Conservative Movement.

[GeneFrenkle]

I'm presuming "hard" means either "difficult" or "requires effort or thought".

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Kreutz]

I think you got it backwards. They have a big heart. And a little brain. They operate on instinct and what they see the rest of the herd doing. Many are incapable of much in the way of independent thought/action.

You sure a mindless herd mentality is unique to liberals?

[ShotgunBlast]

I'm presuming "hard" means either "difficult" or "requires effort or thought".

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

You are correct. Because of the dumbing down of America I felt using shorter words would make sure no one got lost in the conversation.

[GeneFrenkle]

I'm presuming "hard" means either "difficult" or "requires effort or thought".

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

You are correct. Because of the dumbing down of America I felt using shorter words would make sure no one got lost in the conversation.

I don't gots it... Use the more goodly words. lol

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[mamabearCali]

It used to be though that if anything was worthwhile it would take effort. When something was hard or difficult and a child whined they were encouraged to keep at it.

Now it seems as if the whole culture has grown allergic to work. If it requires effort, never mind go back to bed. Grrrrrr!!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Kreutz]

It used to be though that if anything was worthwhile it would take effort. When something was hard or difficult and a child whined they were encouraged to keep at it.

Now it seems as if the whole culture has grown allergic to work. If it requires effort, never mind go back to bed. Grrrrrr!!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

This is a good thing; it makes the hard worker shine all the more.

[ratherfish]

"Shining" is now forbidden and punished.

[gunderwood]

Make them wear litle yellow stars; just tell them they're to raise awareness for some idiot liberal cause like sweatshops enslaving transgendered underaged mosquitos and not letting them gay marry the furniture.

They'll snap them up like crazy.

Scarlet letters would work as well.

[Reverenddel]

I'm FAR from Lazy...

I'm ANGRY! MOTIVATED! With the ability to LEAD people!

You know? What most "TAKERS" do NOT have in their handy bag of tricks, other than name calling, and being unable to understand that WE do not have to DO anything, but feed you the rope to your OWN hanging!

Call me whatever you like, but do NOT call me for help.

You leftist? Go ahead with the "Pussification" of my once great nation... You got no one else to blame when everyone who contributes to success STOPS, and/or LEAVES!

ENJOY!

[gunderwood]

What's wrong with Rand's Objectivism? It seems to be the only rational, logically consistent theory. Most people who criticise it have never read it, only left-wing distortions of it.

The problem is her philosophy, like nearly all humanistic philosophies, has no explaination for it's existance in the first place. Once you assume that it exists that's one thing, but getting there requires a leap of faith. Rand assumes that her system is "natural" or self-evident and will simply come into existance by reason alone, despite the evidence to the contrary. Using humans as the canon does not yield her objectivist reality, it yields the very chaos, looting and otherwise destructive behaviors we're so fond off. In order to even get to the launching point of her philosophy she must assume most of the Christian ethical code as the "right" way to behave in the first place. The irony here is compelling since she goes to great lengths to deny it and otherwise blame the very foundation she has choosen for the failures of what amounts to other branchs of humanistic thinking.

The Western Civilizations ethical and legal codes did not spring up in a vacuum. They were not arrived at by some objective reasoning; incidentally that idea of human reasoning (e.g. the scientific method) as the only method or process whereby acceptable ideas are arrived at is an Enlightenment concept which came centuries and in some cases a millenia afterwards. These humanistic philosophies did not strengthen or better explain the Wests ethical and moral codes, rather it has been attacking them and degrading everything that has made the West was it once was (it no longer is). For example, the Common Law sprang forth from the same moral and ethical codes only to eventually be abolished by the humanistic philosophy of Jeremy Bentham. His flavor de jure was utilitarianism, but at its core is the idea of using human happiness as the yardstick for all moral and ethical decisions. It's human focused; what man says or feels or knows is what is right. The Common Law was the exact opposite of this. It's not man as the measure of all things, but rather the revealed moral and ethical code of the Creator, which is found in the Bible. That moral and ethical code isn't made up but rather is a reflection of the character of the perfect Creator.

You may or may not believe the revelation in the Bible, but it's 180 degrees from humanistic philosopies. It's not man as the measure of things as it's contrary to how men behave naturally; if men did it would be a moot point.

[hairtriggerglock17]

I like the idea, but I do want to correct the op on one thing. There are a few democrats left in the country( including myself) who vote conservative but refuse to let the liberal wing that has overrun the party kick us out of a party that our families have been in for generations.

I think there might be about 50 of us left in the whole usa. I think I am the only democrat under 40 who is an ultra conservative

[hairtriggerglock17]

Sorry you feel that way, Rev. I know you're ticked right now, but since you are both a Christian and a Reverend, consider this.

