This evening I watched the HBO Documentary: Right America: Feeling Wronged: Some Voices from the Campaign Trail.
I am sitting here wondering why I bothered. Why would I in any way expect a fair treatment of conservatism from TIME WARNER and HBO? I guess I am a little naive and still expect better from the American media, but as I posted on the HBO thread:
"I have not seen such a political hack job or heavy handed and clumsy piece of sheer propaganda since Joseph Goebbels was the Minister of Public Enlightenment. Alexandra Pelosi (yes, daughter of that Pelosi), managed to stitch together a quilt of interviews casting the Republican Party and Conservative movement in the worst possible light by focusing on the extreme fringe and portraying it as mainstream."
Intercut with scenes of John McCain's "Straight Talk Express" campaign bus was the longest string of racists, xenophobes, bigots, and ignoramuses I have ever seen, put together in what was portrayed as a "legitimate" documentary on the dissatisfaction of the right. I am left wondering how such a piece of freshman (high school, not college) journalistic trash gets prime time airing on a major media outlet. Oh! Mom is Speaker of the House... explains a lot, that and the liberal media is obviously getting bold and limber enough to fellate themselves publicly.
Pelosi managed to define conservatism and the Republican Party (in 45 minutes, no less) as no more than poor white trailer trash, spouting the N-Word, calling Obama a Muslim, a terrorist, the Anti-Christ, and a socialist. Although the Einstein who did that was unable to define the term, but he did offer to look it up on his palm pilot. It is propaganda plain and simple, albeit anything but subtle, the likes of which haven't been seen outside of Venezuela since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
It is this kind of yellow journalistic trash that leaves those on the right with the nasty aftertaste of media bias long after the credits have run, ironically from a documentary purported to represent "a snapshot of some of the most enthusiastic conservative Americans". Yet comes off so heavy handed that even the Washington Post described it as "'Right America': Filmmaker Uses A Distorting Lens". You know you're in trouble when the liberal media starts distancing itself from your methods.
I have this to say to Alexandra Pelosi: If your attempt was to denigrate, mock, humiliate, and portray the Republican party as a bunch of uneducated redneck racist losers, you have succeeded only in the extent that people believe that your 'film' is representative of conservative America.
If your attempt was to document the legitimate political disagreement between conservative and liberal America, you have failed miserably. This propaganda piece that you have crafted is unworthy of the Freedom of the Press that so many have lain down their lives in the defense of. It is petty, small, divisive and more worthy of a third-world banana republic despot than a great American political party. Sure you'll receive your accolades from the vapid members of the left, but then you already have those, I for one hope that HBO airs your documentary over and over, for anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see it for what it is, a heavy-handed and clumsy propaganda film that will leave a sour taste in the mouth of any but the most blind populist fools.
In my mind you've certainly earned the accolade and title of: Minister of Public Enlightenment.
~Finntann~
46 comments:
We have a TV movie. You have Fox News. Liberal media my arse.
Stay in Canada and personally I would like to see that program. How the liberals use fear mongering against republican conservative. Then maybe they will join the independent movement. Telling there are good folk in each party but then there is crap too. Is Black hertiage month politically correct? Hispanic Heritage monthy politically correct? I would like see a program What Americans did for the Earth? "NOT FREAKEN CANADA" Redneck ron
TV movie?
Okay, we got Fox News. That's what...one?
So... given the 2008 election results as an indiction of the division of political parties, the liberals should have what 52% of the stations... let's see...
ABC,NBC,CBS,PBS,CNN,MSNBC...need I go on?
Personally I prefer my news unbiased... a simple reporting of facts. I don't need some ditzy talking head liberal or conservative, telling me what my opinion should be... or explaining the ten minute speech I just listened too, for the next fifty minutes.
Like it or not, American media is liberal owned and liberal biased. The liberals whine about the "Fairness Doctrine", because in talk radio conservatives dominate in airtime, because conservatives dominate in ratings. Which explains a lot why Fox News does so well ratings-wise. Meanwhile they air trash like Pelosi's propaganda film unabashedly. Face it, the liberal press has a monopoly on TV... there really is no other choice other than Fox, and none if you don't subscribe to satellite or cable. I used to watch the evening national news shows... I don't anymore, their loss, not mine.
