OK, EVIL WON. NOW HOW FAR DOWN IS BOTTOM ?

I don't know of too many conservatives who believe , as Locke certainly did,in the blank slate, Most conservatives believe, as most envrionmental behaviorists do, that BOTH NATURE AND NURTURE MAKE UP THE HUMAN PERSONALITY.

Freud? Oh, Please--Freud has been almost totally discredited. does't Kuvasz know that. Conservatives were always very suspicious of Freud.

Smith(Adam) yes, of course--the brilliant Economist Thomas Sowell shows how Smith belongs in the conservative tradition, Smith is nowhere near where Kuvasz would like to put him--Utopia. However, Utopia is much closer to the aims of Kuvasz' favorite doctrines--Socialism and Communism.

I am so disappointed in Kuvasz, I really remember that he wrote much more logically in the past and actually gave evidence instead of his present unsourced blah-blah.

massy AKA genoves said:



You have proved me correct in my analysis. You just cannot articulate anything that matters in a consistent way.[/[/color]color]


Doesn't Kuvasz know that ( and here is some substance for him) Conservative Republicans were in the forefront of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? It was the Democrats from the South who were the main opposition.

You don’t seem to understand, or ignore for political reasons, that Liberals and Democrats were not totally synonymous 40-50 years ago, and social Conservatives of both political parties were against integration and ending of Jim Crow Laws. Btw ”those “Democrats from the South who were the main opposition,” to racial integration became conservative Republicans, like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, etc. So arguing that “conservatives” were in the forefront of integration is patently stupid, unless you meant in the forefront against it.

Social Programs? Doesn't Kuvasz know that the Welfare reform during the Clinton years( He signed the bill) was one of the best social programs in years.

I listed the following social programs, "the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act." I did not name the abominable Welfare Reform Act of 1996, simply because the act itself was conservative, not liberal.

Environmental Protection?
Is Kuvasz talking about the Cap and Trade Bill? If he is he will find that the major opposition to that bill will come from Blue Dog Democrats who are worried that the Cap and Trade will destroy the jobs in their districts.

No, I actually stated the following

[quote] the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act.[/quote]

Btw, Blue Dog Democrats are whom, Massy? They are Conservative Democrats. You cannot even defend yourself without undermining your own thesis.


Doesn't Kuvasz know that the so called environmentalist movement will fall apart in December when the Chinese and India refuse to become part of the effort UNLESS developed nations fill thier coffers. Doesn't Kuvasz read anything?

Kuvasz must be confused.

He says that conservatives have no philosophy> He hasn't read very much.

You can presume, but you would be wrong again.

Here is a set of conservative principles for him to ponder:

CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES
The Constitution contains everything we need right now to enable us to run this nation properly. This includes the provision for making Constitutional Amendments to deal with new technology and foreign relation changes. But an Amendment MUST NOT violate or fundamentally re-write the Constitution.

If you want peace, prepare for war. The best way to have order and peace in the world is for the United States to be the world's mightiest military power. War should always be our last resort--but when we must resort to it, we must be prepared to be as deadly as possible so as to win and to win as soon as possible.

The predominant religious tradition--Judeo-Christianity--of this nation is to be respected, even by those who do not adhere to it. An attack on the right of Judeo-Christian practices to exist is to be considered an attack against the United States and is cause for declaring treason or going to war.

I will let pass without further comment that since the US Constitution does not grant special status to any religious tradition, even your beloved Judeo-Christianity, you just contradicted yourself about your alleged “conservative principles.”

So again,

[quote]Rather their (conservative) thought seems to be nothing more than crumbs and shards raked together from various sources-- Hobbes, Locke, Smith (invisible hand leading towards utopia), Marx (economic determinism), Freud (where they get their constant urge to play on middle class fear) and numerous others -- and shaped together into a formless mass which they mold to the desired situation.[/quote]


Rights are not privileges. Rights are rights and cannot be taken away from free citizens by the judiciary or anyone else. Likewise, privileges are not rights. Nobody has the "right" to drive a car or live the life of a wealthy man, for instance.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Coming from you, that is quite a joke, considering that you are perfectly willing to lie, take things out of context or ignore factual evidence to support your cause.

