Promoting "hate" through arrogance, ignorance and dogmatism...

[shagdrum]

Bill Maher To “Teabaggers”: “The Founding Fathers Would Have Hated Your Guts”
by Glenn Davis

Bill Maher closed out tonight’s season premiere of Real Time with one of his go-to bits: Tea Party (or, as he’d say, Teabagger) bashing. He hit on his usual points on the subject, like what he sees as racist sentiments in the Tea Party and religion (of which, of course, Maher isn’t much of a fan) with a slightly different conceit: he contrasted the Tea Party to the people they “believe are just like them, but aren’t”: the Founding Fathers.

It should be noted that some of Maher’s criticism was just gratuitous/mean-spirited/weird (i.e. potshots at Tea Partiers’ personal hygiene), and some was wrong (ex. calling Thomas Paine an atheist when he was actually deist). But as is Maher’s wont, it was certainly provocative, with his overarching message being:

“[T]he Founding Fathers would have hated your guts…and what’s more, you would have hated them. They were everything you despise. They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bull:q:q:q:q.”​

Maher got a crack in at the Founders as well, saying they had a moral code, but it didn’t come from the Bible…”except for the part about, ‘it’s cool to own slaves.’” And of course, he got in a dig at Sarah Palin over her line from last year that America needs “a commander-in-chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern.” Maher quoted Palin, then rattled off a list of Founding Fathers who were also lawyers.

And Maher saved one of his better lines for near the end of the segment – in emphasizing that the Founding Fathers “were not the common men of their day,” he mentioned Ben Franklin’s scientific achievements, and said that “were he alive today, he could probably explain to Bill O’Reilly why the tides go in and out.” Maher’s assertions might not have been all on the mark, but there’s no question plenty of people will be talking about them...

[See video here]

 

[04SCTLS]

Maher’s assertions might not have been all on the mark, but there’s no question plenty of people will be talking about them...

The writer of this piece agrees with Bill. Saying they weren't all on the mark(means most were)

Since you didn't post your opinion(typical) if I didn't know you I would say you agree.

Bill is a comedian using a little bombast but is just being honest and standing up for history by using intellect and wit.
Saying not agree would be also true but saying hated your guts is more lively and entertaining.
Other than the establishment clause God and religion are hardly mentioned
in the constitution by the founding fathers.
They were fresh off of Henry the 8th church of england experience and having various beliefs or none, wanted to ensure religious tyranny did not rear it's ugly head in America.
Religion is supposed to be a private matter seperate from and not something for the government and that is the sentiment.
Under God was only added to the pledge of allegiance in 1956 in response to communism so it's of recent vintage.
No matter what your arguments are as to the religousness of the founding fathers you cannot get around how little God and religion are mentioned in the constitution and then only as window dressing.
The thing speaks for itself and it's a strict interpretation of the constitution
which you guys purport to love when it suits your purposes.
Bill held up the amusing conservative revisionist image of a big white bread Jesus giving the little sized founding fathers the constitution at the signing like God passing down the Ten Commandments to Moses.
The great educated professors and lawyers men who deserve all the credit and carved out the establishment clause are minimized.
Is this some new icon for conservatives and their dishonest revisionism?
Maybe Jesus brought an apology for all the crazy things people have attributed to him to further their purposes.(or was it a proposed settlement for the man but not God made religious tyrannies throughout history and the hideous recent church scandals like Maher joked)
Arrogance ,dogmatism and hate are better used to describe extremists in religion.
So it's the pot calling the kettle black.
The difference between the religious right and the Taliban and Islam itself is only a matter of degree.
Bill is using wit and ridicule.

I also liked his comment that the side promoting easy access to guns all the time is more responsible when a gun incident happens than the side that is always trying to restrain guns.
Just be honest and call guns a guilty pleasure.

 

[shagdrum]

:bowrofl::bowrofl:

Pompous buffoon defending pompous buffoon.

Bill Maher is a bottom feeding demagogue who is too full of himself to realize his own ignorance. It is rather telling when similar minds choose to defend his ignorance...

:lol::lol:

[from here]

Talk show host Bill Maher once again displayed his ignorance for America’s history and founding by telling Tea Partiers that the Founding Fathers would have “hated” their “guts.”

