PDA

View Full Version : Liberalism: Boogeyman to the Right


Rohirrim
10-09-2013, 03:45 PM
If you're going to attack a boogeyman, you should at least know what you're talking about. Here's a good write up:
http://www.princeton.edu/~starr/articles/articles07/Starr.WhyLiberalismWorks.pdf

Liberalism is notoriously difficult to define. the term
has been used to describe a sprawling profusion of ideas, practices,
movements, and parties in different societies and historical
periods. Often emerging as a philosophy of opposition,
whether to feudal privilege, absolute monarchy, colonialism,
theocracy, communism, or fascism, liberalism has served, as
the word suggests, as a force for liberation, or at least liberalization—
for the opening up of channels of free initiative.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Modern democratic liberalism developed out of the more
egalitarian aspects of the tradition and serves as the basis of
contemporary liberal politics. The relationship between liberalism
in these two phases has been predominantly cumulative: While rejecting laissez-faire economic policy, modern liberalism
continues to take the broader tradition of constitutional
liberalism as its foundation. That is why it is possible to speak
not only of the two separately but also of an overarching set of
ideas that unites them.

-------------------------------------------------------------

In describing these changes, I do not mean to suggest that
liberals from the start had a clearly developed theory guiding
reforms, much less all the right answers. Rather than formulating
policy from speculative axioms, reformers beginning in
the mid-19th century increasingly devoted themselves to the
gathering and analysis of socioeconomic data. In America, the measures adopted during the Progressive era, New Deal, and
Great Society were often ad hoc and experimental, and many
failed. But partly through better knowledge, partly by trial and
error, liberal governments discovered that certain forms of limited
state intervention could help bring the promise of a free
and just society closer to fulfillment while reducing the waste
of human and physical resources and improving economic
performance. Modern liberalism has never been ruled by a
theory in the way that free-market conservatism and Marxian
socialism have been. A pragmatic emphasis on experience and
evidence—on how things work in practice—has been critical in
making liberalism work.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Conservatives and liberals have also responded differently
to a phenomenon that did not exist in the 18th century when
constitutional liberalism took shape: the modern corporation.
While conservatives have treated private corporations as
analogous to individuals and deserving of the same liberties,
liberals have regarded corporations as a phenomenon of power,
needing control like government itself.
The discipline of power that constitutional
liberalism imposes upon the state modern
liberalism attempts to impose on the corporation,
albeit not in the same way.

-----------------------------------------------------------------


Against all these reasons for redistribution, the liberal project
has to weigh other values. Liberalism is egalitarian in the sense
that it seeks to achieve a more equal distribution of income and
well-being than would otherwise be generated in the marketplace.
But it is not committed to achieving a perfect equality in the distribution
of goods. Equity requires that those who work harder,
take greater risks, or develop their talents to a higher degree be
able to recoup a return from their efforts. This incentive is critical
to innovation and prosperity, which redound to wider benefit.
Liberalism regards the well-being of the least well-off as a central
criterion for a just society, and it seeks to provide individuals with
some degree of protection against risks beyond their control; but
it accepts inequalities insofar as they are to everyone’s long-run
advantage, and therefore aims for sustainable growth with widely
shared gains. The pragmatic disposition of liberalism also implies
that policies cannot be derived from moral principles alone, without
regard to empirical realities. Experience shows that governments
can bring about some results more readily than others.


--------------------------------------------------------------

Shrewd as they were in achieving political power, the
Republicans of the Bush era have shown little of that genius
in using it. A conservatism that does not want to hear about
inequality or the sinking fortunes of the middle class, or about
dangers to the global environment, or about unsustainable
fiscal policies, or about gaping flaws in plans for war, may prevail
in the short run, but the realities will sooner or later make
themselves felt, as they did in 2006. A great nation cannot long
be governed by wishful and simplistic thinking, denial, obfuscation,
and deceit. Costs mount, grievances accumulate, and
there comes a reckoning.

And so on...



We've had thirty years of conservatism. Look around. See the smoking ruin?

BroncoBeavis
10-09-2013, 03:49 PM
Really you guys should abandon the word "Liberal" so it can have its good name back.

Maybe something more apt like "Fairitans" or something. :)

Rohirrim
10-09-2013, 03:49 PM
Really you guys should abandon the word "Liberal" so it can have its good name back.

Maybe something more apt like "Fairitans" or something. :)

In other words, "Didn't read. Will post anyway."

BroncoBeavis
10-09-2013, 03:54 PM
In other words, "Didn't read. Will post anyway."

I read it. Pretty consistent with wishful stuff I've read before.

In reality, the only thing today's "liberals" have in common with the classical liberals of the nation's founding is the use of that word.

But they stood for individual liberty in the face of royal privilege.

The modern liberal stands for ethereal equality and fairness even if at the expense of individual liberty. Which is why they should relinquish the word. They defy it.

Rohirrim
10-09-2013, 04:40 PM
I read it. Pretty consistent with wishful stuff I've read before.

In reality, the only thing today's "liberals" have in common with the classical liberals of the nation's founding is the use of that word.

But they stood for individual liberty in the face of royal privilege.

The modern liberal stands for ethereal equality and fairness even if at the expense of individual liberty. Which is why they should relinquish the word. They defy it.

You didn't read it all, or as usual, read it but didn't understand any of it. As the writer pointed out, classical liberalism didn't concern itself with inequality. For modern liberalism, that became a fundamental principle. And certainly not "...at the expense of individual liberty" which is just another Right Wing lie.

Requiem
10-09-2013, 04:42 PM
BBIIFTL.

BroncoBeavis
10-09-2013, 07:13 PM
You didn't read it all, or as usual, read it but didn't understand any of it. As the writer pointed out, classical liberalism didn't concern itself with inequality. For modern liberalism, that became a fundamental principle. And certainly not "...at the expense of individual liberty" which is just another Right Wing lie.

You're failing to connect the dots here.

Equality is not Liberty. At times they align. But at times they conflict. This can't be denied.

If you choose equality over liberty, you are not a liberal in the classical sense at all. And for that reason you can draw no line from today's liberals back to those.

The resemblance boils down to name alone. And only because common definitions tend to change over time.

Rohirrim
10-09-2013, 08:37 PM
You're failing to connect the dots here.

Equality is not Liberty. At times they align. But at times they conflict. This can't be denied.

If you choose equality over liberty, you are not a liberal in the classical sense at all. And for that reason you can draw no line from today's liberals back to those.

The resemblance boils down to name alone. And only because common definitions tend to change over time.

Do me a favor, read the article or don't comment. Just bypass the thread.

Liberalism is egalitarian in the sense
that it seeks to achieve a more equal distribution of income and
well-being than would otherwise be generated in the marketplace.
But it is not committed to achieving a perfect equality in the distribution
of goods. Equity requires that those who work harder,
take greater risks, or develop their talents to a higher degree be
able to recoup a return from their efforts. This incentive is critical
to innovation and prosperity, which redound to wider benefit.
Liberalism regards the well-being of the least well-off as a central
criterion for a just society, and it seeks to provide individuals with
some degree of protection against risks beyond their control; but
it accepts inequalities insofar as they are to everyone’s long-run
advantage, and therefore aims for sustainable growth with widely
shared gains.

And just to clarify, unequal economics can certainly determine a person's sense of their own liberty, and not only just their sense of it, but the reality. What is liberty to a starving man?

BroncoBeavis
10-09-2013, 09:49 PM
Do me a favor, read the article or don't comment. Just bypass the thread.

Liberalism is egalitarian in the sense
that it seeks to achieve a more equal distribution of income and
well-being than would otherwise be generated in the marketplace.
But it is not committed to achieving a perfect equality in the distribution
of goods. Equity requires that those who work harder,
take greater risks, or develop their talents to a higher degree be
able to recoup a return from their efforts. This incentive is critical
to innovation and prosperity, which redound to wider benefit.
Liberalism regards the well-being of the least well-off as a central
criterion for a just society, and it seeks to provide individuals with
some degree of protection against risks beyond their control; but
it accepts inequalities insofar as they are to everyone’s long-run
advantage, and therefore aims for sustainable growth with widely
shared gains.

And just to clarify, unequal economics can certainly determine a person's sense of their own liberty, and not only just their sense of it, but the reality. What is liberty to a starving man?