Fundamentalist Muslims and Socialists are enemies of the state and must have no power or public influence on any law or custom in this nation.

Yet fundamentalist Christians who terrorize and murder doctors for doing legal acts are not enemies of the state, but socialists who actually get constitutionally elected to the US Senate, like Bernie Sanders are? How does that work Massy? You tell us that the US Constitution is the law and yet you don’t want to life by it?

There may be times when "interference" in foreign nations' affairs is necessary to American security. After all, they do or intend to interfere with our affairs. Or do pirates now do something mysterious?

Why do you think that it is okay to interfere in foreign nations but consider other nations doing the same thing to us is an act of war? What is the moral calculus you use to kill a man and call it self defense but if it is done to you it is called murder?

Marriage is strictly a heterosexual institution. There are gay Conservatives and they must have equal rights under the Constitution. But homosexual unions cannot be state-sanctioned any more than a mother marrying her own son can be sanctioned.

Continuing with the conservative lock-step march towards a progression in civil rights? Not!

Private industry understands how and why do to things in a superior and more cost-effective way than anything the government can do, with the exception of military and law enforcement protection, emergency protection (such as local fire departments), and handling foreign affairs including immigration regulations. Therefore, private industry and private initiative must be allowed to run all affairs in this nation, including education and health care, with the exception of those few things enumerated here.

No they do not. And this flies in the face of the facts, that the “free market” is not sufficient alone to provide for the general welfare of the country. But your remark again, fits into your insistence that the marketplace is Utopia. Were it so, there would not be 45,000,000 (out of 300,000,000) people living either in poverty or without health insurance.

Illegal immigration is an abomination and must be treated as such.

Agreed, now are you going to show me the conservative handshake? But then again, maybe you recall that my brother was once a US border patrol officer.

Most of the time, when someone commits a crime, it's his own fault, and he must be made to pay for it.

Like Hammurabi, I would agree! But I don’t recall how that makes one a conservative, just a person who believes in a moral code.

The federal government as it currently is, is a bloated joke. Conservatives must immediately begin screaming for it to be shrunk by not less than 75%.

And George Bush, who ran as a Conservative in 2000, and 2004, along with the conservative Congresses of 2001-2006, did what? They grew the US government 19.7%
.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsid=31

So what is it, you get to call yourselves conservatives but vote and govern like fiscal liberals?

The welfare state is to be abolished. People who are down on their luck can look to charities

You are completely inconsistent and do not even understand the social gospel of the Judeo "Christian culture you allegedly revel in and how it can inviviate a society.

One does not leave to charity to alleviate the suffering of the poor, especially if it is clear that charity is insufficient to the task. You are called to action to succor the poor and you ought to use the government because it achieves that goal as good as any.

We’re not talking about private charitable giving, but speaking of political choices and activism, and the passage from Matthew 25 does not apply only to acts of individual charity.

Matthew 25:31-46

[quote]31. "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33. and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. 34. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35. for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36. I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37. Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38. And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39. And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' 40. And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' 41. Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42. for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43. I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' 44. Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' 45. Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' 46. And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."[/quote]

Does Matthew 25 say or even imply that it only applies to individual actions of a charitable nature?

The proper view, the Christian view, is that you are individually held to account under Matthew 25 for your individual one-on-one acts of charity or lack thereof, but you are also individually held to account under Matthew 25 for how the actions you take influence your society in its treatment of the "least of these."

The words of His Son, Jesus Christ speaks very clearly about this in Matthew 25.

Jesus sends to Hell the very people whose actions precisely fit those of people who today call themselves conservative Christians.

You included, Massy.

Btw, This is the critical driving force behind the anti abortion crowd, so again you are internally inconsistent in explaining your “conservative philosophy.”

I hope that Kuvasz is trying to be funny when he names some of the people he thinks are in line with conservative principles.

And I, hope that someday you will not distort my remarks. But after eight years I find it unlikely for you to change from the intellectual dishonesty exhibited in your posts.