As you’d come to expect from Maher he constantly referred to members of the Tea Party as “teabaggers” – which would probably be an insult coming from virtually everybody else. When Maher uses this word, however, the Tea Party should wear it as a badge of honor.

Next he told Tea Partiers that the Founding Fathers were “nothing like them.” No, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, George Washington and all the others were profoundly different. How? Here comes Maher:

Now, I want you teabaggers out there to understand one thing: while you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress up like them, and smell like them, I think it’s pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would have hated your guts. And what’s more, you would’ve hated them. They were everything you despise. They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bull:q:q:q:q.​

I hate to break it to you, Bill, but the majority of the Founding Fathers were religious. And those who weren’t orthodox in their beliefs, at least had a healthy respect and appreciation for religion. They didn’t want to force others to believe as they did – certainly – but they respected religion, and the Bible, nonetheless. Even those more critical, such as Thomas Jefferson, believed the Bible contained important lessons – lessons wise men should take to heart. There may have been a few, like Thomas Paine, who held religion in less high esteem, but they were the minority, not the majority.

Furthermore, unlike what Maher seems to believe, the Founding Fathers weren’t big fans of a welfare state. At all. In fact, they considered the government the greatest potential threat to freedom. They understood that an intrusive, activist state always limits a people’s freedom. That’s why they wrote the Constitution in the first place: they wanted to guarantee Americans specific rights, the government could not take away.

The Tea Party continues this tradition. They too stand for individual liberty, over collectivism and social engineering. They want the government to get out of the people’s business – out of their health care and out of their pockets. If there’s one thing they demand, it’s to be left alone to live their lives as they please. Not as it pleases Maher and other cocky liberals who mess up their own lives in virtually every respect, but who nonetheless believe it’s up to them to tell others how to live.

Perhaps that Maher can do what he seems to value so much – get a good education – before spouting his mouth off again about things he has little to no knowledge of. If not, he’d do us all a favor if he’d just keep his deliberately humiliating mouth shut.​

 

[04SCTLS]

Yes I read that on Hot Air yesterday before you posted.
I try not to use Hot Air or HuffPo articles directly because everyone reads those and it's lazy.
In this case you probably couldn't find any other articles for a rebuttal
and have resorted to calling me names again.
Everyone else in the conservative blogosphere ignored Bill.
But his red meat got to you.
I was wondering how long it would be before you found this proof by assertion article to post as your response.

The founding fathers did not include a role for religion in government and went out of their way to keep religion seperate.
They were clever( a quality you disdain and dismiss and downplay at your peril) and didn't come right out and say
there will be no religious interference in the state because that would seem hostile and insulting instead they brilliantly offered up government will not interfere with religion which seems friendly, respectful and complimentary( the opposite sentiment)
This has accomplished the same thing but better.
To seal the deal they gave religion tax free status.(not taking any of God's money for the state)
You have to exercise your high intellect beyond other's usual assumptions and recognize when something speaks for itself shag.

 

[04SCTLS]

Take a look at what Benjamin Franklin thought about religion as well. He was a proponent of religion, but admitted to being a Deist. He also did not believe in the divinity of Jesus (this is also true of many of the Founding Fathers). It’s ironic considering that most religions treated him as one of their own.
If people want to say the Founding Fathers were mostly religious, then I’ll gladly concede the point. But be careful if you look at exactly what these “religions” were. In this respect, Bill Maher was correct, you would not like what they believed in.
​

You’re probably right that while the Founding Fathers were religious, it was a “liberal” form of Christian belief far-removed from the established norms of its time.
​

While it’s fine to take issue with Maher, this isn’t the best fight to pick. In reality, the Fathers were a group of overly-educated intellectuals who quoted other philosophers and intellectuals from Greek and Roman civilizations far more than any religious text. In other words, it’s undoubtedly true that the Fathers would see Palin and other Tea Partiers as boorish illiterates, relatively speaking, and would have no interest in recognizing or responding to their tedious and vapid rhetoric.