Your problem is the same problem many (modern) liberals have with (modern) conservatives. You think we either don't understand what you want or want what you want. It's not that we don't understand what you want. Or want what you want. It's that we believe what you want isn't achievable by any artificial human construct.

And we believe that the effort to conform society to that artificial construct will do more harm than leaving each man (like your starving dude) to the pursuit of happiness, or ramen noodles, maybe some bread, or even a steak and baked potato.

Just as the Declaration worded it, and for good reason. Liberty frees you to pursue happiness. But it doesn't do free in-home delivery and setup. :)

Rohirrim
10-10-2013, 06:55 AM
Your problem is the same problem many (modern) liberals have with (modern) conservatives. You think we either don't understand what you want or want what you want. It's not that we don't understand what you want. Or want what you want. It's that we believe what you want isn't achievable by any artificial human construct.

And we believe that the effort to conform society to that artificial construct will do more harm than leaving each man (like your starving dude) to the pursuit of happiness, or ramen noodles, maybe some bread, or even a steak and baked potato.

Just as the Declaration worded it, and for good reason. Liberty frees you to pursue happiness. But it doesn't do free in-home delivery and setup. :)

Once again, you misunderstand. It has nothing to do with what anybody "wants." It has to do with what is best.

BTW, there is no government you can conceive of that is not an "artifical construct." For the last thirty years, America has stumbled and fallen under the supply side/deregulation/tax-cuts-for-the-rich artificial constructs of the Right. Every time in history that this type of conservatism has been tried, it has not only failed, but failed in the same way, creating massive inequality usually accompanied by greed-based market crashes.

As the professor who wrote this paper points out, to expect perfection out of government is a fool's errand. What you can do is create a society that simply does the best for the most. This is called "enlightened self-interest." That is not going to happen, ever, in a conservative/libertarian model where the basic theme is king-of-the-hill. Rational self-interest, also known as greed, is fundamentally immoral. So is simple selfishness. To establish a society, or a government, on either of those premises is self-defeating. Why? Because at their core (and behavioral science has proven this over and over again), human beings are altruistic.

barryr
10-10-2013, 11:44 AM
Funny thing is liberals like to believe they are for equality, but even their own are sellouts to the big corporations they demean, but then turn around and do their bidding and make deals with them. Government is good, well only when democrats are in charge of course. War is bad, unless a democrat signs off on it of course. Today's liberals are more fascists than anything else.

BroncoBeavis
10-10-2013, 12:26 PM
Once again, you misunderstand. It has nothing to do with what anybody "wants." It has to do with what is best.

BTW, there is no government you can conceive of that is not an "artifical construct." For the last thirty years, America has stumbled and fallen under the supply side/deregulation/tax-cuts-for-the-rich artificial constructs of the Right. Every time in history that this type of conservatism has been tried, it has not only failed, but failed in the same way, creating massive inequality usually accompanied by greed-based market crashes.

As the professor who wrote this paper points out, to expect perfection out of government is a fool's errand. What you can do is create a society that simply does the best for the most. This is called "enlightened self-interest." That is not going to happen, ever, in a conservative/libertarian model where the basic theme is king-of-the-hill. Rational self-interest, also known as greed, is fundamentally immoral. So is simple selfishness. To establish a society, or a government, on either of those premises is self-defeating. Why? Because at their core (and behavioral science has proven this over and over again), human beings are altruistic.

I'm glad you framed it that way because it boils down to one of the best descriptions I've ever read about the most common core difference between a Liberal and a Conservative. I'll have to find out where I read it someday, I've looked for it again before and couldn't find it.

Anyway, it comes down to what you believe about humanity and human nature.

Liberals tend to believe in the possibility that society (and mankind with it) is on a journey towards perfecting itself. And that society released from the restraints of the past (ie tradition) will discover ever better ways to do things until eventually most of the problems today cease to exist, or at least dramatically improve. They tend to view tradition with skepticism, and often see them as plain mechanisms of social control.

Conservatives tend to believe human nature itself is flawed and that values and traditions often serve as a necessary check or balance on our innate flaws. Mankind released from the restraints of the past may well fall into the terrible consequence of his own ignorance. The traditions we have today are often based on the lessons hard-learned by those who came before. Venturing away from those traditions should usually be done with very careful caution and deliberation.

Now, as for the specifics about greed and immorality, you're right to say that there is immorality there. Unfortunately, mankind is always an ill-equipped judge. It's impossible as an individual for you to put yourself as the judge of your neighbor.

So you say we choose representatives, who should serve as the moral judges of society. Unfortunately, there are no truly objective judges. They're all human too. And given time and space, those judges will tend to find morality in their own interests, and immorality in the interests of those opposed to them. This is why socialist experiments always end in a favored political class. Trading the nobility for the politburo. It's the inevitable road.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-12-2013, 02:43 AM
I'm glad you framed it that way because it boils down to one of the best descriptions I've ever read about the most common core difference between a Liberal and a Conservative. I'll have to find out where I read it someday, I've looked for it again before and couldn't find it.

Anyway, it comes down to what you believe about humanity and human nature.

Liberals tend to believe in the possibility that society (and mankind with it) is on a journey towards perfecting itself. And that society released from the restraints of the past (ie tradition) will discover ever better ways to do things until eventually most of the problems today cease to exist, or at least dramatically improve. They tend to view tradition with skepticism, and often see them as plain mechanisms of social control.

Conservatives tend to believe human nature itself is flawed and that values and traditions often serve as a necessary check or balance on our innate flaws. Mankind released from the restraints of the past may well fall into the terrible consequence of his own ignorance. The traditions we have today are often based on the lessons hard-learned by those who came before. Venturing away from those traditions should usually be done with very careful caution and deliberation.

Now, as for the specifics about greed and immorality, you're right to say that there is immorality there. Unfortunately, mankind is always an ill-equipped judge. It's impossible as an individual for you to put yourself as the judge of your neighbor.

So you say we choose representatives, who should serve as the moral judges of society. Unfortunately, there are no truly objective judges. They're all human too. And given time and space, those judges will tend to find morality in their own interests, and immorality in the interests of those opposed to them. This is why socialist experiments always end in a favored political class. Trading the nobility for the politburo. It's the inevitable road.

That's a load of old codswallop, as our U.K. friends say.

Life goes forward - not backward.

Change is the only constant.

Point to any step forward in human evolution, in any arena, and some conservative or other has invariably opposed it.

The conservative mindset is fundamentally opposed to life on life's terms.

BroncoBeavis
10-12-2013, 03:22 AM
That's a load of old codswallop, as our U.K. friends say.

Life goes forward - not backward.

Change is the only constant.

Point to any step forward in human evolution, in any arena, and some conservative or other has invariably opposed it.

The conservative mindset is fundamentally opposed to life on life's terms.

Sorry man

The Survival of the Fittest highway does not end in Utopia. Hate to break that to ya. :)

Anyway. What I'm saying is that this is a fundamental difference in how you and I, liberal and conservative view the world. Its the point where debate is pointless because we'll never come to truly understand one another.

W*GS
10-12-2013, 08:06 AM
Conservatism is mainly about rationalizing privilege, accepting Original Sin, and enforcing tradition because it's tradition. Nothing Beavis wrote contradicts those statements.

Rohirrim
10-12-2013, 08:11 AM
Conservatism is mainly about rationalizing privilege, accepting Original Sin, and enforcing tradition because it's tradition. Nothing Beavis wrote contradicts those statements.

That's what I was thinking. Sounds downright OT.

BroncoBeavis
10-12-2013, 01:17 PM
Conservatism is mainly about rationalizing privilege, accepting Original Sin, and enforcing tradition because it's tradition. Nothing Beavis wrote contradicts those statements.

Modern Liberalism is about unrelenting envy, blind naivety to the infinitely proven weakness of man, and popping a squat on tradition because it's tradition.

See how easy that is. :)

I didn't really want another one of your pissing matches, Wagsy. I'm just trying to point out that there's a fundamentally different perspective to have on the nature of the world. One that seems just as 'right' to the people who believe it as you believe yourself to be.

Which you of all people should know. :)

Anyway, there is a reasoning behind it more than just 'rationalizing privilege' Just as there's a reasoning behind liberalism beyond covetousness. We just believe different things. But there's no reason to hate people over it.