So, did I actually say that I considered Hobbes, Locke or Freud to be “in line with conservative principles’ or did I indicate that you, as you have done repeatedly used pieces of their philosophies sewn together without any internal consistency for defending your political positions?

Because that is what conservatives generally do. And as ex gratia, below;

[quote]Rather their thought seems to be nothing more than crumbs and shards raked together from various sources-- Hobbes, Locke, Smith (invisible hand leading towards utopia), Marx (economic determinism), Freud (where they get their constant urge to play on middle class fear) and numerous others -- and shaped together into a formless mass which they mold to the desired situation.[/quote]


hOBBES? How does he fit? Which conservative has cited him? Hobbes is much closer to the philosophy of Soviet Russia than our entreprenurial capitalism.

Btw, Hobbesian “rule of the jungle,” the strong control the weak in global affairs, (exemplified by your remark that invading another country was acceptable but the reverse would be unacceptable) or transmuted into social Darwinism of the marketplace promulgated by conservatives.

Locke?

That would be reflected in your attempt to define personal rights within a social organization, yours, of course, but not for “others” like homosexuals, or socialists, or those who do not respect the Judeo-Christian culture.

You can dress up your bad-craziness in as many funny hats as you want, but you still have no basic political philosophy but hypocrisy.
[/quote]

excuse the unreadible post above. i hope that this is better.

massy aka genoves said;

Kuvasz wrote:(with no supporting evidence or documentation)

"So I would like you to show the readers of this thread direct, and not indirect evidence where I accuse conservatives of violating their "credo of conservatism," by not accepting evolution. My suggestion was that based upon history, conservatives fail the test in siding with the new ideas about the progression of civil rights, social programs, and evironmental protection."

You will have to excuse the typo in the last sentence; I had previously said that conservatives did not side with the new ideas about the progression of civil rights social programs and environmental programs.

Citing post # 3,675,486

"Liberals ended slavery, liberals got woman the right to vote, liberals created Social Security, Medicaid and a minimum wage, they wrote the Civil Rights Act, , the Voting Rights Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, they have done all of those things in at every moment, for every one of those things in this country, what did conservatives do, they opposed every one of those things. History shows that conservatives have to get drug into the future and rarely accept new ideas. They are constitutionally opposed to change and fear it.

You guys still don't get it. You have no basic philosophy. It’s just as I stated before.

In dealing with the Right, even the most articulate, and reading their most articulate essays I'm constantly impressed with their lack of substance.

Conservatives seem to be without principles, calling what guides them a philosophy, let alone Hobbesian seems to be giving them far more distinction than they deserve. Rather their thought seems to be nothing more than crumbs and shards raked together from various sources-- Hobbes, Locke, Smith (invisible hand leading towards utopia), Marx (economic determinism), Freud (where they get their constant urge to play on middle class fear) and numerous others -- and shaped together into a formless mass which they mold to the desired situation. There is no philosophical system on the Right, rather only cynical opportunism masquerading as coherent thought, a fig leaf of virtue to hide their whoring ways."

massy aka genoves said;
Kuvasz says:

Conservatives fail the test in siding with the new ideas about the progression of civil rights, social programs and environmental protection.

massy aka genoves said;

Kuvasz complains about the lack of substance. He is the one who has no substance. Where is his proof for the sentence above ?

Oh Christ, why do I even try?

The right wing uses Hobbesian language and imagery of “law of the jungle,” “economic Darwinism” about people who have become the superfluous over supply of workers. They couple it with a misguided interpretation of Adam Smith about utopian ideas of the marketplace that I expressed before. Your own posts are so chock-full of Freudian anxiety about your personally alleged middle class status and privileges that they can hardly hide their innate racism.

Instead of writing an honest conservative manifesto, you have launched into your typical adolescent sneering and ad hominum. And again, I predicted that behavior from you.

You just do not seem to get it. A political philosophy is based upon the things you are for and that if you want the intellectual adoration you crave you are required to link them with your beliefs concerning the nature of man and the universe.

