OT – GOP is being carried to the extreme

[Zeitgeist]

David Brooks, the New York Times, “No, it’s not about race”: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/opinion/18brooks.html

“My impression is that race is largely beside the point. There are other, equally important strains in American history that are far more germane to the current conflicts.”

“The ideas is that free labor is the essence of Americanism. Hard-working ordinary people, who create wealth in material ways, are the moral backbone of the country.”

But race like Godwin’s law almost invariably shuts down any cogent conversation.

[briansd1]

Allan, I like to give conservatives a hard time because they are full of hypocrisy and contradictions.

Here are some examples:

– Conservatives are against divorce except their own.

– They believe the government should stay out of people’s lives except when it comes to gay rights, abortion and Terry Schiavo.

– They are against nation building except when initiated by George Bush (who campaigned against it).

– They are against welfare for American citizens except for the military. But they support spending billions annually to provide welfare to Japan, France, Britain, Germany, etc… And they bitch when the French are not grateful.

– They believe that English should be the national language but it’s ok for Bush to say nukular. But it’s not ok to say “axe”.*

By definition, Conservatives believe in living by a set of prescribed rules (like the Bible) and doing thing the old fashioned way.

However, if you believe in being flexible in our policies and doing what is right for our times, and that politics should be based on what is best for us, now and in the future, then you are not conservative. You are progressive!

Progressive believe that times change. We need to evolve with the times and adjust our behavior and national policies accordingly.

I’m confident that progressives will win in the end. Conservatives are always dragged behind kicking and screaming.

Allan, you may believe that building the missile defense system in Eastern Europe is the right thing to do. That, however, is not a conservative position. Opposing the policies of a progressive president is not being conservative, it’s being partisan.

I’m still at a loss as to why you keep on stressing the threat from Russia when that missile defense system was billed as protection against treats from Iran.

———
* If the word is spelled a-s-k, why do so many people pronounce “ask” as “axe”? Grant has a surprising answer, one that goes all the way back to, believe it or not, the time of Chaucer.

http://www.waywordradio.org/english-down-under/

[briansd1]

Allan, I like to give conservatives a hard time because they are full of hypocrisy and contradictions.

Here are some examples:

– Conservatives are against divorce except their own.

– They believe the government should stay out of people’s lives except when it comes to gay rights, abortion and Terry Schiavo.

– They are against nation building except when initiated by George Bush (who campaigned against it).

– They are against welfare for American citizens except for the military. But they support spending billions annually to provide welfare to Japan, France, Britain, Germany, etc… And they bitch when the French are not grateful.

– They believe that English should be the national language but it’s ok for Bush to say nukular. But it’s not ok to say “axe”.*

By definition, Conservatives believe in living by a set of prescribed rules (like the Bible) and doing thing the old fashioned way.

However, if you believe in being flexible in our policies and doing what is right for our times, and that politics should be based on what is best for us, now and in the future, then you are not conservative. You are progressive!

Progressive believe that times change. We need to evolve with the times and adjust our behavior and national policies accordingly.

I’m confident that progressives will win in the end. Conservatives are always dragged behind kicking and screaming.

Allan, you may believe that building the missile defense system in Eastern Europe is the right thing to do. That, however, is not a conservative position. Opposing the policies of a progressive president is not being conservative, it’s being partisan.

I’m still at a loss as to why you keep on stressing the threat from Russia when that missile defense system was billed as protection against treats from Iran.

———
* If the word is spelled a-s-k, why do so many people pronounce “ask” as “axe”? Grant has a surprising answer, one that goes all the way back to, believe it or not, the time of Chaucer.

http://www.waywordradio.org/english-down-under/

[briansd1]

Allan, I like to give conservatives a hard time because they are full of hypocrisy and contradictions.

Here are some examples:

– Conservatives are against divorce except their own.

– They believe the government should stay out of people’s lives except when it comes to gay rights, abortion and Terry Schiavo.