W*GS
10-12-2013, 01:44 PM
Modern Liberalism is about unrelenting envy, blind naivety to the infinitely proven weakness of man, and popping a squat on tradition because it's tradition.

See how easy that is. :)

I didn't really want another one of your pissing matches, Wagsy. I'm just trying to point out that there's a fundamentally different perspective to have on the nature of the world. One that seems just as 'right' to the people who believe it as you believe yourself to be.

Which you of all people should know. :)

Anyway, there is a reasoning behind it more than just 'rationalizing privilege' Just as there's a reasoning behind liberalism beyond covetousness. We just believe different things. But there's no reason to hate people over it.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.

Opinions without factual backing are worthless. Opinions substantiated by facts are worth considering.

One of the problems with conservatives is that they're too accepting of certain views and dismissive of others because the views they like happen to be old, and the ones they don't like happen to be new, or, alter the old views. I far too often hear conservatives excuse something that's wrong because it's always been done that way - as if that means anything.

Conservatives, oddly proudly, insist that they're the ones who say "Stop!" or "No!" when things change. Given the truism that change is the only constant, refusing to accept or accommodate change, just because it is change, is a flawed position to take. Now, I do not mean that change is always for the good. That's obvious. But to resist change merely because is it change is pointless. One has to look at the change and examine it to see if it's good or bad, before accepting or resisting it. Conservatives too often mindlessly resist change.

Jetmeck
10-12-2013, 03:23 PM
Labels are usually a bad thing in politics.

I would vote either republican, democrat or independent.


We need policies to help everyone.

CEOs shouldn't make 400 times an employee.

Rich people don't need more tax breaks especially when we tried that over and

over and we have people starving.


In other words vote for whats right and moral and good for everyone.


I don't care for the religious right quoting the Bible and then voting

and lobbying to screw over the poor over and over.

That isn't moral or religious.

Jetmeck
10-12-2013, 03:29 PM
Sorry man

The Survival of the Fittest highway does not end in Utopia. Hate to break that to ya. :)

Anyway. What I'm saying is that this is a fundamental difference in how you and I, liberal and conservative view the world. Its the point where debate is pointless because we'll never come to truly understand one another.


What he is saying is republican conservatives fought to stop SS and Medicare so no wonder they don't want healthcare.

Republican states get much more government money than democrat states on average.

Conservatives want you to work for minimum wage which won't pay the bills so all the conservative poor people need food stamps.

Force you to have that baby but won't help you feed it after.

Kinda conflicting, isn't it.

Conservatism seems to be no government unless it is government that helps that person specifically.

Conservatism is kinda selfish, huh ?

Greedy too...............

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-12-2013, 09:17 PM
The Survival of the Fittest...

A concept conservatives use to justify greed, selfishness, abuse of power and a sociopathic indifference to the plight of those less fortunate than themselves.

A rationalization that refuses to set the moral or ethical bar higher for humans than for other animal species.


Utopia.

Not present in the language used by the framers or founders/proponents of democracy. In fact, just the opposite is true, i.e., democracy is always acknowledged as a fledgling idea and a recent experiment in human history.

Anyway. What I'm saying is that this is a fundamental difference in how you and I, liberal and conservative view the world. Its the point where debate is pointless because we'll never come to truly understand one another.

Conservatives aren't hard to understand.

They are simply selfish, greedy people who resist change, i.e., the natural order of things.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-12-2013, 09:22 PM
What he is saying is republican conservatives fought to stop SS and Medicare so no wonder they don't want healthcare.

Republican states get much more government money than democrat states on average.

Conservatives want you to work for minimum wage which won't pay the bills so all the conservative poor people need food stamps.

Force you to have that baby but won't help you feed it after.

Kinda conflicting, isn't it.

Conservatism seems to be no government unless it is government that helps that person specifically.

Conservatism is kinda selfish, huh ?

Greedy too...............

Yep.

And I'm not just talking about modern conservatism in America.

Name practically any advancement in human civilization, arts, sciences, culture, etc., and conservative forces have almost invariably opposed it.

BroncoBeavis
10-12-2013, 10:41 PM
Yep.

And I'm not just talking about modern conservatism in America.

Name practically any advancement in human civilization, arts, sciences, culture, etc., and conservative forces have almost invariably opposed it.

Change does not equal Progress. Ask Chairman Mao. Oh wait, he was a "progressive." LOL

Fedaykin
10-13-2013, 03:41 AM
Liberals tend to believe in the possibility that society (and mankind with it) is on a journey towards perfecting itself.


Objectively, it is. This is not to say that we will achieve perfection (fat chance with an inherently flawed starting position), but do you deny that modern Western society is better than those societies that came before and those societies that still cling to "traditional" ideas like monarchy and theocracy?


And that society released from the restraints of the past (ie tradition) will discover ever better ways to do things until eventually most of the problems today cease to exist, or at least dramatically improve. They tend to view tradition with skepticism, and often see them as plain mechanisms of social control.


You are correct here. What you describe is, again, exactly what has happened throughout history. The only way to improve ourselves is not to stick to things dogmatically, but to always be examining, testing and striving to improve based on evidence. Saying you won't break with tradition simply because it's tradition is foolhardy.

This does not mean we should reject tradition simply for being tradition either.


Conservatives tend to believe human nature itself is flawed and that values and traditions often serve as a necessary check or balance on our innate flaws. Mankind released from the restraints of the past may well fall into the terrible consequence of his own ignorance. The traditions we have today are often based on the lessons hard-learned by those who came before. Venturing away from those traditions should usually be done with very careful caution and deliberation.


Conservatives tend to stick to idea not because they can be objectively shown to be better, but simply because they are viewed as traditional. The proof is in the pudding on this. Take marriage for example. What's the argument against gay marriage? That traditional marriage is better. Why? Because God said so.

Nevermind for a moment that the modern form of marriage in the U.S. is anything BUT historically traditional, nor does it resemble what the Bible laid out, nor does God exist. Conservatives latch on to the one man+one woman definition of marriage simply because they believe it is traditional, which is what they really mean when they say "because God said so".

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-13-2013, 05:38 AM
Change does not equal Progress.

But if and when it does, you can always count on some conservative to oppose it.


Ask Chairman Mao. Oh wait, he was a "progressive." LOL

Odds are you believe Hitler was a socialist as well.

Thanks, Fox News. :wave:

BroncoBeavis
10-14-2013, 07:31 AM
Objectively, it is. This is not to say that we will achieve perfection (fat chance with an inherently flawed starting position), but do you deny that modern Western society is better than those societies that came before and those societies that still cling to "traditional" ideas like monarchy and theocracy?

There's a fundamental difference in opinion here... a Conservative believes that modern free-Western Society was an improvement because of the principles it was built on. Private property and incentive driven by free markets. And we'd argue that the move toward centralized command-and-control economies is a move to something that more resembles the old nobility/monarchy system that what we have today.

In sympathetic terms, a Conservative believes in conserving what he/she believes are the strengths handed down to us through 'tradition.' You and I didn't create individual property rights or market freedom. We were given that via tradition. We only really choose which direction to take it from here.

You are correct here. What you describe is, again, exactly what has happened throughout history. The only way to improve ourselves is not to stick to things dogmatically, but to always be examining, testing and striving to improve based on evidence. Saying you won't break with tradition simply because it's tradition is foolhardy.

I didn't say you can't break tradition. Just that it ought to be very well reasoned. As Westerners, living in the wealthiest, most opportunity-rich population in the world, we should err on the side of caution when it comes to demanding significant change in areas where we obviously excel in the grand scheme of things.

This does not mean we should reject tradition simply for being tradition either.

Conservatives tend to stick to idea not because they can be objectively shown to be better, but simply because they are viewed as traditional. The proof is in the pudding on this. Take marriage for example. What's the argument against gay marriage? That traditional marriage is better. Why? Because God said so.

That is a tendency. But no more so than it is for the 'progressive' to automatically discount some very essential systems and beliefs handed to us via tradition. Both sides need to lean more on caution and reason.

Nevermind for a moment that the modern form of marriage in the U.S. is anything BUT historically traditional, nor does it resemble what the Bible laid out, nor does God exist. Conservatives latch on to the one man+one woman definition of marriage simply because they believe it is traditional, which is what they really mean when they say "because God said so".