If this is your answer to my request to you to for delineating your conservative philosophy, my remarks

"Rather their thought seems to be nothing more than crumbs and shards raked together from various sources-- Hobbes, Locke, Smith (invisible hand leading towards utopia), Marx (economic determinism), Freud (where they get their constant urge to play on middle class fear) and numerous others -- and shaped together into a formless mass which they mold to the desired situation. There is no philosophical system on the Right, rather only cynical opportunism masquerading as coherent thought, a fig leaf of virtue to hide their whoring ways."

You have proved me correct in my analysis. You just cannot articulate anything that matters in a consistent way.

massy aka genoves said;

Doesn't Kuvasz know that (and here is some substance for him) Conservative Republicans were in the forefront of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? It was the Democrats from the South who were the main opposition.

You don’t seem to understand, or ignore for political reasons, that Liberals and Democrats were not synonymous 40-50 years ago, and social Conservatives of both political parties were against integration and ending of Jim Crow Laws. Btw ”those “Democrats from the South who were the main opposition,” to racial integration became conservative Republicans, like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, etc. So arguing that “conservatives” were in the forefront of integration is patently stupid, unless you meant in the forefront against it.

massy aka genoves said;

Social Programs? Doesn't Kuvasz know that the Welfare reform during the Clinton years( He signed the bill) was one of the best social programs in years.

I listed the following social programs, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. I did not name the abominable Welfare Reform Act of 1996, simply because the act itself was conservative, not liberal.

massy aka genoves said;

Environmental Protection?

Is Kuvasz talking about the Cap and Trade Bill? If he is he will find that the major opposition to that bill will come from Blue Dog Democrats who are worried that the Cap and Trade will destroy the jobs in their districts.

No, I actually stated the following

[quote] the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act.[/quote]

Btw, Blue Dog Democrats are what Massy? They are Conservative Democrats. You cannot even defend yourself without undermining your own thesis.

massy aka genoves said;

Doesn't Kuvasz know that the so called environmentalist movement will fall apart in December when the Chinese and India refuse to become part of the effort UNLESS developed nations fill their coffers. Doesn't Kuvasz read anything?

Kuvasz must be confused.

He says that conservatives have no philosophy. He hasn't read very much.

You can presume, but you would be wrong again.

massy aka genoves said;

Here is a set of conservative principles for him to ponder:

CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES
The Constitution contains everything we need right now to enable us to run this nation properly. This includes the provision for making Constitutional Amendments to deal with new technology and foreign relation changes. But an Amendment MUST NOT violate or fundamentally re-write the Constitution.

If you want peace, prepare for war. The best way to have order and peace in the world is for the United States to be the world's mightiest military power. War should always be our last resort--but when we must resort to it, we must be prepared to be as deadly as possible so as to win and to win as soon as possible.

The predominant religious tradition--Judeo-Christianity--of this nation is to be respected, even by those who do not adhere to it. An attack on the right of Judeo-Christian practices to exist is to be considered an attack against the United States and is cause for declaring treason or going to war.

I will let pass without further comment that since the US Constitution does not grant special status to any religious tradition, even your beloved Judeo-Christianity, you just contradicted yourself about your alleged “conservative principles.”

So again,

Rather their (conservative) thought seems to be nothing more than crumbs and shards raked together from various sources-- Hobbes, Locke, Smith (invisible hand leading towards utopia), Marx (economic determinism), Freud (where they get their constant urge to play on middle class fear) and numerous others -- and shaped together into a formless mass which they mold to the desired situation.

massy aka genoves said;

Rights are not privileges. Rights are rights and cannot be taken away from free citizens by the judiciary or anyone else. Likewise, privileges are not rights. Nobody has the "right" to drive a car or live the life of a wealthy man, for instance.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Coming from you, that is quite a joke, considering that you lie, take things out of context or ignore factual evidence to support your cause.

massy aka genoves said;

Fundamentalist Muslims and Socialists are enemies of the state and must have no power or public influence on any law or custom in this nation.