– They are against nation building except when initiated by George Bush (who campaigned against it).

– They are against welfare for American citizens except for the military. But they support spending billions annually to provide welfare to Japan, France, Britain, Germany, etc… And they bitch when the French are not grateful.

– They believe that English should be the national language but it’s ok for Bush to say nukular. But it’s not ok to say “axe”.*

By definition, Conservatives believe in living by a set of prescribed rules (like the Bible) and doing thing the old fashioned way.

However, if you believe in being flexible in our policies and doing what is right for our times, and that politics should be based on what is best for us, now and in the future, then you are not conservative. You are progressive!

Progressive believe that times change. We need to evolve with the times and adjust our behavior and national policies accordingly.

I’m confident that progressives will win in the end. Conservatives are always dragged behind kicking and screaming.

Allan, you may believe that building the missile defense system in Eastern Europe is the right thing to do. That, however, is not a conservative position. Opposing the policies of a progressive president is not being conservative, it’s being partisan.

I’m still at a loss as to why you keep on stressing the threat from Russia when that missile defense system was billed as protection against treats from Iran.

———
* If the word is spelled a-s-k, why do so many people pronounce “ask” as “axe”? Grant has a surprising answer, one that goes all the way back to, believe it or not, the time of Chaucer.

http://www.waywordradio.org/english-down-under/

[briansd1]

Allan, I like to give conservatives a hard time because they are full of hypocrisy and contradictions.

Here are some examples:

– Conservatives are against divorce except their own.

– They believe the government should stay out of people’s lives except when it comes to gay rights, abortion and Terry Schiavo.

– They are against nation building except when initiated by George Bush (who campaigned against it).

– They are against welfare for American citizens except for the military. But they support spending billions annually to provide welfare to Japan, France, Britain, Germany, etc… And they bitch when the French are not grateful.

– They believe that English should be the national language but it’s ok for Bush to say nukular. But it’s not ok to say “axe”.*

By definition, Conservatives believe in living by a set of prescribed rules (like the Bible) and doing thing the old fashioned way.

However, if you believe in being flexible in our policies and doing what is right for our times, and that politics should be based on what is best for us, now and in the future, then you are not conservative. You are progressive!

Progressive believe that times change. We need to evolve with the times and adjust our behavior and national policies accordingly.

I’m confident that progressives will win in the end. Conservatives are always dragged behind kicking and screaming.

Allan, you may believe that building the missile defense system in Eastern Europe is the right thing to do. That, however, is not a conservative position. Opposing the policies of a progressive president is not being conservative, it’s being partisan.

I’m still at a loss as to why you keep on stressing the threat from Russia when that missile defense system was billed as protection against treats from Iran.

———
* If the word is spelled a-s-k, why do so many people pronounce “ask” as “axe”? Grant has a surprising answer, one that goes all the way back to, believe it or not, the time of Chaucer.

http://www.waywordradio.org/english-down-under/

[briansd1]

Allan, I like to give conservatives a hard time because they are full of hypocrisy and contradictions.

Here are some examples:

– Conservatives are against divorce except their own.

– They believe the government should stay out of people’s lives except when it comes to gay rights, abortion and Terry Schiavo.

– They are against nation building except when initiated by George Bush (who campaigned against it).

– They are against welfare for American citizens except for the military. But they support spending billions annually to provide welfare to Japan, France, Britain, Germany, etc… And they bitch when the French are not grateful.

– They believe that English should be the national language but it’s ok for Bush to say nukular. But it’s not ok to say “axe”.*

By definition, Conservatives believe in living by a set of prescribed rules (like the Bible) and doing thing the old fashioned way.

However, if you believe in being flexible in our policies and doing what is right for our times, and that politics should be based on what is best for us, now and in the future, then you are not conservative. You are progressive!

Progressive believe that times change. We need to evolve with the times and adjust our behavior and national policies accordingly.