Well, there's a little more reason to it than that. At least for some. Nothing is PROVEN to be better for the next generation than to be raised in a prototypical nuclear family with mom and dad around and involved. The NBA "Daddy Who?" Parenting model is a 'change' and a definite distinction from the past (at least in scale) and there's pretty good indication that it's destroying whole sections of our civilization. That's not necessarily a reason to oppose Gay Marriage or single parenthood. There are plenty of kids out there desperate for anyone who cares, whose life will be made better by anyone who does care, regardless of race or sexual orientation.

But the larger 'Progressive' argument of "whatever's new or different goes", is viewed with suspicion by Conservatives. And it's not hard to see why.

BroncoBeavis
10-14-2013, 07:35 AM
But if and when it does, you can always count on some conservative to oppose it.



Odds are you believe Hitler was a socialist as well.

Thanks, Fox News. :wave:

I'm using your (shallowest possible) definition. Where "Change" = "Progress"

In the real world that definition doesn't work. Because the way you define it, everyone would be in both camps all the time. I mean you're basically calling yourself a Crunchy Entitlement State Conservative. :)

"Conservative" vs "Liberal" can only be applied to people's views on foundational principles. You're trying to define it as Changiness vs Non-Changiness. Which really makes no sense when you think about it. There are many things today's most radical progressives would fight to protect from change. And things most hardcore conservatives would love to upend tomorrow.

Rohirrim
10-14-2013, 08:19 AM
Change does not equal Progress. Ask Chairman Mao. Oh wait, he was a "progressive." LOL

You're an ass.

BroncoBeavis
10-14-2013, 08:23 AM
You're an ass.

What, for poking fun at the "Change is Good, Opponents of Change are bad." mantra?

Some changes are good. Some are unquestionably bad. Even while people thought they were good at the time.

Rohirrim
10-14-2013, 08:48 AM
What, for poking fun at the "Change is Good, Opponents of Change are bad." mantra?

Some changes are good. Some are unquestionably bad. Even while people thought they were good at the time.

Enjoy your juvenile word games. I'm done with ya. :wave:

BroncoBeavis
10-14-2013, 08:59 AM
Ask Chairman Mao. Oh wait, he was a "progressive."


Odds are you believe Hitler was a socialist as well.

Thanks, Fox News. :wave:

So wait, you didn't know Mao was a socialist? Maybe you should watch more Fox News. LOL

Rohirrim
10-14-2013, 09:15 AM
Yeah. John Locke and Mao. A couple of liberals.

The sad thing is that the ignorant troglodytes in the Tea Party really believe this kind of ****.

BroncoBeavis
10-14-2013, 09:16 AM
Yeah. John Locke and Mao. A couple of liberals.

The sad thing is that the ignorant troglodytes in the Tea Party really believe this kind of ****.

Oh, hey, you're back. :)

And I think you just underlined my point. Thanks.

Rohirrim
10-14-2013, 09:24 AM
Ever wonder why the sanctity of private property is the rallying cry of the New, Reactionary Right? It's because the billionaires backing the movement own most of it. ;D

BroncoBeavis
10-14-2013, 09:28 AM
Ever wonder why the sanctity of private property is the rallying cry of the New, Reactionary Right? It's because the billionaires backing the movement own most of it. ;D

Oh, and that little triviality of it being maybe the most significant distinction about this nation's founding and probably the largest contributor to the progress of Western Civilization over the last few centuries.

Concentration of wealth is just a symptom, not the disease. Centrally-commanded political crony-capitalism is at the heart of the matter.

houghtam
10-14-2013, 09:30 AM
Ever wonder why the sanctity of private property is the rallying cry of the New, Reactionary Right? It's because the billionaires backing the movement own most of it. ;D

I'm tellin ya man, every conservative fancies themselves a millionaire who just missed out because of... (you can fill in the blank with whatever the bullet point du jour is: "socialism", Obama/Clinton/Carter, "entitlements", "the gays"...)

Arkie
10-14-2013, 10:05 AM
I'm comfortable. I don't need to be a millionaire. I just think a fiscally conservative policy (something we've never had in my lifetime) would be good for the country. Wasteful spending hurts everybody. High taxes hurt the middle class. More and more of the lower middle class are becoming part of the dependent class.

houghtam
10-14-2013, 10:20 AM
I'm comfortable. I don't need to be a millionaire. I just think a fiscally conservative policy (something we've never had in my lifetime) would be good for the country. Wasteful spending hurts everybody. High taxes hurt the middle class. More and more of the lower middle class are becoming part of the dependent class.

And you think that's because of liberal fiscal policies?

Arkie
10-14-2013, 10:40 AM
And you think that's because of liberal fiscal policies?

It's bad fiscal policy by the Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans were worse over the last 30 years, and nobody else of real importance has stood for a true conservative fiscal policy of a balanced budget.

Rohirrim
10-14-2013, 11:00 AM
It's bad fiscal policy by the Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans were worse over the last 30 years, and nobody else of real importance has stood for a true conservative fiscal policy of a balanced budget.

I don't think a balanced budget deserves the near sanctity that many on the Right give it. Economics is situational. If your economy is going full barrel, you're approaching full employment, your GDP keeps rising and your tax policy is sound (i.e., progressive) then a balanced budget and saving for a rainy day is smart policy.

If you have high unemployment, stumbling GDP and slow growth you do what is best for the greatest number of your people until the economy rebounds. If that includes higher debt, so be it.

IMO, the purpose of government is to serve the interests, in other words, the general welfare of your people. Not to fulfill the requirements of an ideology.

Fedaykin
10-14-2013, 08:33 PM
There's a fundamental difference in opinion here... a Conservative believes that modern free-Western Society was an improvement because of the principles it was built on. Private property and incentive driven by free markets.

.. changes that were radically different from the traditions of the time, and made as an acknowledged experiment backed by sound reasoning and decent evidence.

But you are completely wrong about the founding principals of our country and other fledgling western democracies (such as France). Modern western society is built on the idea of social equality, not any particular economic system. Most importantly, our society was set up to abolish the idea of inherited privileged and rule via nobility, clergy and others and to extinguish associated inequalities between individuals.

Western societies employ significantly different economies, though they all share one common thread: a non-extremist economy. There are no laissez-faire economies. There are no communist economies.


And we'd argue that the move toward centralized command-and-control economies is a move to something that more resembles the old nobility/monarchy system that what we have today.


The other tendency of conservatives, illustrated here on a regular basis, is to argue against strawmen. A well regulated, mixed economy ala 1930-1980 in the U.S. is what has been demonstrated to be, by far the least horrible of economic systems tried.

The other issue here is that the direction our society is going is not toward command & control. It's moving is exactly the opposite direction. And it's not a command and control economy that will lead to monarchy and a nobility system (i.e. feudalism). It's unrestrained capitalism. Feudalism is the end result of laissez-faire. Laissez-faire leads to a vast disparity in wealth. Once only a miniscule minority of folks have all the wealth and all the land, then all you have is land lords and serfs.


In sympathetic terms, a Conservative believes in conserving what he/she believes are the strengths handed down to us through 'tradition.' You and I didn't create individual property rights or market freedom. We were given that via tradition. We only really choose which direction to take it from here.

I didn't say you can't break tradition. Just that it ought to be very well reasoned. As Westerners, living in the wealthiest, most opportunity-rich population in the world, we should err on the side of caution when it comes to demanding significant change in areas where we obviously excel in the grand scheme of things.


Like I said, all ideas should be judged by the evidence, not the source. Liberals do not believe tearing down tradition just to tear down tradition.


That is a tendency. But no more so than it is for the 'progressive' to automatically discount some very essential systems and beliefs handed to us via tradition. Both sides need to lean more on caution and reason.


What are these essential beliefs and traditions, and what evidence and reasoning do you have that they are essential?


Well, there's a little more reason to it than that. At least for some. Nothing is PROVEN to be better for the next generation than to be raised in a prototypical nuclear family with mom and dad around and involved. The NBA "Daddy Who?" Parenting model is a 'change' and a definite distinction from the past (at least in scale) and there's pretty good indication that it's destroying whole sections of our civilization. That's not necessarily a reason to oppose Gay Marriage or single parenthood. There are plenty of kids out there desperate for anyone who cares, whose life will be made better by anyone who does care, regardless of race or sexual orientation.