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
-- Luke 6:37

"Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you."
-- Colossians 3:13

Not my words; no human was ever that smart, certainly not me. But good ones to remember right about now. Just a thought.

God also forgives if asked. So the key for the rev and guys like me is to pray and in some cases go to confession and we are all good.

[Kreutz]

I think there might be about 50 of us left in the whole usa. I think I am the only democrat under 40 who is an ultra conservative

Maybe 50 in VA, but theres still plenty of blue dog and even old Copperhead style Democrats in New England.

[dorminWS]

OK, I’m not trying to start a big pissing match, but I am intrigued by some of what you’ve said, and really want to know what your thinking behind it is. First, I’m assuming that by “rationalism, we both mean something pretty close to the following:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Humanism is the body of philosophies and ethical perspectives that emphasize the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism), over established doctrine or faith (fideism).
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

What's wrong with Rand's Objectivism? It seems to be the only rational, logically consistent theory. Most people who criticise it have never read it, only left-wing distortions of it.

The problem is her philosophy, like nearly all humanistic philosophies, has no explaination for it's existance in the first place. Once you assume that it exists that's one thing, but getting there requires a leap of faith. Rand assumes that her system is "natural" or self-evident and will simply come into existance by reason alone, despite the evidence to the contrary.

What, exactly, IS the evidence to the contrary? And why does it NEED an explanation for its existence?

Using humans as the canon does not yield her objectivist reality, it yields the very chaos, looting and otherwise destructive behaviors we're so fond off.

That’s a pretty sweeping statement. Can you tell me what philosophy avoids any of that in practice? Is statism or socialism or communism or theism or fideism any less susceptible to such destructive behaviors? Why is keeping what you’ve worked for “looting” if having the state take it away and give it to someone else is “NOT looting”?

In order to even get to the launching point of her philosophy she must assume most of the Christian ethical code as the "right" way to behave in the first place. The irony here is compelling since she goes to great lengths to deny it and otherwise blame the very foundation she has choosen for the failures of what amounts to other branchs of humanistic thinking.

I don’t quite see how it is that she must “assume most of the Christian ethical code as the "right" way to behave in the first place”. Seems to me that the philosophy on which ATLAS SHUGGED is written is simply that people own what they work for and have a superior claim to it as against the entire universe, and that the pursuit of one’s self interest is normal and natural and not subject to fair criticism. How does Christianity get into the mix? How in the world does rationalism require a foundation of fideism? Rand’s philosophy may be rationalistic, but it is basically free-market capitalism overlaying rationalistic notions of individual rather than collective rights. Seems to me you are trying to hammer it into the “silo” of classical rationalism as taught by college professors; and I would argue it just doesn’t fit.

The Western Civilizations ethical and legal codes did not spring up in a vacuum. They were not arrived at by some objective reasoning; incidentally that idea of human reasoning (e.g. the scientific method) as the only method or process whereby acceptable ideas are arrived at is an Enlightenment concept which came centuries and in some cases a millenia afterwards. These humanistic philosophies did not strengthen or better explain the Wests ethical and moral codes, rather it has been attacking them and degrading everything that has made the West was it once was (it no longer is). For example, the Common Law sprang forth from the same moral and ethical codes only to eventually be abolished by the humanistic philosophy of Jeremy Bentham. His flavor de jure was utilitarianism, but at its core is the idea of using human happiness as the yardstick for all moral and ethical decisions. It's human focused; what man says or feels or knows is what is right. The Common Law was the exact opposite of this. It's not man as the measure of all things, but rather the revealed moral and ethical code of the Creator, which is found in the Bible. That moral and ethical code isn't made up but rather is a reflection of the character of the perfect Creator.
You may or may not believe the revelation in the Bible, but it's 180 degrees from humanistic philosopies. It's not man as the measure of things as it's contrary to how men behave naturally; if men did it would be a moot point.

That’s an impressive tour de force of your college philosophy courses, but maybe this is one of those times when having a hammer just makes everything LOOK like a nail. As I said before, I think you are attempting to force Rand’s very simple approach to practical market dynamics and pursuit of (hopefully enlightened) self-interest into the mishmash of millennia of diverse and often opposing philosophical thought and thereby failing to see the forest for the trees.

[hairtriggerglock17]

I think there might be about 50 of us left in the whole usa. I think I am the only democrat under 40 who is an ultra conservative

Maybe 50 in VA, but theres still plenty of blue dog and even old Copperhead style Democrats in New England.

I am in Delaware just find more people agree with my politics down south. There is 1 blue dog in the state legislature here. I cant believe there are dems like me in new england, but that is a good thing. Now if we could jsut take the party way back to our conservative values \ we would have it made.

Damn republicans started all this destroying dixie and trying to wedge the blacks who in many cases were like family to hate their former friends and neighbors. hell only like 15% of the south had slaves before the war of northern aggression