Why Ideologies Fail

Liberalism fails.

Conservatism fails.

Communism fails.

Capitalism fails.

It is typical of man’s optimism, or idealism or perhaps just arrogance that we believe that if we codify a set of rules, we can solve the world’s problems. When we apply any academic construct to reality, the construct will ultimately fail. Why? Because life is messy. Life throws curve balls. Life is full of exceptions.

This week we got clear evidence of this in the travails of Dr. Rand Paul. Paul won the Kentucky Republican Senatorial nomination this week in a primary against a more moderate opponent. Paul is, as far as I can tell, the first national candidate who can truly claim to be a Tea Party candidate. He has embraced the Tea Party Movement and they have embraced him. Paul has lent some legitimacy to the movement by casting their concerns in good old-fashioned Libertarian philosophy. The cornerstone of this ideology is government staying out of the everyday lives of people. It is this very fundamental notion that got Paul in hot water within 24 hours of his nomination.

[picapp align=”left” wrap=”false” link=”term=rand+paul&iid=8847361″ src=”a/e/1/3/Rand_Paul_gives_4a73.jpg?adImageId=12938540&imageId=8847361″ width=”234″ height=”277″ /]

Paul has said that he supports nine-tenths of the 1964 civil rights legislation. He says that no public entity should be allowed to discriminate against minorities. It’s that one tenth of the law that troubles him, the part that prohibits private entities from discrimination. True to pure Libertarian doctrine, Paul believes the government should not be allowed to tell a private restaurant owner or store owner how to conduct their business. If that means that they discriminate against blacks, so be it. Paul makes the point that such a decision ultimately hurts the vendor since he’s turning away business. He makes the additional point that if a vendor uses violence to enforce his discrimination, then he has crossed a clear legal line and must be prosecuted.

With respect to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Paul says that its goal is praiseworthy but its method of enforcement is overly burdensome to businesses. For example, why is it not reasonable to provide a disabled worker with a first floor office, rather than install an expensive elevator?

I chatted about this with my wife a couple of mornings ago and she made an interesting observation. “It’s one thing to debate these intellectual points in an all night BS session when you’re in college but to voice them during a political campaign is suicide.” The trick with politics is that it is the place where ideology clashes with real life. As a politician you have to sell your ideology to average people and convince them that your way is the best way. The problem that Paul is having is that he is persisting in an intellectual argument that doesn’t square with the real world.

Discrimination in housing or services is a problem because it exists within a larger scheme of societal dysfunction. When you allow private enterprise to discriminate against a minority, you end up with an apartheid system as an end result. The intellectual argument can be made that private enterprise is guaranteed by the Constitution to be free to discriminate but does granting that freedom serve the greater good?

In the case of the ADA, is giving the employee a first floor office sufficient accommodation? Not if virtually all of his co-workers work upstairs. By being segregated, the disabled worker misses the key elements of team work and camaraderie essential to a well working organization. He is made to feel isolated and second class. I got a taste of this myself at college. There were three dorms that were designated handicapped-accessible. One of the three allowed access to the dining room only via a freight elevator that led to the kitchen. So, in order to go the dining room, if I wanted to avoid the stairs, I would have had to go through the kitchen every day. Harvard considered this reasonable accommodation (back in 1980). For some it might have been. I personally found it distasteful and I chose a different dorm with a more dignified route to the dining room. Here again, the application of a law when it meets reality must take into account the personal impact upon real people.

So Rand Paul finds himself in a bind now because his ideological purity, with no ill intent (let’s give him the benefit of the doubt), flies in the face of what makes many of us comfortable. A strict reading of Libertarian ideology is not the only non-starter:

Communism/Socialism: Great idea on paper. Spread the wealth, elevate the working class, eliminate economic inequities. Fails because humans being who they are, will always separate into haves and have-nots and attempts to stop this usually result in an overbearing government … leading to tyranny.

Capitalism: Great idea on paper. Allow man’s desire for a better life to fuel creativity and industry. Get out of the way and let people succeed beyond their wildest dreams. The rising tide of ingenuity lifts all boats. Fails because it ignores man’s fatal flaw of greed. When left to their own devices, men will try to get richer and with limited resources, the poor can then only get poorer.

Liberalism: Great idea on paper. Equality of all people is paramount. The rich devote a part of their wealth to elevating the poor from poverty. Government does for people what it deems they cannot do for themselves. Tolerance of social differences is fundamental. Fails because some take advantage of the system or through no fault of their own become dependent on the system. Tolerance leads to slippery slope of no standards at all.

Conservatism: Great idea on paper. Limited government. Delegation of authority to lowest levels of society (state and city). Belief that a strict social order leads to a healthier nation. Fails because without leadership at the top, lower levels of government go off in all directions and sometimes seek the lowest common denominator in how to conduct themselves. Focus on individual responsibility becomes an excuse to ignore the truly vulnerable. Enforcing a strict social order leads to mistreatment of non-conformists.

The reason why so few problems get solved anymore is that, as a society, we are more locked into ideology than we have ever been in recent history. We are unable to pick the best ideas from a variety of constructs to solve any given problem. In politics, the true problem solvers, the moderates, are getting drummed out of the game.

The result is that we will continue to select leaders like Rand Paul, an ideological purist totally out of touch with reality.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Advertisements

145 thoughts on “Why Ideologies Fail

  1. Interesting post “R” and a good one. This is about as close as you have come to being objective, and I think you bring a perspective that I can’t. I’ve never required so much as crutches to be mobile.

    As a politician you have to sell your ideology to average people and convince them that your way is the best way. The problem that Paul is having is that he is persisting in an intellectual argument that doesn’t square with the real world.

    Actually, I think Paul’s ideas do square with reality.

    It is impossible to level the playing field for everyone. I’ve never said this, but the fact all men are created equal is a pipe dream and based on hearsay. Our rights must be equal, our opportunities should be equal, our liberties need to be equal, but our endowed talents and gifts are not equal and never will be.

    The pursuit to level the playing field may have been noble, but the continued pursuit after its obvious failure is nonsense.

    Where we have made an effort, the results have been dismal and the costs substantial and now prohibitive. We never really address the problem. Look at the public school system for prime example.

    When you make effort to level the field, the typical outcome is generally to oppress the talented. Once that happens, the oppressed (the talented) move elsewhere, and not without resentment creating polarization.

    And the end result is nobody is happy with the outcome.

    About conservatism: Fails because without leadership at the top, lower levels of government go off in all directions and sometimes seek the lowest common denominator in how to conduct themselves. True The key world being “leadership”, or lack thereof.

    Focus on individual responsibility becomes an excuse to ignore the truly vulnerable. Sometimes is true but the post doesn’t address why the ‘vulnerable’ are vulnerable Enforcing a strict social order leads to mistreatment of non-conformists. This is a loaded statement, and not sure I agree with your broadened assessment.

    Moderation is great for a diet. Moderation is great for exercise and enjoyment. No doubt, we all require balance.

    But for 40 years with few exceptions, we have been governed by a population of politicians who would love to refer to themselves as “moderates.” With respect to moderates, they would appear to me to equate to “incoherent philosophy without principle.”

    Fun and thought provoking post. I’ll be interested on your further commentary “R” – especially considering the disabled.

