RE: How (neo)conservatives Think (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

cpK69 -> RE: How (neo)conservatives Think (5/5/2009 11:20:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Okay I'll bite...why would you feel the need for witnesses.....do you feel something untoward might ensue from such a meeting? I'm curious as to your concern.


My short lived tour in the ‘Brownies’ taught me to be prepared. (Alright, it wasn’t just the ‘Brownies’ alone, that taught me that.)[:D]

Better safe than sorry.

Kim



slvemike4u -> RE: How (neo)conservatives Think (5/5/2009 11:24:10 AM)

Well in reality your chance of being allowed in the same room,alone with Potus is probably less than your chance of being struck by a meteorite....so rest easy.



cpK69 -> RE: How (neo)conservatives Think (5/5/2009 11:26:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Well in reality your chance of being allowed in the same room,alone with Potus is probably less than your chance of being struck by a meteorite....so rest easy.


Didn't say I was afraid, just wouldn't want it to be a waste.

Kim 



NorthernGent -> RE: How (neo)conservatives Think (5/5/2009 1:13:40 PM)

wrong documentary...



NorthernGent -> RE: How (neo)conservatives Think (5/5/2009 1:33:20 PM)

General reply:

It's interesting that the two countries that would preach individual liberty more than any other - England and the United States - are the two countries that simply can't keep their fingers out of other people's pies. Any takers as to why this is?

I'll add that Thatcher and Reagan were as much neo-liberals as anything; Blair, too. Surely the idea that you can change people for the better, and your policies should reflect this, is a liberal idea?

Edited to add: on the OP, yes Owner, both nations believe they can change people for the better, without regard for whether or not these foreign people actually want changing: Blair in Iraq, the Americans in Russia in '91. They've come to believe they have the one true answer, which, ironically, is supposed to be the very thing that the Anglo-Saxon systems were set up to prevent.

Edited to add again: perhaps this is is what happens people become disillusioned with the democratic process, as shown in recent turn outs in general and local elections in England: the lunatics take over the asylum.



OrionTheWolf -> RE: How (neo)conservatives Think (5/5/2009 2:38:57 PM)

You know this because of a "moral certainty"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

You're right. It's so much better to keep students ignorant and to raise them in this fluff of flags and baseball.



CreativeDominant -> RE: How (neo)conservatives Think (5/5/2009 2:51:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

I agree that the education system needs a major overhall: for example, an Americano-centric view of the world is force fed to the youth of the nation as if they were the sole occupants of the planet. It's as if they were being brought up in Disneyland. If it's not fun then it's not worth doing. Equally pathetic is the indoctrination with the flag every day, and even in public school there lives an underlying ambiance of pro-religious thought that is absolutely terrifying. I'm glad we agree on that.
  Gee, imagine that...an American-centered point of view being taught in American schools.  I'm quite sure that Venezuela and Cuba and Iran all teach their pupils about the wonders of capitalism and the American way.  The world is not a one-world, one-country, utopian dream yet and I see nothing wrong with teaching love of one's own flag and one's own country and what's right about it instead of constantly teaching what it has done, and continues to do, wrong when the point of view of what it has done, and continues to do, comes only from those in the "Blame America 1st" crowd. 
Now, as for they being brought up in the schools as if it were Disneyland, you are right..."I am O.K., you are O.K., everyone is O.K. because it's a small world after all and the only country that is wrong in this whole wide world is the one you are living in...you know, the one where you are allowed to watch what you want to watch on T.V., where you can wear what you want to wear as long as your parents and the schools are O.K. with it, where you can work at a part-time job after school and pay taxes to support those adults who...at least some...don't want to work.

quote:

Incidentally, and in a nice loop back to the OP (because we don't want to derail again now, do we?) neo-conservatives thinkers and leaders cynically and knowingly promoted the spread of religion as a noble lie that would keep the masses occupied with orthodoxy. In this, they very much resembled Marxists. How ironic [:D] .
Actually, what I find ironic is that in making that comparison, you fail to note how many in this country have died for failing to follow a state-sponsored or political plank (religion) versus how many died for not following the state-supported plank of Stalin, Lenin.  Or were you perhaps speaking of the mullahs in that ever-peaceful, loving country of Iran?



kittinSol -> RE: How (neo)conservatives Think (5/5/2009 3:02:18 PM)

[sm=abducted.gif]



Politesub53 -> RE: How (neo)conservatives Think (5/5/2009 3:03:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

hmmm ....

Here are some commonly accepted definitions of "evil":



  • morally objectionable behavior



        • This would fit Kittins first use of the word then, as nothing was more morally objectionable than the invasion of Iraq on false premises and lies.



      kittinSol -> RE: How (neo)conservatives Think (5/5/2009 3:12:33 PM)

      When people start dishing out definitions straight out of the dictionary, it's because they're unsure of their own, know what I mean?