Yet fundamentalist Christians who terrorize and murder doctors for doing legal acts are not enemies of the state, but socialists who actually get constitutionally elected to the US Senate, like Bernie Sanders are? How does that work Massy? You tell us that the US Constitution is the law and yet you don’t want to life by it?

massy aka genoves said;

There may be times when "interference" in foreign nations' affairs is necessary to American security. After all, they do or intend to interfere with our affairs. Or do pirates now do something mysterious?

Why do you think that it is okay to interfere in foreign nations but consider other nations doing the same thing to us is an act of war? What is the moral calculus you use to kill a man and call it self defense but if it is done to you it is called murder?

massy aka genoves said;

Marriage is strictly a heterosexual institution. There are gay Conservatives and they must have equal rights under the Constitution. But homosexual unions cannot be state-sanctioned any more than a mother marrying her own son can be sanctioned.

Continuing with the conservative lock-step march towards a progression in civil rights? Not!

massy aka genoves said;

Private industry understands how and why do to things in a superior and more cost-effective way than anything the government can do, with the exception of military and law enforcement protection, emergency protection (such as local fire departments), and handling foreign affairs including immigration regulations. Therefore, private industry and private initiative must be allowed to run all affairs in this nation, including education and health care, with the exception of those few things enumerated here.

No they do not. And this flies in the face of the facts, that the “free market” is not sufficient alone to provide for the general welfare of the country. But your remark again, fits into your insistence that the marketplace is Utopia. Were it so, there would not be 45,000,000 (out of 300,000,000) people living either in poverty or without health insurance.

massy aka genoves said;

Illegal immigration is an abomination and must be treated as such.

Agreed, now are you going to show me the conservative handshake? But then again, maybe you recall that my brother was once a US border patrol officer.

massy aka genoves said;

Most of the time, when someone commits a crime, it's his own fault, and he must be made to pay for it.

Like Hammurabi, I would agree! But I don’t recall how that makes one a conservative, just a person who believes in a moral code.

massy aka genoves said;

The federal government as it currently is, is a bloated joke. Conservatives must immediately begin screaming for it to be shrunk by not less than 75%.

And George Bush, who ran as a Conservative in 2000, and 2004, along with the conservative Congresses of 2001-2006, did what? They grew the US government 19.7%.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsid=31

So what is it, you get to call yourselves conservatives but vote and govern like fiscal liberals?

massy aka genoves said;

The welfare state is to be abolished. People who are down on their luck can look to charities

You are completely inconsistent and do not even understand the social gospel of the Judeo "Christian culture you allegedly revel in and how it can inviviate a society.

One does not leave to charity to alleviate the suffering of the poor, especially if it is clear that charity is insufficient to the task. You are called to action to succor the poor and you ought to use the government because it achieves that goal as good as any.

We’re not talking about private charitable giving, but speaking of political choices and activism, and the passage from Matthew 25 does not apply only to acts of individual charity.

Matthew 25:31-46

[quote]31. "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33. and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. 34. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35. for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36. I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37. Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38. And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39. And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' 40. And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' 41. Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42. for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43. I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' 44. Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' 45. Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' 46. And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."[/quote]

Does Matthew 25 say or even imply that it only applies to individual actions of a charitable nature?

The proper view, the Christian view, is that you are individually held to account under Matthew 25 for your individual one-on-one acts of charity or lack thereof, but you are also individually held to account under Matthew 25 for how the actions you take influence your society in its treatment of the "least of these."

The words of His Son, Jesus Christ speaks very clearly about this in Matthew 25.

Jesus sends to Hell the very people whose actions precisely fit those of people who today call themselves conservative Christians.

You included, Massy.

Btw, This is the critical driving force behind the anti abortion crowd, so again you are internally inconsistent in explaining your “conservative philosophy.”

massy aka genoves said;

I hope that Kuvasz is trying to be funny when he names some of the people he thinks are in line with conservative principles.

And I, hope that someday you will not distort my remarks. But after eight years I find it unlikely for you to change from the intellectual dishonesty exhibited in your posts.

