect. Therefore, they are racists but their racism is not conservative.
Therefore, therefore… the quote owen used in his original post is wrong. I was in error.
It’s still true, however, what I said earlier:
Some people wanted to free black slaves, others didn’t. Which was the conservative and which the liberal view?
Some people wanted to let women vote, others didn’t. Which was the conservative and which the liberal view?
Some people wanted to pass laws making it illegal to refuse service to black Americans, others didn’t. Which was the conservative and which the liberal view?
Some people want to let gay Americans marry one another, others do not. Which is the conservative and which the liberal view?
you’re committing historically-ignorant, borderline political slander.
No I’m not. You’re thinking of all the times Democrats like myself have been called communists.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 1905 hrs
No I’m not.
If that’s the case, then I’m sure you’ll be confronting and refuting the (as-yet unchallenged) historical evidence to the contrary that I gave you the other day…
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 02, 2010 at 1907 hrs
Don’t keep us all in suspense, Cal. Say what’s on your mind. If you think I’m going to go digging through a hundred comments and guess at what you’re talking about, you’re going to be disappointed.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 1909 hrs
If you think I’m going to go digging through a hundred comments and guess at what you’re talking about, you’re going to be disappointed.
The pretend-not-to-know-what-critics-are-talking-about act (and yes, it’s an act; you know damn well what I’m talking about) is getting stale too. At this rate, even other liberal are bound to get embarrassed at how lousy a liar you are.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 02, 2010 at 1917 hrs
Either get over yourself and say what’s on your mind or drop it. No, I really don’t know what you’re talking about and you’d save us all a lot of time if you’d just come out with it. Or, you could save us even more time and drop it. Jeez.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 1920 hrs
You really don’t get that your act is ineffective. Your loss, pal.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 02, 2010 at 1922 hrs
I’ll take George’s analysis for $400.00, Owen.
I would also add that Conservatives judge actions according to standards which are of long and honorable duration. Judging actions is not the same as judging actors, of course.
But that’s a distinction which Progressives don’t want to acknowledge. It’s easier to throw the “R,S,B” terms than to actually think.
Posted by dad29 on August 02, 2010 at 1938 hrs
The modern women’s rights movement has its’ roots on the Great Plains
Maybe. But it is actually the Catholic Church which began “women’s rights” by acknowledging that women were not chattel.
That would go back to the year 30 AD or so.
Took a while for that to mature politically, eh?
Posted by dad29 on August 02, 2010 at 1942 hrs
So you’re saying women’s rights owe more to anti-government conservatives than it does to liberals. I’m uh… unconvinced. Heh.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 1944 hrs
So how do you reconcile that the prominent early suffragists were against abortion? Does that make them liberal, conservative, or sexist?
“Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh, thrice guilty is he who…drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!” - Susan B Anthony The Revolution, 1869
“When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.” - Elizabeth Cady Stanton
“Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.”
-Alice Paul“The gross perversion and destruction of motherhood by the abortionist filled me with indignation, and awakened active antagonism. That the honorable term “female physician” should be exclusively applied to those women who carried on this shocking trade seemed to me a horror. It was an utter degradation of what might and should become a noble position for women.” -Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2003 hrs
Does that make them liberal, conservative, or sexist?
Conservative, I think. What do you think?
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 2005 hrs
But according to your definition they must be liberal, because they were expanding enfranchisement.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2016 hrs
You can be both liberal and conservative at the same time, neomom. Plenty of individual citizens and elected officials do it every day. Social liberalism and fiscal conservative-ism is pretty common. Same with the opposite. You don’t have to have beliefs 100% in line with one philosophy all the time…and I think you and scott both know that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2022 hrs
Ah, I see what you’re getting at. You see pro-liferism as expanding enfranchisement to the unborn. However, I see it as keeping the enfranchisement of women down by keeping full control of their reproduction out of reach.
Yes, yes, I know you don’t agree. But you can at least understand that seeing the issue the way I do allows me to see their position as conservative. And that is the question you asked.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 2024 hrs
People who want change are liberals and people who prefer things to remain the same are conservatives… is that what I am getting from you Scott?
Ok, so the Tea Party movement is liberal as they want to change the level of government involvement in our lives. The Pelosi-Obama-Reid axis of Democrats is conservative because they want to continue a high level of government control.
Hm, seems like twisting words to fit your politics could work both ways. I guess that makes you a conservative, and therefor racist, sexist, and bigoted.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2035 hrs
People who want change are liberals and people who prefer things to remain the same are conservatives… is that what I am getting from you Scott?
I’m making a slightly narrower point than that. People who want to expand enfranchisement to more and more people have a liberal attitude and people who resist these expansions are taking a conservative position.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 2038 hrs
When Scott posts such ignorant statements, I remind myself of my theory on from where Scott’s galactic rationalizations come. Then I remind myself of something else… he’s not doing his cause any favors. It’s actually resulted in, what I believe, is some restraint in my own comments, (seeing how useless such hyperbole is)...
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2038 hrs
...expanding enfranchisement…
So pro-lifers are trying to keep gays and women from voting?
I don’t have the will to re-fight the usual pro-life arguments that Scott won’t bother to think about anyway, but for now one more observation is warranted: prohibiting abortion doesn’t deny women control of their reproduction. Women already enjoy the freedom to decide whether or not they want to have sex. Rape is illegal and severely punished. Abortion is sought because reproduction has already been initiated.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 02, 2010 at 2038 hrs
People who want to expand enfranchisement to more and more people have a liberal attitude and people who resist these expansions are taking a conservative position.
I trust a very substantive study of political philosophy has led you to this brilliant insight. Locke? Rousseau? Hegel? Hayek? Aristotle? Wilson?
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 02, 2010 at 2042 hrs
I should have stayed out of this thread entirely. The minute I step in, everyone who thought my statements had merit disappeared…and in came these guys to add nothing but derision.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 2047 hrs
scott - I find it fascinating that you fixated on the pro-life stance of the suffragists and completely dismissed their work to ensure women’s right to vote in your assigning them to fit your view of conservative vs liberal.
It is an amazing insight into your world view - and how narrow it is.
VAPolitico - I am fully aware that you can have a mixed-bag of philosophies depending on the topic. It was the point of my comment. It also points out how completely insulting scott’s comment that started this thread was.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2049 hrs
People who want to expand enfranchisement to more and more people have a liberal attitude and people who resist these expansions are taking a conservative position
So, there are no more liberals in the Unites States?
Clearly there can not be since we already have universal suffrage. I suppose we could have liberals who want to lower the voting age or let non-citizens vote. Is that what you advocate now, or are you a racist, sexist bigot like the rest of us?
The more you clarify, the muddier and sillier it gets.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2050 hrs
The minute I step in, everyone who thought my statements had merit disappeared
Hm, maybe that should tell you something about what you are saying.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2051 hrs
neomom, whatever point you’re trying to make—I don’t get it. Could you explain?
So, there are no more liberals in the Unites States?
Clearly there can not be since we already have universal suffrage.
What about gays who want to marry?
maybe that should tell you something about what you are saying.
It might mean that they don’t want to cross words with people like yourself. Or maybe they enjoy the spectacle of you guys going apeshit over my own comments more than contributing their own.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 2056 hrs
scott has made the point several times, in this post and another, that liberalism is about expanding enfranchisement, and conservatism is about denying (not rescinding) it.
Since everyone over the age of 18 who is a US citizen has the right to vote (with a few exceptions for convicted felons), either the liberals are pushing for enfranchising non-citizens, or children under the age of 18. Which is it scott? And if it is neither, then perhaps there is no more need for your brand of liberalism, since there is no further group to enfranchise.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2101 hrs
I repeat: what about gays who want to marry?
