"The debt-ceiling cage match is the culmination of the Democrats' 75-year-long fight to establish a voting bloc of dependents under the false flags of "compassion" and "social justice." It's sapped our strength, created a welfare mentality and, if unchecked, will reduce us to a nation of aging, resentful beggars with eyes cast permanently toward Washington.
"The preamble to the Constitution talks about promoting the general welfare, not the welfare state. For the welfare state is incompatible with the rest of the preamble, which concludes: "and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." By definition, dependents are not free."
Michael A Walsh; NY POST
The Leftist-Dems have already overspent the debt limit by 44%. Now they want to justify it and get the cash to pay the illicit spending. I don't know why nobody points this out. Last year the all-Democrat government didn't even pass a budget but they sure could spend money. When congressmen vote for illegal measures, they should go to jail.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
AddenduMB:
Too Good…
Via Michelle Malkin:
Harry reid in 2006:
“If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.
“How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That’s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors?
“They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they’re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it.”
After two years of overseeing the wild and profligate spending, Harry Reid today:
”Geithner described how the 80 million checks cut by the Treasury every day could simply stop coming. The federal government would, in effect, go dark.
“Paychecks for troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and bases around the world could stop. FAA towers could shut down. So could the FBI and the CIA. Border crossings could close [well, that's one way to secure the border - DP]. Safety inspections of the food Americans eat and the cargo that enters our ports could halt. Literally every function of government could cease.
“There would be no discussion of which operations and personnel were essential. All the payments would likely stop.
“Some have said we could prioritize which bills to pay. Even if that wouldn’t irreparably damage the nation’s credit and our reputation in the global community – which it would – it is also a complete fiction.
“Our government won’t even be able to cover the bills due on August 3. It will simply run out of money.”
40 comments:
Yeah, Jesus would have hated "compassion" and "social justice" coming from the government. Too much competition...
When regarded in the fullness of their implementation, the terms "compassion" and "social justice" are opposites.
When regarded in the fullness of their implementation, the terms "compassion" and "social justice" are opposites.
Only when practiced by Christians, I find.
Then you must have changed their definitions. It's so hard to keep up with Atheist redefinitions these days.
So here's the definition of social justice as I understand it, provided by Walter Block PhD, Economics, Loyola:
"On many university campuses, there is a push on to promote Social Justice. There are two ways to define "Social Justice."
First, this concept may be defined substantively. Here, it is typically associated with left wing or socialist analyses, policies and prescriptions. For example, poverty is caused by unbridled capitalism; the solution is to heavily regulate markets, or ban them outright. Racism and sexism account for the relative plight of racial minorities and women; laws should be passed prohibiting their exercise. Greater reliance on government is required as the solution of all sorts of social problems. The planet is in great danger from environmental despoliation, due to an unjustified reliance on private property rights. Taxes are too low; they should be raised. Charity is an insult to the poor, who must obtain more revenues by right, not condescension. Diversity is the sine qua non of the fair society. Discrimination is one of the greatest evils to have ever beset mankind. Use of terminology such as "mankind" is sexist, and constitutes hate speech.
Secondly, Social Justice may be seen not as a particular viewpoint on such issues, but rather as a concern with studying them with no preconceived notions. In this perspective, no particular stance is taken on issues of poverty, capitalism, socialism, discrimination, government regulation of the economy, free enterprise, environmentalism, taxation, charity, diversity, etc. Rather, the only claim is that such topics are important for a liberal arts education, and that any institution of higher learning that ignores them does so at peril to its own mission."
(...)
"Should a University dedicate itself to the promotion of Social Justice? It would be a disaster to do so in the first sense of this term, and it is unnecessary in the second. Let us consider each option in turn.
Should an institution of higher learning demand of its faculty that they support Social Justice in the substantive left wing sense, it would at one fell swoop lose all academic credibility. For it would in effect be demanding that its professors espouse socialism. But this is totally incompatible with academic freedom: the right to pursue knowledge with an open mind, and to come to conclusions based on research, empirical evidence, logic, etc., instead of working with blinders, being obligated to arrive only at one point of view on all such issues.