________________________________________________________

Borrowing comment from the same article you posted this sums up almost perfectly Maher's opinions.
They were highly educated and had much better sources for inspiration to look at than those less educated who rely on just the Bible.

 

[foxpaws]

Heck, Jefferson re-writing the New Testament to take the 'divinity' out of Jesus, and placing Jesus as a prophet, and not the son of God, would be enough to appall most of the right today. Can you imagine if Barack Obama were to come out, with his next book as the "New Testament According to Obama" and did exactly what Jefferson did?

And they were elitists - only rich white men were allowed to vote. in 1788 there were 4 million people in America - but only 39,000 were allowed to vote, less than 10%.

 

[shagdrum]

Heck, Jefferson re-writing the New Testament to take the 'divinity' out of Jesus, and placing Jesus as a prophet, and not the son of God, would be enough to appall most of the right today. Can you imagine if Barack Obama were to come out, with his next book as the "New Testament According to Obama" and did exactly what Jefferson did?

And they were elitists - only rich white men were allowed to vote. in 1788 there were 4 million people in America - but only 39,000 were allowed to vote, less than 10%.

Gotta promote leftist revisionist dogma, don't ya?

We have covered the subject of the Framers, their religious views and their views concerning the mixture of religion and politics/government. While 04 is too full of himself to actually bother with things like fact and critical thought, you know better and are misleading.

 

[foxpaws]

Gotta promote leftist revisionist dogma, don't ya?

We have covered the subject of the Framers, their religious views and their views concerning the mixture of religion and politics/government. While 04 is too full of himself to actually bother with things like fact and critical thought, you know better and are misleading.

Today's right - such as 'defined' by most shag would skewer Jefferson for his religious beliefs and you know it. Once again - what would the right do if Obama re-wrote the New Testament, heck, if he even says 'Amen' with the wrong inflection they create scandal and claim he isn't Christian, isn't 'American' enough to hold office.

Rewriting the Bible would be OK?

You can stand up for conservative thought all you want shag - but Beck would be lighting the fire under Jefferson if he were in politics today, almost entirely for his religious beliefs - however having mistresses ensconced in Jefferson's household might also get Beck lathered up as well.

 

[shagdrum]

Today's right - such as 'defined' by most shag would skewer Jefferson for his religious beliefs and you know it.

No, today's "right" as defined by...you would skewer [your distortion of] Jefferson's religious beliefs.

We have been through all the issues concerning Jefferson's views on religion as well as those of the Framers and anyone genuinely interested in those discussions can go back and look them up. There is no need to rehash them here.

There is a relatively bigger point you keep missing (and you are more then smart enough to get it); the "right" as it is understood in the modern political lexicon is defined by the Left. It is not the political thought and/or policy positions of conservatives or libertarians that define the "right". It is the false, simplistic caricature drawn by the Left that defines the "right" and has done so for generations.

 

[foxpaws]

No, today's "right" as defined by...you would skewer [your distortion of] Jefferson's religious beliefs.

We have been through all the issues concerning Jefferson's views on religion as well as those of the Framers and anyone genuinely interested in those discussions can go back and look them up. There is no need to rehash them here.

I have only stated facts here - Jefferson did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God - and did re-write the New Testament to reflect that belief -

He would be skewered by the right shag - why do you continue to hold on to some false belief that Jefferson would be some sort of 'darling' of the right, he wouldn't be. He was pretty much an elitist, Unitarian, and a hypocrite when it came to his affair with Sally Hemmings.

Once again, the right puts on blinders when it comes to our founding fathers.

My favorite - Patrick Henry locked his wife in the basement with chains, and probably a strait jacket for the last 4 years of her life.

Benjamin Franklin had so many affairs, he makes John Edwards look like a mere amateur.

There is a relatively bigger point you keep missing (and you are more then smart enough to get it); the "right" as it is understood in the modern political lexicon is defined by the Left. It is not the political thought and/or policy positions of conservatives or libertarians that define the "right". It is the false, simplistic caricature drawn by the Left that defines the "right" and has done so for generations.

And the left shag is being defined by the right, as communist traitors only interested in social justice.

Once again shag - why do you allow the 'right' shades of gray - but don't allow the 'left' the same?