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 2102 hrs
When all else fails, whine.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 02, 2010 at 2103 hrs
I repeat: what about gays who want to marry?
What about a dictionary? Last time I checked, gays could vote.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 02, 2010 at 2104 hrs
Enfranchisement and universal suffrage are about VOTING RIGHTS scott, and have nothing to do with right to marry. Please define your terms and stick with them, this incessant moving of the goalpost that you engage in makes it very difficult to discuss anything with you.
ASOL: sorry, seems we chose the same time to find these flaws….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2106 hrs
I think you understand full well that I mean something broader than voting. If you don’t know that, now you do.
So what about those gays?
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 2106 hrs
So whenever someone mentions “the disenfranchised” you’re puzzled because those people can vote? Please stop the stupid nitpicking and let’s have a real conversation.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 2109 hrs
What about them? You are the one who hinged the liberal/conservative dichotomy on enfranchisement. Whereas, IIRC, the classic hinge in US politics is on states’ vs federal rights.
Like I said before, please set the goal posts and leave them the hell alone, at least for the duration of any individual post.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2109 hrs
What I understand is you’re butchering the English language. (And I’m still waiting to hear which philosophers you studied to reach your conclusion as to what conservatism and liberalism are.)
In what way don’t gay Americans already have full and equal legal rights?
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 02, 2010 at 2110 hrs
My point scott is that you want to believe that you are your definition of liberal, but you are not.
You dismiss those with ideas that do not meet your own narrow view of whatever the topic is at hand. ie - the original suffragists. By most accounts, by your definition, they should have been “liberal”. But because you frame advancement in women’s rights not through the prism of voting, but solely through abortion - so when presented with evidence that they found abortion to be an abhorent act, you labeled them “conservative”.
These women defined the fight for women’s rights. Some went to jail to get women the right to vote. Alice Paul wrote the original Equal Rights Amendment. Elizabeth Blackwell was the first female physician. They were the models for “enfranchisement”.
Your definition of the labels is both bastardized and narrow minded. Your implication that racism, sexism, and bigotry is “inherently” conservative is worse.
Maybe you need to do some of that introspection that you believe liberals to be better at as well.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2110 hrs
Please stop the stupid nitpicking and let’s have a real conversation.
So it’s our fault that Scott’s rhetorically careless. Of course.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 02, 2010 at 2111 hrs
oh, Mr Pot, meet Miss Kettle, she also is a picker of the finest nits.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2111 hrs
From the oxford dictionary (the one used by commentors with an MA in education)
Enfranchise:
1 give the right to vote to:a proposal that foreigners should be enfranchised for local elections
#
historical give (a town) the right to be represented in Parliament2 historical free (a slave)
Enfranchise is right out. You’ll need to specify exactly what you mean? Also, please explain, once having given gays the ability to marry, would taking it away then become the liberal view while continuing it in force becomes conservative?
It’s tough to back things up when you use dishonest definitions based more on ideology than reality, isn’t it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2115 hrs
By most accounts, by your definition, they should have been “liberal”. But because you frame advancement in women’s rights not through the prism of voting, but solely through abortion - so when presented with evidence that they found abortion to be an abhorent act, you labeled them “conservative”.
I didn’t “label them” conservative. I labeled their view on suffrage liberal and their view on abortion conservative. You seem to have no problem understanding it when someone else points out that people can have both liberal and conservative views, but when I do it you want to publicly chastise me as narrow-minded.
In what way don’t gay Americans already have full and equal legal rights?
They don’t have the right to serve in the military without concealing their sexuality. And they don’t have the right to marry the consenting adults of their choosing.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 2116 hrs
They have the right to serve in the military under the same conditions as anyone else, and they have the right to enter into the same sort of marriage as anyone else. They have neither fewer nor more rights as anyone else based simply on their sexual orientation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2123 hrs
They have to conceal their sexual orientation in order to serve in the military. And they don’t have the right to marry the people they choose.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 2125 hrs
Conservative, I think. What do you think?
I’m sorry - I must have missed your nuanced answer of how you thought that they were liberal with the voting rights thing, but conservative for abortion.
btw - abortion was legal for a good chunk of the 19th century. So I’m not sure if that makes them conservative if they were trying to change the status quo - but I digress.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2126 hrs
They don?t have the right to serve in the military without concealing their sexuality.
If military service is a right, then a lot of overweight and nearsighted people oughta sue for discrimination. I’m not sure the entertainment value of hashing out DADT with you would outweigh the uselessness, so a compromise - here’s my position on it: http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/05/27/the-potential-dangers-of-repealing-dont-ask-dont-tell-cannot-be-ignored/
And they don?t have the right to marry the consenting adults of their choosing.
Nobody has the right to marry “the consenting adults of their choosing.” Everybody has the right to marry a consenting adult of the opposite sex. The government formalizes certain relationships not because anyone has a right to them, but because it wants to promote stability among social arrangements most likely to reproduce: http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/03/15/misunderstanding-marriage/
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 02, 2010 at 2127 hrs
I must have missed your nuanced answer
My answer was sloppy. I hope now you know what I mean.
abortion was legal for a good chunk of the 19th century. So I’m not sure if
And neither am I sure. Why I said “I think.”
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 2129 hrs
It is against DA-DT to ask a hetero what there orientation is just as much as it is to ask a gay. Or for either to reveal it. That is equal treatment under the law.
If I choose to marry someone who already is, I cannot do it, I am permitted to marry anyone else of the opposite sex who is not already in a marriage. Equal treatment.
Now, if your argument is that the treatment isn’t JUST. then say so, but it is equal for all. Unlike black oppression under Jim Crow, or the TRUE disenfranchisement prior to the 14th Amendment.
Please stop trying to conflate two obviously unequal situations….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2130 hrs
Actually, I do not recall the part where secular marriage was listed as a Constitutional right.
Secular marriage is generally regulated by each state, being one of things not specifically defined in that bill of negative rights.
I believe there are states that choose to allow it, and other states that have voted not to allow it.
Having voted to disallow same sex marriages, wouldn’t forcing them upon a state be refusing people their right to vote? Wouldn’t that then make you conservative by your own rules, Mr Feldstein?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2134 hrs
Or for either to reveal it.
You can’t be serious.
if your argument is that the treatment isn’t JUST. then say so
It isn’t just.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 2135 hrs
Having voted to disallow same sex marriages, wouldn’t forcing them upon a state be refusing people their right to vote? Wouldn’t that then make you conservative by your own rules, Mr Feldstein?
Indeed. And that’s perhaps the most important aspect to this whole issue that’s been overlooked. If we really want to be accurate with our language, members of the modern Left aren’t actually “liberals” at all - they’re progressives.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 02, 2010 at 2137 hrs
ok, not just I can deal with. Now, We as a society have either voted directly, or voted on representatives to establish BOTH of these policies. To push for the changing of them in another venue or through other means that circumvents the voing process…....see ASOL’s comment above
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2139 hrs
But at the same time, without any power over you, the only real consequence is how you choose to allow that expression to affect you. If you choose to ignore it, then there’s no negative consequence. And if there’s no negative consequence, then what does it matter what he yelled at you? Then he’s just a harmless, screaming idiot.
Recess Supervisor @25Oh that this were true. I guess in some situations, it’s true. But as much as saying “sticks & stones may break my bones…” might sometimes work, there are real negative consequences sometimes. Being branded a racist can end careers and ruin lives, especially when it happens on a large enough scale. To some degree, Sherrod is an example of this (though her situation is obviously more complex). While there have been apologies and whatnot, and she may even get her job back, only time will tell how things actually work out. History frequently misses the “page 12 corrections” and the public’s memory of people gets stuck on accusations that end up factually untrue.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2211 hrs
The sum total of this mess is that if you offer a political stereotype based wholly upon fecal matter and you are called on it, you should simply retract your foolish statement lest you drown in a sea of your own bullshit.