This would mean, for example, in economics, the area with which I am most familiar, to be constrained to conclude that the minimum wage law is the last best hope for the unskilled, and that continually raising it is both just and expeditious; that free trade is pernicious and exploitative. It is more than passing curious that those in the university community who are most heavily addicted to diversity cannot tolerate it when it comes to divergence of opinions, conclusions, public policy prescriptions, etc."
(...)
""Of course, social justice may be defined in yet a third manner: as favoring justice in the "social" arena, as opposed to other venues. Here, all intellectual combatants would favor the promotion of this value; the only difference is that leftists, for example, mean by this some version of egalitarianism, while for libertarians justice consists of the upholding of private property rights. For a college to uphold social justice in this sense would be highly problematic, in that two very different things would be connoted by this phrase."
Christians and other non-egalitarians believe in individual responsibility rather than is faux equality; hence justice is civil and criminal justice rather than redistributive (in)justice of "social justice".
"The poor you will have with you always" God says there will always be poor people but Leftist socialists always steal money with force to give to poor people. With you always. Trying to improve poor people will always end in ruin. Theres a reason the poor are poor.
If you accept money for the government THE GOVERNMENT OWNS YOU. You are a slave. If you are pooor its better to be poor and free then a slave of Leftists.
A thought concerning compassion and social justice. These terms are used in conjunction by Leftists without defining the terms. In practice – if we are to discern their meanings by their actions – the meaning of compassion has a difference from what one might think, as does the meaning of justice.
For the Left, compassion is an ideology. In Leftist ideology it applies to certain classes of people, whereas compassion might normally be thought to apply to individuals. But for the Left, what happens to individuals is inconsequential. The fate of individuals who are not within the target classes is especially of no consequence to the Left. These people are held in contempt, even hatred. Leftist compassion is ideologically highly focused and discriminatory. Classes outside of the narrow focus of Leftist compassion are regarded with contempt, as being responsible for the situations of the targeted classes. The responsibility and guilt are assigned, not because of cause and effect analysis, but because the hated class exists. It should not exist, because that is unfair.
As for the individuals within the targeted class, their fate is measured solely by economic indicators, as the Left measures the redistribution of wealth from the hated classes to the target classes. Fairness is achieved only when the hated classes are reduced to the levels of the target classes. The actual affect on the individuals in the target class is not the point; the point for the Left is that the target class as a whole get what the hated class has, economically.
Target classes will not independently rise to the economic levels of the hated classes because they are taught not to produce in order to have goods and security. If you become a producer, you change classes into the hated class. It is the producers, the hated class, who must change in order to level the wealth.
The Left does not and apparently cannot understand how wealth is produced. Wealth does not merely exist in certain class’s bank accounts: it was somehow produced. The Left thinks that either the wealth was stolen, as if the target class had the wealth first and the hated class removed it from them, or that the target class was exploited by the hated class who denied the target class their “fair” share. The first idea is a delusion and the second idea has not been valid for a century.
(continued below)
(continued)
In the USA, slavery continues but it is now voluntary in contemporary society. The favored classes are fully entitled and the hated classes are being pursued by the salivating Left. Never mind that entitlement is exactly what has brought the country to the brink and will push it over the edge, the Left will charge – make that “progress” – toward the abyss and into it clear to the bottom. Which makes me think: perhaps it is the bottom of the abyss that the Left desires for this nation, a place where everyone is equal in their destitution (except the elitists in the positions of redistributory power of course).
After all, for the Leftist progressive, equality is more important than the means of production or liberty or personal responsibility or personal initiative. So the sacrifice of production, liberty, personal responsibility and personal initiative is an acceptable trade-off, at least in theory. When the producers of wealth are liberated from their personal initiative by the confiscation of their proceeds, wealth will disappear as more dollars chase fewer goods and services. At the limit, when there are unlimited dollars and no goods or services, then equality is achieved.