 

[shagdrum]

And the left shag is being defined by the right, as communist traitors only interested in social justice.

And yet you can only support this baseless assertion by creating false, simplistic and hyperbolic caricature of conservative arguments about the left.

Drawing false equivalences is simply a means to distract and to dodge. Using them (as well as any other fallacy) only shows a weakness in one's own argument.

 

[foxpaws]

And yet you can only support this baseless assertion by creating false, simplistic and hyperbolic caricature of conservative arguments about the left.

Drawing false equivalences is simply a means to distract and to dodge. Using them (as well as any other fallacy) only shows a weakness in one's own argument.

shag- you are far, far, far further down the 'false equivalences' path than I could ever hope to be. I know that that both sides are multidimensional when it comes to ideals.

I know that there are many 'degrees' to the right - ranging from someone like Buckley to Alex Jones (I was kind here), however, you group the entirety of the left into one false group - with everyone in that group subscribing to exactly the same ideals - socialism, anticapitalism, egalitarianism.

Your weakness will continue to be that you actually think in one dimension when it comes to the left.

However, we are now just talking past each other... so,

A friend of mine sent this to me a couple of months ago when Mr Farve was having problems with his cellular phone... it is also from Bill Maher. He thought it was one of the funniest - and maybe most insightful things written about 'it' And I have to agree -

New Rule: If a woman rejects your first dozen advances, don't up the ante by sending her a picture of your penis. This week, we found out that Vikings quarterback Brett Favre allegedly tried to get with a young woman by sending her MySpace messages, voicemails, and notes through a friend, and when none of that worked, and it was third and long -- though, not as long as most of us would have imagined -- he decided to throw the Hail Mary and sext her pictures of Little Brett to close the deal. Brett, I get it: Your dictionary doesn't include the word "quit" or "retire" or "married" but you've got to at least understand "punt." You know the worst part about having sex with Brett Favre? He keeps saying he's finished, and then he comes back to drag it out for another year.

To me, this story isn't about sports or sex or how necessary caller ID is -- it's about how pathetic and clueless white American males have become. Because the kind of guy who thinks there are women out there who just, cold, want to see your cock, is the same kind of guy who thinks Sarah Palin is swell and tax cuts pay for themselves. I will explain that connection further, but first let's just dwell for one more moment on how stupid it is to forget that in 2010 when you text someone a picture of your genitals, you're not just sending it to that person, but to every person she has in her contacts... and then everyone on the planet who has access to the Internet. Somewhere right now there's a tribesman in Samoa thinking, "Brett Favre is texting a picture of his dick to a woman? That sh!t never works."

And he's right -- no woman in the history of mankind has ever wanted to see a picture of a penis. Go back to the earliest cave paintings. The very first one is of a cock, and after that they're all antelopes and sunrises. But for some reason men persist. Why? Because men have always been in charge, especially white men. Brett Favre is like a lot of white males: he's owned the world for so long, he's going a little crazy now that he doesn't. Also, like many white men across the country, he lost his job to a Mexican, (i.e. Jets Quarterback Mark Sanchez).

If Brett Favre's penis could talk, what would it say? Well, other than, "No photos please," I think it would say, "I'm not a witch. I'm you." Because for hundreds of years white penises were America. White penises founded America, they made the rules and they called the shots in the workplace, in the home, and at the ballot box. But now the unthinkable is happening. White penises are becoming the minority: 2010 was the first year in which more minority babies were born in the U.S. than white babies. This is what conservatives are really upset about -- that the president is black, and the best golfer is black, and the Secretary of State is a woman, and suddenly this country is way off track and needs some serious 'restoring.' If penises could cry -- and I believe they can -- then white penises are crying all over America.

And that's where this crew comes in; Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell, Michele Bachmann; the lovely MILFs of the new right. And their little secret is that their popularity comes exclusively from white men. Look at the polling: minorities hate them, women hate them -- only white men like them. I'm no psychiatrist, but I do own a couch, and my theory is that these women represent something those men miss dearly: the traditional, idiot housewife. Writing on your hand is sheer Lucy. If an election between Obama and Sarah Palin were held today, and only white men could vote, Sarah Palin would be president. That doesn't sound good to you? Well, what if I threw in a picture of my cock? Which brings me back to Brett Favre, and I think it's worth noting that in one of the alleged photos of him, he's pleasuring himself on a bed while wearing Crocs. And if you think about it, is there any better metaphor for the sad state of America today than an over-the-hill white guy lazily masturbating in plastic shoes?​

 

[shagdrum]

Foxy, rather then continuing to dance AROUND the ideological elephant in the room, why don't you confront it?