Moving on…. I hope.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2214 hrs
How can this seriously still be up for debate? Conservative = status quo. Liberal = progress. Words mean things. These words are already defined. The definitions might not square with the things you want to think about yourself, or the rhetoric that your media talking heads feed you, or some ad hoc review of historic developments in human culture, but that doesn’t matter.
Really I think this is a problem with the group identity aspect of the culture war. A few of us are talking about liberal and conservative in the general sense (eg this is a conservative idea, this is a liberal idea). A lot of you seem to be talking about liberal and conservative in the personal identity sense (eg you are a this, so you must believe and/or also be this). That’s why so many people are getting all personally offended and defensive. Because they want to use their own personal, favorable definition of what they are, not the less flattering but more objective definition of what they represent.
Also, disenfranchisement is the deprivation of any right of citizenship, not just voting, so that whole back and forth was just retarded.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 0859 hrs
Conservative = status quo. Liberal = progress. Words mean things.
Words do mean things. Unfortunately, the way Scott (and you) use those definitions regarding politics is not only wrong, but also completely illogical. If the previous discussion does not show you this, then you are hopeless too.
The comment that is the center of the whole post is not only wrong, but biased and ignorant as well.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 0924 hrs
It must be nice to be the final arbiter of the meaning of all words.
Also, since when does a good progressive use the word “retarded?”
Posted by elliot on August 03, 2010 at 0926 hrs
Jason, you could not have said it better.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 0950 hrs
I have to agree. That was very helpful, Jason.
Posted by scott on August 03, 2010 at 0952 hrs
Both the statement and his argument to support it are truly childish. Based on Scott’s argument…conservatism is defined as being for the status quo. So since we are in an era of big government, high spending, and wealth redistribution, therefore, wanting to continue down that path is by Scott’s definition conservative….and I’m suddenly a flaming liberal…..
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 0959 hrs
I don’t think in terms of tea parties and abortions and global warmings so I don’t think those things have anything to do with the issue. But for the sake of argument - are pro-lifers primarily devoted to creating new enumerated rights in the unborn or are they trying to rollback a court decision that changed the status quo with regard to human reproduction? Are the tea partiers primarily devoted to creating a radical new form of American government, or are they trying to “take things back” by returning to what they consider the founding fathers’ vision of the status quo for this country? I don’t think opposition to abortion or tea partying are legitimately, traditionally conservative positions to begin with, but even if we’re using the modern, bubblegum, talk radio version of the word those groups are defending the status quo more than they’re agitating for an entirely new cultural development.
We don’t have to agree on this. I’m right. You could poll every political scientist in the country and you’d find that almost all of them are going to agree that conservatism means defending the status quo. Again, I understand that you get all twitchy when you don’t get to define yourself in your own carefully selected glowing terms, but I don’t care how it makes you feel. Right is right. If you’re not comfortable with that then call yourself something else.
And elliot, I also think it’s retarded that you insist on forcing me into this fake ideological dichotomy that you people have created for yourselves. I’m not playing, so don’t assign me a team.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 0959 hrs
Also, since when does a good progressive use the word “retarded?”
As per usual with conservative West Bend citizens, it looks like you need a dictionary.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1012 hrs
I don’t think
Yes, well said and very helpful indeed.
To say that you don’t think in terms of political issues when discussing a political issue might be the most ridiculous thing I have yet heard on the argument… even more so than the stuff we have gotten from Scott.
Curt has it exactly right. Scott’s assertion that conservatives want to preserve the status quo implies that the tea party folks would now fall under his definition of liberal… a schizophrenic bastardization of the lexicon at best.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1044 hrs
The Tea Party can be dismissed when it comes to fitting into logical categories. They exist in a world where up is down and right is left.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1057 hrs
So since we are in an era of big government, high spending, and wealth redistribution,
Wealth redistribution? The wealth has been redistributed to the top, pal. The tea party is all about reversing that? Where do I sign up for the next rally??
Also, if you could please clarify: Why do these radical liberal tea partiers always talk about taking our country “back” to something?
Posted by scott on August 03, 2010 at 1059 hrs
Scott’s assertion that conservatives want to preserve the status quo implies that the tea party folks would now fall under his definition of liberal
Uhh. no. Maybe you should read Jason’s #84 post again. They want to “return” to some idealogical sense of government. They are not proposing NEW ideas. They are not advancing anything. Is it that hard to grasp? Yes, conservatism wants to maintain the status quo, but if they lose on a decision or issue, they will continue their drum beat and say we should return to how things were. Not really that hard to grasp that one.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1116 hrs
A reminder, if I may.
Democrats took control of the Congress (purse-strings and laws and all) in January 2007. Pelosi “compromised” on a spending increase for FY2007, they simply passed continuing bills for FY2008, and then stepped on the gas since Obama got the White House. Fiscal policy has been the Democrats for going on 4 full years now.
Since that point, spending has increased by 38% - over $1.1T Interesting that number coincides with the annual deficit, no?
In fact, the tax burden in the 2000’s shifted even further to the top 20%. Some very interesting graphics (all raw data taken from gov’t actuals and linked through.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1211 hrs
Oops - premature submit…
So no, the tea party does not want to maintain the status quo of huge government and huge deficits. They want to radically shrink the size of the governmental burden so as to stop the theft of our great-grandchildren’s money. I do believe that is liberal by scott’s definition.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1213 hrs
And I do believe you’re not of a clear enough mindset to understand scott’s definition. No level of discussion will help with that, unfortunately.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1225 hrs
Liberals and conservatives are both inherently racist and sexist. Jason is correct that those two terms are defined by change and by status quo respectively. But some liberal progressive ideas are without a doubt sexist and racist-affirmative action is the number one example. I don’t see you Scott or anyone else could disagree with that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1238 hrs
I do believe that is liberal by scott’s definition.
No. How is going “back” to something considered a liberal position? What the Tea Party people are proposing is NOT A NEW IDEA. They are proposing to go back to how things were. Before social program expansion. Social program expansion was a liberal idea. Conservatism doesn’t like social expansion, they want to go back to limited or zero social programs. How could you possible think that what scott is saying would qualify the tea party people as liberal?
Liberalism: Move forward, expand, include more.
Conservatism: Maintain, restrict, return to the previous.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1252 hrs
Affirmative Action can be employed in multiple ways, ideally not being sexist and/or racist. I have a feeling anyone who argues otherwise has very little experience with Affirmative Action policy, though.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1335 hrs
Here is my problem with using status quo/change as definitions of conservative/liberal…at what point does a change BECOME the status quo? 1 generation? 2? Never?
It has been nearly two generations since the Civil rights acts of ‘64/‘68, at what point do THEY become the status quo? Is there anyone still alive that was involved in enacting Social Security? Would trying to reform it not be change? Universal sufferage, teh abolition of slavery. all of these things that scott has stated represent the status quo are from well before the time my grandparents were of voting age.
I think, and the other conservatives here may correct me in I am wrong, that the problem we have is the use of staus quo and change as the defining parameter for political conservatism.liberalism. Should the litmus test not be small government/big government? Personal freedom/centralized control?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1341 hrs
The point being, if we are going to use these labels, and appoint characterstics to those that we use them on, then we had better agree on the definitions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1344 hrs
One might make the very broad case that conservatism is about resisting change and liberalism is about advocating for change. But I’m making a somewhat narrower point.