Then the compassion for classes, that Leftist ideological version of compassion which excludes any thought of the dignity of the individual, will have reached its objective of class equality and economic leveling. So after that success, what is left for the Leftist to do? Well, there is emptying the prisons because no one is responsible for his own behavior; there is importing hordes of undocumented voters to sustain the Progressive vision; there is incorporating all this utopia to the rest of the world via a world government. Always plenty for a Leftist to do.
Stan, do you know anyone who has left-wing politics personally?
Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats.
KK
Yes, I do.
Fireworx,
"Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives..."
This seems backwards, could you give an example of a liberal/Progressive argument making this case?
"The true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy...
That is an epiphenomenon, not an objective. (Post hoc ergo propter hoc). The objective is personal liberty to develop oneself as one sees fit, personal responsibility for one's actions, and personal reward commensurate with one's contributions.
The aristocracy does develop and quite frequently becomes Leftist (Gates, Soros etc.) and conjoins with Leftist government in "shadow governments". It was conservative Teddy Roosevelt who "busted" the trusts. Today, both parties are too Leftist to take down the obvious monopolies (Microsoft et al). And the huge aristocrats support campaigns of both parties with contributions. Aristocracy in the form of elitist shaky moral proclamations for the masses is both Leftist and Rightist these days, with Libertarians somewhere outside the ballpark altogether, but forming at the gates to make a charge against the gate keepers. (OK that was a bit strained, but it stays in).
"Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats."
This doesn't make sense to me. Economic inequality is not a means of enforcement, it is a result of unequal efforts and capabilities, desires and personality traits. And regressive taxation is both a means of relief for the poverty stricken and a means of social engineering. Few, if any, Conservatives would support taxing the extremely poor. But few would support redistribution through government confiscation in order to ensure equal outcomes. How could that be a goal for the proposed aristocrats?
So your point then is what? Please expand on it if you wish to defend it.
It is interesting that the filthy rich Dems who call for more taxes on the rich are the same ones who don't pay their own taxes. They could donate all their excess income to the national treasury... but they don't. And personal charitable contributions by the Atheo-Left are notoriously impecunious. The Atheo-Left wants the money for their morality programs to come from someone else. If they can confiscate it, so much the better. If they have to put it on the national credit card with no ability to pay it back, that's fine too.
Impecunious is a synonym for poor but not in "meagerly supplied" sense.
It means "penniless, hard up, in straitened circumstances".
Rich people actually spend a smaller proportion of their income than middle class and working class families.
A tax cut to the rich person doesn't make them decide to buy the yacht with the solid gold faucet rather than the gold plated one. They generally put their surplus into investments (effectively locking most of it out of the economy, as a matter of fact).
A tax cut to working families will go much more directly into the economy because working and middle class families will spend that at a greater proportion -- mainly on things they have been putting off buying. This is real stimulus, and giving rich people more money doesn't improve jobs, it improves investment.
Our problem isn't that corporations are underinvested. Our problem is that people aren't hiring and people can't afford to spend. Target the money where it will move fastest, not the slowest.
The last time the rich were targeted, the yacht industry came to a standstill, meaning unemployment for thousands. Hayek's makes the point that centralized economic decisions are necessarily made without enough vision into the workings of the economy to avoid the unanticipated consequences. targeting population segments via tax social engineering doesn't always produce desirable results... if ever. Ordinarily increased investment would be good for the economy; but we exist in an environment of governmental punishment directed toward business and specifically toward small business which will be saddled with expensive social programs and tax increases. Punishment of the job creators decreases jobs.
The Dems apparently will not yield until small business is taxed more, and the Repubs will cave and let them do it. Jobs will be hard to find for the foreseeable future.
Punishment of the job creators decreases jobs.
You seem to think rich people create jobs.
increased investment would be good for the economy
The question is - which country's economy?
They are job creators... just not in America. Why bother when they can get cheaper labour elsewhere.
Yes, exactly. Jobs left this country when the government began piling on the regulations and taxes, while removing all protections from foreign competitors. Leftist enviros and one-worlders should be proud. Remember that "giant sucking sound? That was the government's creation, not industry's. Ross Perot was right.