I’m confident that progressives will win in the end. Conservatives are always dragged behind kicking and screaming.

Allan, you may believe that building the missile defense system in Eastern Europe is the right thing to do. That, however, is not a conservative position. Opposing the policies of a progressive president is not being conservative, it’s being partisan.

I’m still at a loss as to why you keep on stressing the threat from Russia when that missile defense system was billed as protection against treats from Iran.

———
* If the word is spelled a-s-k, why do so many people pronounce “ask” as “axe”? Grant has a surprising answer, one that goes all the way back to, believe it or not, the time of Chaucer.

http://www.waywordradio.org/english-down-under/

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: I cannot find a single position that you’ve articulated above that I agree with as a conservative. Given that I never voted for Dubya and haven’t voted Republican since 1996, I’ll refer you back to my earlier comment regarding the dangers of equating conservatism with Republicanism. They are NOT the same and, when you gleefully discuss going after conservatives, well, uh, you’re not. You would seem to be attacking the Republicans under Dubya and the present GOP band of oppo guerrillas.

I’d also suggest you figure out the differences between liberals, Leftists and progressives, because, while you label yourself as a progressive, your stand on various political positions is wildly inconsistent with a mainline progressive stance.

Lastly, and as I attempted (unsuccessfully) to point out: My feelings about Russia and the threat Russia represents don’t have dick to do with my conservative beliefs. It also isn’t “nation building”, either. It has to do with the message our retreat on this position represents to Putin and his cohorts and, if you’ve been paying attention, Putin is most certainly making hay with this while the sun shines. Your focus on Iranian containment doesn’t really have anything to do with anything and represents something of an obdurate single-mindedness for someone who is supposedly so fleet of foot and flexible of mind.

Okay, back to your Ayn Rand books now.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: I cannot find a single position that you’ve articulated above that I agree with as a conservative. Given that I never voted for Dubya and haven’t voted Republican since 1996, I’ll refer you back to my earlier comment regarding the dangers of equating conservatism with Republicanism. They are NOT the same and, when you gleefully discuss going after conservatives, well, uh, you’re not. You would seem to be attacking the Republicans under Dubya and the present GOP band of oppo guerrillas.

I’d also suggest you figure out the differences between liberals, Leftists and progressives, because, while you label yourself as a progressive, your stand on various political positions is wildly inconsistent with a mainline progressive stance.

Lastly, and as I attempted (unsuccessfully) to point out: My feelings about Russia and the threat Russia represents don’t have dick to do with my conservative beliefs. It also isn’t “nation building”, either. It has to do with the message our retreat on this position represents to Putin and his cohorts and, if you’ve been paying attention, Putin is most certainly making hay with this while the sun shines. Your focus on Iranian containment doesn’t really have anything to do with anything and represents something of an obdurate single-mindedness for someone who is supposedly so fleet of foot and flexible of mind.

Okay, back to your Ayn Rand books now.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: I cannot find a single position that you’ve articulated above that I agree with as a conservative. Given that I never voted for Dubya and haven’t voted Republican since 1996, I’ll refer you back to my earlier comment regarding the dangers of equating conservatism with Republicanism. They are NOT the same and, when you gleefully discuss going after conservatives, well, uh, you’re not. You would seem to be attacking the Republicans under Dubya and the present GOP band of oppo guerrillas.

I’d also suggest you figure out the differences between liberals, Leftists and progressives, because, while you label yourself as a progressive, your stand on various political positions is wildly inconsistent with a mainline progressive stance.

Lastly, and as I attempted (unsuccessfully) to point out: My feelings about Russia and the threat Russia represents don’t have dick to do with my conservative beliefs. It also isn’t “nation building”, either. It has to do with the message our retreat on this position represents to Putin and his cohorts and, if you’ve been paying attention, Putin is most certainly making hay with this while the sun shines. Your focus on Iranian containment doesn’t really have anything to do with anything and represents something of an obdurate single-mindedness for someone who is supposedly so fleet of foot and flexible of mind.