  2. Well Rutherford I hope you are feeling better because with an eye on adhering to the spirit of the ADA I’m here to equally dump on you.
    In reverse….
    Your exploration of conservatism is interesting in that it shows a link to true socialism. A true link to individual freedom and liberty and purpose. You fail when you hint that nonconformists are guaranteed prey to conservative thought and persons.
    When you use the word Liberalism you do so incorrectly. At best you should add American to the word otherwise you imply Smith et al are progressive socialists.
    On capitalism you speak as a true and passionate American liberal. The poor can only get poorer boo hoo. It isn’t a zero sum world rutherford no matter what they said at Harvard. Learn that and you can free yourself of the morally bankrupt concept of wealth redistribution.
    Communism should never be confused with real socialism and what is seen as socialism should never be ignored for what both communism and “socialism” truly is,fascism. To be fair you seem to have resolved that yourself by the end of the paragraph.
    As for Paul if he is a fool for trying to stay pure to his Libertarianism so be it. better that than compromising himself to serve others agendas.
    The ADA has done little good although it is sad legislation was needed to prod some common sense. Dig deeper into it and you will find that on one end of the spectrum much of the reasonable accommodation is inexpensive and no great hardship. On the other end you will find that companies froze hiring and even those with reasonable accommodation in place lack “disabled” workers on the rolls.
    As for the racial discrimination issue I ‘ll offer you the same challenge I gave graychin elsewhere. Prove Paul or others that feel the same way would patronize an establishment that would discriminate and I’ll join you. Until then people have the right to spend and waste their money and lives as they see fit.

  3. Prove Paul or others that feel the same way would patronize an establishment that would discriminate and I’ll join you.

    Interestingly, Alfie, that is one of Paul’s defenses. He says I would never belong to a country club that excluded blacks or eat at a restaurant that did so. So that makes us all warm and fuzzy that Rand is not himself a bigot. And please notice that no where in my post did I call Rand a bigot.

    It’s not about Rand. As I said, it’s about the greater good. Clearly we cannot draft legislation that prevents a restaurant owner from giving every black who enters his place, the stink-eye. We cannot force him not to serve the black guy last. We cannot prevent him from telling his waitresses to pay more attention to white patrons. I have no doubt there are some restaurants in this country where that goes on. If you’re black and you go there to eat, you’re a damn fool.

    BUT we can legislate that the dude cannot put a sign outside his restaurant saying “no blacks allowed”. You cannot completely legislate prejudice away. What you can do is use legislation to create a society that is less polarized, more accepting, and less likely to lead to violent confrontation.

    As for ADA, I think you are confusing accessibility with affirmative action All the ramps in the world ain’t gonna make the disabled guy get the CEO job or even get hired. The point is to create an accessible work environment. I think you’re mixing apples and oranges.

  4. Rutherford, you have written an excellent post. And already the ideologues are after you.

    As you said, politics is the place where ideology clashes with real life. For each of the ideologies you named, you have identified a fatal flaw in the utopia that each one promises but can’t deliver. Therefore, the most vile name that I can call anyone in a political discussion is “ideologue.”

    When adherence to an ideology becomes more important than the real-life effects of the ideology, then the engine is off the tracks and real people suffer. But the True Believer doesn’t care. The triumph of the ideology is always more important than the damage done in getting there, and any adverse results can be blamed on lack of faithful adherence to the ideology. Just read the previous comments to see what I mean.

    SOME commenters here have lots of names for me, but what I really am is a pragmatist. Is Obama a “socialist”? No, but so what if he is? Does he propose policies that will work? If so, I don’t care what label some moron attaches to them. I favor what I believe will work, and I oppose what won’t. I especially oppose what has already been demonstrated not to work, including many of the policies of the Bush Administration. (And yes, Obama is following some of those same failed policies. I oppose them too.)

    Which brings me back to Rand (named after Ayn Rand) Paul. He is first and foremost a libertarian ideologue, obviously indoctrinated in libertarianism starting in his cradle. Already his rigid libertarian ideology has taken him into trouble, and he’s going to get in much deeper as his views get closer scrutiny.

    As for the specific arguments against the ADA and the Civil Rights Act: I argue that living in a just society, one in which racial discrimination in employment and public accommodations is outlawed, one in which disabled persons have a real chance at gainful employment, is well worth whatever alleged inefficiency and abridgment of individual freedom results from it. But if libertarianism is your guiding star, you won’t really give a rip about any of that.

    A “libertarian,” free-market approach to racial injustice didn’t end it – it took government interference with “liberty” to end almost 100 years of Jim Crow after the forcible, non-libertarian abolition of slavery. Rand Paul is talking out of a whole new side of his mouth now that he is running for office. He is just one more guy like Groucho: “These are my principles. And if you don’t like them, I have others.” Watch his rapid decline now that the whole world is watching. He is already circling the drain.

  5. Here’s a question I would like to ask Dr. Rand Paul, or anybody else that is Conservative or Liberatarian in nature.

    Why do you lower yourself to go on either “The View” or the “Racial Madcow” show?

    The View is viewed and conducted by idiots incapable of understanding how to put gas in their car. Maddow is a prime example of ideological rigidity – boring, repetitive and unable to handle even a modicum of complexity. There is no way to take a complex issue and explain on her show without twisting and interruption of the guest.

    The fact Racial Madcow and the equally reprehensible Keith Ogremann have only a few dwindling fans would be of little consequence, but in this information age, everything you say or do as a politician then goes viral on the net.

    It shows a complete lack of media understanding – a real weakness for the Republican party and a wonderful opportunity for them to blow it come November when they should win in a blow out.

    Avoid these idiots like the plague Rand. They’ll screw you, twist your words, play games, and lie every way possible. Wise up Doctor!

  6. * * * GUFFAW!!! * * * 😆 😆 😆

    SOME commenters here have lots of names for me, but what I really am is a pragmatist.

    How do you respond to the inanity and depravity of something like this statement? 😈

    Yeah, and Obama wasn’t an idealogue either, Babe Ruth was the ultimate singles hitter, and Secretariat a plodder

    Crazier than a tick in a tar bucket.

  7. Tex would rather talk about labels than anything else. Labels are nice and simple for him, and they are morally unambiguous – his ideology ln one side, everyone else’s on the “inherently evil” side.

  8. his ideology ln one side, everyone else’s on the “inherently evil” side.

    Why, you put words in my mouth Mister “Pragmatist”. I didn’t say everybody. 😯

    I said you, Mr. Pragmatist Sir. 😉

  9. Rutherford I beg to differ

    It’s not about Rand

    No seriously the bulk of your post is.

    If you’re black and you go there to eat, you’re a damn fool.

    Again I beg to differ in that I’d say it swings both ways. I know how you erroneously feel about racism but its true.
    You also twist my point on the ADA. I am not confusing AA with being even remotely related to ADA.

  10. gray there are other fruits in your comment but I’ll grab this one.
    #1 give Groucho a break. #2 The North the North the North.

  11. G-chin, did you pause for one second as you typed your comments when the mind-numbing hypocrisy of what you said became so apparent?

    Why is it that Paul must be a racist if he recognizes that others are racist and might have the right to be so?

  12. Tiger, why do you guys insist on arguing about things that I didn’t say – instead of about what I really said? Surely there is enough stuff actually IN my comment to get you going..

    I do NOT believe that Paul is a racist. He is merely a libertarian ideologue. Is that clear enough? If it isn’t, I don’t know how to make it any clearer.

    Can you move on now?

  13. G-chin, the second question wasn’t directed at you — it was rhetorical. The idiots in the MSM haven’t hesitated to accuse Paul of either out-and-out racism or tolerance for it based on his comments. Sorry that seems to have touched a nerve with you.

    A “libertarian,” free-market approach to racial injustice didn’t end it – it took government interference with “liberty” to end almost 100 years of Jim Crow after the forcible, non-libertarian abolition of slavery.

    Has racial injustice ended? If so, can YOU move on now?

  14. I just read this Rand statement:

    “I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

    “Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.”

    “As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years.”

    “My opponent’s statement on MSNBC Wednesday that I favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act was irresponsible and knowingly false. I hope he will correct the record and retract his claims.”

    “The issue of civil rights is one with a tortured history in this country. We have made great strides, but there is still work to be done to ensure the great promise of Liberty is granted to all Americans.”