I’m saying that it is liberal to be for changes specifically involving the expansion of rights and social status to people who previously did not have them and that it is conservative to resist those particular kinds of changes.
Posted by scott on August 03, 2010 at 1346 hrs
So, if I advocate for the right to be able to to drive whatever vehicle I choose, the right to carry a concealed weapon in a jurisdiction where I do nat have that right now, or the right to keep more of my earnings by advocating for lower taxes I am a liberal.
scott, that is taking what you said in 98 and applying it in a way that turns it on its head, but it IS what you said: advocating for rights that I do not currently have.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1355 hrs
the right to carry a concealed weapon
Would you not in effect be asking for more liberal gun laws?
or the right to keep more of my earnings by advocating for lower taxes I am a liberal
There’s a huge can of worms that, given how things have gone thus far, I just know is going to be a tuna-boat-sized source of weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, but…
I think one has to take a hard look at what it is that the american right is so upset about paying the taxes for. They aren’t opposed, it seems, to paying exorbitant sums of tax dollars on wars. No. What they want to avoid having to pay for are social programs which—here we go—expand the economic status of people who don’t have much of it. You don’t want wealth “spread around.”
Posted by scott on August 03, 2010 at 1401 hrs
the right to carry a concealed weapon
Would you not in effect be asking for more liberal gun laws?
If you want to define this as a liberal position, ok. Then I assume you support it. I had in mind. not more liberal gun laws, but fewer gun laws.
You don’t want wealth “spread around.”
ding ding ding, give the man a seegar, we have a winner!!
That is precisely it, I do not want MY wealth spread around unless I choose to do so, and then I want it to go where I feel it will do the most good, good as I define it. It seems you are for others deciding how much of my money will go to those who they see fit to receive.
Now, if that is what you mean by liberal then it has nothing to do with change, it is an expansion of the status quo, hrmmm isnt this where I got on this merry-go-round?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1417 hrs
I think I am finally understanding Scott’s position. He likes to call himself liberal (perhaps because he learned in college that being liberal was good). Things that he likes are therefor liberal things.
People that disagree with Scotts things are bad. Conservatives are bad… I’m sure he was told that in college too…. he does have a Masters in education you know. Therefor, people who disagree with him are conservative. They are archaic, sexist, racist and bigoted.
Simple.
Just determine what position Scott takes, and that is the liberal one. Disagree, and you are a conservative…or maybe you just hate Scott personally…. either way, you should be ashamed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1423 hrs
if that is what you mean by liberal then it has nothing to do with change, it is an expansion of the status quo
Not that I believe you’re truly interested in knowing, but this is where you’re confusion is.
Posted by scott on August 03, 2010 at 1424 hrs
Not that I believe you’re truly interested in knowing, but this is where you’re confusion is.
Actually, I am interested in knowing or I wouldn’t still be discussing it with you:
Are you saying that the system we have now, which has been in place in various degrees since the New Deal, and moreso since the Great Society is not the status quo? Or are you saying it does not redistribute wealth?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1429 hrs
That is precisely it, I do not want MY wealth spread around unless I choose to do so, and then I want it to go where I feel it will do the most good, good as I define it.
Do you feel this way about taxes, in general? Police, fire, roads, etc.? Are you advocating that we should be able to opt out of any/all taxes?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1430 hrs
are you saying it does not redistribute wealth?
Sure we do. From all of us going right up to the top. Take a look at where wealth is going over the last thirty years.
Posted by scott on August 03, 2010 at 1433 hrs
@anon
No, I am not agaisnt all forms of taxes, governement has legitimate functions it needs to perform, and those need to be funded by all of us.
@ scott:
Are you trying to say that the goverment has been redistributing the wealth to the upper class? Or have they been managing to get it all on their own through either hard work or business savvy?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1437 hrs
I’m probably with you, elovrich…it’s just a slippery slope with an unclear line. What should be included and when?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1448 hrs
Are you trying to say that the goverment has been redistributing the wealth to the upper class?
I’m saying that’s what capitalism does under a certain set of government regulatory and tax policies. The result is that in the 70s the top 1% of earners received 8 or 9 percent of total income, but in 2007 the top received 23.5 percent of the total. (I just cribbed that from Robert Reich, if you must know.)
Posted by scott on August 03, 2010 at 1457 hrs
scott, let’s take one step back and answer the question I asked @ 104
Are you saying that the system we have now, which has been in place in various degrees since the New Deal, and moreso since the Great Society is not the status quo? Or are you saying it does not redistribute wealth to those you qualify as needing it? (bold added for clarification)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1503 hrs
anon, I am not ignoring you, just trying to deal with one issue at a time…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1505 hrs
I’m saying that the New Deal etc., were liberal policies put in place to expand the economic enfranchisement of people who were not previously enjoying much of it. And the conservative position then was to resist that change. The conservative position now is to repeal it. If you want to argue about how long something is in place before it’s the status quo, ok. I get what you’re saying. But I’m convinced this is the way it is.
Posted by scott on August 03, 2010 at 1506 hrs
Oh, of course not. There’s only so much time for replies here, I know.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1508 hrs
The conservative position now is to repeal it.
Is this then a statement that your definition of conservative being for the status quo, and liberal being for change is flawed?
I am not trying to say that black is white and up is down, I am simply trying to come to a consistent definition of what we mean by liberal and conservative. Status quo/change seems to be a flawed shorthand, especially when there is a better one that has been offered in this very thread, i.e. small gov’t/big gov’t.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1519 hrs
Is this then a statement that your definition of conservative being for the status quo, and liberal being for change is flawed?
I’ve addressed this twice in the thread already. Here’s number three.
I?m saying that it is liberal to be for changes specifically involving the expansion of rights and social status to people who previously did not have them and that it is conservative to resist those particular kinds of changes.
Posted by scott on August 03, 2010 at 1534 hrs
This has gotten ridiculous. Of course lobbying for lower taxes isn’t sexist. You’re not going to find a bigoted status quo explanation for every single bullet point on your “I’m a conservative so I believe this…” worksheet, and that was never the original assertion. But racism, sexism, and bigotry in general have been the status quo for all of human history, all over the planet up until the last 200 years or so, and conservatism is almost universally accepted as an ideology that values and defends the status quo. Not just the status quo of the last six months, or the last six years, or even the last 60 years, but the status quo of human culture as it evolves all over the world over the course of centuries.
If you want to call yourself a conservative then you need to accept the baggage that comes with that label. That’s why I encourage culture warriors to completely abandon conservative/liberal and redefine themselves as reds and blues. No more scrambling around trying to explain why you’re an anti-free trade liberal or a pro-government wire tapping conservative. Create new tribal identities for your teams that can mean whatever you want them to mean, and let the poor, tortured, already well-defined labels that you currently employ revert to their actual definitions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1545 hrs
Amazing. Why is it so difficult for the liberal leaners (and one undefined non-specific goof) to admit that the current conservative movement is not racist, sexist, bigoted, murderous, or evil… it’s simply interested in a much smaller federal government, reasonable and fair taxation for reasonable Constitutional purposes, and an increase in individual liberty and personal responsibility.
I realize that it does not fit the meme that you learned in college, or that Rachel, Ed, and Keith offer…. but that’s pretty much it. Deny it if you wish, but you just look like a partisan knucklehead when you do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1628 hrs
Amazing. Why is it so difficult for the conservative leaners to admit that the current conservative impulse to deny gay people the ability to marry one another has an ideological relationship to previous conservatives who wanted to deny women the right to vote, black people citizenship, etc.?
I realize it does not fit the meme that Sean, Glenn and Bill offer… but it’s pretty much true. Deny it if you wish, but you just look like a partisan knucklehead when you do.