What if it can be done more cheaply but with no workplace safety standards, no environmental protection standards, no worker remuneration standards and no capacity for oversight from the contracting company?
The idea is that we have certain minimum standards of acceptable corporate behavior and that enforcement of these standards is almost impossible when you outsource jobs overseas, which means that most outsourcing is essentially a loophole that allows companies to forego the basic environmental and human rights standards of their home country.
The government has discriminated against our own industry by applying "standards" for domestic manufacturing which it does not apply to the manufacture of imported goods, which it could well do.
If purchasers were concerned with unequal standards for environmental restrictions and human rights, then they, as a market force, could have bought American made goods to support those ideals. So consumers also have discriminated against domestic manufacturers as well as against the ideology of workplace standards which they must pay for.
When domestic manufacturers are forced to compete with goods from uncontrolled importers, they ultimately have two choices placed on them by the purchasing market: lower your cost base in order to compete, or go out of business. This is market driven, by the consumer, and allowed by government policy.
The government response has been to allow the unfair competition to continue without sufficient tariff intervention to level the cost of imported goods to the wholesaler.
So the government has placed burdens on domestic manufacturers without any compensation in tariffs. Part of the reason is the screaming and squalling of trade partners who decry any internal compensation the US makes in order to save jobs. A salient example is the support given to farming. The international community absolutely screams with indignation that US farmers (not all, but some) receive some aid. But the international farmers have significant advantages, economically, which domestic farmers don't have, and the compensation which domestic farmers receive is tiny compared to the economic advantages that the internationals have. The market for food is therefore dominated by imports. If one is to claim that this is due to the greed and deception of farmers who are trying to import goods at the expense of American jobs in order to use ethical loopholes for profit, it could not be further from reality. The same goes for manufacturing.
The popular sport of demonizing manufacturers is not based on any reality. It is the remnant of class warfare that is pursued with bumper sticker wisdom from the class-discriminating Left.
A bunch of old, white rich people lead a bunch of uneducated poor people around by the nose...
It's very simple and I'll explain it to you in a few sentences: The right are exclusively in politics to further the interests of the very wealthy. Any time they can cut into the lifeline that keeps the middle class going, they do it. Not just because it ultimately gives more money to the already very rich and powerful, but because it maintains a class of people who will work for next to nothing, zero benefits and in shitty working conditions.
You know, or else they're send the American jobs overseas.
Sam,
You have explained the Left's vision of the universe quite well. And according to the "infinite universes" theory, it must be true... somewhere. Just not here.
In order to be the saviors of mankind that the Leftists envision themselves to be, there must be a class of victims which needs saving. If one does not exist, say the proletariat, then the Left makes it up in their own mind, and propagandizes it. Exactly what Lenin did. And in Russia's case, there was no proletariat in 1917. But there were classes that were in the way - the Kulaks and the White army.
The Leftist vision of being saviors requires also that another class be demonized as the victimizers - evil by Leftist definition. Regardless of any facts.
So Sam, you are a century late in trying to propagate class hatred. It's been done... to death.
Regardless of any facts.
Stan, your posts of fact-free emotional fests where you seemingly grovel for a pat on the head from billionaires. You seem to hold the most shameless pro-bootlicking ideology imaginable where you constantly shill for whatever enriches the super-rich.
You claim to know a person with left-wing views.
Are they "salivating" at the thought of "voluntary slavery"?
Are they "importing hordes of undocumented voters to sustain the Progressive vision"?
Are they incapable of compassion for individuals?
Do they not know the meaning of compassion?
Do they hate "certain classes" and "measure others fate solely by economic indicators"?
Do they want to reduce rich people to the "levels of the target classes"?
Do they think desire "a place where everyone is equal in their destitution"?
Do they "excludes any thought of the dignity of the individual"?
Do they think "no one is responsible for his own behavior"?
You don't have facts, you have emotions. If you weren't lying when you said you actually knew someone who holds left-wing views, who are they? Are they like your caricatures?
If all of that is an attempt at refuting what I have said, it is completely devoid of any evidence to the contrary. If you wish to provide evidence that what I have said is false, then do so.