I think if they do manage to bring back the fairness doctrine it's going to bite them in their proverbial "arse". In the meantime, I get my news from a variety of sources, CBC included.
I think there needs to be alot of folk that needs to be bit in the ass and not ARSE. Occasionally myself!!!!
I think that most people who watch and read the news with an education tend to be liberal.
It's not obvious to me that the CNN reporters are giving a biased reportage of the evening news. Cooper might be a liberal, but it's hard to tell from the way he reports the news.
O'Reilly is clearly a conservative, and yet he constantly tells people the station and his show are fair and balanced.
When CNN gave the election results they had both con. and dem. strategists and pundits give their take on it.
It's not lcear to me that any of the stations you mention have a strong bias one way or another.
That individual reporters tend to be liberal does not mean they will report the news with that same bias.
That Couric was tougher on Palin than she was with Biden... or any of that sort of speculative bs is not bias.
If Pelosis granddaughter does a documentary about republicans, at least it's obvious that there is a bias.
I haven't seen it, but I have to doubt that it was as blatantly biased as you say it was.
I might have not graduated grade school but been around long enoungh that your association with education level and liberalism msut bbe soem canadian BS again. stay in canada
It's not obvious to me that the CNN reporters are giving a biased reportage of the evening news. Cooper might be a liberal, but it's hard to tell from the way he reports the news.
O'Reilly is clearly a conservative, and yet he constantly tells people the station and his show are fair and balanced.
CP: I agree with your media assessment. I thing Anderson is a closet conservative. I also think O'Reilly is a solid conservative.
Even though Redneck Ron's last hurrah was on the Hee Haw set, he still can cut through the BS!
I will. I'm in a part of Canada where when my friends were caught hot-boxing their car the police officer gave them a warning and confiscated their bongs.
I live in one of the most exciting parts of Canada, with great beaches (some nude e.g. Kits) and amazing mountains like Whistler and Cypress.
Aside from that it is not impossible to get into politics unless you were in the military, have a political lineage or have a shit load of money.
I'm okay with staying in Canada Ron.
Also, although some guys marry other guys here, no guys marry their cousins (or sisters!). I'm fine up here.
Yah, conservatives aren't having trouble finding great intellectuals anymore. O'Reilly is brilliant. How many honourary Phd's does Limbaugh have again.
Buckley was your first and last. Emerson, Dewey, Whitman, Melville, Chomsky, Rawls, Rorty, Vidal, Nozick, etc...
This is one where I honestly don't think you can come up with any significant intellectuals to match up with those above.
You sound like a evil spawned seed of liberal of Carville...
It's funny that you perceive absolutely no bias in American media, since the majority of Americans perceive it, and it is the subject of many university studies, as well as the efforts of many independent watch-dog groups.
Don't be so damn trite, the fact that you can only rattle off Buckley's name proves only your own ignorance, not a lack of intellectual conservatives.
Try: Friedrich Hayek, Gunnar Myrdal, Milton Friedman, Russell Kirk, Frank Meyer (and here's one for you... he started out as a communist), Edwin Feulner, Ludwig von Mises, Irving Kristol, Thomas Sowell.
Hey, imagine that... a significant portion of what are considered famous conservatives hold PhDs in Economics, and quite a few of them are nobel prize winners. Firm enough academic credentials for you? Granted, not all of them are Americans...but that should appeal to your international sensibility, shouldn't it? Nothing against Buckley, but is that the best name you could come up with? Or only the most familiar? He doesn't have the academic credentials to hold most of the above guys hats.
Lets look at your list:
Ralph Waldo Emerson: Essayist, Poet
Dewey? Would that be Davis Dewey or John Dewey? Or perhaps the Dewey of Huey and Louie fame?
Whitman, I presume Walt: Poet, love the bridge, can take or leave the poetry... and my don't you have a fondness for transcendentalists.
Noam Chomsky: Linguist, well he can certainly parse a sentence even if the content leaves much to be desired.
Lou Rawls...great blues... Oh you meant John Rawls. Theory of Justice: good ideals, horrible execution. Would have fit in fairly well with the founding fathers in his early days, kind of went downhill with "The Law of Peoples". Too much the idealist in a harsh cold world.
Richard Rorty, started out well and got lazy and all postanalytical on us.