    “This much is clear: The federal government has far overreached in its power grabs. Just look at the recent national healthcare schemes, which my opponent supports. The federal government, for the first time ever, is mandating that individuals purchase a product. The federal government is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and state’s rights must stand up to it.”

    “These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign.”

    Sounds like horseshit and smears to me from the shills at MSNBC – status quo, par for the course, to be expected.

    Finally Rand understands too late you don’t give hacks room to slander – that only thing you give “progressive scum” is a slap across the face and a drop kick to the balls. Like the radicals from Islam, it’s all they understand, and if you don’t show strength and the ability to hit back very hard, they will savage you.

    Rand is exactly right in his last statement. He scares Rutherford to death – therefore, he is an incredibly gifted and capable candidate and you can expect many future smear posts on the Rutherford Lawson sight. Perhaps there is one ray of good news. That means we will be reading fewer smears about Palin’s children here in the foreseeable future.

    ❗ The more shrill the progressive voice, the more qualified the opponent ❗

  15. sight/site 😳

    Sorry, had to take a phone call.

    Rutherford, I do love to tease you. Unlike Mr. Pragmatic, you don’t take yourself too seriously and are one of the few libbies with a sense of humor. I promise my daughter wouldn’t have kicked Obama in the balls or slapped him down at A&M if he had made it on time. 😉

  16. “Tiger, why do you guys insist on arguing about things that I didn’t say – instead of about what I really said?”

    Yeah, I guess it’s better to argue about things that you think “you guys” would say in a hypothetical situation, and then lump everyone who isn’t you as “you guys.”

    Sound familiar?

  17. Damn.

    Home Land Security is saying they may not process illegal aliens from Arizona.

    Our own federal government are outright breaking the law themselves, now: Complicit in protecting illegals.

    You stupid, naive fucking liberals.

    You want to talk about Utopian ideology? How about some notion that secured borders are “unseemly” or some shit.

    This broke, soon to be Balkanized nation will one day eat you pussy liberals alive.

    You guys don’t even know how to load a weapon.

    Do not come running to me for help, lisping fem-bots.

    I’m running on fumes when it comes to my support for this skeleton of America.

  18. Rutherford is not so subtly backing way the fuck off this failure of a President if anyone hasn’t noticed.

    All of sudden, Rutherford isn’t a liberal ideologue. Laugh!

    Rutherford the libertarian. Laugh!

    Rutherford the pragmatist. Laugh!

  19. Rabbit,

    Rutherford is sometimes actually almost reasonable – that’s a rare for a lib.

    Unlike some swelled hemorrhoid like Mr. Pragmatist from above who is completely dependent on the nanny state, Rutherford draws ever closer to finally admitting Obama a disaster of epic proportions. Rutherford is only part hack.

    I’ve always been of the opinion, I might be able to meet Rutherford halfway on certain things.

  20. I don’t see Capitalism as an ideology. I see it as a reality. It’s a mere description of human behavior.

    Human beings will always barter limited resources for their own individual gain. A market existed even in Auschwitz.

    One doesn’t “believe” in Capitalism. One accepts it the same way one accepts the fact that human beings like to have sex or laugh at funny things.

  21. Tex, I did want to add another perspective to ADA since I saw it from both sides of the fence, so to speak,

    As a manager, I had an employee with special needs. He had injured his arm as a boy (an injury that caused him great emotional pain … I was never quite sure why). The arm looked “normal” to the average person but was very sensitive to cold temperature. I was managing a data center at the time and if you know anything about data centers, they can be a bit on the cool side. So I allowed this employee to have his own office outside the master control room. A very politically unpopular decision because having your own office was a big status symbol and none of his peers had one. I got a lot of grief from the other employees but I felt it was the right thing to do.

    When I passed said employee over for a promotion, he then used what I will call the “company reprimand system” to accuse me of discriminating against him on the basis of his handicap. ROTFL. When the company investigator actually met me, he nearly hit the floor. Needless to say, I was vindicated and a bureaucratic note was sent to the employee allowing him to save face a bit (which disappointed me since I wanted the note to call him an assh*le.)

    So, yeah … providing reasonable accommodation doesn’t always work in the end. Some folks are dead set on being miserable.

    On the bright side, I had another employee who was deaf for whom I advocated, and he went on to do quite well … at least until they started laying all of us off. 🙂

  22. Rutherford I beg to differ

    It’s not about Rand

    No seriously the bulk of your post is.

    Actually, Alfie, i thought I used Rand as an object lesson in a broader discussion of the failure of all ideologies. To the extent that you didn’t get that, I guess I failed.

  23. Finally Rand understands too late you don’t give hacks room to slander – that only thing you give “progressive scum”…

    Well you need to watch Chris Matthews. He has made it very clear that Paul’s opponent was dead WRONG in saying that Paul wanted the Civil Rights Act repealed. And I said no such thing either.

    As for Rand Paul scaring me? Mmmm, did I sound scared in my article? I didn’t think so. Tex you’re barking up the wrong tree here. I have a big soft spot in my head (LOL) for Daddy Ron Paul. I understand Rand Paul’s argument about freedom to be a bigot and government control of private enterprise. As I tried to express in the main piece, Rand does not understand that intellectually jerking off about this stuff doesn’t solve the problem and creates some very rough waters for the old boy to swim in.

    Here is Rand’s problem in a nutshell. An intellectual argument can be made for just about anything. You name me the most detestable thing imaginable, and I can probably argue in favor of it. That doesn’t mean that you DO it! Rand Paul allowed a small sliver of doubt emerge as to whether he thinks segregated lunch counters are beyond the reach of legislation and the libs jumped into it and had a field day. I can’t feel too much sympathy for him on this one.

  24. Well Rabbit, I will agree that for some, capitalism and sex are on the same level with the same amount of pleasure.

    C’mon … people don’t “believe” in capitalism? You’re kidding right? All that fuss about the commies in the 50’s and 60’s had nothing to do with defending our preferred economic model?

    Hell you’ve got followers of Keynes, Smith and Ayn Rand … turning what they wrote into near religion. So please don’t tell me economic constructs have no resemblance to ideology.

  25. Oh …. h/t to Alfie. I throw the word liberalism around carelessly and you are correct that when I mentioned it in my article I did not mean classical liberalism. I meant American …. or modern liberalism.

  26. “R”,

    I can’t feel too much sympathy for him on this one.

    You misread if you think I had sympathy for him – I chastised Paul for even giving sleaze like Racial Madcow an opportunity to slander.

    Many Republicans appear gluttons for punishment. I have gotten to the point that any Republican candidate who appears on MSNBC for any reason is both an ego maniac and insecure boob.

  27. …looking for attention. I immediately put a black mark against their name.

    Sorry hit submit by accident.

  28. “You’re kidding right? All that fuss about the commies in the 50′s and 60′s had nothing to do with defending our preferred economic model?”-rutherford

    Communism never eradicated Capitalism. That fuss was about a tyrannical murderous regime potentially nuking Earth.

    While Ivan, the communist party member, was getting his weekly blow job in return for keeping Lolita out of working the steel mill, an exchange for a limited resource nonetheless took place. (Party connections for oral sex). It’s just that it was of a very oppressive nature. Artificial resources were created (party connections) that ultimately lead to a very inefficient society.

    Trust me, when your big bloated government takes over, the same cut throat aspects of capitalism you pretend to loath so much will rear it’s ugly head.

    When our health care system gets bogged down, there will be all kinds of “trade” going on.

    Messing with Capitalism only creates unfair situations where those who don’t deserve to be endowed with resources are.

    You can change the rules of the game all you want, there will always be people trying to win.

    Self interest is a reality and is the very essence of Capitalism.

    Why try to step on human nature? Let us thrive and we all are for the better.

    Creative, smart motherfuckers are awesome. Don’t keep them on the bench (where the nonproductive Rabbit belongs)! Let the stars play the same game that has been going on since Jericho!