So, I did not actually say that I considered Hobbes, Locke or Freud to be “in line with conservative principles’ but I did indicate that you, as you have done repeatedly used pieces of their philosophies sewn together without any internal consistency for defending your political positions?

Because that is what conservatives generally do. And as ex gratia, below;

"Rather their thought seems to be nothing more than crumbs and shards raked together from various sources-- Hobbes, Locke, Smith (invisible hand leading towards utopia), Marx (economic determinism), Freud (where they get their constant urge to play on middle class fear) and numerous others -- and shaped together into a formless mass which they mold to the desired situation."

massy aka genoves said;

Hobbes? How does he fit? Which conservative has cited him? Hobbes is much closer to the philosophy of Soviet Russia than our entreprenurial capitalism.

Btw, Hobbesian “rule of the jungle,” the strong control the weak in global affairs, (exemplified by your remark that invading another country was acceptable but the reverse would be unacceptable) or transmuted into social Darwinism of the marketplace promulgated by conservatives.

massy aka genoves said;

Locke?

That would be reflected in your attempt to define personal rights within a social organization, yours, of course, but not for “others” like homosexuals, or socialists, or those who do not respect the Judeo-Christian culture.

You can dress up your bad-craziness in as many funny hats as you want, but you still have no basic political philosophy but hypocrisy.[/quote]

Kuvasz wrote:

The right wing uses Hobbesian language and imagery of “law of the jungle."
end of quote
AN UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM. Hobbes NEVER used the term "law of the jungle". Kuvasz is hallucinating! Hobbes referred to "red in tooth and claw" BUT NOT "law of the jungle". Kuvasz must be thinking of Al Sharpton's neighborhood.

When you do a search for "law of the Jungle" and Hobbes you find that the left wing crazies use this phrase but HOBBES NEVER USED IT. I DEFY KUVASZ TO FIND THE PHRASE 'LAW OF THE JUNGLE ' IN HOBBES.

Kuvasz writes about Economic Darwinism. Whose Economic Darwinism? Does he mean the Economic Darwinism of the hard core Democrat- Blinder- who was appointed by Clinton/

Note:

Economic Darwinism
Alan Blinder: A Voice of Reason for the Fed
Posted in Action, Alan Blinder, Bernanke, Federal Reserve by Economic Darwinism on June 15, 2009
Bernanke’s term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve ends on January 31, 2010. There seems to be a silent understanding that there are two possible outcomes:

Summers slips into the role
Bernanke stays
Both of these outcomes would be dreadful. It is not too early to start making noises now. The one person that stands out in my mind who should be the next Fed Chairman is Alan Blinder. Hands down. Throughout this crisis, he’s been a voice of reason. Bernanke, on the other hand, has been a bumbling disappointment.

I hope we can start a discussion early so that people are well informed ahead of time. These are challenging times and we need someone at the Fed we can feel confident about.

My vote would be to nominate Alan Blinder for Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. Help make it happen.

Kuvasz wrote:

Liberals created Social Security. Wrong! Francis Perkins was the main author of Social Security and she was not a left wing liberal.

Note:

Frances Perkins(1882-1965), the first woman to serve in a Presidential cabinet, helped chart Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and was a champion of the initial passage of Social Security.

As Labor Secretary, Perkins served as a reformer close to the center of power. Like many reformers, Perkins could in some ways be termed conservative. She did not embrace the most radical solutions proposed to end the Great Depression.

I don't know of too many conservatives who believe , as Locke certainly did,in the blank slate, Most conservatives believe, as most envrionmental behaviorists do, that BOTH NATURE AND NURTURE MAKE UP THE HUMAN PERSONALITY.

Freud? Oh, Please--Freud has been almost totally discredited. does't Kuvasz know that. Conservatives were always very suspicious of Freud.

Smith(Adam) yes, of course--the brilliant Economist Thomas Sowell shows how Smith belongs in the conservative tradition, Smith is nowhere near where Kuvasz would like to put him--Utopia. However, Utopia is much closer to the aims of Kuvasz' favorite doctrines--Socialism and Communism.