Gore Vidal? Novelist, Playwright... interesting name to add to your list.
Robert Nozick. I'd have added him to my list if you hadn't stole him first. He's a libertarian not a liberal (yes, they are not the same). Read Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Strange you added him here since he is basically a challenger to Rawls. Hmmmm, redistribution of goods only on condition of consent... I wonder if Obama's read this guy.
Here is what we have: A list of economists as bastions of conservative thought, and a list of philosophers and authors as the bastion of liberal thought. Hmmmm! Interesting, so who from an academic standpoint is more firmly grounded in reality, and who is oh, so the utopian idealist.
Want utopia? start a friggin commune, you don't experiment on functioning nation-states, cause when your little philosophical experiment fails your left with double digit unemployment and inflation vis a vis the Carter years.
Oh... and while I have the greatest respect for O'Reilly, he is a political commentator and while his academic credentials extend from Marist College, to the University of London, to Harvard's Kennedy School of Government... he's more of a regurgitator than a groundbreaker. While Rush Limbaugh is nothing more than a shock jock. I seriously doubt you will find intellectual conservatives holding either of them up as principle contributors to the conservative school of thought.
Cheers!
~Finntann!
I meant John Dewey, I seriously disagree with you on Rorty.
Emerson was an essayist but to say that he wasn't one of the greatest American philosophers off all time would be out of order. He wrotes essays on everything. Politics included.
Vidal is a writer, but he also ran for congress.
Rawls is one of the few academics whose work actually has been applied directly to the real world. The idea of justice as fairness and the veil of ignorance are what law-makers use to make and revise laws nowadays.
As for the conservatives you mentioned, I haven't heard of any of them, and that's problably because only people like you regard them as great intellectuals. That is, merely because they agree with you on.
Sorry, Friedman I know for his "Capitalism and Freedom".
Actually it's not even clear that he was a conservative. He started off as a Keynesian. He changed what it meant to be a Ketnesian, but I hardly think he was a conservative.
Also, he only wrote about economics.
"Also, he only wrote about economics."
you talk too much for your own good. you might be able to google a list of books he wrote, but you clearly know very little about milton friedman, or really any of the "conservatives" listed here. friedman certainly wrote much about economics (he was, after all, an economist). however, what he preached, always and everywhere, was freedom.
it's great that google told you that friedman wrote capitalism and freedom. have you bothered to read it? of course not. socialists like you don't need to expose yourselves to alternate theories. you already KNOW you're right. you write off the other side as stupid. that closed-minded thought process tells us everything we need to know about you.
since you can't seem to find any great conservative minds, please, tell me who the great liberal minds of today are. or are you still worshiping marx and lenin?
Only people like me regard them as great intellectuals...
YEAH...ME AND THE NOBEL PRIZE COMMITTE.
Let me explain something to you... because you know nothing about a subject or a person has nothing to do with it's value or contributions. Because I know absolutely nothing about Prescott, Arizona doesn't mean it's not a good place to live.
Your arrogance is astounding.
Perhaps if you learned something about these folks you might find your perspective and understanding of government changed.
Nobel prizes are for intellectual works that influenced the lives of great numbers of people in a positive manner.
Having good political sense has very little to do with many of the prizes.
Paul Krugman won a nobel prize recently. Notice I didn't mention him. Why? He's an economist!
I also wouldn't mention Marx or Lenin because they're strictly economists as well and I especially wouldn't mention them because their idea of having governments control capital didn't quite pan out as they would have liked it to.
I have read "Capitalism and Freedom" (so?); and I understand perfectly well how the two go hand in hand, but neither are eternal laws or truths in my book.
The reason I mentioned Dewey is because although he was an educational theorist and philosopher he was also active politically and was a revolutionary (in a sense) having gotten people excited about pragmatic thought back in his day.
Same goes for the essayist like Vidal, a linguist like Chomsky, and a poet/essayists like Emerson and Whitman.
Yes, these people are not interested strictly in politics, but they're interested in more than accumulating wealth and studying how nations/individuals should/do go about doing so.
The people I mentioned are all basically famous (intellectually speaking that is). Not just among small groups of people, but they have changed how many people think about politics. The people you mentioned only influenced people who are first interested in money and when they have time like to dabble in politics.