Posted by scott on August 03, 2010 at 1633 hrs
The lables of conservative and liberal are ill fitting. In truth, most of us are neither. I accept the basic premise of Scott’s argument that the dictonary definition of conservative = status quo. But it is specious reasoning to assume that the term conservative is the same as Conservative (Big C).
As Jason noted in his example, federal wire tapping would hardly be a conservative value (instead it would be a value of Conservatives (big C) .
In any event, Scott’s example merits a discussion of the flip side—the term “liberal”. If “conservative” includes the baggage of prior adherence to the status quo, liberal must necessary include the baggage of rejection of the status quo. Indeed, revolutions begin as liberal movements. After all, to revolt a certain populus must want to leave the current status quo. While some revolutions bring about positive results, most bring about chaos and other disasterous effects.
Thus, if we are going to equate conservative to slavery, bigotry, etc.. liberal would necessarily equate to statism, communisim, maoism etc.. Yet this exercise is futile as it does not address the current issues and positions of the day. Certainly, there are areas and issues where progress is needed and there are issues where restraint is needed.
Frankly, I’m all in favor of abandoning the terms as Jason previously argued.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1702 hrs
scott,
I can’t speak for others, but I am not against each state determining for themselves whether to recognize gay civil unions or not.
There are certain parts of that discussion I already know you and I disagree on, terminology mostly, certain rights that marriage comes with (tax status mostly), and whether or not government will need to get involved in requiring private business to extend the same benefits to same-sex partners that it does to married couples.
I disagree that my stance is about preserving voting power for myself and others who are alike in sentiment with me, since those who would exercise any right to enter into a gay marriage are already as empowered as the can be at the voting booth. Your argument is specious on its face in that regard.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1703 hrs
Why is it so difficult for the conservative leaners to admit that the current conservative impulse to deny gay people the ability to marry one another has an ideological relationship to previous conservatives who wanted to deny women the right to vote, black people citizenship, etc.?
Nice dodge, but it really just makes your partisan character assassination all the more evident. I would have been surprised to see you admit that you were wrong though. It’s not something that would ever work for you.
Is gay marriage really all the left has to pump their fists about? That’s it? A basic states rights issue that clearly transcends party lines? I had not realized that the left had hit rock bottom so hard.
Clearly the Conservative movement has far greater issues that they have chosen to deal with, and you have chosen to hinge your argument on a rather bankrupt argument that they are evil because of gay marriage. Not even the blue team agrees on that issue. Put it to the voters and live with that decision… that debate is far more of a cultural one than a liberal/conservative one.
SuperId makes a good point as well… I must assume that, under Scott’s definition, liberals are accepting of the cultural revolution, seizure of private property, and violent overthrow of the government. Those movements are of the left, you know. I would never have guessed that about you, Scott.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1716 hrs
And back on the merry-go-round we go….
If you want to call yourself a conservative then you need to accept the baggage that comes with that label.
If “conservatives” have to own their baggage, then so do liberals/progressives Jason.
I give you Mao, Che, Castro, Sanger, Shaw, Mussolini, Lenin, and Stalin. The liberal/progressive/socialist/communist dictators killed north of 60 million of their own citizens. Shaw thought gas chambers were just a dandy idea for those that consumed more than they produced for society, and Sanger’s eugenics legacy lives on in inner city Planned Parenthood offices all over the country.
We also ran circles around the meaning of the word enfranchisement with the examples of the women’s suffragists wanting women to vote but believing that abortion was harmful to women and murder for the babies.
Nobody - not even scott - can define words and philosophies as narrowly as he did.
Why is it so difficult for the conservative leaners to admit that the current conservative impulse to deny gay people the ability to marry one another has an ideological relationship to previous conservatives who wanted to deny women the right to vote, black people citizenship, etc.?
A bit more history. The vaunted Woodrow Wilson - Progressive Presidential God for which Ivy League schools are named. Imprisoned suffragists. He had people imprisoned for their political views and he was a rabid racist and segregationist.
You already know where I stand on gay marriage. But honestly, I don’t know why they are fighting so damn hard for it with multiple hits of the marriage tax penalty coming.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1749 hrs
elovrich - I’m curious as to how far you will defend marriage as a state’s rights issue. Would you be okay with Wisconsin saying NO marriages are legal? That’s fine if you do, I’m just curious about your stance.
ASOL - What issues do you think the “Conservative movement” (I use that pretty mockingly) are taking greater issue with? Just saying “no” to everything the Democratic Party puts forward…until they regain power and then push forward the exact same ideas as the Democrats?
When the debate is between Republicans and Democrats, which it often is here, it’s a very limited discussion. Different shades of the same color.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1928 hrs
If neomom wants to spin the political spectrum, maybe we should look at it accurately. From an Authoritative vs. Libertarian perspective (depending on your chart), conservatism is just as, if not more, closely related to communism and fascism. A straight line doesn’t really work.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1934 hrs
What issues do you think the “Conservative movement” (I use that pretty mockingly) are taking greater issue with?
Feel free to read the last half of my first paragraph in #117. If you think that gay marriage is at the top of the tea party “to do” list, then you really haven’t paid much attention at all. That’s all I’ll bother explaining. Seems like the “both sides are the same” folks aren’t usually worth bantering with.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1951 hrs
I think you and I, anon, agree for about the first time ever.
It is far more circular. Both “liberal” or “conservative” can become totalitarian.
But Jason insisted that conservatives own their “baggage”, I was merely pointing out that liberals have some “baggage” of their own.
Therefore making the argument of “owning” the history of liberal/conservative or even the simplistic argument of their definitions as related to scotts comment of racism, sexism and bigotry are… lets just leave it as stupid.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 2005 hrs
I truly am tired of being called racist and sexist for believing in limited government. I think most of the most divisive and racist policies that we deal with are liberal. (Adfirmative action, much of the welfare state….)
I’m pretty libertarian. I don’t know why it is racist to think our system of government (or most any) works best when we confine government to doing what only it can, (national defense, rule of law…) while limiting its reach into every aspect of our lives.
And Scott, a true conservative is just as dead set against the special favors that our out of contol government (i.e. Maxine Waters) confirs upon selected rich people, as we are against taking our hard earned money to benefit whatever group you think more deserves it than my family.
You have to be truly dizzy after all the twists and turns you’ve gone through trying to defend that mean spirted, childish statement.
Liberalism is about change, Conservatism is defending the status quo…although the last 50 years of goverment isnt’ the status quo, the status quo is what evil conservatives want to return to….then liberalism is about expaning rights, conservatism is about contracting them….although then it seems to be only in regards to whatever rights you deem good. Your definition changed so many damn times in this thread that I think if you cross out all of the double neatives and contradictions..you are really left with….Liberals are good and correct, and conservatives are evil…(racist, sexist….)
It has to be lonely to be that smug….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 0015 hrs
Just tossing out some ideas as I browse:
This entire thread is turning into a semantic judo match, watching people talk past one another because they start out with different definitions. ONE definition of racism is INSTITUTIONAL subjugation of the disenfranchised race (and no, I don’t mean voting rights, I mean disadvantaged in terms of political and societal power). So in this regard, minorities CANNOT be racist. They can, however, easily be bigots.
I believe the term for TPers would be “reactionary”: desiring to return to some perceived previous state.
I get a kick out of it when people toss out terms like liberal, progressive or socialist and intend them as insults. I proudly wear the labels liberal and progressive and admit that I have socialistic sympathies. I view these as GOOD things. Study the old progressive Milwaukee Socialists. Emphasis and good government, targeting waste and corruption, creating outstanding infrastructure while expanding individual rights. What’s wrong with that?