      CreativeDominant -> RE: How (neo)conservatives Think (5/5/2009 3:17:30 PM)

      quote:

      ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

      quote:

      ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
      Yes, because our children don't get enough liberal...excuse me, progressive...indoctrination with the allowance of books such as "My Two Mommies" in the elementary schools while any serious books taking a stance against homosexuality are banned or with the celebration of Earth Day or with the viewings of Michael Moore's ""Fahrenheit 9/11 or Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", both criticized for their distortion and omission of relevant facts.


      I'll tel you what. I'll send my kid to a school where he reads "My Two Mommies" and learns about Earth Day, and you send your kid to a school where he reads homophobic propaganda and learns about how Jesus rode a velociraptor to church every Sunday. And 20 years from now, let's check back and see which kid is teaching college and which kid is driving a cab with a "God didn't create Adam and Steve" bumper sticker and bitching about cigarette taxes. Deal?

      And like most liberals, you prove yourself to be more judgmental and narrowly-focused on your mistaken belief about what a conservative believes than most conservatives I know. 
      I have no problem with homosexuality.  I support civil unions for gay couples.  I've voted for it.  But a school that puts a book on the shelf that promotes homosexuality while not allowing for a serious, opposing view is just as wrong as those schools who allow for only a religious point of view while asking ALL people to pay for it. 

      As for Jesus and whether or not I believe in him, I don't believe that I stated my beliefs and it seems to me that your attack is getting into the personal realm now.
      Whether I do or do not believe does not mean that I or all conservatives take the Bible literally though that seems to be another mistaken belief of those who do not believe.

      Finally, I came out of public schools that taught the "old-fashioned" way and wound up choosing being a doctor as my profession...yes, I didn't like that ivory tower thing and the whole concept which appears to be true on so many campuses---those that can't DO, can teach--- and enjoying BDSM in my private life.  I have gay patients, I have gay family members and I have gay friends, I don't care whether Adam fucks Steve or Eve or Joy would rather fuck her electric toy instead of a live boy and have no problem with civil unions, I don't take the Bible literally, I drive a motorcycle for fun and for a lesser impact on the environment.  I also believe in Christ, I drive hot rods and I don't want to support schools that only teach from one ideology...that of the left...because the left controls academia and thinks it is the only side that is right.

      It's funny but for all the claims made about the conservatives thinking they have the only true way, how many of you on the left have argued from just that point of view on here?




      CreativeDominant -> RE: How (neo)conservatives Think (5/5/2009 3:20:41 PM)

      quote:

      ORIGINAL: kittinSol

      No. The real world isn't 'divided' into good and evil. The world fluctuates, it isn't a rigid set of files in a neo-con's filing cabinet. Only those that have been successfully brainwashed into rigid and intolerant people believe otherwise.

      Sadly.

      Now, I appreciate your personal interest in me: but you really ought to stop derailing the thread.
      And yet, you and many others sometimes seem to occupy a filing cabinet where the only "twue" evil is the conservative way of thought.



      kittinSol -> RE: How (neo)conservatives Think (5/5/2009 3:25:11 PM)

      So much angst! Sooo, you're a con. Are you a Republican too? Because, do you know that the Republican party has just started a new initiative to help rebrand it out of the dump after the neo-cons led it there? I'm sure your verve and energy would be much appreciated at HQ [:D] .

      http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/cheat-sheet/white-house-cheat-sheet-republ-1.html



      CreativeDominant -> RE: How (neo)conservatives Think (5/5/2009 3:37:31 PM)

      quote:

      ORIGINAL: kittinSol

      So much angst! Sooo, you're a con. Are you a Republican too? Because, do you know that the Republican party has just started a new initiative to help rebrand it out of the dump after the neo-cons led it there? I'm sure your verve and energy would be much appreciated at HQ [:D] .

      http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/cheat-sheet/white-house-cheat-sheet-republ-1.html
      No, not angst...just frustration from dealing with a myopic viewpoint from those who claim to be soooooo open-minded and broad of view. 

      And no, I am not a Republican.



      FirmhandKY -> RE: How (neo)conservatives Think (5/5/2009 3:41:15 PM)

      quote:

      ORIGINAL: Politesub53

      quote:

      ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

      hmmm ....

      Here are some commonly accepted definitions of "evil":



    • morally objectionable behavior

          • This would fit Kittins first use of the word then, as nothing was more morally objectionable than the invasion of Iraq on false premises and lies.


        That was not kittin's own definition:

        Evil is having knowledge whilst inflicting ignorance upon others.Evil is also choosing to remain ignorant for personal reasons of emotional comfort and certainty.