The last thing I would do on a blog like this is to reveal who my friends are. In my naive start-up days I used my full name, only to be immediately cyber-stalked by an Atheo-Leftist who didn't like my comments but had no refutation.
If you have no evidence to contradict what I have said, then your ability to convince is hampered. If you do have evidence, then put it forward and we'll discuss it.
And if you are an Atheo-Leftist-Progressive, then how about declaring your objectives, your moral authority, your proposed tactics and your reasons (justifications) for believing those things.
If all of that is an attempt at refuting what I have said...
My comment was questions and observations.
The last thing I would do on a blog like this is to reveal who my friends are.
I didn't ask for their name and address. I asked if this person you claim to know personally was anything like your caricatures of people with left-wing views.
Well, are they?
In my naive start-up days I used my full name, only to be immediately cyber-stalked by an Atheo-Leftist who didn't like my comments but had no refutation.
So what? I used to post on a website and someone spent eight months sending me pictures of his guns and Bible verses twice a week, all while trying to work out my location from my I.P. address. And it wasn't the first time something like that happened.
If you have no evidence to contradict what I have said...
I hope you realize what you say isn't true by default. You never seem to offer evidence of any of your "observations" and I think the person making the positive claim should be the one to provide evidence. Nothing is correct simply because nobody has bother to refute it.
And if you are an Atheo-Leftist-Progressive
I'm a follower of Christ.
The last thing I would do on a blog like this is to reveal who my friends are...
I didn't ask for their name and address. I asked if they are anything like your caricatures.
If you wish to provide evidence that what I have said is false, then do so.
I hope you realize what you say is not true by default. Your views are not true because nobody can be bothered refuting them. I hold the belief that the person making the positive claim should provide the evidence. This is something you are unwilling to do.
And if you are an Atheo-Leftist-Progressive
I'm a follower of Christ.
If the rich are now to be referred to as "job creators" and must be taxed less, then how come since their taxes have been cut for the last ten years are we steeped in recession and no jobs have been created?
Job creation comes from an increase in demand. If you own a McDonald's franchise and get a tax cut and have an extra $50,000 but demand stayed constant, why would you hire more workers? You would pocket the money. However, if you consistently had 20% more customers coming in, you would hire more workers to meet the demand. Stimulate demand = job creation. Cutting taxes is like pushing on a string with respect to job creation.
Calling the rich "job creators" is just a talking point designed to get ordinary people to support the emergence of a permanent aristocracy in this country.
Sam,
My friends are none of your business, how can I make that any more clear for you?
Here are some of the many sources available on the subject, in addition to observing the ALP behaviors in the real world:
Thos. Sowell; The Vision of the Annointed.
Thos. Sowell; The Quest for Cosmic Justice.
Paul Johnson; Intellectuals
Julien Benda; The Treason of the Intellectuals.
Paul Berman; The Flight of the Intellectuals.
Thos. Sowell; Intellectuals and Society.
Richard Wolin; The Seduction of Unreason.
Allan Bloom; The Closing of the American Mind.
David Stove; Anything Goes; Origins of the Cult of Scientific Irrationalism.
Kevin Jackson; The Big Black Lie.
R.J.Rummel; Death By Government.
Courtois, et al; The Big Black Book of Communism.
Chang and Halliday; Mao.
Hayek; Law Legislation and Liberty: the Mirage of Social Justice.
Hayek; The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism.
Hayek; The Road to Serfdom.
Micelli; The Gods of Atheism.
Rossiter; The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.
Goldberg; Liberal Fascism.
Griffin: Fascism.
Shirer; Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
Friedlander; the Origins of NAZI Genocide.
De Lubac; The Drama of Atheist Humanism.
Blandshard; Reason and Analysis.
Huemer; Skepticism and the Veil of Perception.
Thos Sowell; A conflict of Visions.
Popkin; The History of Skepticism.
Hecht; Doubt.
Cupp; Losing Our Religion.
Anonymous, please choose a moniker so I know which individual I'm talking with...