    Because the game will go on no matter what.

  29. I have gotten to the point that any Republican candidate who appears on MSNBC for any reason is both an ego maniac and insecure boob.

    I don’t know about the “insecure” part, because it takes cajones for a Republican ideologue of any variety to venture outside the safety zone of Faux News.

    But going on MSNBC, especially into an interview with Rachel Maddow – who smiles sweetly while she pulls up on the knife – does require an oversize ego. Not many goofballs like Rand Paul escape her without severe damage.

  30. Pragmatist {snort},

    Racial Muncher is you lard ass.

    Once the cover is removed, she’s a pitiful lightweight. She’s an ideologue with a sound bite who wouldn’t know her ass from a hole in the ground on most subjects. She’s got a couple of thousand, hardened losers like you that watch her show regularly, with an audience that has dwindled 50% since Bongo was elected.

    Why the hell any capable person would be caught dead on the muncher’s set is a mystery to me. There is nothing to be gained.

    However, like you on your feckless blog where you edit, modify and delete, when and where The dyke controls the media with two minute spin, she can twist and pontificate to make anybody look bad in a brief soundbite of a complex issue. Conservatives and Libertarians are stupid to go into that shithole and need to let MSNBC die. By the way, for all of your and your queer friends like Racial’s on the left, which of you brave souls ventures off the dying MSNBC, NBC set fat man?

    Dig something up, hit someone cold, don’t allow adequate time to respond, let it go viral. It’s the dyke’s M.O. – and candidates need to quit playing the homely clam’s game.

    Like I said above, Maddow is a prime example of the boring, repetitive moron and hack from the Left. None of them, you included, can handle a modicum of complexity. Public school has now passed it’s disease to defense, war,economics, health care and you and your worthless ideology have failed big time Pragmatist {snort}.

  31. <blockquote.DR – those two things are not synonymous at all. But if you think so, then you and Rand Paul could be BFF’s
    DR you can actually be BFF with Milton Friedman and a number of other folks. He even wrote the book on it.

  32. FYI Conservatism doesn’t even look good on paper! It only sounds good when talking about “ideals” and “principals” but when you implement the ideas, nothing good comes of it! That’s why conservatives are still failing.

    Lets look at Rand Paul. He sure did sounds good to conservative voters, oh but then you actually get to know him and he turns out to be an idiot. I don’t think he’s racist and his position on private/public property is flawed as well as his stance in supporting BP.

    For what it’s worth, I tend to mingle between the lines of capitalist and liberalism.
    with a tad bit of conservatism but only in approach, not in policy exactly
    *que thunder noise* 👿

  33. GOP just took HI-1 in special election.

    Which happens to be the childhood home of Barack Obama.

  34. It was a winner-take-all primary with both Republicans and Democrats running.

    The winner, Charles Djou, had 39.4% of the vote.

    The two runners up, both Democrats, won a combined vote total of 58.4% of the vote.

    But a victory is a victory, no matter how weird the rules for the election. Congrats to Mr. Djou.

    But if I were Mr. Djou, wouldn’t recommend buying a permanent residence in DC. A seven-month rental would be more appropriate. He’s likely to be returning to Blue Hawaii after that.

  35. ALERT! ALERT!

    Can somebody of sound faculty decipher post #38 for me? I could not determine which principals were referred. I can’t tell if Rand Paul sinner or saint.

    And was the principal the head of the school, the leader of the orchestra?

  36. lol…….#38…..thank you sensico….you make the new convuluted Rabbit a scholar.

    10 BUCKS FOR ANYONE TO TELL ME WHAT THIS MEANS

    “””For what it’s worth, I tend to mingle between the lines of capitalist and liberalism.
    with a tad bit of conservatism but only in approach, not in policy exactly
    *que thunder noise* :evil:””””

  37. You think that’s bad, you should see the drvel she is writing at her blog.

    She can’t even cite the right version of the bill she says proponents aren’t reading.

  38. For what it’s worth, I tend to mingle between the lines of capitalist and liberalism.

    I don’t understand that either, as liberalism and capitalism aren’t usually considered to be on opposite ends of any spectrum.

    I’m a liberal capitalist! 😀

  39. Sensico is living proof that higher education only works if the student unplugs from the iPod and actually pays attention.

  40. Sensico is living proof that higher education only works if the student unplugs from the iPod and actually pays attention.

    😆

    Densi has contracted a fatal case of Jobs disease…

  41. @graychin that’s what I meant and that’s why I’m able to mingle b/t liberalism and capitalism

    as for the rest of you. I would prefer not to get into another debate of me explaining things. I think DR and Tex knows how these arguments usually end, and I make sure it never ends in their favor. Hence my coming ability to completely ignore them! 😛 😛 😛

  42. I think DR and Tex knows how these arguments usually end, and I make sure it never ends in their favor. Hence my coming ability to completely ignore them!

  43. 😳

    I think DR and Tex knows how these arguments usually end, and I make sure it never ends in their favor. Hence my coming ability to completely ignore them!

  44. Hey “R”,

    I’ve got a dumb question. Why is it that when I embed HTML some times it works, the some times, it does not.

    What gives?

  45. #38. huh?
    #40. Maybe,maybe not.He may pull a Brown and have constituents that revive their grey matter and reestablish an appreciation for being politically relevant.
    #47. Agreed!
    #50. Too funny! You say yeah that’s what I meant and then show you still don’t have any idea what you’re saying. Let me help you out.
    Liberalism is very much related to capitalism.
    Liberals, as in the American variety, are not big fans of classic Liberalism.
    Liberals, as in the American variety, can actually enjoy capitalism and on a non governmental level do pretty good with it. (see Bill Gates)

  46. oops an addendum.
    Liberalism as in classic doesn’t necessarily align with conservatism.
    Liberals as in the American model are actually very conservative,small c in their ideology ie they stay on the same path.
    Progressives are American liberals who like to do different stuff,tend not to like capitalism and classical Liberalism.
    Hope that helps kid

  47. I knew exactly what I was saying. Obviously you knew what I was talking about if you were able to come up with a list of assumptions along the same line.

    @R – I’m very flattered, even though the intent might have been the opposite lol

  48. “I knew exactly what I was saying.”

    That is really helpful when you are talking to yourself.

    You might try giving clarity the extra mile when talking to others.

  49. Densi, for once I was giving you the proverbial kiss on the cheek with my Helen Reddy song. I liked her in Pete’s Dragon too! 🙂

  50. When adherence to an ideology becomes more important than the real-life effects of the ideology, then the engine is off the tracks and real people suffer. But the True Believer doesn’t care. The triumph of the ideology is always more important than the damage done in getting there, and any adverse results can be blamed on lack of faithful adherence to the ideology. Just read the previous comments to see what I mean.

    You’ve just described Obamacare, Cap & Trade, the current Financial Reform bill, TARP, the Porkulus and the life story of Barack Hussein Obama. In essence, everything about this man and all of this administration’s accomplishments have been about ideology.

    Progressive is the nom de gurre of liberals because they know liberal is toxic with the American people. Just yet another example of how libs hide who they are until after they’ve managed to fuck you…

    Dipshit (that being Sensico) has bellowed about taxes being charity, so a lecture from her on Conservatism, when she can’t explain even the basic of premises on how the fed works, let alone what the Constitution says, is laughable at best.

    She’s a seagull. She swoops in, dumps a load of shit, and then swoops back out to the safety of her little propaganda hut where she doesn’t have to explain anything, and rarely does.