Okay, back to your Ayn Rand books now.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: I cannot find a single position that you’ve articulated above that I agree with as a conservative. Given that I never voted for Dubya and haven’t voted Republican since 1996, I’ll refer you back to my earlier comment regarding the dangers of equating conservatism with Republicanism. They are NOT the same and, when you gleefully discuss going after conservatives, well, uh, you’re not. You would seem to be attacking the Republicans under Dubya and the present GOP band of oppo guerrillas.

I’d also suggest you figure out the differences between liberals, Leftists and progressives, because, while you label yourself as a progressive, your stand on various political positions is wildly inconsistent with a mainline progressive stance.

Lastly, and as I attempted (unsuccessfully) to point out: My feelings about Russia and the threat Russia represents don’t have dick to do with my conservative beliefs. It also isn’t “nation building”, either. It has to do with the message our retreat on this position represents to Putin and his cohorts and, if you’ve been paying attention, Putin is most certainly making hay with this while the sun shines. Your focus on Iranian containment doesn’t really have anything to do with anything and represents something of an obdurate single-mindedness for someone who is supposedly so fleet of foot and flexible of mind.

Okay, back to your Ayn Rand books now.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: I cannot find a single position that you’ve articulated above that I agree with as a conservative. Given that I never voted for Dubya and haven’t voted Republican since 1996, I’ll refer you back to my earlier comment regarding the dangers of equating conservatism with Republicanism. They are NOT the same and, when you gleefully discuss going after conservatives, well, uh, you’re not. You would seem to be attacking the Republicans under Dubya and the present GOP band of oppo guerrillas.

I’d also suggest you figure out the differences between liberals, Leftists and progressives, because, while you label yourself as a progressive, your stand on various political positions is wildly inconsistent with a mainline progressive stance.

Lastly, and as I attempted (unsuccessfully) to point out: My feelings about Russia and the threat Russia represents don’t have dick to do with my conservative beliefs. It also isn’t “nation building”, either. It has to do with the message our retreat on this position represents to Putin and his cohorts and, if you’ve been paying attention, Putin is most certainly making hay with this while the sun shines. Your focus on Iranian containment doesn’t really have anything to do with anything and represents something of an obdurate single-mindedness for someone who is supposedly so fleet of foot and flexible of mind.

Okay, back to your Ayn Rand books now.

[surveyor]

[quote=briansd1]
Progressive believe that times change. We need to evolve with the times and adjust our behavior and national policies accordingly.

I’m confident that progressives will win in the end. Conservatives are always dragged behind kicking and screaming.
[/quote]

Perhaps this is not everyone’s definition of conservative, but being a conservative does mean and recognizing that there are patterns, rules, and sets of behaviors that have served us well for the past thousands of years. We human beings have, through trial and error, generally found which sets of rules and norms are the most successful.

Now, for some reason, Brian, you believe in throwing all that institutional knowledge away. Because you think you know better. And that is the problem with progressives. All of a sudden you think the rules of the universe have changed and you can disregard what has been working for humanity for the past thousand years. Any study of history shows that what the successes of humanity are and how they came about.

Conservatives are aware that times change and are willing to make changes. However, there needs to be more proof that it will work instead of bumbling around and trying to trial and error a whole new society.

The rules are there for a reason. You can’t all of a sudden make up new rules just because you think you know better than everyone else.

And that’s the problem with a lot of “liberal/progressive” policies. They are conceived with the idea that the policy makers “know better”. Often it ignores a lot of history and it deliberately goes away from the actions and policies and rules that have been proven successful.