Oddly enough, McDonalds' demand is increasing according to today's news. Since you wish to tax the McDonalds' income to remove that profit which you don't like to see because it is pushing on a string, then the workers won't get hired anyway, even in an era of increasing demand.
The logic of using taxes (confiscation) to engineer the economy always misses the details, which turn into unanticipated consequences and rarely beneficial ones, because there are an infinite number of ways to screw up, and few or maybe just one way to success.
The ethic of using taxes to social engineer is merely a conceit of the elite who think that they can know all the details well enough to make their dream of utopia come true. So they make 5 year plans and people starve.
The economy is actually made up of billions of decisions made by millions of people every day. As Hayek points out, a million minds familiar with business are better than a few dozen intellectual minds with no business experience or skin in the game - who cannot possibly have all the information or expertise to make the proper decisions. Nor could it ever be possible to make the feedback into the system for it to self-correct in a correct and timely manner: the inevitable end effect is for the system to oscillate wildly for a while and then latch up completely - seized with impotence.
What the intellectuals do have is the arrogance to believe in their superiority and self-invented moral authority to take it away from the actual experts, and do it themselves.
But moving on to your fear of aristocracy arising because of business profits which haven't been confiscated... you are aware I presume that the owners of the biggest businesses are shareholders, the bulk of which are institutions, small investors and owners of mutual funds, and unions? Aristocracies aren't likely to arise from McDonalds Franchise owners either. So you must be thinking of the entrepreneur who grows his business, thereby becoming wealthy - and having created job growth to match the growth of his business.
So your argument seems to have no basis in reality.
"Calling the rich "job creators" is just a talking point designed to get ordinary people to support the emergence of a permanent aristocracy in this country."
This sounds like a conspiracy theory based on class hatred.
Anonymous,
I should have addressed your first question. Job creation requires consumers with disposable cash sufficient to create a sustainable demand for goods and services, AND it requires sufficient extra capital available to the business to allow it to staff and expand to meet the demand.
Fearful consumers who are scared into hoarding their cash do not create demand; fearful banks which will not lend for fear of bank runs depleting their cash supply, and business owners who see the pressure to remove the profits for social engineering, eliminate the ability to expand, even if demand became obvious.
In short, consumers need extra (1)cash and (2)stability; producers need (3)capital and (4)stability. All these elements are required in order to produce jobs. So your concern about no jobs being created even with the "low" taxes on the producers misses 3/4 of the issue. The Leftist government has threatened all of the elements required for job creation.
Sam,
My friends are none of your business, how can I make that any more clear for you?
Sam's point is real people aren't like your strawmen and if you actually looked at people you know you'd see that.
Here are some of the many sources available on the subject... (List of mostly biased anti-left screeds)
That really is funny. It's like a person saying he understands conservatives because he read "Stupid White Men".
It looks like you don't want to read anything that might challenge your world view! I can see where you've got some of your wackier ideas now. :-)
Although to be honest, there's some books I haven't read and there's some good stuff as well.
Fascism. Edited by Roger Griffen is a good look at the far-right.
Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is a good read (I wouldn't study it) but I think the "Luther to Hitler" idea is too simple.
But Ms Cupp and Goldberg? Absolute dishonest rubbish. I don't mind reading things for any part of the political spectrum as long as the author is honest.
It's a little insulting to say you understand people with left-wing views because you've read books about Fascism (a far-right ideology) but I suspect that was your intention.
Yes, I knew that you would attack the sources rather than the information contained in the sources. It is the typical Atheo-Leftist non-argument Ad Hominem.
But even your Ad Hominem fails, because that list contains honest information about the Left. Undoubtedly, the only "reliable" books in the view of the Atheo-Left would be books extolling the "virtues" of selective compassion and Social Justice.
It is true that none of the Democrats in congress are amongst my friends. Nor are any of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Choice agitators, American Atheist Association, National Education Association, NYT, WaPo, HuffPo, any of the Leftist blogs, or any other Leftist writings which I, and you, can follow in almost real-time to see first hand what the Atheo-Leftosphere is proclaiming as TRUTH today. These and others such as Soros and Gates et. al. are Atheo-Leftist drivers of cultural nominalization (decline to virtual paganism). But when there is critical argument made against the Leftist platitudes, the arguers are declared "dishonest". Perhaps sincerity is the ultimate Atheo-Leftist value: how can such sincerity be called erroneous?