        Firm



        FirmhandKY -> RE: How (neo)conservatives Think (5/5/2009 3:49:11 PM)

        quote:

        ORIGINAL: kittinSol

        When people start dishing out definitions straight out of the dictionary, it's because they're unsure of their own, know what I mean?

        When people start making up their own definitions for words, it's usually because they are either ignorant (which I do not believe you to be), or because they wish to gain an advantage in a discussion.

        As witness in the "Newspeak" thread, it is a favorite liberal technique.

        I suspected earlier in the thread, that to you, both good and evil are synonymous terms, or that you have reversed their common meaning, which is why I posted the definitions.

        You made several statements that would lead a reasonable person to that conclusion, but I dropped this line of discussion a page or two back, although I do believe it is still a fertile field of inquiry.

        Firm



        caught -> RE: How (neo)conservatives Think (5/5/2009 3:56:36 PM)

        Wow, you all know your good and evil, at least as far as whatever doctrinal, defintional understanding you feel comfortable with.  Some of you come out swinging.  Let's be slightly less abstract, maybe?

        Operation Red Wing presents a dilemma highly relevant to this discussion on good, evil, grayness, ambiguity as well as Neoconservatism and National Security:
        After an initially successful infiltration, local goat herders stumbled upon the SEALs' hiding place. Unable to verify any hostile intent from the herders,[8] Murphy asked the team what should be done with them. Axelson reportedly voted to kill the Afghans, and Dietz didn't offer an opinion, causing Murphy to state that he would vote the same as Luttrell, who said the herders should be set free.[9]
        Shortly after the goatherders disappeared over the mountain ridge, the SEALs were confronted by a force of Afghan fighters, estimated between 50-200 strong,[2] causing Luttrell to believe that the released herders had given away their position.[10][11]
        Sometimes the world presents great difficulty and challenge.  Consider the obscure moral sacrifices given by the "Greatest Generation."  I believe measures of morality can lead to success, even military success.  And while it is great to see a public discussion, its worth considering the proper context in which morality actually applies.  It applies in moral dilemmas, like that faced by a SEAL team sent into the mysteries of Afghanistan via the mysterious Uncle Sam.  Given that, the idea you can win a fight by morality is an effect from thinking an editorial is a useful explanation of our own dilemmas.  

        That agenda-driven expositions have so saturated our news media, we (or at least me) forget that is never a good way to grasp the world, let alone sense the presence of evil or good. 



        SilverMark -> RE: How (neo)conservatives Think (5/5/2009 3:59:40 PM)

        Just because the thread seems to have changed...isn't good or evil really a matter of perception?...at least in this topic?(if we ever get back to it)...What I mean, although I find suicide bombing and the like reprehensible, to those who perform the acts is it not seen  as furthering their goals and as doing right for their people? Don't they see themselves as we see the American Revolutionists? I am not saying any part of what these people do or say or how they hate with such passion is in anyway correct to my point of view, but to their's which I simply don't understand, it is? As a country we have indeed been evil at times due to the fault of Man not to the fault of the nation as a whole. These people kill in the name of their God...throughout history almost all of mankind has done the same but, do we view them all as evil?
        I know evil when I see it or hear of it based on my perception, but does it qualify me to say that based on another's it is truly evil?
        I haven't a good answer, just a few questions...All I really know is that in any case I hate to see life wasted by those who don't value their own or anyone else's ....and I think that those who choose to do so are in MY view evil!...




        SilverMark -> RE: How (neo)conservatives Think (5/5/2009 4:09:04 PM)

        quote:

        ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY




        As witness in the "Newspeak" thread, it is a favorite liberal technique.



        Firm



        Up to there you had made a good argument(always do)....Newspeak isn't strictly the domain of liberals my friend. For every liberal use of Newspeak I can give you a litney of those wonderful terms used by those to the opposite side...I think the last Administartion made up more terms than any group I had seen in my lifetime!...and "they considered themselves conservative"<-----notice the quotes...we both know they weren't....



        caught -> RE: How (neo)conservatives Think (5/5/2009 4:14:58 PM)

        Let's see if it's a matter of perception. 

        1. Re: the Operation Red Wing example, would you kill the goat herders?

        2. Or the Moscow theater siege: would you use that nasty secretive gas?

        3. You've a team of soldiers in the midst of a genocide.  What would you be willing to do to defend the boundaries of your temporary sanctuary?

        What I fear about staid discussions of morality is how their sterility has destroyed an essential human animus, without which there is no life, no will to struggle, no resistance and no power.  Sometimes you have to win.  I do not want to seem like a firebrand, but I want to push what I think is a valid view that seems rarely recognized, in this thread and in wider news media discussions (FNC does not articulate 1 iota of instruction for the above, FYI).  



        Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

        Valid CSS!




        Collarchat.com © 2025
        Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
        0.046875