    She wants to be a marine biologist, so why doesn’t she explain to us all how Obama’s lack of action in the gulf is a good thing, since she’ll never criticize anything else the idiot does…

  51. graychin as I said
    Progressives are American liberals who like to do different stuff,tend not to like capitalism and classical Liberalism.
    I find true American liberals to be very conservative/set in their ways. they sit solidly behind an ideology.
    True progressives can be distinguished by the fact that they explore different things. Yes they are clearly more align to liberals but you can find centrist and even centrist right leanings. Please remember the best and truest progressive America has had was TR,definitely not a (D) and hardly a liberal secondary to FP alone.
    So bottom line is progressives are a minority even amongst their modern day peers. More the pity is how a number of serious liberals hijack the name to avoid the stank of liberal/commie.

  52. Sensico,sorry kid but you’re just Blumenthal-ing now. You said what you said and it shows you didn’t know what you were talking about.
    Let’s be even clearer and let me bring forth the honesty you failed to post up.
    When you said
    tend to mingle between the lines of capitalist and liberalism
    you meant capitalism and socialism.You like to make money. You also want people taxed so Big gov can redistribute wealth

  53. Obamacare, Cap & Trade, the current Financial Reform bill, TARP, the Porkulus…

    Ape, I think you’ve got it all wrong. All the policies that you named aren’t based on any particular ideology. They are attempts to fix real-world problems. People who oppose the policies generally are those who don’t even think that a problem exists.

    Obamacare? “We have the best health care delivery system in the world – change will only make it worse.”

    “Cap and trade”? – “Much ado over nothing. We don’t need to control CO2 emissions because global climate change is a myth perpetrated by eco-greenies.” (Even though it was supposed to be market-based,)

    Financial reform? – “Any attempt to restrict the activities of Bank of America and Goldman Sachs is Socialism, and must be fought to the death. Financial giants can and should regulate themselves, and get as big as they want.”

    TARP and the Stimulus? – “When the unrestricted activities of Bank of America and Goldman Sachs cause the American banking system to freeze up, market and monetary chaos is always better than socialistic government intervention.”

    In other words – “Just say NO.” To everything.

    Is that an ideology? I’m not sure.

    How exactly is “the life story of Barack Hussein Obama” about ideology? Kid grows up in Hawaii, is a good student and makes it through Columbia and Harvard Law. Becomes President of the United States. If that’s about any ideology, it’s about the “American Dream.”

    Or is that ideology hateful to you?

  54. I find true American liberals to be very conservative/set in their ways. they sit solidly behind an ideology.

    Alfie, could you name a few “true American liberals” for me? I’m still not getting your drift.

    Based on what you’ve read in my comments, am I a liberal or a progressive?

  55. From government LBJ,Kucinich and Teddy K= true liberals.
    I’m leaning towards thinking you more a true “Progressive” but I have insufficient data.I’d say the same for Rutherford.
    I think that my thoughts are worthy of a post.Perhaps I can cajole you or Rutherford into either cross posting a counterpoint or even co-authoring. mmm I’ll think it over,let me know if you all would even be remotely interested.

  56. Just for some added flavor before i go out and tackle the freakin elephant grass that is my side yard.
    A Progressive would support say Glass-Steagal,I think a liberal would want much much more control.
    I’ve met Progressives who support charter schools and are luke warm on vouchers. Liberals have not shown me that they can entertain either.

  57. I would be happy to participate in a cross-post, although I’m still not clear on the subject.

    Perhaps my failure to understand your Liberal/Progressive divide is caused by my failure to think that LP people fit into neat little boxes about whom such sweeping generalizations can be made. Believe it or not, LP’s are individuals who have different opinions about different things. (As an aside, LP’s appear to me to be much more diverse in their opinions than Conservatives/Republicans/Tea Partiers. Look at how much harder it is for Democrats to keep their congresscritters on the reservation than it is for the Republicans, who vote in a solid bloc.

    As for your specific reference, I think that repealing Glass/Steagle was a huge mistake. Restoring it would be a good step, but I still don’t think that the “too big to fail” problem has been addressed adequately. In my world, TBTF means too big to exist.

    I can’t say that I’m opposed to charter schools, so long as they aren’t abused by fast-buck artists or as a vehicle for taxpayer funding of religious education. I’m skeptical of vouchers for the same reason. I have no ideological opposition to either – I just want them to work and not be a scam.

  58. People who oppose the policies generally are those who don’t even think that a problem exists.

    Or with the exception being Cap and Tax, in which many think that the prevailing framing of the “problem” is wrong, the fault with the rest of the examples is that those opposed know that government intervention is not the answer.

  59. Please remember the best and truest progressive America has had was TR,definitely not a (D) and hardly a liberal secondary to FP alone.

    OK …. I am assuming TR is Teddy Roosevelt. But FP??? Franklin Pierce? LOL help me there Alfie, I’m a bit thick this morning.

  60. As an aside, LP’s appear to me to be much more diverse in their opinions than Conservatives/Republicans/Tea Partiers.

    In defense of conservatives, and God knows they need one, I do think it is unfair to lump the GOP with the Tea Party crowd even though they clearly are in a loose embrace of late.

    I think Rand Paul is living proof the the GOP is starting to have problems keeping their boys on the reservation. While I fully confess that Arlen Specter attempted a cynical play to stay in office, I also believe him when he says the GOP became a toxic place to do business. Folks that are going off the GOP reservation are not being reprimanded. On the contrary, they’re scaring the main body to its roots. Heck, Michael Steele recently said he wasn’t “establishment”. Moderate GOPhers are a dying breed because the inmates are running the asylum.

  61. Quick comment to Tex regarding YouTube embeds. WordPress is odd about this. As long as your YouTube URL is the last line of your comment, it should embed very nicely. If even one extra character appears after the URL, the URL will appear as is without an embed.

    Hope that helps.

    P.S. I also encountered one YouTube URL that simply refused to embed. Was never quite sure why.

  62. I am amazed by just how much Gorilla recalls about Sensico. From her charity comment, to her marine biology interest, G was in total recall mode.

    Makes me wonder if some of you guys commit too much of this blog to memory. Sometimes you remind me of sh*t I don’t even remember I wrote. :LOL:

  63. Gray, I am completely ready to sign up for Obama representing the American Dream. But you do know, don’t you, that the nattering nabobs of negativity on this forum will call him the Great American Scam?

  64. Alfie, I’m hardly a poly-sci major but I am finding your liberal/progressive distinction somewhat artificial.

    Very simply, I think “progressive” has become a popular description for us liberals because it literally represents progress, as contrasted against conservatives who long for the good old days.

  65. Progressive has become the new liberal with a little ‘l’ due to the dismal failure of liberalism. Semantics is another game from the Leftists who bitch beautiful but perform pathetically.

    You say Arlen Specter said the Republican party had become toxic. But I can make an equally good case that Joe Lieberman thought the Democratic party had become so toxic, the he ran elsewhere.

    And then there is Evan Bayh, who considered himself a “moderate” Democrat, and left on account of that “big tent” only holding clowns.

    Quite the contrary, I think the progressive party has a rigid set of standards that one must adhere to without risk of personal attack: (1) abortion on demand, (2) anti-Americanism masked under the guise of peace, (3) gay marriage, (4) a progressive tax structure, (5) Benevolent Big Daddy Government, (6) socialized medicine, (7) atheism, agnosticism, or some Hot Tub Christianity like Mr. Pragmatist [snort} eschews, (8) a predilection for using the words homophobe, racist, or Fundie.

    Thanks for the info on YouTube “R”.

  66. So far Obama’s progress on diplomatic relations and foreign policy couldn’t be any worse if he had attempted to start WWIII. Show me a success – one will do.

    Then you contrast that with Obama’s “progress” of indebting the nation to where we are in danger of losing our debt rating, can never possibly pay the debt back, though he promised different while campaigning, lost 3.5 million jobs, failing porkulus, increased the real unemployment rate near 20%, challenging the highest misery index in history and would far exceed it if not for artificially low interest rates, and the continual gaffe and one big whopper a day, we seem to be quickly progressing to the lowest levels of hell under this incredibly “transparent” administration {snicker},.