But since your only argument so far is that I am ignorant (Ad Hominem, not an actual argument), then perhaps you would enlighten us with your opinion of exactly how virtuous and moral the Atheo-Left is, and what constitutes the basis for their claim to moral authority? Start with the basis for the claim to moral authority.
(It's interesting that you didn't comment on the books which document the Leftism of Mao and Communism and government-caused death and so forth.)
If you would like, we can go chapter by chapter through Lenin's "On Utopian and Scientific Socialism", or what ever Atheo-Leftist explanatory writing you choose to defend. You pick, we'll discuss, OK?
Also, how about a list of your recommended reading concerned with rational support for the Atheo-Leftist worldview?
...attack the sources rather than the information contained in the sources.
Um, you didn't post ANY information from the sources. Are you going to dump lists of books and expect essays on each one?
But even your Ad Hominem fails, because that list contains honest information about the Left.
Ad Hominen is Latin for "to the man" and it's different from dismissal or insults. I'm reminded of "THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY" by Stephen Bond:
"As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.
...
Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument."
Undoubtedly, the only "reliable" books in the view of the Atheo-Left would be books extolling the "virtues" of selective compassion and Social Justice.
No.
(It's interesting that you didn't comment on the books which document the Leftism of Mao and Communism and government-caused death and so forth.)
Why? I don't agree with Mao and am not a Communist. There's a whole political spectrum out there. If a person falls on the left, it doesn't mean they are a Communist or a Maoist anymore than it means you are a Fascist or a Neo-Nazi because you fall on the right.
There's a spectrum - not just two choices.
” Are you going to dump lists of books and expect essays on each one?”
You have been given a choice. You have called certain authors “liars” without any evidence in support. Pick something, anything, and give evidence. You make open allegations that are fact-free. Now you are squirming under the requirement to back up your criticism with facts.
”…Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy…
You attacked, not with fact, but with denigrations which you did not support. Your counter attack does not apply. A fallacy exists where it exists, and denial doesn’t remove it.
Calling someone a liar is Ad Hominem Abusive, unless there is incontrovertible evidence provided in support of the allegation. you made an allegation that contained no factual support whatsoever. None.
FallacyFiles.org:
” Abusive: An Abusive Ad Hominem occurs when an attack on the character or other irrelevant personal qualities of the opposition—such as appearance—is offered as evidence against her position. Such attacks are often effective distractions ("red herrings"), because the opponent feels it necessary to defend herself, thus being distracted from the topic of the debate.”
You used your illicit charge to derail the conversation from your responsibility to defend your charges with fact.
” There's a spectrum - not just two choices.”
Yet your criticism was based solely on the existence of books on one side, while totally ignoring the existence of books on the other side. Your criticism was prejudiced and unfair given the actual spectrum of books in the list. And all you have given is criticism, no facts, just criticism.
Would you care to deal in facts? Or are you merely here to criticize with fact-free propaganda? Choose something from your previous criticisms, and provide facts for it. Anything. Even just any one thing. Facts to support it.
Or let's take Lenin's book, On Utopian and Scientific Socialism and go through it chapter by chapter.
Your choice.
But no more squirming out of your responsibility to provide facts, OK?
My friends are my business but I know how right-wingers think.
Here are some of the many sources available on the subject, in addition to observing the right-winger behaviors in the real world:
The Paranoid Style in American Politics, by Richard J. Hofstadter
American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America by Chris Hedges
Right-Wing Extremists by Martin A. Lee
The Racist Mind: Portraits of American Neo-Nazis and Klansmen by Raphael S. Ezekiel
Lies (And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them): A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right by Al Franken
Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky by Noam Chomsky
Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power by Joel Bakan
Bushwhacked: Life in George W. Bush's America by Molly Ivins
Fascism by Roger Griffin
(Is this how we are meant to play the game?)