For example:

History has shown that appeasing your enemies does not work. History is littered with the societies that decided to commit suicide by trying to placate their enemies. I mean, yes, we use Hitler often as an example of how not to treat your enemies, and yet liberals/progressives keep making the same mistake over and over again. Because they think they know better, that their way is better. Obama is a good example of what’s going on. He thinks that his personal charisma will be sufficient to override the natural self-interest of Russia and Iran. He thought he knew better than history. He is finding out how wrong he is.

That is why liberals and progressives often follow behavior that leads to failure.

Believe me, I used to be like that. I used to think that I knew better and that my superior thinking, logic, and experience could trump any old “custom” and “rules” and all that. I found out how wrong I was and that society has evolved in certain ways because it adopted the most successful behaviors, made them into rules, and followed them.

Conservatism does not imply rigidity. However, it just requires a higher standard and proof instead of the typical liberals/progressive lines: “it’s different this time around” or “the rules have changed” or “i know better”. To be conservative is to acknowledge that that there is a pattern of success that we have followed, and our society has been successful because of those principles and those rules.

[surveyor]

[quote=briansd1]
Progressive believe that times change. We need to evolve with the times and adjust our behavior and national policies accordingly.

I’m confident that progressives will win in the end. Conservatives are always dragged behind kicking and screaming.
[/quote]

Perhaps this is not everyone’s definition of conservative, but being a conservative does mean and recognizing that there are patterns, rules, and sets of behaviors that have served us well for the past thousands of years. We human beings have, through trial and error, generally found which sets of rules and norms are the most successful.

Now, for some reason, Brian, you believe in throwing all that institutional knowledge away. Because you think you know better. And that is the problem with progressives. All of a sudden you think the rules of the universe have changed and you can disregard what has been working for humanity for the past thousand years. Any study of history shows that what the successes of humanity are and how they came about.

Conservatives are aware that times change and are willing to make changes. However, there needs to be more proof that it will work instead of bumbling around and trying to trial and error a whole new society.

The rules are there for a reason. You can’t all of a sudden make up new rules just because you think you know better than everyone else.

And that’s the problem with a lot of “liberal/progressive” policies. They are conceived with the idea that the policy makers “know better”. Often it ignores a lot of history and it deliberately goes away from the actions and policies and rules that have been proven successful.

For example:

History has shown that appeasing your enemies does not work. History is littered with the societies that decided to commit suicide by trying to placate their enemies. I mean, yes, we use Hitler often as an example of how not to treat your enemies, and yet liberals/progressives keep making the same mistake over and over again. Because they think they know better, that their way is better. Obama is a good example of what’s going on. He thinks that his personal charisma will be sufficient to override the natural self-interest of Russia and Iran. He thought he knew better than history. He is finding out how wrong he is.

That is why liberals and progressives often follow behavior that leads to failure.

Believe me, I used to be like that. I used to think that I knew better and that my superior thinking, logic, and experience could trump any old “custom” and “rules” and all that. I found out how wrong I was and that society has evolved in certain ways because it adopted the most successful behaviors, made them into rules, and followed them.

Conservatism does not imply rigidity. However, it just requires a higher standard and proof instead of the typical liberals/progressive lines: “it’s different this time around” or “the rules have changed” or “i know better”. To be conservative is to acknowledge that that there is a pattern of success that we have followed, and our society has been successful because of those principles and those rules.

[surveyor]

[quote=briansd1]
Progressive believe that times change. We need to evolve with the times and adjust our behavior and national policies accordingly.

I’m confident that progressives will win in the end. Conservatives are always dragged behind kicking and screaming.
[/quote]

Perhaps this is not everyone’s definition of conservative, but being a conservative does mean and recognizing that there are patterns, rules, and sets of behaviors that have served us well for the past thousands of years. We human beings have, through trial and error, generally found which sets of rules and norms are the most successful.

Now, for some reason, Brian, you believe in throwing all that institutional knowledge away. Because you think you know better. And that is the problem with progressives. All of a sudden you think the rules of the universe have changed and you can disregard what has been working for humanity for the past thousand years. Any study of history shows that what the successes of humanity are and how they came about.