Politics and policy stems from ideas and those ideas stem from philosophy. Focusing on anything other then philosophy is simply tinkering around the margins.

I have pointed out numerous times on this forum how all leftist thought is ultimately derived from the notion of social justice through collectivism. Can you show any flaw with that claim? Continuing to exaggerate and distort the claim into a straw man and confusing the issue only shows the weakness of your position.

In light of your false equivalence, let's also look at "the right". What specific values, goals and means (not simply policy positions) are all right leaning thought built around? If you can not point to anything, then your equivalence of the "left" and the "right" is false.

The issue here IS ideology. Stop avoiding the issue.

Oh, and keep in mind, under the common understanding of the political spectrum, libertarianism is not "right wing" (it is not even on the map, really).

The commonly understood political spectrum is derived from ideologies, but from a specific, far left understanding of ideology (meaning a crude and false characterize of opposing views which tend to be lumped in to "the right").

Your implication that the modern commonly understood political spectrum is made up of the left defining the right and the right defining the left is baseless.

 

[foxpaws]

Foxy, rather then continuing to dance AROUND the ideological elephant in the room, why don't you confront it?

Politics and policy stems from ideas and those ideas stem from philosophy. Focusing on anything other then philosophy is simply tinkering around the margins.
<snip>
Your implication that the modern commonly understood political spectrum is made up of the left defining the right and the right defining the left is baseless.

Shag - it is obviously that way - the right does it damn-est to define the entire left as traitorous communists and the left replies with equating the whole right as hate mongering gun loonies.

If they didn't define the opposition all of the time, they might actually have to defend their own ideas.

That is what should come out of the Arizona shootings - take the focus away from the mindless false labeling. We should be debating the issues, and working towards solutions.

The issue should be ideology - however, for a while now the issue has been lost.

The right's values, goals and means - property rights, American Internationalism, gun rights, infusing christian morals into the fabric of America, less government intervention, historical literalism when defining the constitution, that for a start - and off the top of my head....

 

[shagdrum]

Shag - it is obviously that way - the right does it damn-est to define the entire left as traitorous communists and the left replies with equating the whole right as hate mongering gun loonies.

And here again, you can NOT confront the argument withOUT redefining the debate on terms favorable to your point of view; terms that inherently reject the legitimacy of conservative thought while painting the Left as victims and avoiding the ideological issues where are the focus of the debate. Two prime examples...

Your argument is premised on the notion that conservative thought inherently paints Leftists as "traitorous communists". This is a premise that is an absurd exaggeration of a very legitimate point that modern Leftist thought is ideologically defined by a focus on social justice through collectivism; a focus that stems from socialism and makes socialism (in the broad sense) and Progressivism synonymous.

Your argument is also premised on the notion that hyperbolic Leftist claims about "the Right" are a reaction to hyperbolic conservative claims about the Left. This is a premise that is, at best, dubious and only serves to frame discourse in very one sided terms.

Of course, the fact that your argument intentionally avoids the ideological concerns which are the focus of this debate, and instead shifts the focus to rhetoric only further demonstrates that you are unable to discuss things withOUT dishonestly framing the debate in ways favorable to your argument.

If dishonestly shifting the focus and reframing the debate is all you are going to engage in then there is no point in wasting any more time with you.

 

[foxpaws]

So, what are we debating here again - just so I can 'frame' my response correctly shag...

And don't do some weird thing like you always do, which is to say - "I have already stated this over and over, you are just trying to wiggle out of something."

I don't want to wiggle - so give me the exact thing we are debating, because I thought we were debating rhetoric.

 

[shagdrum]

So, what are we debating here again - just so I can 'frame' my response correctly shag...