Don't conflate gay marriage with single parenthood. But lets not get off the point. I don't care to argue about the specifics of any particular issue. The point is that conservatives (even the mainstream) often stick to tradition purely because it is tradition (or simply because they view it as tradition), not because there is any evidence or logic behind it.


But the larger 'Progressive' argument of "whatever's new or different goes", is viewed with suspicion by Conservatives. And it's not hard to see why.

Name one idea where the mainstream liberal opinion is that 'whatever goes'. Mind you, you can easily find some fringe liberal wackjob that will have such a position -- just as I can find a fringe conservative wackjob that thinks exactly the opposite. I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for a mainstream opinion of "anything goes".

BroncoBeavis
10-14-2013, 09:04 PM
.. changes that were radically different from the traditions of the time, and made as an acknowledged experiment backed by sound reasoning and decent evidence.

But you are completely wrong about the founding principals of our country and other fledgling western democracies (such as France). Modern western society is built on the idea of social equality, not any particular economic system. Most importantly, our society was set up to abolish the idea of inherited privileged and rule via nobility, clergy and others and to extinguish associated inequalities between individuals.

Western societies employ significantly different economies, though they all share one common thread: a non-extremist economy. There are no laissez-faire economies. There are no communist economies.

France was a bit player in the development of modern Western Civ. There's a reason they went from a major world power in the age of Kings to a me-too country in the Anglo-American age. Because, as you allude to, they had a different set of values. And they didn't work out all that well.

The other tendency of conservatives, illustrated here on a regular basis, is to argue against strawmen. A well regulated, mixed economy ala 1930-1980 in the U.S. is what has been demonstrated to be, by far the least horrible of economic systems tried.

The other issue here is that the direction our society is going is not toward command & control. It's moving is exactly the opposite direction. And it's not a command and control economy that will lead to monarchy and a nobility system (i.e. feudalism). It's unrestrained capitalism. Feudalism is the end result of laissez-faire. Laissez-faire leads to a vast disparity in wealth. Once only a miniscule minority of folks have all the wealth and all the land, then all you have is land lords and serfs.

I'll agree that there was a happier medium somewhere between 1945 and 1980. To see some of the abuses of the gilded age would give a guy a whole different perspective. There was a time and a place for the Progressive Era, and it brought about many needed changes.

But somewhere along the way, we went from questions of whether companies should take basic safety measures to preserve workers' lives and limbs, to mandates on what kind of contraceptive measures they must provide in their private health plans.

We have a regulate-first ask, ask questions later culture in Washington. And they have no clue what kinds of impacts they have outside their own little silk cocoons. The only way they'll be stopped is by someone saying enough is enough. In the right season, the 'conservative' function is just as important as the progressive one.

Fedaykin
10-14-2013, 09:51 PM
France was a bit player in the development of modern Western Civ. There's a reason they went from a major world power in the age of Kings to a me-too country in the Anglo-American age. Because, as you allude to, they had a different set of values. And they didn't work out all that well.


LMAO Wow. Stunning ignorance of history FTL. Pick up a book sometime bub.


I'll agree that there was a happier medium somewhere between 1945 and 1980. To see some of the abuses of the gilded age would give a guy a whole different perspective. There was a time and a place for the Progressive Era, and it brought about many needed changes.


So, you agree progressive thought can and has made your life better, but now it can't anymore? The only difference between then and now, in terms of abuses, is where and how those abuses are happening. We've opened up the doors to the same level of abuse the last 30 years, only the form is different.


But somewhere along the way, we went from questions of whether companies should take basic safety measures to preserve workers' lives and limbs, to mandates on what kind of contraceptive measures they must provide in their private health plans.


A conservative not long ago was saying: But somewhere along the way, we went from enslaving people to now saying we can't work them 18 hours a day in our private businesses!


We have a regulate-first ask, ask questions later culture in Washington. And they have no clue what kinds of impacts they have outside their own little silk cocoons. The only way they'll be stopped is by someone saying enough is enough. In the right season, the 'conservative' function is just as important as the progressive one.

No, we have a culture in Washington (no matter the topic) that is dominated by monied interests instead of the interests of "the people". This has happened specifically because we have allowed those monied interests to act increasingly unchecked and gain vastly more power and wealth for the last 30 years with the large shift toward a laizzes-faire system (despite your protestations to the contrary).

What happened in 2008? The monied interests won big, everyone else lost huge because we, as a society, weren't keeping the abuses that led to that meltdown in check.

I agree there is a season for everything. We've had 30 years of conservative season that have eroded the progress of the 20th century.

BroncoBeavis
10-15-2013, 08:56 AM
LMAO Wow. Stunning ignorance of history FTL. Pick up a book sometime bub.

Some guys rank haute cuisine and fine wine higher than others I guess. :)

So, you agree progressive thought can and has made your life better, but now it can't anymore? The only difference between then and now, in terms of abuses, is where and how those abuses are happening. We've opened up the doors to the same level of abuse the last 30 years, only the form is different.

Of course it has, and it still can. But it can also make things dramatically worse. And has at times throughout world history. As for the last 30 years being so terrible. Good luck with that argument. It's mostly a story of some of the richest people on the face of the earth looking at those even richer than them and maintaining envy above all else.

A conservative not long ago was saying: But somewhere along the way, we went from enslaving people to now saying we can't work them 18 hours a day in our private businesses!

And a progressive was saying "Hey, let's put ourselves in control of all this production, and we'll take care of everyone and tell them what kind of work they can do and how much they're allowed to make."


No, we have a culture in Washington (no matter the topic) that is dominated by monied interests instead of the interests of "the people". This has happened specifically because we have allowed those monied interests to act increasingly unchecked and gain vastly more power and wealth for the last 30 years with the large shift toward a laizzes-faire system (despite your protestations to the contrary).

What happened in 2008? The monied interests won big, everyone else lost huge because we, as a society, weren't keeping the abuses that led to that meltdown in check.

I agree there is a season for everything. We've had 30 years of conservative season that have eroded the progress of the 20th century.

Yeah, totally. Those darn Democrats in Congress for most of that time, and their Conservative State Building. What up wit dat! LOL

Rohirrim
10-15-2013, 11:21 AM
https://www.verdasys.com/blog/ostrich-man-head-in-sand.gif

W*GS
10-15-2013, 11:49 AM
France was a bit player in the development of modern Western Civ.

You take the cake for stupid-comment-o-the-eon...

W*GS
10-15-2013, 11:50 AM
I'll agree that there was a happier medium somewhere between 1945 and 1980.

For whom?

Rohirrim
10-15-2013, 12:51 PM
You take the cake for stupid-comment-o-the-eon...

Jaw dropping, ain't it?

W*GS
10-15-2013, 12:52 PM
Jaw dropping, ain't it?

If it wasn't for the French, we'd be part of the Commonwealth.

Rohirrim
10-15-2013, 12:54 PM
If it wasn't for the French, we'd be part of the Commonwealth.

Yeah. I was thinking of the blockade at Yorktown too. Seems like a pretty pivotal moment in history to me.

W*GS
10-15-2013, 01:07 PM
Yeah. I was thinking of the blockade at Yorktown too. Seems like a pretty pivotal moment in history to me.

I remember a Time Magazine column, probably 25-30 years ago, in which the writer speculated if the US war for independence had failed. There was even a map - no "Washington D.C.", of course. I'd love to track it down. Piqued my nascent interest in alternative history.

One likely outcome? Slavery ends earlier and with no nasty Civil War.

BroncoBeavis
10-15-2013, 01:29 PM
If it wasn't for the French, we'd be part of the Commonwealth.

Thank Louis XVI.

We're talking about the post-monarchy modern age here, genius.

The floor is yours for "Indispensable Free-French Contributions to Modern Western Civilization"

Let's see how they stack up.

W*GS
10-15-2013, 02:30 PM
Thank Louis XVI.

We're talking about the post-monarchy modern age here, genius.

The floor is yours for "Indispensable Free-French Contributions to Modern Western Civilization"

Let's see how they stack up.

Without France, very likely no USA. Since the USA is the wellspring of all that is Well and Good of Western Civilization, what happens to your calculus?

BroncoBeavis
10-15-2013, 03:33 PM
Without France, very likely no USA. Since the USA is the wellspring of all that is Well and Good of Western Civilization, what happens to your calculus?

Do you no a speaka de Engles?

That was the King of France trying to settle a score with George III.