Conservatives are aware that times change and are willing to make changes. However, there needs to be more proof that it will work instead of bumbling around and trying to trial and error a whole new society.

The rules are there for a reason. You can’t all of a sudden make up new rules just because you think you know better than everyone else.

And that’s the problem with a lot of “liberal/progressive” policies. They are conceived with the idea that the policy makers “know better”. Often it ignores a lot of history and it deliberately goes away from the actions and policies and rules that have been proven successful.

For example:

History has shown that appeasing your enemies does not work. History is littered with the societies that decided to commit suicide by trying to placate their enemies. I mean, yes, we use Hitler often as an example of how not to treat your enemies, and yet liberals/progressives keep making the same mistake over and over again. Because they think they know better, that their way is better. Obama is a good example of what’s going on. He thinks that his personal charisma will be sufficient to override the natural self-interest of Russia and Iran. He thought he knew better than history. He is finding out how wrong he is.

That is why liberals and progressives often follow behavior that leads to failure.

Believe me, I used to be like that. I used to think that I knew better and that my superior thinking, logic, and experience could trump any old “custom” and “rules” and all that. I found out how wrong I was and that society has evolved in certain ways because it adopted the most successful behaviors, made them into rules, and followed them.

Conservatism does not imply rigidity. However, it just requires a higher standard and proof instead of the typical liberals/progressive lines: “it’s different this time around” or “the rules have changed” or “i know better”. To be conservative is to acknowledge that that there is a pattern of success that we have followed, and our society has been successful because of those principles and those rules.

[surveyor]

[quote=briansd1]
Progressive believe that times change. We need to evolve with the times and adjust our behavior and national policies accordingly.

I’m confident that progressives will win in the end. Conservatives are always dragged behind kicking and screaming.
[/quote]

Perhaps this is not everyone’s definition of conservative, but being a conservative does mean and recognizing that there are patterns, rules, and sets of behaviors that have served us well for the past thousands of years. We human beings have, through trial and error, generally found which sets of rules and norms are the most successful.

Now, for some reason, Brian, you believe in throwing all that institutional knowledge away. Because you think you know better. And that is the problem with progressives. All of a sudden you think the rules of the universe have changed and you can disregard what has been working for humanity for the past thousand years. Any study of history shows that what the successes of humanity are and how they came about.

Conservatives are aware that times change and are willing to make changes. However, there needs to be more proof that it will work instead of bumbling around and trying to trial and error a whole new society.

The rules are there for a reason. You can’t all of a sudden make up new rules just because you think you know better than everyone else.

And that’s the problem with a lot of “liberal/progressive” policies. They are conceived with the idea that the policy makers “know better”. Often it ignores a lot of history and it deliberately goes away from the actions and policies and rules that have been proven successful.

For example:

History has shown that appeasing your enemies does not work. History is littered with the societies that decided to commit suicide by trying to placate their enemies. I mean, yes, we use Hitler often as an example of how not to treat your enemies, and yet liberals/progressives keep making the same mistake over and over again. Because they think they know better, that their way is better. Obama is a good example of what’s going on. He thinks that his personal charisma will be sufficient to override the natural self-interest of Russia and Iran. He thought he knew better than history. He is finding out how wrong he is.

That is why liberals and progressives often follow behavior that leads to failure.

Believe me, I used to be like that. I used to think that I knew better and that my superior thinking, logic, and experience could trump any old “custom” and “rules” and all that. I found out how wrong I was and that society has evolved in certain ways because it adopted the most successful behaviors, made them into rules, and followed them.

Conservatism does not imply rigidity. However, it just requires a higher standard and proof instead of the typical liberals/progressive lines: “it’s different this time around” or “the rules have changed” or “i know better”. To be conservative is to acknowledge that that there is a pattern of success that we have followed, and our society has been successful because of those principles and those rules.

[Author]

Posts