The one that really cracks me up is when liberals are pegged as Fascists. Ask 100 political scientists what a Fascist is and you’ll get 100 answers. The best answer, mine of course, is “it’s what Mussolini was.”
No one ever suggested every TPer is racist. I DO believe however that a higher percentage of TPers are racist than the general population. No proof, just gut.
The correct defining characteristics are that liberals are naive, conservatives are mean. I’d rather be naive.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 0242 hrs
And if you believe the old MKE socialists weren’t corrupt, then you truly are naive. That much power in that few hands is always corrupting. You cannot change human nature.
I would also say rather mean and selfish if you believe the fruits of others labor should be yours for the taking.
But socialism always looks like a great idea when born on the backs of a booming private sector to pay for it. Alas, in these economic times we find that Lady Thatcher is correct. You have run out of other peoples money.
Therefore, I am proud to label myself a constitutional conservative with a strong libertarian bent. I believe that government should be dramatically rolled back toward its original intent. That people should be able to keep more of their earnings and property. And that charity is a personal act of choice - not of government.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 0703 hrs
Seems like the “both sides are the same” folks aren’t usually worth bantering with.
It’s hard to banter when people have you figured out…
Such a limited worldview.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 0815 hrs
Do you have any sources to cite for your claim that the old MKE socialists were corrupt, neomom? At the end of the day, history still looks upon them favorably.
People who still claim Affirmative Action, as a whole, is racist don’t really know the first thing about it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 0820 hrs
I get a kick out of it when people toss out terms like liberal, progressive or socialist and intend them as insults. I proudly wear the labels liberal and progressive…
Wilson” ““I believe in the people: in their honesty and sincerity and sagacity; but I do not believe in them as my governors.” (emphasis added, “Democracy” lecture, 1890, “Woodrow Wilson: Essential Writings and Speeches of the Scholar-President,” Di Nunzio, p. 300).
Gee, I wonder why people use the term as an insult…
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 04, 2010 at 0914 hrs
The correct defining characteristics are that liberals are naive, conservatives are mean. I’d rather be naive.
You actually have quite a good point there… one that I have offered for years, just in different terms. Liberals have politics that are often based on feeling while conservatives base their beliefs on the reality of the situation. If you are naive in regard to the results of the policies you support, then of course you feel that the folks who point out the problems will seem mean to you.
Welfare, food stamps, public housing, free health care… all programs that are the backbone of the modern liberal social net. It just feels good to vote for them and then sit back with a smug feeling that you have helped the poor… you’ve made things better and punished those bad rich people at the same time. After all, they don’t deserve the wealth… the poor gave it to them… you are just doing what is right. Yay.
The problem there is that the cradle to grave care that you so generously offer from the pockets of others has turned into a new king of slavery… slavery of the spirit. People have the basics of life… but there is no way to climb out of the nest. Get a job and we cut you off…. why work for the same pay that you get for free? That system has resulted in millions of citizens who have no connection to the concept of self sufficiency and the pride that comes from paying your own way and working to better yourself. Families were also attacked through the liberal application of policies that penalized families with two parents. Ridiculous? Yes, but it was all done with the best intentions.
Modern slavery put people in a position that they see no hope of working their way out of. Politicians, teachers, media, neighbors… everyone points out that they can never get ahead… so they don’t. Some of our inner city kids actually believe that education is a bad thing…. it marks you as one of “them” ... it’s actually looked down upon by some groups. Ridiculous? Yes, but it’s a natural human instinct to justify your actions… and so they do. I can’t get ahead because “they” won’t let me. I’m poor, black, Hispanic, female, a single mom… insert whatever class of victim you like into the excuse matrix…. the result is the same. Generational slavery on the governments farm… at the hands of people who claim to want to help you.
Learned helplessness legislated and enforced by the state.
Yeah, that is what being naive got us…. and then, to protect the system, the power brokers have labeled the realists as uncaring, hateful, racist, sexist, bigoted ... whatever works to maintain the system.
That is where Scott’s original definition of conservative traces it’s etymology… and that is why we are so offended by the malicious character assassination contained within. No more dancing around the truth.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1044 hrs
Great summary, ASOL. Mind if I reprint it on my blog?
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 04, 2010 at 1149 hrs
Liberals have politics that are often based on feeling while conservatives base their beliefs on the reality of the situation.
it’s not a summary. It’s a statement of opinion.
Posted by scott on August 04, 2010 at 1152 hrs
Liberals have politics that are often based on feeling while conservatives base their beliefs on the reality of the situation.
I think you mean that conservatives base their beliefs on their view of the situation…not necessarily reality.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1203 hrs
But unlike the statements of opinion you’ve been giving, his is accurate.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 04, 2010 at 1204 hrs
Great summary, ASOL. Mind if I reprint it on my blog?
My pleasure, Calvin. I guess I never noticed your blog link. I’ll have to pay a visit.
it’s not a summary. It’s a statement of opinion.
No, that is pretty much the state of affairs in America. Enfranchisement (a proper use of the word) from the slavery of the government dole is the exception, rather than the rule.
There are volumes of statistics and years of studies to show that the war on poverty should more properly have been called the war on the impoverished.
I don’t blame you for not knowing that, Scott. The very nature of emotional liberalism often prevents you from seeing (or seeking) the information that is right in front of your face. It took me years to notice too, but some ultra liberal professors helped to show me the error of my liberal beliefs (though I was never the adherent that you are). I wasn’t the usual post high school mind of mush that they were accustomed to indoctrinating… I’d actually been out in the big world a bit… and when my overseas experiences came into conflict with the orthodoxy of the teachings, the result was not the explanation that I had expected, but rather emotional outbursts. My current profession has also taught me much about the real harm that your “compassion” has caused.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1217 hrs
But unlike the statements of opinion you’ve been giving, his is accurate.
Only if you’ve twisted the meaning of “reality”, which seems pretty common here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1331 hrs
It took me years to notice too, but some ultra liberal professors helped to show me the error of my liberal beliefs (though I was never the adherent that you are).
Firefighting “professors”.
Undergraduate study is so quaint.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1333 hrs
I grew up surrounded by that “compassion”, and I watched all of my black friends, quit school, because it wasn’t cool, and settle into lives of dependence with no change to move up and out….that “compassion” is the meanest thing we could ever have done to that community….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1335 hrs
Only if you’ve twisted the meaning of “reality”, which seems pretty common here.
You are welcome to explain how…
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 04, 2010 at 1336 hrs
Firefighting “professors”.
Undergraduate study is so quaint.
... and trolls are so pointless. Thanks for your useful contribution to the discussion though… I’m sure you are putting your higher education (?) to good use…. as we can all clearly see here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1345 hrs
You are welcome to explain how…
I suppose if that were possible, there wouldn’t be any disagreement or discussion. We’d all be on the same page.
My point was simply that everyone, on either side of the isle, believes they’re looking at the reality of the situation. I wasn’t attempting to insult anyone.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1354 hrs
... and trolls are so pointless. Thanks for your useful contribution to the discussion though…
Do you own a mirror?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1356 hrs
I suppose if that were possible, there wouldn’t be any disagreement or discussion.
Do you own a mirror?
Another information packed comment duo for the lesser commenters to marvel at. Your wit and brilliance is stunning, anon. Explaining by informing us you can’t explain…. true brilliance at work.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1412 hrs
I wonder if the lowly firefighter will ever see the irony in his posts…
Certainly he has plenty of time to sit around doing nothing valuable on the taxpayer’s dime. At the very least he could be a little introspective!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1446 hrs
...lowly firefighter…
Jeez. Usually lefties are just a little more careful about hiding their superiority complexes…
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 04, 2010 at 1448 hrs
I thought we were concerned with “reality” here…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1500 hrs
Actually Calvin, I love when lefties make that sort of commentary. It’s useful to show the way they truly feel when their politicians are busy snapping holy pictures surrounded by “heroic” cops and firefighters. Without that sort of commentary, it’s hard to show people that the “heroes” they trumpet are really no more than campaign props and are clearly viewed as the underlings of the elite.