How does that apply to the question of what landmark Western principles were a product of the French Revolution (or its aftermath)?

Or let me simple it down for you.

Beav: "You know, since the end of the Monarchy, France hasn't really done much"

Wagsy: "But what about what the King of France did?!?!"

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-16-2013, 07:09 AM
So wait, you didn't know Mao was a socialist? Maybe you should watch more Fox News. LOL

You called him a "progressive," genius. :welcome:

Fedaykin
10-16-2013, 07:41 AM
Some guys rank haute cuisine and fine wine higher than others I guess. :)


Ignorance really is bliss for you, ain't it? It's stunning just how ignorant you are.


Of course it has, and it still can. But it can also make things dramatically worse. And has at times throughout world history.


So has dogmatically sticking to tradition.




Yeah, totally. Those darn Democrats in Congress for most of that time, and their Conservative State Building. What up wit dat! LOL

:eyeroll: Still haven't figure out the difference between the words conservative/liberal and democrat/republican, eh?

Fedaykin
10-16-2013, 07:49 AM
Do you no a speaka de Engles?

That was the King of France trying to settle a score with George III.

How does that apply to the question of what landmark Western principles were a product of the French Revolution (or its aftermath)?

Or let me simple it down for you.

Beav: "You know, since the end of the Monarchy, France hasn't really done much"

Wagsy: "But what about what the King of France did?!?!"

This is your idiotic claim, verbatim: "France was a bit player in the development of modern Western Civ. "

Which is not what your weasilish nature is trying to spin.

The vast ignorance displayed by that comment isn't even worth taking the time to destroy.

Garcia Bronco
10-16-2013, 08:10 AM
If it wasn't for the French, we'd be part of the Commonwealth.

Potentially. It's unlikely, even with supplies and troops, that Cornwallis would be able to defeat us. It would have dragged out the siege at Yorktown based on how well LC was surrounded, but LC wouldn't have survived. It's believed he was the best General in the Redcoat Army.

BroncoBeavis
10-16-2013, 08:11 AM
This is your idiotic claim, verbatim: "France was a bit player in the development of modern Western Civ. "

Which is not what your weasilish nature is trying to spin.

The vast ignorance displayed by that comment isn't even worth taking the time to destroy.

"Verbatim" would require that you not lop off most of what I said.

France was a bit player in the development of modern Western Civ. There's a reason they went from a major world power in the age of Kings to a me-too country in the Anglo-American age.

LOL

Fedaykin
10-16-2013, 08:27 AM
"Verbatim" would require that you not lop off most of what I said.

LOL

That you are happy to declare your ignorance of the timeline of the development of modern western society and that you like to make up historical "ages" does not help your case.

Go learn something. For hey-seus's sake.

Fedaykin
10-16-2013, 08:40 AM
Potentially. It's unlikely, even with supplies and troops, that Cornwallis would be able to defeat us. It would have dragged out the siege at Yorktown based on how well LC was surrounded, but LC wouldn't have survived. It's believed he was the best General in the Redcoat Army.

Without French aid, the fledgeling U.S. wouldn't have even make it to the battle of Yorktown.

No arms, no navy, no training, no real ability to oppose England. Hell we even had to get our uniforms from the French (hence why we share national colors).

BroncoBeavis
10-16-2013, 08:53 AM
That you are happy to declare your ignorance of the timeline of the development of modern western society and that you like to make up historical "ages" does not help your case.

Go learn something. For hey-seus's sake.

It's obvious you're having a hard time tracking your own conversation. It's ok. I've spent time with special needs kids before. :)

You're the one who used France's 'fledgling democracy' as an example of a country using 'social equality' as a guiding principle. You used this example because France's socialist democracy tendencies aligned better with your world view, while the Americans and British took a more Wealth of Nations approach early on. Anyway, that's neither here nor there.

The real point is you highlighted France's version of democracy as bringing something special to modern Western Civilization.

I'm basically asking "Oh yeah, what is that?"

And the best you can come up with is there was a war fought by the King whom your 'fledgling democracy' executed only a few years later. LOL

You can dress up your fail with deliberate ignorance and selective quoting all you want. But the fact remains that you still can't substantiate your own point.

Fedaykin
10-16-2013, 09:06 AM
It's obvious you're having a hard time tracking your own conversation. It's ok. I've spent time with special needs kids before. :)

You're the one who used France's 'fledgling democracy' as an example of a country using 'social equality' as a guiding principle. You used this example because France's socialist democracy tendencies aligned better with your world view, while the Americans and British took a more Wealth of Nations approach early on. Anyway, that's neither here nor there.

The real point is you highlighted France's version of democracy as bringing something special to modern Western Civilization.


No, I said that the founding principals of both our democracies were shared.
(Founding principals developed and fostered, in significant part, by France and French thinkers.)


I'm basically asking "Oh yeah, what is that?"


No, you're desperately trying to spin an epically sad display of ignorance.


And the best you can come up with is there was a war fought by the King whom your 'fledgling democracy' executed only a few years later. LOL


Oh, look, a straw man argument. Look how surprised I am by that!


You can dress up your fail with deliberate ignorance and selective quoting all you want. But the fact remains that you still can't substantiate your own point.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Keep trying. It's fun to watch your squirm. Or better yet, do as I said and actually try to educate yourself about topics before wading into them.

houghtam
10-16-2013, 09:32 AM
No, I said that the founding principals of both our democracies were shared.
(Founding principals developed and fostered, in significant part, by France and French thinkers.)



No, you're desperately trying to spin an epically sad display of ignorance.



Oh, look, a straw man argument. Look how surprised I am by that!



:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Keep trying. It's fun to watch your squirm. Or better yet, do as I said and actually try to educate yourself about topics before wading into them.

The bible is more accurate than the archaeological record.

LOL

Requiem
10-16-2013, 09:33 AM
The bible is more accurate than the archaeological record.

LOL

Someone here claimed that?

BroncoBeavis
10-16-2013, 09:46 AM
Oh, look, a straw man argument. Look how surprised I am by that!

Speculating at what your argument might be as crickets chirp is not a Straw Man.

I guess we got another attempt at an answer: Some Founding Fathers read some French writing. Most notably that written by a member of the French nobility. Doesn't compare to the influence of the English or the Scottish enlightenment. Still, it was an attempt, so that's nice.

But since everything you've pointed to still predates the French Revolution, the question still remains: What have any of the various incarnations of the French Republic brought us? You know, between all the various episodes of wealth spreading and Napoleon worship? LOL

Fedaykin
10-16-2013, 10:26 AM
Speculating at what your argument might be as crickets chirp is not a Straw Man.


Making up and argument for me is exactly what a straw man is.


I guess we got another attempt at an answer: Some Founding Fathers read some French writing. Most notably that written by a member of the French nobility. Doesn't compare to the influence of the English or the Scottish enlightenment. Still, it was an attempt, so that's nice.

But since everything you've pointed to still predates the French Revolution, the question still remains: What have any of the various incarnations of the French Republic brought us? You know, between all the various episodes of wealth spreading and Napoleon worship? LOL

It's pretty funny. All your questions do is continue to elucidate just how horrible ignorant you are about modern history. The how, the when, the who, everything.

Like I said before I'm not interested in spoon feeding modern history 101 to you. Find some intellectual integrity, and learn about the topic before attempting to argue about it. When you can demonstrate something other than hopeless ignorance, I'd be happy to engage. There is the wealth of information quite freely available to you to do just that.

BroncoBeavis
10-16-2013, 10:30 AM
Like I said before I'm not interested in spoon feeding modern history 101 to you. Find some intellectual integrity, and learn about the topic before attempting to argue about it. When you can demonstrate something other than hopeless ignorance, I'd be happy to engage. There is the wealth of information quite freely available to you to do just that.

LOL
I'm not gonna answer because you horrible ignorant!!!

LOL

Fedaykin
10-16-2013, 10:56 AM
LOL


LOL

When a person claims the sky is pink with purple stripes, should time be wasted explaining the real color to that person?

BroncoBeavis
10-16-2013, 12:08 PM
When a person claims the sky is pink with purple stripes, should time be wasted explaining the real color to that person?

An apt analogy for the claim that French Democracy was critical to modern Western Civilization.