    I’ll take the good old days.

  67. As popular as the Arizona law is proving, even with Hispanics, something that continues to slip under the radar is how equally unappealing Bongo Care is proving.

    63% of Americans now favor repealing Bomba Care. 😆 Like Sarah, I can see November from the my house.

    Anybody want to give me the big speech about big tent again?

    Buwahahahahahaha…

  68. “Makes me wonder if some of you guys commit too much of this blog to memory. Sometimes you remind me of sh*t I don’t even remember I wrote”

    And that is why you don’t ever win.

  69. …the fault with the rest of the examples is that those opposed know that government intervention is not the answer.

    And they “know” this how? By divine revelation?

    Blind ideology if I ever saw it.

  70. And they “know” this how? By divine revelation?

    Because the government’s scope of responsiblity is clearly set forth in the Constitution. No mystical penumbras, ridiculous interpretations/applications of the necessary and proper clause or the interstate commerce clause are necessary.

    Anything else is blatant usurpation of powers reserved to the states and the people.

    Too big to fail? True of some but not others. Sounds like government picking winners and losers, and doing so with tax dollars. Buying GM and Chrysler with our money? Now we have government competing in the same market it ostensibly regulates? Unacceptable.

    Ultra vires has become the order of the day, but that doesn’t make it right, nor does it lessen the impact for the rest of us when the reckoning comes.

  71. Buying GM and Chrysler with our money? Now we have government competing in the same market it ostensibly regulates? Unacceptable.

    Too true and a variation on the theme here is how now Obama wants the fee collecting division and the regulatory divisions of MMS to be totally separated.

  72. graychin believe it or not I’m actually having trouble with the labels. Others embrace them others bicker about the meanings. For me the Left-Right spectrum has not worked for some time. Recently I have been having a hard time swallowing the x-y axis political compass model too.I am caught up in a lot of personal dialog and thought on the matter.
    Long and short for at least a while I must try to differentiate between groups. I believe the word progressive has been coopted. there are differences.

  73. Nice sum-up of where mankind stands in the political circus nowadays, Rutherford.

    As for you Tex, I’m mainly writing this because of you 🙂 How’s it going? It’s been a while. If you feel like it, why not drop me a line? ( realmofthesphinx at yahoo dot com ). I kind of slipped out of this whole blogging routine, but somehow miss our exchanges. So consider this a sincere invitation to catch up on stuff without having to spam the board here 🙂

  74. Blind ideology can best be defined as ignoring the obvious and continuing to pursue the same strategy which has never worked.

    Graychin tells me things are looking up for America. And my question is what fundamentals are looking up? We now have 15% of America drawing food stamps.

    Tomorrow, our illustrious Democratic majority will vote to pass an emergency measure for another $200B dollars to continue extension of unemployment benefits and extend (get this) research and development on college campuses.

  75. You can tell the ‘political compass’ was constructed by a pointy headed lib with an agenda – the fascist George Bush. 🙄

    Complete horse dung.

  76. Tex, I was hoping you would take the quiz. You would surely score up there in the authoritarian right.

    Of course it’s horseshit, but it’s a lot more meaningful than calling people libtards and dimocrats.

  77. You don’t qualify as libtard. You’re far more refined in the vile and unredeemable category.

    I took that test once Mr. Pragmatist {snort} and actually ended somewhere around Zapatero – exactly the opposite of what I really am. That’s when I knew I was complete crap and politically motivated by some political weasel like you.

  78. Obamacare? “We have the best health care delivery system in the world – change will only make it worse.”

    Ahhh, we do have the best healthcare in the world- name a better system. But tell me, how does mandating every man, women, and child by a product from private industry not bother you?

    “Cap and trade”? – “Much ado over nothing. We don’t need to control CO2 emissions because global climate change is a myth perpetrated by eco-greenies.” (Even though it was supposed to be market-based,)

    OK, so its finished science then. Nothing to see here. Except that maybe the series of factual inaccuracies should concern us a bit. You may suck Al Gore’s pecker, but most of us capable of independent thought, don’t.

    Financial reform? – “Any attempt to restrict the activities of Bank of America and Goldman Sachs is Socialism, and must be fought to the death. Financial giants can and should regulate themselves, and get as big as they want.”

    Oh please. Wall Street is Obama’s biggest contributor and that ain’t changing with this atrocity of a bill. Why do you think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac aren’t included in the bill? Here’s a clue, 96% of US homeloans are owned by Fannie and Freddie- that should scare the living shit out of you.

    TARP and the Stimulus? – “When the unrestricted activities of Bank of America and Goldman Sachs cause the American banking system to freeze up, market and monetary chaos is always better than socialistic government intervention.”

    If you pass it, then unemployment stays at 8%…oops. Too big to fail? Yeah… Stimulus was a complete failure. This little scam is putting us on par with Greece. Brillant move dumbass…

    In other words – “Just say NO.” To everything.

    Is that an ideology? I’m not sure.

    Interesting, you seem to think gov is the answer to everything. So tell me, if gov is the answer, then what gives with your abject hatetred of Bush? Ahhhh, so some gov is good but other gov is bad? Of course, your the judge of what is good or bad…typical liberal…

    How exactly is “the life story of Barack Hussein Obama” about ideology? Kid grows up in Hawaii, is a good student and makes it through Columbia and Harvard Law. Becomes President of the United States. If that’s about any ideology, it’s about the “American Dream.”

    Except that he didn’t grow up in America, he grew up in Indonesia. For a Constitutional lawyer, he knows next to nothing about the Constitution. Good student, who we’re not allowed to see both his grades or his papers, so how do you know he’s a good student? He’s failing at OJT right now. And how’s that POTUS thing working out right now? Less than 50% think he deserves a second shot…

    You’re right, a real winner…

  79. A single-line spectrum (left / right) is a useless way to categorize someone’s politics. I like this one a lot better:

    Yes, Gray, check out my About page on this blog to see where I fall.:-)

  80. Nice sum-up of where mankind stands in the political circus nowadays, Rutherford.

    Sphinx thanks for stopping by. And feel free to chat with Tex here on the board. Heck, all sorts of side exchanges go on here. 🙂

  81. BiW, I’ve heard constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley say that sedition borders on criminal and hence is nearly never prosecuted. It stretches free speech to its limits.

  82. Sphinx,

    How’s it going? It’s been a while. If you feel like it, why not drop me a line? ( realmofthesphinx at yahoo dot com ). I kind of slipped out of this whole blogging routine, but somehow miss our exchanges. So consider this a sincere invitation to catch up on stuff without having to spam the board here

    I’m glad I saw Rutherford’s message here – I somehow skipped right over you without noticing. It’s going fine. I will drop you a line, but you ought to stick around here if you get the time.

    Rutherford is pretty “liberal” where liberal is a good word in my book about allowing us to get off subject when and where need be.

    Hope life finds you well old friend.

  83. I’ve heard constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley say that sedition borders on criminal and hence is nearly never prosecuted.

    What do constitutional scholars know about the Constitution? To get the real lowdown on the constitution, you have to attend a Tea Party. Those folks know ALL ABOUT the Constitution. Just ask them.

    When was the last time that anyone was convicted of sedition?

  84. Rutherford, your dot on the political compass is very close to mine. Of course that doesn’t mean that we agree on everything – just that we average out near the same numbers.

    Too bad there isn’t an “inherently evil” scale in the somewhere for people like me. 😀

  85. Too bad there isn’t an “inherently evil” scale in the somewhere for people like me

    Oh, but there is a scale for your type Graychin – the type who think they are incredibly clever while making sport of mocking God’s Word. It’s a scale reserved for only the cutest of the most irreligious and haughty.