How can there be any productive debate when both sides are focusing on different things and cannot reach a common ground from which to discuss things?

This is the problem with attempts to reframe the debate, either one side concedes the those efforts and debates on new terms to reach that common ground, or both sides engage in posturing in continued attempts to debate on their terms.

You and I continue in the latter and I grow tired of it.

 

[04SCTLS]

You're getting bogged down arguing about how fox is arguing.
Fox is not promoting leftist revisionism.
She is further engaging the conversation.
You are quick to label and dismiss anything you don't agree with as some kind of ism.
Conservatives are promoting a sentimental right wing revisionism of
the founding fathers that fits in with their current ideals.

 

[foxpaws]

How can there be any productive debate when both sides are focusing on different things and cannot reach a common ground from which to discuss things?

This is the problem with attempts to reframe the debate, either one side concedes the those efforts and debates on new terms to reach that common ground, or both sides engage in posturing in continued attempts to debate on their terms.

You and I continue in the latter and I grow tired of it.

So - just tell me what we are debating shag - that was all I asked - was it a difficult question?

I can admit that at this point I can't see the forest for the trees...

 

[marked8]

The left has a history and violence and hatred in their hearts. Proof in their own words, videos and signs:

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/1...mate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/

 

[shagdrum]

I can admit that at this point I can't see the forest for the trees...

By design I imagine. The focus has been clear enough.

The right's values, goals and means - property rights, American Internationalism, gun rights, infusing christian morals into the fabric of America, less government intervention, historical literalism when defining the constitution, that for a start - and off the top of my head....

While this mishmash of policy positions, values and principles may make up the Leftist understanding of "the Right" they are not a reflection of true conservative thought. In fact, technically, conservatism is not an ideology because it doesn't have an overriding goal (let alone a means to achieve it). This collection of random policy positions, values and principles can (arguably in some circumstances) be attributed to some conservative perspectives but not all.

For instance, the idea of "infusing christian morals into the fabric of America" is only an accurate description of a more extreme paleoconservative perspective, but not other conservative perspectives. Also, the position of "less government intervention" would not generally be true of the paleoconservative perspective. It would only be true in certain areas (economic matters for instance) but not others (Federal ban on abortion). The notion of "Internationalism" would also only be accurate in certain conservative perspectives; most readily, the "neoconservative" approach. However, there has long been an isolationist streak that runs through conservative thought and would be incompatible with the notion of internationalism.

The point is that there is no goal/means that runs through all conservative thought. This is what makes it harder to understand and easier to lump into a broad, dismissive category called "the Right".

However, the same is not true of the Left. Leftist thought is built around the notion of social justice through collectivism. While different schools of thought may focus on different forms of collectivism, strive for different degrees of social justice and focus on different issues more intensely (class distinctions, race, multiculturalism, environment, etc) it is still built around the goal of social justice through collectivist means.

Ideologies are defined by goals and the means to achieve those goals. At least in the context of ideology, a goal is some value that has yet to be realized or realized to it's fullest extent; an ideal. This is what defines ideology in the technical sense. Progressivism looks to more fully realize social justice and Libertarianism looks to more fully realize individual liberty. Even when an ideology promotes numerous values, they are ultimately prioitized with one value overriding (for instance, social justice overriding individual liberty with Progressivism) The constant striving toward an unrealizable goal is what makes ideologies myopic in their outlook and, ultimately utopian in nature. With conservatism there is a noticable absence of any such goal.

This is a very important distinction between the two sides of the political spectrum and why that spectrum, as it is understood today, is highly misleading. What is true for one side is not automatically true for the other. Any attempt to argue that is drawing a false equivalence.

 

[foxpaws]

For instance, the idea of "infusing christian morals into the fabric of America" is only an accurate description of a more extreme paleoconservative perspective, but not other conservative perspectives.

However, the same is not true of the Left. Leftist thought is built around the notion of social justice through collectivism. While different schools of thought may focus on different forms of collectivism, strive for different degrees of social justice and focus on different issues more intensely (class distinctions, race, multiculturalism, environment, etc) it is still built around the goal of social justice through collectivist means.

I hope that these two examples are what I think they are shag...