Notice that I categorize Marx, Lenin and Krugman the same way. Governments have economist to figure out how policies will effect the economy. A politically minded citizen and certainly a politically minded intellectual should have a more broad interest and intent in writing/speaking about politics.
That's just what I think. I could be wrong (how's that for arrogant).
Not to say that economist should be dismissed outright when they give their political opinions, but if they are to be taken seriously they shouldn't take economics as the most important part of politics.
The same goes for sociologists, psychologists, etc...
In my opinion Richard Rorty is the most important political thinker for people (especially Americans) to read.
"Achieving Our Country", is a book where a lot of people think Obama gets his ideas about bipartisanship in order to secure long-term politcal success (in terms of passing policies/legislation that is at least close to what you'd have in mind) and (to the extent that it exists with Obama) his innovative political experimentation.
The only strictly American political philosophy is really just pragmatist. It's hard to believe that hardcore Americans like you guys wouldn't know a thing about it.
Also, I've already admitted that I don't know much about economics. All I know about economics is that most people can't live very well on $6.50/hour.
The idea that the minimum wage CANNOT be raised or that the government can't spend money on different projects during rough times just seems idiotic.
Again, that's ust my impression of it. I'm not an economist. You guys could be right.
Your sort of absolutist tone only suggests that as with most other absolutes, you're problably wrong.
Politicians use Rawles' Veil of Ignorance to write and revise laws? Maybe in Canada.
Here is the US, with our lawmakers, it's more like the Vale of Ignorance.
Before you go and try turning this around on me and accusing me of being an absolutist:
You made the absurd assertation that William F Buckley was the first and last intellectual conservative as well as: "I honestly don't think you can come up with any significant intellectuals to match up with those above."
Which in addition to being a veiled insult, is a completely absolute and arrogant claim.
The philosophy we espouse, while we are called conservatives in this country, is that of classical liberalism and libertarianism. We believe that the less government there is, the better. While compassionate towards those unable to work, or those experiencing transient employment problems, we do not believe that we are morally obligated to:
Provide free medical care to those who sneak across our borders to enjoy the freedoms and opportunities of this great country we have created.
Provide food, shelter, medical care, etc. to those to fat, dumb, or lazy to provide for themselves.
You want to gang-bang around while you are supposed to be applying yourself towards the free education this country offers and then drop out of school at first opportunity. Don't come crying to me that the only thing you are qualified for is flipping burgers. Go crying you your parents that you are a f-up and they should have done more in raising you.
Nor should we need to provide subsidys and free care to those stupid enough to have 14 children.
We certainly shouldn't have our monies taken from us to subsidize a mismanaged multi-billion dollar multi-national corporation that has painted themselves into a corner with shitty products and bad union deals.
I should not be taxed to bail out mismanaged socialist experiment states, when I and the fellow citizens of my state do not believe in such crap, do not tolerate such crap from our elected officials, and if they try it...we elect them out of office. California's fiscal woes are none of my concern... if the fine citizens of California do not like being broke... stop electing the idiots who spend more than they take in in the name of liberal causes.
And since I have much more to say, look for a post on this very subject.
Saying that I don't think there will be any great intellectual conservatives is not absolutist. If I stated for a matter of fact "WFB was the first and last intellectual-conservative ever was, ever will be", that would be absolutist.
Stating that the government should never help corporations and other entities, groups, individuals who bear fault in their economic hardship is absolutist.
I agree with you, as long as the corp. is not the biggest employer in the country and so long as the stupid poor people don't have access to guns, and don't know how to rob their corner store.
Utilitarian is not how I would lke the way I live to be described. If all we were after was happiness, we'd be better off dead.
But when it comes to politics, not looking at the consequences of firm stances on issues that are highly contentious seems completely haphazard.
People on this blog have described gov't money as stupid money. It almost seems as if they would like that to be true whether it is or it isn't in each case, but aside from that, they don't even seem open to the possibility that during certain times in certain places, etc... the gov't is better at spending money than the CEO of a major corp.
That's absolutist. Also, Christianity is an absolutist religion. Stealing is wrong; whether Robin Hood or Al Capone. If calling you an absolutist is insulting than perhaps you should subscribe to a religion that is not absolutist (or none at all and be allowed to think for yourself completely).