This stuff is gold.
You want something to re-post on your blog…. well, there you have it. The truth about the liberal mindset. Thanks for the hand, anon.
Oh, and since anon seems to be wholly uninformed; professional firefighters do not work a daytime job… they work a 24 hour shift… so you see, I’m probably posting this on my off time…. astounding stuff eh? Or just the unimportant minutia of the mindless masses waiting to be led?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1624 hrs
This stuff is gold.
And the platinum is when Democrats try to pass a law providing for the health care of 9/11 first responders and Republicans all vote no.
Posted by scott on August 04, 2010 at 1628 hrs
Bravo, Scott, for an utterly off-topic comment that does nothing to support the character assassination thus far, but in fact offers EVEN MORE evidence that you’re simply a partisan character assassin. You really are God’s gift to Wisconsin conservatives, you know that? I’m beginning to wonder if you’re simply posing as a liberal to make the Left look bad. Heckuva job!
At the risk of selecting a conservative link Scott will probably dismiss because he’s a phony who uses any excuse he can find to ignore information sources that paint a picture of reality he’s afraid of, Hot Air had a good summary of what was actually going on in the case to which you refer:
Alternate headline: “Congressmen somehow can’t agree to provide health care for 9/11 responders without screaming like lunatics.” How did it come to this, you ask? Well, the Dems initially planned to introduce the 9/11 bill under normal procedures, with a simple majority vote needed to pass it, but then they started wetting themselves at the thought of having to take tough votes on amendments — especially ones related to illegal immigration — introduced by the GOP. So, change of plans: Instead of a majority vote, they invoked a special rule that lets them deny Republicans the right to offer amendments but requires two-thirds of the House to pass the bill. The GOP decided to protest the procedural move by having virtually all of its members vote no, which brings us to the freakout du jour. Beyond the basic irony of Weiner demanding that floor votes be geared towards the substance of a bill instead of procedural concerns (remember how Dems handled that during reconciliation on ObamaCare?), there’s a grander irony here that Limbaugh identified on his show. Namely, the only reason the Dems needed a special rule for this bill in the first place is that they feared some Democrats would vote against it if the GOP succeeded in getting its amendments attached. It’s the cowardice of their own Blue Dog caucus that painted them into a corner, but there’s no political advantage to Weiner in dwelling on that fact. So here he is instead pitching a hissyfit in front of the C-SPAN cameras, knowing full well that the fightin’ nutroots will moon over him for days. Hey, Anthony? Good news: In a few months, you won’t have to worry about those Blue Dogs anymore.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 04, 2010 at 1641 hrs
So let me understand. Republicans refused to support the bill because they weren’t given a chance to play politics with it by tying it to stuff about illegal immigration?
You know, you’d almost convince me about their desire to support such a bill if it had been the other way around, if it had been that they didn’t support it because it had a bunch of unrelated and controversial stuff in it. But in this case? It was simple: provide for the health care of 9/11 heroes or don’t. Almost all of them voted no. And for clearly cheap political reasons.
Posted by scott on August 04, 2010 at 1646 hrs
Well done Calvin. You are johnny-on-the-spot. Another issue here was the size and method of distribution regarding that “health care” bill. It was to be distributed through other existing 9-11 funds, but the size of it would literally offer more than a million dollars of care for every worker involved… care that would only apply to 9-11 related issues. Clearly that amount of care is impossibly excessive… not every rescue worker, or lowly firefighter, would be that sick…. in fact, only a small number actually are. Funny though, there are no specifics for the recovery of the unused funds. Can you say “slush fund”? At the very least, the bill is majorly flawed (What else is new from this congress, eh?) and should be completely re-vamped.
Voting for something because you like the idea but then ignore it’s actual implementation falls right back to my previous undisputed argument about the emotional nature of liberal politics. It make them feel happy to help the lowly firefighters (they aren’t that bright after all…. barely a GED), but the actual result of that plan is not really so important.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1653 hrs
Got any links where I might learn more about what you’re saying, SoL?
Posted by scott on August 04, 2010 at 1657 hrs
Republicans are no saints, but the point is not to misrepresent why it didn’t pass and what its failure means. The Democrats could easily have passed it if they wanted to, it was introduced by a Republican, and, if I understand it correctly (I’m more than happy to be corrected if someone more trustworthy than Scott knows more about the legislation and the pre-bill situation), that health care is still being provided anyway under current law, and the issue isn’t whether to do it but whether or not the money should be renewed on an annual basis, or if a single appropriation for the next 8 years should be made (which is what the bill would have done). Of course, not that I expect you to do anything more honorable than take the partisan route…
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 04, 2010 at 1701 hrs
Yeah, because one thing you learn from reading the last few comments is that if anyone needs to be called out for their bitter partisan attacks, it’s Scott. Heh.
Seriously, link for where I might learn about all the deep, troubling problems with that bill?
Posted by scott on August 04, 2010 at 1704 hrs
Yeah, because one thing you learn from reading the last few comments is that if anyone needs to be called out for their bitter partisan attacks, it’s Scott. Heh.
Actually, that’s what we learn from several years of observing and interacting with you. Truth and fairness mean nothing to you.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 04, 2010 at 1706 hrs
And it’s clearly what you learn when reading the comments of my own recent blog post, too, right Cal? THe one where you came in with an insult right off the bat for me and other commenters?
How long are you going to keep justifying acting like a dick by saying I did it too at some point in the past?
Still hoping for a link, btw…
Posted by scott on August 04, 2010 at 1709 hrs
How long are you going to keep justifying acting like a dick by saying I did it too at some point in the past?
Simple: I don’t believe there’s a statute of limitations on holding someone accountable for his character, especially when that person’s character hasn’t changed a whit since then. In the past few days, you’ve committed several of the moral offenses I’ve been criticizing you for all along.
And, oh yeah, I gave you a link.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 04, 2010 at 1719 hrs
Got any links where I might learn more about what you’re saying, SoL?
Being a lowly firefighter, I’m too busy looking for a “real job” as you, Scott, suggested to me recently. Obviously my current vocation is not a real job in the liberal world… perhaps if I had an education degree…
I’m not even sure that, with my GED education, I would be able to Bing it up for you right now…
Actually though, I saw the issue discussed in an open forum, so I did not archive a set of links in case some liberal wanted proof but did not wish to look into it themselves. I’m sure the bill is out there if you don’t believe it.
In any case though, at this point I hope the GOP stands squarely in the way of all further Democrat legislation. They’ve done enough damage, and The Pelosi Congress has proven that it is above the nuts and bolts of any bill… heck, they admit that they don’t even read them. I think we can wait a few months till the new (and hopefully wiser) Congress is seated.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1723 hrs
Here’s another link for Scott. It gives a far different impression than the the attack on Republican patriotism (remember the days when that was the one thing in politics people were never, ever supposed to do?) he opened with.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40516.html
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 04, 2010 at 1742 hrs
It’s funny that your first link—the one you quoted at length—cites the reason for the Democrat’s no-amendments procedure as their desire to stymie GOP amendments “related to illegal immigration.” I’ve heard this rationale before, and I’m inclined to give it more weight.
For sure there is political gamesmanship on both sides here, but I’m afraid it’s your side that ends up looking far worse for it.