First - you 'allow' that all conservatives may not be looking to infuse christian values into America. However, then you say that all leftist thought is built around social justice/collectivism.

Once again you are allowing an 'out' on one side - correct?

So, I can take your second statement about the left and work with it can I go by this very simple description of social justice ala wiki?

Social justice generally refers to the idea of creating an egalitarian society or institution that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognizes the dignity of every human being.

And I am going with the first definition of egalitarian at wiki...

It is defined either as a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights[3] or as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people or the decentralization of power.

We need to have a commonality to discuss these shag - I would like to set up those commonalities first.

 

[shagdrum]

I hope that these two examples are what I think they are shag...

First - you 'allow' that all conservatives may not be looking to infuse christian values into America. However, then you say that all leftist thought is built around social justice/collectivism.

Once again you are allowing an 'out' on one side - correct?

Look at how you are approaching this!

Everything is subjective and simply something to be spun.

I am explaining FACT and TRUTH to you and you simply approach it as something to distort as is convenient to your argument. It's a game; a dance to be won by the most clever spin (as you are setting up).

Specifically, you are setting up a false equivalence (determined, a priori) but haven't determined exactly how to get there, hence that last highlighted line. If there is an "out" for one side there has to be an "out" for the other, you just have to find out how to manufacture it.

The possibility that Conservative thought is inherently different the a typical political ideology is absurd to you and will not be accepted. If "the Right" doesn't have an overridding goal/means then the same has to be true of "the Left". You just have to find a way to make it true.

It's clear from what you are setting up that you are focusing on the concept of "social justice" as the variable to distort in order to manufacture that "out", dragging this discussion farther down the rabbit hole in your quest for a more clever rationalization.

Your entire argument is built on a false premise that the "Left" and "Right" viewpoints are inherently equal (at least in structure and approach). Your entire approach is to find some way to make them equal whenever necessary, through whatever elaborate speculation and rationalization you need to use. Finding a goal/means in conservative thought failed, so now the focus is on delegimitizing the notion social justice through collectivism as the defining commonality of all leftist thought.

"set[ing] up...commonalities" as you say is simply attempting to redefine the debate on "commonalities" favorable to you. If this were due to legitimate differences in worldview, that would be a legitimate discussion to have; a necessity for any productive discourse. But that is not the case here as Leftist thought itself operationally recognizes that social justice through collectivism is it's overriding purpose.

What you are doing is attempting to reframe the debate as necessary to fit your argument. Those are the actions of A) someone looking to subvert the truth in order to avoid confronting the flaws in their worldview; a dogmatist, B) someone looking to subvert the truth in order to avoid confronting the flaws in their argument; an egoist, or C) both.

Sorry, I am not going to be following you down the rabbit hole. You have taken this into the absurd and out of the realm of truth seeking.

 

[shagdrum]

Oh, and BTW, there is no equivalence in "looking to infuse christian values into America" and social justice. "looking to infuse christian values into America" is not, in and of itself, a value or a goal, let alone an overriding goal running through all conservative thought.

In fact, using "looking to infuse christian values into America" as the conservative counterpart to social justice is an act of desperation.

While some strains of conservative thought (paleoconservatism) do look to "infuse christian values into America", most are simply recognizing the role that Christianity has played in our past and don't want to lose the traditional social institutions derived from Christian ethics that have long benefited our society; to protect what works because once it is lost, many of those institutions are hard to get back.

Weather or not you agree with that view is beside the point. What matters is that it is not an attempt to recognize some unrealized (or unrealizable) "ideal" which is the goal of every ideology. It it WHY an ideology is an ideology; that "ideal". Conservatism does not seek any "ideal". Anyone looking to ascribe an "ideal" to conservatism simply demonstrates a profound ignorance of conservative thought. Citing, "looking to infuse christian values into America" as a value/goal also shows a profound ignorance of conservative thought.

In essence, Foxy, what you are attempting to do is manufacture an equivalence between "the Left" and your gross misunderstanding of conservative thought. Attempts to point out the flaws in your conception of conservative thought are treated as self-evidently invalid and disingenuous instead of a legitimate point to be reflected on and considered on it's merits. That implicit assumption on your part is very telling. Which brings us back to the topic of the political spectrum being defined by the Left.