I am so disappointed in Kuvasz, I really remember that he wrote much more logically in the past and actually gave evidence instead of his present unsourced blah-blah.

Kuvasz wrote:(with no supporting evidence or documentation)

So I would like you to show the readers of this thread direct, and not indirect evidence where I accuse conservatives of violating their "credo of conservatism," by not accepting evolution. My suggestion was that based upon history, conservatives fail the test in siding with the new ideas about the progression of civil rights, social programs, and evironmental protection.

You guys still don't get it. You have no basic philosophy. Its just as I stated before.

In dealing with the Right, even the most articulate, and reading their most articulate essays I'm constantly impressed with their lack of substance.

Conservatives seem to be without principles, calling what guides them a philosophy, let alone Hobbesian seems to be giving them far more distinction than they deserve. Rather their thought seems to be nothing more than crumbs and shards raked together from various sources-- Hobbes, Locke, Smith (invisible hand leading towards utopia), Marx (economic determinism), Freud (where they get their constant urge to play on middle class fear) and numerous others -- and shaped together into a formless mass which they mold to the desired situation. There is no philosophical system on the Right, rather only cynical opportunism mascarading as coherent thought, a fig leaf of virtue to hide their whoring ways.

**********************
Kuvasz says:

Conservatives fail the test in siding with the new ideas about the progression of civil rights, social programs and environmental protection.

Kuvasz complains about the lack of substance. He is the one who has no substance. Where is his proof for the sentence above ?

Doesn't Kuvasz know that ( and here is some substance for him) Conservative Republicans were in the forefront of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? It was the Democrats from the South who were the main opposition.

Social Programs? Doesn't Kuvasz know that the Welfare reform during the Clinton years( He signed the bill) was one of the best social programs in years.

Environmental Protection?
Is Kuvasz talking about the Cap and Trade Bill? If he is he will find that the major opposition to that bill will come from Blue Dog Democrats who are worried that the Cap and Trade will destroy the jobs in their districts.

Doesn't Kuvasz know that the so called environmentalist movement will fall apart in December when the Chinese and India refuse to become part of the effort UNLESS developed nations fill thier coffers. Doesn't Kuvasz read anything?

Kuvasz must be confused.

He says that conservatives have no philosophy> He hasn't read very much.

Here is a set of conservative principles for him to ponder:

CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES
The Constitution contains everything we need right now to enable us to run this nation properly. This includes the provision for making Constitutional Amendments to deal with new technology and foreign relation changes. But an Amendment MUST NOT violate or fundamentally re-write the Constitution.

If you want peace, prepare for war. The best way to have order and peace in the world is for the United States to be the world's mightiest military power. War should always be our last resort--but when we must resort to it, we must be prepared to be as deadly as possible so as to win and to win as soon as possible.

The predominant religious tradition--Judeo-Christianity--of this nation is to be respected, even by those who do not adhere to it. An attack on the right of Judeo-Christian practices to exist is to be considered an attack against the United States and is cause for declaring treason or going to war.

Rights are not privileges. Rights are rights and cannot be taken away from free citizens by the judiciary or anyone else. Likewise, privileges are not rights. Nobody has the "right" to drive a car or live the life of a wealthy man, for instance.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Fundamentalist Muslims and Socialists are enemies of the state and must have no power or public influence on any law or custom in this nation.

There may be times when "interference" in foreign nations' affairs is necessary to American security. After all, they do or intend to interfere with our affairs. Or do pirates now do something mysterious?

Marriage is strictly a heterosexual institution. There are gay Conservatives and they must have equal rights under the Constitution. But homosexual unions cannot be state-sanctioned any more than a mother marrying her own son can be sanctioned.

Private industry understands how and why do to things in a superior and more cost-effective way than anything the government can do, with the exception of military and law enforcement protection, emergency protection (such as local fire departments), and handling foreign affairs including immigration regulations. Therefore, private industry and private initiative must be allowed to run all affairs in this nation, including education and health care, with the exception of those few things enumerated here.

Illegal immigration is an abomination and must be treated as such.

