Anti-intellectualism in Middle America.

You may think so, but apparently you know little about T. Roosevelt.

What Setanta won't tell you( he may have forgotten)is that Roosevelt said:

"Our cause is based on the eternal principles of righteousness and even though we who now lead may from some time fail, in the end the cause itself shall triumph..We Stand at Armaggedon and we battle for the Lord"

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

I'm sure that Setanta would not call that plain old Progressivism. That sounds more like the philiosphy of the religious fundamentalists.

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

Anyway, Panzade, you have not read Setanta's incredibly inaccurate take on the Nazis and thier totally RIGHT WING slant( according to Setanta)

He is a fraud and I proved it.

This speaks for itself:

New York Times
Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Times Traveler - New York Times Blog
November 9, 2008, 12:01 am
Theodore Roosevelt Speaks Out on Religion
By William S. Niederkorn

Monday, Nov. 9, 1908

President Theodore Roosevelt replies to one of several letters he received during the presidential campaign that tried to make a political issue of William Howard Taft’s religion. The letter writer in this case says that Taft is a Unitarian and that his wife and brother are Roman Catholics. These are reasons, the letter writer feels, “for not voting for Taft.” Roosevelt writes: “I did not answer any of these letters during the campaign, because I regarded it as an outrage even to agitate such a question. … To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular Church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any Church, is an outrage against the liberty of conscience which is one of the foundations of American life. … I do not for one moment believe that the mass of our fellow-citizens, or that any considerable number of our fellow citizens, can be influenced by such narrow bigotry as to refuse to vote for any thoroughly upright and fit man because he happens to have a particular religious creed. … I believe that this Republic will endure for many centuries. If so, there will doubtless be among its Presidents Protestants and Catholics, and very probably at some time, Jews. … In my Cabinet at the present moment there sit side by side Catholic and Protestant, Christian and Jew, each man chosen because in my belief he is peculiarly fit to exercise on behalf of all our people the duties of the office. … In no case does a man’s religious belief in any way influence his discharge of his duties, save as it makes him more eager to act justly and uprightly in his relations to all men.” These “are the principles upon which all good Americans should act in choosing, whether by election or appointment, the men to fill any office, from the highest to the lowest in the land.”

nuff said

genoves, how convenient that you left out the preceding paragraph of TR's speech



pretty progressive if you ask me

I took my quote from P. 719 of TR-The Last Romantic by H. W. Brands-1997-Basic Books.

The quote I offered was the only quote on that page. Thank you for your emendation but my point still stands.

The secularistic Setanta would never kow tow to someone who said--"We stand at Armageddon, and we battle for the Lord"

Setanta is fond of making sweeping generalizations without reviewing all the evidence.

Here is what the Author, Brands, adds on the previous page--

"The Progressive convention had all of the air of an Episcopal synod. The progressives were a sober-minded lot, imbued with a sens of VIRTUE and high purpose...Their speeches sounded like sermons, and they sang hymns--especially "Onward, Christian Soldiers"."

To equate the practicioners of today's Progressive Ideas with those of Ted Roosevelt's day is questionable in the extreme since today'sProgressives do NOT admit religion or Christian Theology in their staunchly leftist and secular dogmas.

Setanta knows this but most of his blurbs are generalizations tricked up to spread the Socialist message to all.

In your opinion, genoves, what is so bad about socialism?
I get the general pros and cons, but it seems odd to me because I am from a place where socialism is always used as a positive term, not a negative.

In your opinion, TPQ, what is so good about socialism?

I don't, of course, read the Possum's posts--on those few occasions when i have, and have responded, i've always realized it's foolish and a waste of time, because all it wants is an opportunity to pick a fight, and it is never interested in the accuracy of it's statements.

I did think, though, that it would worth while to point out that "quote mining" is part of the Possum's MO. Quote mining is taking someone's remarks, and taking portions of them out of context to attempt to distort the actual meaning of what the person in question has said. This is a favorite technique of the creationists, who love to indulge quote mining to make it appear that reputable scientists reject a theory of evolution.

It works just as well, of course, with political hysteria.

That just proves that when the multi-cloned Possum has his head up his ass which is most of the time, it's only covering his eyes and ears but his mouth and fingers unfortunately still work. His vain attempt to accuse others of claiming intelligence is a screen for wanting us to believe what he writes is intelligent. There's no other alternative unless what he writes is instead, stupid and regressive, and copied from a Google search.

Panzade--Setanta wrote:

I don't, of course, read the Possum's posts--on those few occasions when i have, and have responded, i've always realized it's foolish and a waste of time, because all it wants is an opportunity to pick a fight, and it is never interested in the accuracy of it's statements.
********************************
You note, of course, Panzade, that there is no one on this thread named Possum.
Could it be that Setanta is doing an Ad Hominem. He piously asserts that he is not in favor or Ad Hominems but he indulges in them routinely.

If you are really interested, Panzade, you might want to go back to note the savage attacks on me by Setanta and others AFTER THEY DISCOVERED THAT THEY COULD NOT REBUT MY POSTS AND AFTER I SHOWED THEY WERE IN ERROR.

But, why should you do such work.

Setanta indicates that I am not interested in the accuracy of statements. Well, anyone who really wants to do so can see if my posts and my points do indeed REBUT Setanta over and over.

If he really thinks that I cherry pick my points, Panzade, why it is easy for a professor (ex?) like Setanta, who has won plaudits throughout the world for his incisive commentary on Historical events, could easily show where I was wrong.

The fact is, Panzade, that I rubbed Setanta's nose in it with my exposition, where I gave evidence that Setanta did not, indeed, could not, rebut, to the effect that the NAZIS were, in many respects, left wingers, not right wingers, in their policies and proposals.