You're right. I should not have wasted the time or effort. LOL

houghtam
10-16-2013, 12:24 PM
An apt analogy for the claim that French Democracy was critical to modern Western Civilization.

You're right. I should not have wasted the time or effort. LOL

PIKEW!

Fedaykin
10-16-2013, 12:46 PM
An apt analogy for the claim that French Democracy was critical to modern Western Civilization.

You're right. I should not have wasted the time or effort. LOL

Keep reaching. No one's buying your bluster.

BroncoBeavis
10-16-2013, 01:37 PM
Keep reaching. No one's buying your bluster.

Still can't come up with anything, huh?

Geez, even I could've come up with something decent by now, if only I'd known you'd be so easily stumped.

houghtam
10-16-2013, 01:44 PM
Still can't come up with anything, huh?

Geez, even I could've come up with something decent by now, if only I'd known you'd be so easily stumped.

LOL

Bull****. Your record on answering questions is about as bad as it gets.

You'd be a great politician, if you weren't such a friggin idiot. Of course, you could always fall in and run with the Tea Party on that platform.

BroncoBeavis
10-16-2013, 01:57 PM
Hey, look. Mr One Liner wants substance. LOL

Requiem
10-16-2013, 02:01 PM
What's the question at hand that needs answering, Beavis?

I'll hit a grand slam on ya.

BroncoBeavis
10-16-2013, 02:08 PM
What's the question at hand that needs answering, Beavis?

I'll hit a grand slam on ya.

What are the world-changing (or at least West-Changing) contributions of the Free French Republic(s) and/or how significant were those compared to British/American contributions of the same era.

Go! :)

Rohirrim
10-16-2013, 04:29 PM
I guess Napoleon should be relegated to the footnotes of Western Civilization as well. :rofl:

BroncoBeavis
10-16-2013, 09:48 PM
I guess Napoleon should be relegated to the footnotes of Western Civilization as well. :rofl:

I wouldn't say that. But he's hardly a glowing representation of the fruits of French Democracy. :)

Rohirrim
10-17-2013, 07:36 AM
I wouldn't say that. But he's hardly a glowing representation of the fruits of French Democracy. :)

This was your statement:
France was a bit player in the development of modern Western Civ.

Same old ****. Lose the argument and then pretend like you said something else.

Basically a microcosm of the modern Republican Party.

Fedaykin
10-17-2013, 07:40 AM
Still can't come up with anything, huh?

Geez, even I could've come up with something decent by now, if only I'd known you'd be so easily stumped.

In case you hadn't noticed, the only one who thinks you are not just embarrassing yourself is you...

Rohirrim
10-17-2013, 07:49 AM
French was the dominant language of diplomacy in the world from the 17th century until around WWII.

Fedaykin
10-17-2013, 07:53 AM
This was your statement:
France was a bit player in the development of modern Western Civ.

Same old ****. Lose the argument and then pretend like you said something else.

Basically a microcosm of the modern Republican Party.

I'm not sure if he's just being dishonest, or is so unfathomably ignorant that he can't even pose a sensical question vis–à–vis the development of western civ.

BroncoBeavis
10-17-2013, 08:07 AM
Lol. I've seen 2nd graders with better reading comprehension skills.

Fed: But you are completely wrong about the founding principals of our country and other fledgling western democracies (such as France). Modern western society is built on the idea of social equality, not any particular economic system.

Beav: France was a bit player in the development of modern Western Civ. There's a reason they went from a major world power in the age of Kings to a me-too country in the Anglo-American age. Because, as you allude to, they had a different set of values.

Herpderps: "But what aboot wat da King did! Napoleon waz good too!" LOL

I feel sorry for whoever had to endure you kids in school whenever they had to teach the importance of context in reading comprehension.

Except, I give too much credit. You know how obtuse you're being. You just can't find a satisfactory answer to the question. So you've grasped this particularly sad straw.

France is just about the last country you should model a thriving Democracy after. Your silence on the actual topic only underlines it.

BroncoBeavis
10-17-2013, 08:09 AM
http://specialed.about.com/od/readingliteracy/a/Context-clues-comprehension.htm

Look for examples, illustrations or explanations. Difficult or uncommon words may be followed by information to help discern the meaning. The writer sometimes uses phrases to help identify examples and explanations: for example, such as, including, consists of, for instance, is like. Even without specific words introducing the meaning of an unknown word, phrases and sentences in the paragraph give further explanation, often enough to make a logical or educated guess as to the meaning of the word.

You guys might want to get that checked out. LOL

Fedaykin
10-17-2013, 08:31 AM
Lol. I've seen 2nd graders with better reading comprehension skills.

Fed:

Beav:

Herpderps: "But what aboot wat da King did! Napoleon waz good too!" LOL

I feel sorry for whoever had to endure you kids in school whenever they had to teach the importance of context in reading comprehension.


LMAO another miserably failed attempt to condescend. It's pretty hilarious that while trying to condescend about reading comprehension and following a conversation, you attempt to attribute statements to me that I didn't even make. EPIC FAIL.

But speaking of reading comprehension, we're talking about the development of western civilization (you know, the thing you explicitly claim France had no significant part in creating). Do you even understand what the historical concept of "modern western civilization" means and all the multitude of factors that it consists of and was built from? Do you have any idea of the timeline of that development?

Apparently not, as your line of questions and arguments demonstrate quite clearly.


Except, I give too much credit. You know how obtuse you're being. You just can't find a satisfactory answer to the question. So you've grasped this particularly sad straw.

France is just about the last country you should model a thriving Democracy after. Your silence on the actual topic only underlines it.

Hilarious!Hilarious!Hilarious!

The only person being obtuse is the guy who, at this point, appears to be trying to distill (through either dishonesty or hilarious levels of ignorance) the concept of modern western civilization into just a form of government, and even then trying to pretend that France and French thinkers didn't make significant contributions to that.

You're a ****ing idiot.

BroncoBeavis
10-17-2013, 08:59 AM
LMAO another miserably failed attempt to condescend. It's pretty hilarious that while trying to condescend about reading comprehension and following a conversation, you attempt to attribute statements to me that I didn't even make. EPIC FAIL.

But speaking of reading comprehension, we're talking about the development of western civilization (you know, the thing you explicitly claim France had no significant part in creating). Do you even understand what the historical concept of "modern western civilization" means and all the multitude of factors that it consists of and was built from? Do you have any idea of the timeline of that development?

Apparently not, as your line of questions and arguments demonstrate quite clearly.



Hilarious!Hilarious!Hilarious!

The only person being obtuse is the guy who, at this point, appears to be trying to distill (through either dishonesty or hilarious levels of ignorance) the concept of modern western civilization into just a form of government, and even then trying to pretend that France and French thinkers didn't make significant contributions to that.

You're a ****ing idiot.

Lots of bull****ty fluff. Still not a single answer about what French Democracy has given the world.

Dance, Fed. Dance.

Rohirrim
10-17-2013, 01:09 PM
Well, once again trying to bypass BB's lame attempts to deflect and misdirect the threads he doesn't like, to me this it one of the core ideas behind the liberal/progressive idea of government:

Rather than formulating policy from speculative axioms, reformers beginning in
the mid-19th century increasingly devoted themselves to the gathering and analysis of socioeconomic data. In America, the measures adopted during the Progressive era, New Deal, and Great Society were often ad hoc and experimental, and many failed. But partly through better knowledge, partly by trial and error, liberal governments discovered that certain forms of limited state intervention could help bring the promise of a free and just society closer to fulfillment while reducing the waste of human and physical resources and improving economic performance. Modern liberalism has never been ruled by a
theory in the way that free-market conservatism and Marxian socialism have been. A pragmatic emphasis on experience and evidence—on how things work in practice—has been critical in making liberalism work.

Only a fool would argue that liberalism didn't work. Who in America today would not trade in a heartbeat the economic world we have today for the economic world of post-WWII America?

With the advent of modern science came the shift in modern liberalism to a more scientific approach. They adopted the new rise in science to political theory. What is quantifiably the best system of government for the most people? How can we implement it? How can we take what we learn and turn it into concrete advantage for the greatest number of our people?

Through demagoguery, greed and outright lies, we've allowed ourselves to be steered back to the feudal default, the same heirarchical rich-take-all economics that Babylonian kings would recognize. What does the Right do now but spout axioms and theories? What is libertarianism itself but just a religion, in all but name? Hell, they couldn't care less about evidence. Under Reagan, the Right was able to shove through massive tax breaks for the rich and corporations. What has been the result? Under Clinton, the Right was able to dismantle the market and banking regulations of Glass/Steagle. What has been the result?