The 364,000 people working for GM and Chrysler are not my responsibility. Neither is the idiot out in California who had 6 kids on welfare, got the government to fork over 100K in fertility treatements and now has 14 kids and no way to pay for them. Sure, maybe she'll get lucky and get a studio deal for a movie of the week, more likely the rest of us will get stuck footing her bill.
Who equated Robin Hood with Al Capone? Certainly not Christianity, that is your own little self-delusion. What? It's thou shall not rob from the rich and give to the poor? You have a remarkable tendancy to oversimplify things and make cute little canned statements out of them as if they were gospel truth.
I am a conservative and a libertarian, which means everyone ought to have the freedom to do what they want in life... they make bad choices, well...they pay for them, not me, not you. You seem like a fairly bright, hard working person from your personal page on this site... why do you feel obligated to pay for some schmuck who cut classes, dropped out of school, got high, and now can't find any better job other than flipping burgers at McDonalds? Or even better, why do you think you should be able to force me to pay for him too?
The difference is you seem to think that the great majority of unfortunates out there have been put down there by society. Me, I see the penniless legal immigrant who comes to this country and works his way to the top and wonder why all the other government teat-sucking a-holes can't do the same.
I have plenty of compassion... I'll give you all the opportunity you can use to make something of yourself... but understand this: It ain't my responsibility to make something of you.
You work for GM, managed to strike your way into making $5 more an hour than the good folks over at Toyota America... produce a shitty product nobody wants and then whine when your company folds? Tough SHIT! Ain't my responsibility. Take a pay cut, work harder...adapt. The average GM union wage earner makes $40 an hour in pay and $40 an hour in benefits... they are not some great oppressed unwashed underclass, for god's sake they make more in total comp than I do...and you want to take more of my money in taxes to bail them out?
It's some really sick and twisted form of socialism you advocate. All the libs are doing is buying votes by tossing around handfuls of money...and they expect us to pick up the tab. I have far more respect for the illegal alien who comes to this country and works his ass off than some dumb liberal schmuck sitting on his fat ass on the dole and whining for more handouts.
I started with nothing, have given much to this country and taken nothing that I have not earned. I have no respect for those that whine for handouts from the government, because there really is no such thing as the government, it doesn't produce, it takes... it is the collective we, and outside of basic services and the freedom and opportunity to succeed, the 'we' are not responsible for the 'me's of this world.
The major problem with this country today is too many people have a sense of entitlement and their hands out.
*voklabrook??? I don't know how to spell it but it's a wealthy suburb a few hours from salzburg.
This is a purely pragmatic matter for me. If enough people start giving to charities to help poor people out than I wouldn't be for social-democratic policies.
It's just not happenning. CEOs are buying Yachts in the french riviera before they start funding research to find a cure for cancer, and well before they retire and work in their local urban soup kitchen.
So, don't call me nieve or idealistic because I 'beleive' in gov't. Call me a pragmatist because I don't take that shit seriously. I just want to get things done.
And it's not that I BELIEVE in gov't, it's that I certainly don't believe you convinced your wife not to get a diamond ring so that africans could save their limbs.
Despite the fact that there are hundreds of other beautiful gems and jewels to choose for Americans seem to need to know that their purchases helped slay innocent poor people in foreign lands.
Sorry, I should cut this short. I don't believe in gov'ts, but I believe even less in people and corporations.
Three points.
1. I never said I was the ideal Christian.
2. I'll use the Catholic Church, since you cite that. The church does believe in "just war". The actions of Robin Hood can be interpreted in just that context, he was at war with the unjust Sheriff, who also in the book was essentialy at war against the king. He seized properly, unlawfully seized, and returned it to it's owners.
3. There has to be some point at which government is considered "too much government". I too lived in Europe for a little while, and do not want to see my country wind up in the same position, where between all the income, service and VAT taxes the average citizen pays anywhere between 40 and 60 percent of his income to the government in taxes.
I also do not have any faith at all, in the American Democratic Party being able to achieve anywhere near the efficiancy of European Governments.
"Also, I've already admitted that I don't know much about economics."
well, here's some advice for you then: either learn something about it, or stfu about it.
1. Fine.
2. I guess... listen if the church and its adherents were to all shimmy their way around scripture and live decent lives with mutual respect to people of other cultural/religious beliefs and practices so long as they do not infringe upon their own, that's fine.