One point serves to show how Setanta was wrong. The Nazis( which I proved in my posts giving direct evidence and quotes were strongly opposed to Christianity and Roman Catholics in Germany. Only someone who either knows nothing about the period or about the Catholic Church can call the Nazis "right-wing" in that respect.

The left, Stalin, especially, opposed the Church. The Catholic Church in the twentieth century must be viewed as a conservative right wing force.

And the Nazis were against the Catholic Church.

These, and scores of other points, Panzade, are points which Setanta dare not address since it will show that his old notes( cribbed from Howard Zinn's books?) are mainly erroneous.

Setanta, Panzade, is just an intellectual coward!

The problems with Socialism, Pentacle Queen, are many.

I will touch on just a few now.

Socialism, of necessity, flourishes in a secular society. A society in which reliegion is a private affair.

Without religion, the demands placed on Socialist societies,in the name of temporal happiness, have become ever more urgent and unreasonable.

I think that a great deal of evidence can be marshalled to show that Socialism inevitably leads to redistribution of resources. This redistribution is not based on merit but rather on political factors.

The utter failure of Socialist societies like the Soviet Union to prosper is based on the inability of people to submerge their instinct to work hard to amass the goods that lead to better chances of survival.

No one but a charlathan would suggest that a radical redistribution of resources would lead to a better society.

In his book, "Money", ProfessorAndrew Hacker suggest that no one needs more than $100,000 a year in income. He also suggests that any income, of any kind, above that figure be taxed by the state so that the proceeds can be redistributed to the people who are at the bottom of the income scale.

This is, of course, ridiculous and would never work in practice. Many people, even those at the bottom of the income ladder, are still hopeful that they,or at least, their children, would end up among the fortunate at the top.

The best novel ever written about the evils of absolute Socialism is, in my estimation, "1984" Some, on the left, dreading the stain that the book might leave on their idiologies,try to portray "1984" as a prophecy about a "right wing" conservative take over.

The proof that this is an absurd position is found at the end of the novel.
where Orwell wrote:

"Newspeak was the official language of Oceania and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of INGSOC, OR ENGLISH SOCIALISM>"

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

Those are just a few of the many problems with Socialism.PentacleQueen.

Of course, it was stylish for Karl Marx and Engels to decry "capitalism' in the nineteenth century, but a great deal has changed since then. Why, even the Chinese are lurching towards Capitalism.

Lightwizard wrote:

That just proves that when the multi-cloned Possum has his head up his ass which is most of the time, it's only covering his eyes and ears but his mouth and fingers unfortunately still work. His vain attempt to accuse others of claiming intelligence is a screen for wanting us to believe what he writes is intelligent. There's no other alternative unless what he writes is instead, stupid and regressive, and copied from a Google search.

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

My, my, how intemperate. If I do have my head up my ass I am of the opinion that it is better than having a male member there. Of course, some people would not agree.

I would feel better about Lightwizard's charge about stupidity and regressiveness if he could actually prove that those criteria are applicable.

Alas, like so many others, he proves nothing but only fulminates.

Lightwizard, I am very much afraid, is unable to read and understand research techniques. Some items, of course, do come from Google. Other items, like the quotation from "1984" come from my personal library.

and, yes, Lightwizard, I have many books in my library but not one copy of
QR Magazine.

There's a famous book on the subject Queenie.

By Richard Hofstadter. I own a copy. How could I be expected to resist a title like that. A first edition. Slightly foxed.

Bernie (blatham), of blessed memory, used to rave about it.

It seems that if you help denigrate anti-intellectualism it flags up that you are an intellectual. It's known as the RIC. (The reverse invidious comparison.)

The book takes about 400 pages to say what Veblen said in one sentence.

But I'm not sure the professor knew what "intellectual" means.

Well--the Big Dick in Iran has just said that we are the most treacherous nation on the planet. So he takes us more seriously that he does those lower down his list.

Orwell either had a very twisted sense of humour or no sense of humour whatsoever. Irony resides in not knowing which.

LW, I am very much afraid, is unable to read and understand anything which fails to shine a golden glow upon his superior personage.

Why Set should think it a joke is incomprehensible.

As a history expert he ought to know that two separate dancing crazes swept Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries and both were put down with the sort of ruthlessness with which the Cathars were put down and for the same reason.

Who knows? It's socialists that matter and they are only socialists at work and dyed-in-the-wool capitalists when shopping. Usually more rabid with it than any conservative.

SPENDIUS- WROTE:

Re: The Pentacle Queen (Post 3676759)
There's a famous book on the subject Queenie.

By Richard Hofstadter. I own a copy. How could I be expected to resist a title like that. A first edition. Slightly foxed.

Bernie (blatham), of blessed memory, used to rave about it.

It seems that if you help denigrate anti-intellectualism it flags up that you are an intellectual. It's known as the RIC. (The reverse invidious comparison.)

The book takes about 400 pages to say what Veblen said in one sentence.

But I'm not sure the professor knew what "intellectual" means.
****************************************************************

What a great phrase, Spendius--The reverse invidious comparison.

I think it would explain most of the PIOUS statements by the far left.

e.g. Anti-Intellectuals are stupid--(Therefore I am a brilliant Intellectual)

Intolerant Caucasians are evil( I am a tolerant Caucasian--therefore blessed.

Greedy Capitalists hurt the poor( I am not greedy therefore I love the poor)

I will remember the phrase, Spendius--the reverse invidious comparison!!

I invented it myself. It's short for "rictus".

"spendi doesn't understand evolution" is code for the poseur to claim he does.

Which is hilarious.

When are you going to help me out in the teaching evolution threads? It's great fun.