    A special scale as a matter of fact. King Belshazzar of Babylon was weighed once and only once as the scale read TEKEL – “weighed in the scales and found wanting.”

  86. Interesting, you seem to think gov is the answer to everything. So tell me, if gov is the answer, then what gives with your abject hatetred of Bush? Ahhhh, so some gov is good but other gov is bad? Of course, your the judge of what is good or bad…typical liberal…

    I don’t think that government is the answer to everything. Can we clear that up? I do believe that government can and should do SOME things to promote the general welfare.

    I think of myself as a fiscal conservative – much more so than Bushites – because I believe in paying for the government that we want. Bush and his enablers in Congress spent tons on Medicare Part D, giving no thought to its cost. (But you guys “saw the light” when Bush left office – didn’t you?)

    Worst of all, Bush and his enablers fought TWO WARS on the national credit card. I was asked for exactly zero sacrifice in support of my country – not even to help pay the bills. Why didn’t they ask for a tax to pay for the wars? Because it might have been unpopular – and made the wars themselves unpopular? Not exactly a “profile in courage,” is it?

    Anyone who supported Bush and his merry men has ZERO CREDIBILITY on budgetary matters. ZERO.

  87. Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble. But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him.

    You’re a pretty hateful guy, Tex. Hatred drips from every post that you make. For all your alleged piety, you are a horrible example of a follower of Christ. Shouldn’t your alleged salvation have some outward signs?

    Since it doesn’t – a person might wonder why he ought to follow the religion of such a hateful person.

    But I’m “inherently evil” – so what do I know?

  88. Anyone who supported Bush and his merry men has ZERO CREDIBILITY on budgetary matters. ZERO.

    Oh, spare me the sanctimony. Why do you think Bush’s approval rating dropped to 30%? And spare me one of your meaningless, cutesy quips – they’ve become as stale as your dumb friend’s cliches over on your own blog and your tinfoil jokes. Two peas in a pod.

    You’re too dumb to figure this out, so let me help an old fool. A whole bunch of Republicans like me were bitching about Bush’s expansion of government, even when unemployment was non existent. That never dawned on you that Bush’s approval could be so low with only 20% of America being of your useless breed. You have this false perception your politics popular when nothing could be further from the truth.

    The only people you attract are the helpless and hopeless, which you pander to with lies when necessary (before an election) that you have no intention or the capacity to fulfill, so that you clowns can pad your pockets from your political adversary’s pockets, which by fiat you then steal. Don’t tell me about the principles of your party – you have none besides what’s in for you. Your productivity and performance are ZERO. That is what is ZERO. You can’t find two butt cheeks with both hands.

    You want the nanny government you demand? You pay for it. We bequeath you all the benefits that bestows and we’ll help you pay for the roads and military., Time your type starting paying for you own educations too – a bad joke which you keep dumping scare funds into because that too buys more votes.

    Why don’t you take half of your net worth and put it towards financing health care if you’re so concerned for your fellow man phony? Show us your great generosity. Better yet, take your momma off Medicare and pay for it yourself out of pocket. Then we’ll talk about shared sacrifice.

    When some sanctimonious prick like you can show me your you’re shagging bricks with your own set of funds, then come preach to us about your piety, bravery and love for country. Until then, you’re nothing but a pretentious politician of your own accord.

  89. One caveat.

    You’re a pretty hateful guy, Tex. Hatred drips from every post that you make. For all your alleged piety, you are a horrible example of a follower of Christ. Shouldn’t your alleged salvation have some outward signs?

    My disdain drips from every post I make – TOWARD YOU. The fact that you classify every post I make as hateful is laughable as attested to by my responses on this thread to anyone else.

    You’re a sanctimonious sap, propagandist and religious bigot. If I am to be punished for speaking the truth about you, while exposing your double standards and breath taking hypocrisy, I’ll leave that matter to my Maker. You’re qualified to be no one’s judge.

    And please note for future reference, I’m not the least bit concerned Belshazzar what you might “feel” to be right about my choices. You’re the last person on earth who ought to be pointing fingers about anyone’s faults.

    When you can behave, then I might show you dignity you don’t deserve.

  90. scarce funds…

    P.S. – Belshazzar…

    I hope you do recognize, when this passage you dug up says brother, it is speaking of your brothers in Christ, your fellow Christians?

    Now if you can show some semblance of proof that you’re a follower, by all means, you have my utmost apology – until then, I still hold you in contempt for your lies. 😉

  91. Your interpretation explains a lot.

    Pogroms. Crusades. Intolerance of anyone who isn’t Christian, or “christian” in your manner. Off with their heads!

    You define “brother” rather narrowly, since we are all children of God. But who is your neighbor?

  92. BiW, I’ve heard constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley say that sedition borders on criminal and hence is nearly never prosecuted. It stretches free speech to its limits.

    Whether a crime is often prosecuted is not an indicator of whether or not it is a crime, R. And Mr. Turley would be correct about the First Amendment being a hinderance to prosecution, however, if you had taken the time to actually read the essay, you would know that.

    The fact remains that it is proscribed behavior in both the United States Code, and in many states.

  93. Pragmatist {snort}

    Your interpretation explains a lot.

    Not nearly as much as your predilection for continually using what you don’t believe, and in fact mock. Are you deluded, confused or a hypocrite of biblical proportions?

    And I can assure you when John was making reference to “brothers”, it wasn’t the Roman persecutors, the scoffers at the public square, or the homosexuals in Athena’s temple John was referring.

    Pogroms. Crusades. Intolerance of anyone who isn’t Christian, or “christian” in your manner. Off with their heads!

    In a nation founded by Christians, and in a country that would still call itself at least 70% Christian, if we were anywhere near as nasty, intolerant and vicious as you would like to make us sound, your fat head would be mounted on my wall for amusement and point of gossip.

    You define “brother” rather narrowly, since we are all children of God. But who is your neighbor?

    Where do you get “we our all children of God” Belshazzar? That same author you cut & pasted from above says, “Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.

    God does indeed love the entire world and it is clear all people are God’s creation? But children of God? You would be very wrong.

  94. Quite an exclusive little club you belong to, isn’t it?

    It doesn’t have to be, but the person for whom it was named gets to set the bar. If you have a problem with the admittance stadndards, perhaps you should take it up with him, rather than getting smarmy with someone who reminds you that such things aren’t for you to decide.

  95. Pragmatist {snort},

    Quite an exclusive little club you belong to, isn’t it?

    From the Sermon on the Mount – that part I am assuming you still believe. You are correct by accident – sounds pretty exclusive.

    Matthew 7:13-14

    “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.”

  96. I have no idea how “they” pulled off this bit of video tomfoolery but I thought the conservatives here might need a new perspective from one of your heroes. 😀

  97. And you would be one of those “few”?

    I don’t think so.

    Unfortunately for you and fortunately for me, what you think is irrelevant and unimportant.

  98. I have no idea how “they” pulled off this bit of video tomfoolery but I thought the conservatives here might need a new perspective from one of your heroes.

    Pretty funny “R” – but it is obvious that you’ll note they finish the sentences without the speaker on screen. Nonetheless, somebody had some real time to kill to pull that off.

    Here’s one for real – a prophet the man was.

  99. “It doesn’t have to be, but the person for whom it was named gets to set the bar.”

    Liberals have a hard time wrapping their minds around this concept. They don’t understand that when it’s your club, you get to make the rules, and people who don’t like them don’t have to join your club.

    Ask the Boy Scouts.

  100. Why is Tex Taylor setting the bar for Christianity? I don’t recall it being re-named “Texianity.”

    To him a “brother” who should not be hated is limited to other Christians. Or people that Tex considers Christians, in his own very narrow and limited view of what Christianity means.

    Jesus’ teachings were not about exclusion and hating your enemies. Far from it. All that ridiculous study of “apologetics” has left him unable to see the forest for the trees.

