Comments on: Quote of the Day

By: Jon

Jon — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 20:38:58 +0000

Well perhaps you would have more fun bashing progressives under circumstances where one is actually discussing progressives.

By: Tman

Tman — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 20:11:08 +0000

How bout I just leave.

You don’t agree with me and that’s fine. I’m not trying to win anything. I was just pointing out that “progressives” have a brutal track record throughout history, and the quote you fawned over at the top is inherently wrong.

You are trying to put the christian right under the conservative umbrella, and there is no room for them there.

Have fun being right about everything though. I’m used to liberal condescension by now.

By: Jon

Jon — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:19:48 +0000

Meanwhile I’ll leave you to ponder on your own the paradox of defending conservatism on the grounds that it supports individual rights over the collective, while defending the social conservatives view that some perceived need for the collective to control the imaginary lines it draws in the sand outweighs the individual right to travel and work.

By: Jon

Jon — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:13:43 +0000

Yup, that’s what I was expecting, conservatism suddenly gets redefined as soon as it’s challenged. This was a post about social conservatives. You did read the post before commenting, right?

By: Tman

Tman — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:26:52 +0000

“opposing the right to marry”

True conservatives don’t believe the government should have anything to do with marriage, one way or the other. I’m not defending what the repubs have done with this issue, because it’s not in line with conservative values.

“opposing the right to move freely about the planet”

Huh? You mean immigration? Conservatives again, believe in conserving the laws that protect the individual. There are laws that say you can’t just waltz in to our country and automatically become a beneficiary of everything this country has to offer, just as if you are a company you can’t (or aren’t supposed to) hire people that are here illegally. There are rules of law one follows to do this. The laws should be upheld. These laws protect the individuals who do obey the law.

By: Jon

Jon — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:03:09 +0000

Ahh. So opposing the right to marry, opposing the right to move freely about the planet, and opposing the right to hire who you want/work for who you want are examples of conservatives supporting individual rights?

By: Tman

Tman — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:52:39 +0000

I agree that opposing Foo doesn’t necessarily mean you support BAR, but I haven’t confused conservatism with libertarianism.

By: Jon

Jon — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:33:33 +0000

Methinks you confuse conservatism and libertarianism. And you again seem to think that opposing BAR is the same as supporting FOO.

By: Tman

Tman — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:12:34 +0000

What has me bothered is your definition of conservatism. It’s wrong on its face. And you don’t seem to understand the correllation between individual rights and conservative values, which “progressives” would sell down the river to benefit the group. What’s even worse is that history shows how badly socially “progressive” programs have failed.

I’m not hot though. Internet arguments don’t get me hot.

By: Jon

Jon — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:41:24 +0000

My eyes must be failing me because I’ve looked and looked at my post and still can’t find this glorification of “socialism” that has you all hot and bothered.

Your world veiw is cartoonish because you seem to have some perception that “all liberals believe FOO” and “all conservatives believe BAR”, which is silly on its face since “all” is a dangerous word in any context, but becomes even sillier when faced with the reality that both statements are based on hyperbolic stereotypes whose meager kernels of truth have been whithering away steadily since the 60s.