What I don't understand is how a people who believe in free will would want the gov't to not allow women to CHOOSE to have abortions, and not allow gays to CHOOSE to have those sorts of relationships.
3. I would pay 90% of my income to taxes if I could easily shuttle down to any place with transit, had health care, knew that everyone less fortunate than me was treated decently, etc... That's just me.
That the dems in America aren't able to achieve something like they have in Germany or France is not a hit on pragmatic political thinking.
Are you saying that if better social-democrats get elected you'd be okay with that?
I don't say anything about how economic policies will pan-out. I just think that it's a matter of deceny to pay people who work for you more than 6 dollars an hour and I have to imagine that since much higher min-wages are accomodaed in so many other countries they should also be able to work in the US.
The antiabortion position is thus: Thou Shall Not Murder. Murder is the unjust taking of a life. A fetus is a life. Abortion unjustly takes the life of a fetus, therefore abortion is murder. And don't start with the life of the mother crap. I've talked to doctors on this one, and early ectopic pregnancy is about the only out in this situation.
Gay people? They're free to do what they want. Just don't call it marriage. Marriage has never been between two people of the same sex in any culture.
Homosexuality has always been around, but only now has anyone thought themselves above the wisdom of the ages to reorder society based upon their own personal feelings.
This is what happens when we stop teaching classic humanities and liberal arts.
The problem is, that government has never been proven effective at providing anything, they are the modicum of inefficiency. The government has absolutely no motivation to do things as cheaply and efficiently as possible, in fact they create the most cumbersome buracracies to exectute the simplest of plans. Sometimes, I think if we just took all the money we spend on social programs, fired all the bureaucrats, picked a wage level, and divied up the money between everyone who fell beneath that level, we, and they, would be a hell of a lot better off.
The American government is in many ways a lot like the American car companies; fat, bloated, inefficient, offering a shitty product for an outrageous price, and four or five years later it ain't worth squat.
What you don't seem to understand is that decreasing the size and consumption of government IS ECONOMIC STIMULUS. The difference is that everyone benefits, not just the select few picked out by congress to bestow benefits upon. It is ridiculous to think that it is better to have the government suck up money and then turn around and hand it back out, then it is not to suck it up in the first place.
American politics, and this includes both Democrats and Republicans, is way too corrupt, the only difference is who they are beholden to. What you don't seem to understand is that we don't want BIG spending Republican government any more than BIG spending Democratic government.
Many of us conservatives view the Republican party not as the ideal, but as the lesser of two evils. As Ronald Reagan said "At the heart of every Conservative is a Libertarian". The problem is the Libertarian party has a whopping 250,000 members and doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of accomplishing much of anything. If it were more viable, I'd probably be a Libertarian... might become one yet.
Finntann:
"The problem is, that government has never been proven effective at providing anything..."
How can I respond to such generic statements. You're not addressing my arguments at all here.
Putting money in the hands of people won't get them spending in hard economic times. They'll save it, and the economy will continue to sour.
"American politics, and this includes both Democrats and Republicans, is way too corrupt..."
And corporations are beacons of purity, justice and charity right?
I feel like I'm having the same argument with you every time. You're convinced despite evidence to the contrary that gov't is worse than private enterprise.
Silverfiddle:
You think abortion is murder, Silverfiddle. Even if you think in the rare case of rape, incest, likely fetal alcohol syndrome, mother could die, etc... that is you admitting that this is a more complicated moral matter than the legislature can blanket out complete prohibition against. And, next time, talk to biomedical ethicists, not MDs.
There are societies where gay people marry. Not many, but there are tribal societies where that happens. I can't remember their name, but there is one tribe in western africa. I could check my old anthropology textbook for the exact name of the tribe.
Aside from which, just because something has not happened in the past does not mean that it should not happen in the future.
It's really not about marriage. Of course they can live with eachother anyways. It's about... FUCK YOU. That's what they want to say to you with this.
They want everything you have and a bag of chips. Don't like it? Obviously...
The humanities program at Simon Fraser University (in Burnaby, BC) teaches Machiavelli, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Boethius, Aurelius, Homer, Primo Levi, Aeschylus, Augustine, etc...