The left has long controlled the "tools of propaganda" which gives them the means to define "the Right" on their terms.

The left is also highly dismissive of conservative thought, even developing elaborate narratives to justify their view that conservative thought is "invalid" and not worth considering. Since they have long dominated academia, news media, the inside-the-beltway social scene and the entertainment industry, they have not had to seriously confront conservative thought, leading a false and simplistic understanding of conservative thought, consistent with those dismissive narratives and assuming the same ideological framework (goals/means structure) as Leftist thought. This is why the modern political spectrum is defined by the Left in the manner it is; with a crude, simplistic, false and overly broad categorization of all non Leftist thought as "the Right".

It is interesting to note that conservatives (and libertarians) have had to play on Leftist terms in academia, Washington and the media for generations. Combine this with the fact that the formal education of modern conservatives was in leftist dominated institutions and that most conservatives were Leftists earlier in life (for instance, Thomas Sowell was an avowed Marxist when he was getting his higher education) and it is not hard to see how this has lead to a strong understanding of Leftist thought both in theory and in practice. Another result has been a sharpening of conservative arguments and positions to counter leftist positions and to overcome a lot of the misconceptions of conservatism inherent in Leftist thought (and spread through those "tools of propaganda").

 

[04SCTLS]

Oh, and BTW, there is no equivalence in "looking to infuse christian values into America" and social justice. "looking to infuse christian values into America" is not, in and of itself, a value or a goal, let alone an overriding goal running through all conservative thought.

In fact, using "looking to infuse christian values into America" as the conservative counterpart to social justice is an act of desperation.

While some strains of conservative thought (paleoconservatism) do look to "infuse christian values into America", most are simply recognizing the role that Christianity has played in our past and don't want to lose the traditional social institutions derived from Christian ethics that have long benefited our society; to protect what works because once it is lost, many of those institutions are hard to get back.

Weather or not you agree with that view is beside the point. What matters is that it is not an attempt to recognize some unrealized (or unrealizable) "ideal" which is the goal of every ideology. It it WHY an ideology is an ideology; that "ideal". Conservatism does not seek any "ideal". Anyone looking to ascribe an "ideal" to conservatism simply demonstrates a profound ignorance of conservative thought. Citing, "looking to infuse christian values into America" as a value/goal also shows a profound ignorance of conservative thought.

In essence, Foxy, what you are attempting to do is manufacture an equivalence between "the Left" and your gross misunderstanding of conservative thought.

The fact that you won't take the time to educate yourself and question your own demonstratively ignorant perceptions of conservative thought is very telling. Instead, you are focusing on spinning and distorting the truth to fit your own misconceptions. Which brings us back to the topic of the political spectrum being defined by the Left.

The left has long controlled the "tools of propaganda" which gives them the means to define "the Right" on their terms.

The left is also highly dismissive of conservative thought, even developing elaborate narratives to justify their view that conservative thought is "invalid" and not worth considering. Since they have long dominated academia, news media, the inside-the-beltway social scene and the entertainment industry, they have not had to seriously confront conservative thought, leading a false and simplistic understanding of conservative thought, consistent with those dismissive narratives. This is why the modern political spectrum is defined the left in the manner it is; with a crude, simplistic, false and overly broad categorization of all non Leftist thought as "the Right".

It is interesting to note that conservatives (and libertarians) have had to play on Leftist terms in academia, Washington and the media for generations. Combine this with the fact that the formal education of modern conservatives was in leftist dominated institutions and that most conservatives were Leftists earlier in life (for instance, Thomas Sowell was an avowed Marxist when he was getting his higher education) and it is not hard to see how this has lead to a strong understanding of Leftist thought both in theory and in practice. Another result has been a sharpening of conservative arguments and positions to counter leftist positions and to overcome a lot of the misconceptions of conservatism inherent in Leftist thought (and spread through those "tools of propaganda").

Losing at the propaganda game sucks no matter how you expliain it.
Since according to you conservatism is an accumulation of what has worked in the past politically and is based on sound judgement then how is it possible to have any new "thought" amongst conservatives towards the future.