Posted by scott on August 04, 2010 at 1818 hrs
For sure there is political gamesmanship on both sides here, but I’m afraid it’s your side that ends up looking far worse for it.
“Looking” worse is one thing; I’m more interested in who is worse.
And as I’ve also tried to explain to you before, you don’t seem to grasp the difference between assertions and arguments. The statement above is a mere assertion - a statement of your position. It proves nothing more than that; it doesn’t demonstrate whether or not your position is correct. An “argument,” on the other hand, would have had things known as “reasons” and “evidence.”
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 04, 2010 at 1828 hrs
For sure there is political gamesmanship on both sides here, but I’m afraid it’s your side that ends up looking far worse for it.
Let me point out that this is, again, exactly my assertion on liberal politics. It’s not the substance that is of value, but rather how it looks…. how it makes people feel.
Scott even started off his whole tangent by offering the crux of the talking points on the issue… Democrats love the lowly firefighters and Republicans are evil because they are denying them health care. That’s not really the case though, nor is it the issue that is hampering passage of the bill.
I’d love to search for more on the bill, but for two reasons… first, I don’t think you’d give a moments thought to what I presented, and second, tonight is home made pizza night in our home… and I’d rather spend the time on that.
Maybe I can get a “real job” as a pizza maker, rather than wasting my time at the fire house. I’d get a job in IT, but I’m not sure my GED would suffice.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1841 hrs
tonight is home made pizza night in our home… and I’d rather spend the time on that.
On that point I can find no fault. Enjoy.
Posted by scott on August 04, 2010 at 1844 hrs
Actually Calvin, I love when lefties make that sort of commentary. It’s useful to show the way they truly feel when their politicians are busy snapping holy pictures surrounded by “heroic” cops and firefighters. Without that sort of commentary, it’s hard to show people that the “heroes” they trumpet are really no more than campaign props and are clearly viewed as the underlings of the elite.
It’s like Obama and the Christianity thing. I was just hoping he was an atheist who had to pretend to be Christian due to the puritanical nature of the USA. Maybe that explains his seeming lack of concern with the issue.
That said, I assure you that I do not have any politicians. I can’t remember the last time somebody was running that I truly supported.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1914 hrs
The more the lowly fireman talks about his job / life, the more I feel sorry for him. 24 hour shifts…lack of an education…terrible working conditions…I truly wish things worked out differently for you. Unfortunately, or fortunately for the rest of us, we do need people to take those jobs. Thanks for the sacrifice.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1920 hrs
On that point I can find no fault. Enjoy.
It’s not the first time we’ve agreed on something… but at least it’s nice to be reminded that it can happen.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 2011 hrs
second, tonight is home made pizza night in our home…
Wife and I make an absolutely killer homemade pizza…. we saute the sauce all day with the spices, green pepper, onion, and mushrooms… we have two different recipes for the dough… one is a thin crust wheat and the other is literally just flour, water, yeast and sugar (I believe)...
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 2056 hrs
professional firefighters do not work a daytime job… they work a 24 hour shift
Do you work for 24 hours constantly, or do you take breaks, eat, stand around yammering, and sleep? You may have a 24 hour shift but I highly doubt you’re working for 24 hours. And firefighters get tax payer paid healthcare and comfortable retirement benefits. Isn’t socialism great!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 0605 hrs
Milwaukee firefighter qualifications:
Q: What are the qualifications?
A: You must be 18 years old, a U.S. citizen, have a high school diploma, GED or equivalency by Aug. 1 and have a valid driver’s license at the time of the background investigation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 0610 hrs
As indicated in the thread where we discussed unions, I belive the public employee unions are insidious and damaging.
But geez Pat, I sure hope you never need a firefighter for anything.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 0628 hrs
Isn’t socialism great!
The things about which you know nothing could fill volumes, Pat.
Again, I invite you to tell your mom and dad that they can get a new register operator and I’ll drive you over to start the application. You’d be a fool to turn down such plum.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 0721 hrs
But geez Pat, I sure hope you never need a firefighter for anything.
Why, because what I said was true?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 0723 hrs
The things about which you know nothing could fill volumes, Pat.
And the things you actually know would fill a thimble.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 0733 hrs
Q: What are the qualifications?
A: You must be 18 years old, a U.S. citizen, have a high school diploma, GED or equivalency by Aug. 1 and have a valid driver’s license at the time of the background investigation.
Q: Never mind the written exam, never mind the physical test, but how many men/women meeting Pat’s fictional minimum requirements have been hired full-time by Fire Departments in the last ten years?
A: Zero
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 0810 hrs
Never mind the written exam, never mind the physical test, but how many men/women meeting Pat’s fictional minimum requirements have been hired full-time by Fire Departments in the last ten years?
There’s a difference between qualifications and selection.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 0815 hrs
Q: What are the qualifications?
A: You must be 18 years old, a U.S. citizen, have a high school diploma, GED or equivalency by Aug. 1 and have a valid driver’s license at the time of the background investigation.
This is fictional? And you don’t think any firemen have been hired with no more than a high school diploma?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 0849 hrs
And firefighters get tax payer paid healthcare and comfortable retirement benefits. Isn’t socialism great!
“Socialism”...because it’s not like firefighters are employed by the public or performing a public service or anything…
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 05, 2010 at 0938 hrs
This is fictional?
That’s what I wrote.
And you don’t think any firemen have been hired with no more than a high school diploma?
Show me a firefighter (in the last fifteen years) that didn’t pass the entrance exam in order to get a full time job.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 0955 hrs
That’s some creative twisting!
From the fictional City of Milwaukee’s fictional Milwaukee Fire Dept. site:
http://www.ci.mil.wi.us/router.asp?docid=4768#qual
Qualifications and selection are two separate things.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1012 hrs
Yes… someone how is selected gets the job and someone who merely qualifies will not get the job. But if you want to show your intelligence and imply that any shmoe with a high school diploma or GED can get a job as a fireman, and that is the level of profesionalism and education and training that being a fireman requires… that’s fine…I won’t convince you otherwise, obviously…
but we are way off topic here….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1058 hrs
“Socialism”...because it’s not like firefighters are employed by the public or performing a public service or anything…
It could be privatized and open for competition in the free market system.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1150 hrs
Especially since there are plenty of “schmoes with a high school diploma or GED” that have jobs as firemen.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1150 hrs
Especially since there are plenty of “schmoes with a high school diploma or GED” that have jobs as firemen.
Strawman.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1237 hrs
Anon,
What do you do for a living? Or should I ask, what taxpayer teet are you sucking off?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1238 hrs
Smeety -
I have two gigs. I own a private manufacturing plant in the Detroit area (non-union; runs itself without much involvement from me these days) and I, for the next week, work in a museum that receives no tax funding.
Addressing your arguments directly is not the definition of a strawman, by the way.
Have a good one!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 0840 hrs
Addressing your arguments directly is not the definition of a strawman, by the way.
Let me know when you are ready to do that….
Posted by Smeety on August 06, 2010 at 0847 hrs
Anon,
Can we play twenty questions?
#1 - Are you a female?
Posted by Smeety on August 06, 2010 at 0858 hrs
Let me know when you are ready to do that….
As soon as you promise to remember what you just typed.
Can we play twenty questions?
#1 - Are you a female?
That seems a little unnecessary. How about you answer your own questions, as well, so we’re on even ground here?
I am a male.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1009 hrs
Get a room!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1011 hrs
I was hoping jimspice was going to be one of those spam accounts and his name was going to be linked to the Holiday Inn website, or something.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1041 hrs
Total Entries: 19628
Total Comments: 129572
Most Recent Entry: 02/03/2012 09:53 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/04/2012 04:57 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 95
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/04/2012 05:25 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).