I've posted numerous times the study of Ted Wilkinson on the effects of wealth disparity on societies. That is scientific evidence, not some theory. Not an axiom. Not a slogan. Wealth disparity destroys nations. America's is the worst in the world.

Instead, we now have a movement on the Right which is not only anti-evidence, but anti-science. Global climate change caused by humans? Doesn't exist. And if you disagree, you are a traitor.

This was a statement made by Rush Limbaugh: The four corners of deceit: government, academia, science and media. Those institutions are now corrupt and exist by virtue of deceit. That's how they promulgate themselves; it is how they prosper.

Really? Anybody else see the problem here? What society prospers by attacking its fundamentally progressive institutions? Science? Academia? Who next? Writers? Poets? We already know about the Right's full frontal assault on the teaching profession.

The right's project over the last 30 years has been to dismantle the post-war liberal consensus by undermining trust in society's leading institutions. Experts are made elites; their presumption of expertise becomes self-damning. They think they're better than you. They talk down to you. They don't respect people like us, real Americans. ... The decline in trust in institutions has generated fear and uncertainty, to which people generally respond by placing their trust in protective authorities. And some subset of people respond with tribalism, nationalism, and xenophobia. The right ... offer[s] a space to huddle in safety among the like-minded. The conservative movement in America has created a self-contained, hermetically sealed epistemological reality ... designed not just as a source of alternative facts but as an identity. David Roberts, Grist

We can go forward, or we can go backwards. The modern American Right wants to go downright medieval on our asses.

BroncoBeavis
10-17-2013, 01:55 PM
I've posted numerous times the study of Ted Wilkinson on the effects of wealth disparity on societies. That is scientific evidence, not some theory. Not an axiom. Not a slogan. Wealth disparity destroys nations. America's is the worst in the world.

Instead, we now have a movement on the Right which is not only anti-evidence, but anti-science. Global climate change caused by humans? Doesn't exist. And if you disagree, you are a traitor.

This was a statement made by Rush Limbaugh: The four corners of deceit: government, academia, science and media. Those institutions are now corrupt and exist by virtue of deceit. That's how they promulgate themselves; it is how they prosper.

This is a mindbending flow of contortion here.

Cite one study. Accept its conclusion. Disregard any possibility that it's a theory. Call it science. Straw man segway. Call your opponents anti-science. Because Rush Limbaugh. LOL

W*GS
10-17-2013, 02:00 PM
Cite one study. Accept its conclusion. Disregard any possibility that it's a theory. Call it science.

"Theory" in scientific parlance does not mean "wild-ass guess".

Rohirrim
10-17-2013, 02:01 PM
This is a mindbending flow of contortion here.

Cite one study. Accept its conclusion. Disregard any possibility that it's a theory. Call it science. Straw man segway. Call your opponents anti-science. Because Rush Limbaugh. LOL

The Wilkinson presentation was a compendium of numerous studies as quoted in the piece which you would never watch but feel free to blather on about because, like I say, the Right ignores evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

Rush Limbaugh has been the spokesman and bell ringer of the radical Right movement in this country since the 80s. I'm sure you will simply ignore the mountain of evidence that proves that point that as well. To argue that the Right is not anti-science is so pathetic it's beyond belief.

BroncoBeavis
10-17-2013, 02:06 PM
The Wilkinson presentation was a compendium of numerous studies as quoted in the piece which you would never watch but feel free to blather on about because, like I say, the Right ignores evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

Rush Limbaugh has been the spokesman and bell ringer of the radical Right movement in this country since the 80s. I'm sure you will simply ignore the mountain of evidence that proves that point that as well. To argue that the Right is not anti-science is so pathetic it's beyond belief.

Funny, you tell me what I watch and don't watch and then tell me I'm represented by someone I only hear anything from when you kids are whining about him.

BroncoBeavis
10-17-2013, 02:10 PM
Anyway, your slam dunk evidence isn't quite as slam dunk as you think.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/inequality-and-happiness

Rohirrim
10-17-2013, 02:14 PM
Anyway, your slam dunk evidence isn't quite as slam dunk as you think.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/inequality-and-happiness

"Happiness" is entirely subjective. Wilkinson's results did not deal with "happiness." They dealt with crime, mental illness, poverty, percentage of population imprisoned, etc.

And you try and refute that with a study on "happiness?" :rofl:

"Gee, mister. Are you happy?"

"I guess so."

"Okay, that's one for "happy." Ha!

BroncoBeavis
10-17-2013, 02:21 PM
"Happiness" is entirely subjective. Wilkinson's results did not deal with "happiness." They dealt with crime, mental illness, poverty, percentage of population imprisoned, etc.

And you try and refute that with a study on "happiness?" :rofl:

"Gee, mister. Are you happy?"

"I guess so."

"Okay, that's one for "happy." Ha!

I'd much rather bank on what liberals define as 'good for people' as opposed to whether someone is content with their life.

"Hey, I've got a pretty good life"

"No you don't. You score very poorly on this matrix of Progressive Quality of Life Indicators. We'll let you know when you're doing well. Don't call us, we'll call you." LOL

Rohirrim
10-17-2013, 02:22 PM
I'd much rather bank on what liberals define as 'good for people' as opposed to whether someone is content with their life.

"Hey, I've got a pretty good life"

"No you don't. You score very poorly on this matrix of Progressive Quality of Life Indicators. We'll let you know when you're doing well. Don't call us, we'll call you." LOL

There you go again, twisting reality into a shape you find more convenient to your preconceptions. Pretty much what I call "Rightthink." ;D

BroncoBeavis
10-17-2013, 02:24 PM
There you go again, twisting reality into a shape you find more convenient to your preconceptions. Pretty much what I call "Rightthink." ;D

That's why Jefferson wrote it the way he did....

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of a Federal Check to catch you up with the Joneses"

AMIRITE? LOL

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-17-2013, 10:16 PM
There you go again, twisting reality into a shape you find more convenient to your preconceptions. Pretty much what I call "Rightthink." ;D

That's the TeaTards' and the Republi-cons' greatest political advantage, i.e., the knowledge that their supporters don't believe in facts, truth, logic, science, reality, etc.

All that matters to these bozos is brand loyalty and the brownie points they expect to accrue from blowing billionaires.

Fedaykin
10-18-2013, 11:16 AM
Lots of bull****ty fluff. Still not a single answer about what French Democracy has given the world.

Dance, Fed. Dance.

I see all your doing is still trying to redefine the conversation. Dishonesty at its finest!

BroncoBeavis
10-18-2013, 12:14 PM
I see all your doing is still trying to redefine the conversation. Dishonesty at its finest!

Says the guy who hailed French Democracy and then trotted out Louis XVI to corroborate. :)

Rohirrim
10-18-2013, 02:57 PM
Says the guy who hailed French Democracy and then trotted out Louis XVI to corroborate. :)

Do you have an aversion to honesty? You never said anything about "French Democracy" until after your original position had been obliterated. This was your original statement: France was a bit player in the development of modern Western Civ.

W*GS
10-18-2013, 03:15 PM
Do you have an aversion to honesty? You never said anything about "French Democracy" until after your original position had been obliterated. This was your original statement: France was a bit player in the development of modern Western Civ.

"Modern" in the Western Hemisphere dating from the Declaration of Independence in 1776; in the Eastern Hemisphere, from the end of the French Revolution in 1799. You just gotta pick your dates correctly!

houghtam
10-18-2013, 03:18 PM
LOL

BroncoBeavis
10-18-2013, 03:30 PM
Do you have an aversion to honesty? You never said anything about "French Democracy" until after your original position had been obliterated. This was your original statement: France was a bit player in the development of modern Western Civ.

The post it was responding to was about France as a Democracy. I used the word "modern" in the sentence as a point of separation, and then followed it with a sentence that clearly described what I meant by by that delineation.

There's a reason they went from a major world power in the age of Kings to a me-too country in the Anglo-American age.

There's absolutely no way you can read that sentence and still maintain that I said France under the House of Bourbon had little impact. LOL

You basically keep reiterating what I already said and then say I didn't say it.