Most of the time, when someone commits a crime, it's his own fault, and he must be made to pay for it.

The federal government as it currently is, is a bloated joke. Conservatives must immediately begin screaming for it to be shrunk by not less than 75%.

The welfare state is to be abolished. People who are down on their luck can look to charities

*****************************************************************

I hope that Kuvasz is trying to be funny when he names some of the people he thinks are in line with conservative principles.

hOBBES? How does he fit? Which conservative has cited him? Hobbes is much closer to the philosophy of Soviet Russia than our entreprenurial capitalism.

Kuvasz wrote:

Btw, Blue Dog Democrats are whom, Massy? They are Conservative Democrats.
end of quote-
Conservative is an adjective. Democrat is the noun.

***********************************************************************

Genovez wrote:
The predominant religious tradition--Judeo-Christianity--of this nation is to be respected, even by those who do not adhere to it. An attack on the right of Judeo-Christian practices to exist is to be considered an attack against the United States and is cause for declaring treason or going to war.
Kuvasz wrote:


I will let pass without further comment that since the US Constitution does not grant special status to any religious tradition, even your beloved Judeo-Christianity, you just contradicted yourself about your alleged “conservative principles.”

I am very much afraid that Kuvasz does not know how to read.

The paragraph I wrote did not say that the Judeo-Christian religious tradition was to be enshrined as the official and dominant religion in the US. The paragraph says-RESPECTED>

and the next line says--An attack on the RIGHT FOR JUDEO-CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES TO EXIST"

Is Kuvasz against the freedom of Religion?


I do not think that a call for "respect" of the dominant Religious Philosophy is anwhere outside of the parameters of the Constitution. Perhaps Kuvasz can find if for me keeping in mind, however, that the word RESPECT was used.

Kuvasz says that conservatives are fond of Freud and Freudianism?

What a joke!!

Most conservatives are religious people.

Freud was Anti-Religious!

Note:



Against the advise and wishes of many of his friends, he published his last book, "Moses and Monotheism." In this book Freud lays down his ideas of the Bible. First he declares that Moses was actually an Egyptian. During this period, Freud reasons, there was a battle in the Egyptian society between the polytheists and the monotheists. Moses, he reasons, was on the side of monotheism, but the polytheists had the upper hand.

During that time, a Semitic tribe was enslaved in Egypt. Moses escaped from Egypt taking this tribe with him only to be killed by them in the desert. This Freud presented as his idea of the Bible. Needless to say, he upset both Jews and Christians with his speculations.

Many people have been bothered with the question of why did Freud, a person of such brilliance write a book that was scorned by so many, that caused him and his psychoanalysis to be associated with anti-religious thought? If Freud did not believe in the Biblical story of Moses and the origins of the Jewish nation, why did he try to come up with another story? Why not just announce that he had no belief in religion or in the Biblical accounts

The answer is this: Freud, the psychoanalyst, analyzed the Biblical account of Moses and the Jews as if it were written by men who like all men, try to embellish the account of their lives. Freud dealt with people who covered the true source of their actions with a façade. In order to understand people, Freud had to uncover this external representation that man created to protect his weaknesses.

Far from rejecting the validity of the Bible, Freud accepted it, but only as an external manifestation of the inner trauma of the Jewish nation.

I think the funniest part of Kuvasz's post is when he claims that conservatives use Marx as part of their philosophy.

MARX!!!!!!!!!!! Karl not Groucho.

Anti-communism is political and ideological opposition to communism, especially Marxism. Organized anti-communism developed in reaction to the growing popularity of the communist movement, and took on many forms as the 20th century.

Conservative monarchists in Europe fought against the first wave of communist revolutions from 1917 to 1922. Fascism and Nazism were based on a violent brand of anti-communism; they incited fear of a communist revolution in order to gain political power, and they aimed to destroy communism in World War II. Both conservatism and classical liberalism shaped much of the anti-communist foreign policy of the Western powers, and dominated anti-communist intellectual thought in the second half of the 20th century.

I have not finished taking Kuvasz apart. I have a great deal more research to do in order to show how many errors he has made.