I don't know how that would make people not want to progress and change the way they think about minority groups like gay people.
You always seem to want to go back to the good old days Silverfiddle. I used to say that you're the same type of person who would have defended slavery, and you're not giving much reason to think I'm wrong aside from asking me not to say those things about you.
The arguments you're giving against gay marriage are similar to arguments given against freeing slaves. They jst are...
Do you wantme to lie and tell you that despite our minor disagreements I think you're a well-minded good intentioned person?
I don't. I think you're a peddaler of ideological slop, and feed it out to unsuspecting saps who haven't got their grade eight. And I wouldn't mind so much if you weren't against giving rights to women and gays, or if you weren't against people getting paid fair wages.
I mean, ending slavery was bad for the economy. Raising the min. wage will be as well, and so will extending Unemployment Insurance. That these things cannot be accomplished just like the things people used to think couldn't be accomplished is far-fetched.
It's more likely that people 100 years from now will find it hard to believe workers got paid 6$ an hour, or that they had to work for welfare, etc...
Idealists may be unrealistic and they may shoot too high, but at least they're shooting for something. You guys just want things to go back to the way they were 200 years ago.
It doesn't seem like you want the gov't to be able to make temporary jobs to get people back on their feet, or to supply temporary relief to those who lost their jobs ,etc... Sure a lot of lazy, twits are going to benefit as well, but it'll most liekly be mostly people who need the support so that they can ween themselves off the support.
Ah yes. Your ideological slop is so much better than mine because you dress yours up with quotes from Heidigger and Nietzsche.
"It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them!"
-- Fred Nietzsche
canadian socialist:
why are you so worried about making sure the "lazy twits" are taken care of? self preservation perhaps???
Silverfiddle: Perhaps you don't see the relevance of a quote like that coming from a scholar who tranlates ancient greek/latin works, but I do.
And, my slop is not ideological.
Russell: I'm not worried about the lazies twits, but realize that there is no good way to take care of the truly needy and helpless without also assisting a couple of them along the way.
The system isn't perfect, but it's better than the wild-wild-west.
"The system isn't perfect, but it's better than the wild-wild-west."
the concept of the wild-wild west must scare the crap out of socialists like you...who are afraid a life without the nanny state, and depend on the heavy hand of govt to make sure they have a minimum wage job and access to affordable food.
I believe that for democracy to work people have to vote in the inerest of their country at large and not their own personal interests.
Rousseau didn't have a market democracy in mind. I'm not worried about not having food, but my not buying a bigger car is much less beneficial to Canada (or America) at large than someone else not being about eat nutritious food.
I'm not personally afraid of not being able to live off of 6$ an hour. I just don't think we've (Canada or the US) been in such bad times the last little while to not have been able to afford paying the poorest workers, working the least fulfilling and most arduous jobs a wage they can live some sort of life on.
If I was for socialism I'd want there to be no min-wage. That would problably make Marx's prophecy come true. I don't want that to happen so I'm for taking care of workers, at least within our borders, to the extent that prosperous nations can.
I actually think I'm less pro-socialism than any of you. In fact, I'd do almost anything to avoid socialism.
you contradict yourself at nearly every turn. every desire of yours is socialistic in nature...but you claim you're less pro-socialism than anyone else posting here. i'm beginning to think you're just a lunatic.
can you tell me how opposing a minimum wage is pro-socialism (and i guess anti-freemarket)?
by the way...you said you've read capitalism and freedom. really? i don't believe you. i don't believe you sat down and read a 200 page book about capitalism and freedom, two ideas that are antithetical to your entire belief system.
This was an excellent review and spot on with my thoughts. I live in Chicago and have a ton of liberal friends. We have great conversations, and there is great mutual respect.
More and more, they will concede (unlike this "Canadian Pramatist") that there is clearly a heavy bias against the Right. Things like this and the Obama coverage overall often portray people in the media that are simply shameless or clueless (or a combination platter). Embarrassment is conspicuously absent.
The day will come when anyone that followed the "politically correct" line will be flat out embarrassed in retrospect. But not before a decent amount of damage is done to their own societies.
For those of you that want to see the documentary, I found a streaming version here http://www.documentary-log.com/watch-online-d/286/right-america-feeling-wronged/
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.