First it was suggested that I had no sources for my characterization. When I provided sources they were derided as Right Wing while ignoring the presence of books covering the full spectrum. Now you are being silly.
However, if you choose a book from your completely unbalanced list, I will get a copy and we can go through it together and analyze the book's premise and details concerning its logic and its value discrimination based on unused or distorted facts and incorrect history.
This should be quite interesting. As before, I volunteer to use Lenin's "On Utopian and Scientific Socialism", a book that should please the contemporary Progressive.
I wasn't going to comment again but I thought I better clear up some things you've misunderstood. This is probably Sam and I's fault for not expressing things more clearly.
First it was suggested that I had no sources for my characterization.
That's not exactly true.
It was suggested (by Sam) that the personality characteristics you ascribe to "leftists" don't harmonize with actual people. And by actual people, I mean actual people living everyday lives in the real world.
It was also suggested (by Sam)that you examine "leftists" you know personally to see if they have these personality characteristics in reality.
Are they "salivating" at the thought of "a place where everyone is equal in their destitution"? Etc.
...books on one side, while totally ignoring the existence of books on the other side.
You seem to misunderstand what I was saying. There is not two sides - black and white. There's a spectrum - shades of gray. You seem to ignore this whenever it suits you.
Out of Fireworks' list
-The Paranoid Style in American Politics is a classic and Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power is surprisingly entertaining.
KK
There's no need to leave. If the Leftist establishment in charge of Progressivism in this country is not fairly characterized by my statements, then point to which characterization that you feel is false concerning these elites, and I'll consider it. Either you will be correct, or I will provide explicit examples that demonstrate the validity of the characterization.
I am unable to determine whether your idea that the average Leftist person on the Main Street of America shares these characteristics or not. A limited induction of a huge population cannot be trusted. And it has no bearing on the actual Leftist self-moral drive to de-moralize America.
"You seem to misunderstand what I was saying. There is not two sides - black and white. There's a spectrum - shades of gray. You seem to ignore this whenever it suits you."
A spectrum has two ends, at polar odds. The Progressive Left uses the Hegelian method of thesis/antithesis/synthesis in order to force change in their preferred direction. Thesis and antithesis are at polar odds, i.e. they have forced the situation into a bipolar, or dual, battle which requires unipolar resistance from those who value liberty over egalitarianism (the thesis). The antithesis drivers then berate the thesis resistance for their immorality and refusal to compromise. When the thesis holders finally relent and compromise, the antithesis drivers change the antithesis to an objective further removed from the original thesis position and closer to the radical objective. And they start again.
This is what is going on in the US Government right now, with the Left claiming that the Right wants to destroy America by not agreeing to fund the huge overspending from previous years. The Left points out correctly that they always have gotten the limit changed before, even under Reagan. And besides, they claim, the spending is for moral purposes.
The compromise under Hegel's thesis/Antithesis battle is the synthesis. For the Left, the synthesis is a moral imperative on the way to their objectives. For the Right, the synthesis is a step toward destruction of the economy, liberty and toward the institution of enforced equal outcomes which supersedes the liberty of equal opportunity. The battle is between moral set A and moral set B. That dichotomy is strictly bipolar, not a spectrum.
These issues are not strung out along a spectrum, they are driven into polarity specifically by the activism of the Left, pursuing their moral imperatives as the antithesis, and being rewarded with compromise (synthesis) in the direction of their goals.
Perhaps there are people who have opinions which form along a spectrum; that is not the issue. The issue is in the persistent, self-moral, antithesis drivers who will never, ever stop. That is why the compromise position, the synthesis, has to be halted at some point, or ultimately the antithesis will be reached due to apathy or the misreading of the Leftists actual antithesis objectives.
How your acquaintances or mine fit into this has no bearing on the thesis/antithesis battles being waged on us.
If this is not clear, I will try again.
KK
"Out of Fireworks' list
-The Paranoid Style in American Politics is a classic and Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power is surprisingly entertaining."
Are you recommending these for discussion and critique here?
Post a Comment