  101. Tex,

    life’s been quite alright hereabouts, but I managed to bury myself in obligations again. Would like to stick around more often, but when a humane amount of sleep is not on the normal schedule, then getting into political discussions online is certainly not either.

    Catch you later mate 🙂

  102. Sphinx,

    You still over in Germany studying? I’d be curious to know if you finished.

    I’ll send you an email. Good to hear from you again.

  103. Gray,

    To him a “brother” who should not be hated is limited to other Christians. Or people that Tex considers Christians, in his own very narrow and limited view of what Christianity means.

    😆

    If your charging me as guilty and flawed, you win. I’m far from perfect and in desperate need of a Savior, Teacher, and Lord.

    But all these years and you still haven’t figured out yet that you can’t simply put Christians in a box. You’re struggling because you can’t beat me at your own game. You’re used to manipulating weaklings that can’t defend themselves or their faith that you despise and manipulate for sheer politic.

    I think if nothing else, your misconceptions of pure faith show you to be a shallow lightweight and complete phony. Call yourself what you will, but it’s an abomination for you to think yourself pure.

    You really need to understand this…

    All of Jesus disciples had differing personalities, as did many of the Old Testament characters. Paul and Peter could be defined as zealots; John the soft spoken, Thomas the skeptic, David was a warrior King, yet a man after God’s own heart. None of the prophets you would consider Mr Congeniality and all those listed and more were fallible.

    But they shared two traits – an admission that there is but one true God and that His Word goes, and an admission they were far from perfect. These men didn’t vacillate about truth like you do, they didn’t fudge the rules to make room for their own definitions, they didn’t make the Gospel fit their world. You’re a modern day Balaam Graychin.

    You appear to have a form of religion, but no power thereof.

    And you would be wrong that I hate you – though I loathe your politics, believe you to be a rank propagandist, and think you’re lies a disgrace, hate you? No, you don’t rank that high in importance.

    You’re just an old bully that needs to be taught a lesson.

  104. The weaklings from the T-World board and the censoring you do on your feckless blog – here, you’re just another snark.

    And you’re unprotected. 😈 Consider it payback for past transgressions.

  105. Nothing worse then the censoring type.

    I don’t think Rutherford would even call the cops if I drunkenly head butted him out of his wheel chair in some heated political debate, not alone censor me.

  106. Tex was never censored on my blog. I put a troll on a spam list once months earlier, and it turned out that it was Tex!

    What a surprise! :O

  107. Hey Tex, yeah I’m still in Germany, at least for another year and a bit, if not longer. Depends heavily on how things go in my graduation project and how the offers on PhD positions look like. Which means I could be stuck here for another 5 years, give or take. Only God knows.. What’s new on your side?

    Good to hear from you again too.

  108. Yeah Rabbit, I ran across Mr. Pragmatist {snort} Gray’s blog and left him a few “complimentary messages” which he promptly modified, and or deleted – always finding some lame excuse.

    The phony advertises a challenge to Conservatives to enter his den, but the minute you disagree or don’t abide by queer group think, you’re given the blog moderator boot. The hack is a complete sham as attested to by his pitiful performance here. 😛

    That’s why I had to bait the old geezer someplace else. Old Rutherford, being my pal and 1,000 times braver than a coward like Gray the Pragmatist {snort} gives me ample opportunity to head butt without the Pravda treatment.

    Naturally, after calling the old fart as a coward, I was able to bait him here. And though Gray the Prag won’t admit it, I think it helps keep him alive and avoiding his meaningless existence. He’s an ample glutton for punishment, as are most brain dead libs – Big “R” the exception, of course. 😉

  109. Sphinx,

    Is that your plan? To teach? Germany or Egypt? I always did think you had one of the coolest identifiers on the net, avatar included.

    I was always jealous I could never be so original.

  110. ROTFLMAO

    Texianity

    Now there’s a religion I’d have to seriously investigate. Hell, I’d even attend the Texian church a few times.

    Tex, you’ve got a bit of time on your hands ….. why don’t you write the Book of Tex? Heck, you could become a modern day Joseph Smith Jr. and decades from now some Pres candidate could get some heat for being a Texian. Perhaps Mitt Romney’s grandson? 😀

  111. LOL Rabbit … for the umpteenth time, I don’t use a wheelchair (not that there’s anything wrong with that 😀 ). For really long distances (ok as I get older, not so long) I use a scooter but 90% of the time I’m on my feet (with the help of leg braces).

    That clarified, you’re right. I probably wouldn’t come after you for a head-butt. I’m sufficiently hard headed that I’m not sure which of us would be the worse for wear afterward. 😉

  112. Now there’s a religion I’d have to seriously investigate. Hell, I’d even attend the Texian church a few times.

    Yeah, I actually thought that was pretty funny too. But you wouldn’t like my writing much – I can assure you that when you walked out of one of my sermons as a lib, it wouldn’t be your soul on fire.

    😆

  113. Dammit, I accidentally hit “submit” before writing anything useful.. Feel free to delete that last one, Rutherford.

    Tex, research is currently my first focus, but it usually comes hand-in-hand with teaching. I’ve done some tutoring already and I like it, but it’s a huge drain on energy and time.

    On the long run I’d like to go back home and try to do something in its rather modest higher education system. Or go into the industry. And if all fails, go back to my old school and become a teacher. While we’re at it: I never got to know what your career is by the way, and I’m a bit curious about that.

    I do appreciate you for considering me original, but I think it’s the other way round. Look at you. You’ve been keeping people around the interwebs at bay for months, maybe years on end, and you’re still going. Above all that, it just never gets old. If that’s not a sign of high-caliber originality, then I don’t know what. I on the other hand have run out of steam ages ago. Consider me jealous for not having that kind of stamina 🙂

    I can’t help liking you Tex. In other words: There’s no real political blog discussion without a Tex Taylor 🙂

  114. I can’t help liking you Tex. In other words: There’s no real political blog discussion without a Tex Taylor

    I’m flattered. Graychin will now hate you.

    I was thinking the other day, I have now wasted five years of my life perusing around these blogs in some shape, form or fashion. Three of those while attending school – two of them being the bum.

    I left my job about seven years ago after 20 years of corporate America – reasonably well paid but woefully unsatisfied. I went back part time and got two degrees in biology and chemistry, took the MCAT, got in medical school by the grace of God, then quit! Makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it? I hated medical school because I was simply too old. 🙂

    I’m supposed to be typing my resume, but it’s so much more fun baiting libs. 😉 With the Obama economy, that becomes a little more imperative to get off my butt every day.

    Good to here from you again my old, young friend. Hope you make it back home, and still make good money.

  115. Sphynx, I owe you an apology for not saying this earlier. I do remember you, if I’m not mistaken, from the days of Chen’s Chamber. You’re being in Germany is what jogged my memory.

    Anyway, glad to see you are well and thanks for visiting my humble abode. 🙂

  116. Thanks you two, I’m glad you’re fine as well. Good luck with your resume Tex and whatever you intend to do with it. Whatever happened to Chen by the way? Anyone knows what he’s up to?

    I’ll be away over the weekend and next week is kind of busy, but I’ll be sure to pass by again at some point. Until then, don’t tear each other apart too much 🙂

    Bye for now!

  117. Sphinx,

    I think General Chen had so much of his heart & soul invested in getting Obama elected, that when it became apparent to anyone with a room temperature IQ that Obama was going to be an embarrassing and utter failure about two days into his regime building, Chen when looking for cover. 😆

    I always said most on the Left where big in the criticizing category, but once the real fighting starts and they’re forced to perform, they’ll be dropping their pea shooters and running for the hills.

    Now all I’m left to contend with are the real lefty dunderheads titans like Rutherford – still rank propagandists, but a little more seasoned and a little more savvy.

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s