Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

We could start with the Industrial revolution, move onto capitalism and how much good those have done for society. Rail roads, oil, transportation, steel, etc.

Churchill, Thatcher, Reagan, Lincoln, T.S. Eliot, and Wendell Berry are some examples that come to mind. It's a stupid proposition to think all things good have been liberal and all things bad have been conservative as George pointed out.

0 Replies

We should not forget about the "computer" industry.

0 Replies

* "We have lived by the assumption that what was good for us would be good for the world. We have been wrong. We must change our lives, so that it will be possible to live by the contrary assumption that what is good for the world will be good for us. . . We must recover the sense of the majesty of the creation and the ability to be worshipful in its presence. For it is only on the condition of humility and reverence before the world that our species will be able to remain in it."

-Wendell Berry

This guy is a Conservative?

He's Libertarian at best.

I challenge the notion that the Industrial Revolution and Capitalism are inventions of Conservatives.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I challenge the notion that the terms "conservative" and "liberal" in the political sense have any meaning whatsoever.

0 Replies

FreeDuck, You hit the nail on the head; why are so-called conservatives still supporting Bush? Makes one wonder about their devotion to a president that doesn't follow the conservative philosophy of small government and general "conservatism" on most issues.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
I think the burden of proof is on you to show us, for example, that Mozart was a "liberal".

Granted, the works that I've found describing this are difficult for me to verify the accuracy of. So I concede that one of the people listed may or may not have been a liberal.

So my question stands:
As the original poster, let me ask you: who were the Conservative artists, writers, and leaders who have progressed our society and Humanity as a whole? Especially the artists.

Cycloptichorn

No, you haven't begun to deal with your burden of proof. Michelangelo, for example, was hardly a "liberal" equivalent. Leonardo was an avid consultant in the hire of the most reactionary monarchs of his day. Most of the original African slave trade was conducted by what were then considered to be the most "progressive" and modern societies, particularly including Holland. Even the U.S. portion of the trade was dominated by blue state Yankee merchants whose fortunes later supplied much of the endowment of the great blue state university to which your author referred. The thesis of his argument is so superficial and sophomoric as to be laughable.

0 Replies

georgeob, I tend to agree with your opinion about "whose worse?" It's similar somewhat in trying to pin down whether christians are worse than other religions, or the citizens of one country is worse or better than another, because anybody with half a brain can find proof for their position - whether pro or con.

0 Replies

Quote:

Michelangelo, for example, was hardly a "liberal" equivalent. Leonardo was an avid consultant in the hire of the most reactionary monarchs of his day.

From the original piece

Quote:

You would have hung a few of these guys for being gay.

Michelangelo was gay and Leonardo had a penchant for dressing up as a woman. Both of them were Liberals in every sense of the word. They challenged traditional notions both in art and in society. The fact that Leonardo had a hard time making his ends meet - and hired himself out to create military inventions and pieces of art for Conservative rulers - does not discount this.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

As I've said, those arguments based on "my father is better than your father" leads to nowhere.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Michelangelo was gay and Leonardo had a penchant for dressing up as a woman.

I don't think that one's sexual preferences have any connection to either politics or the degree to which he welcomes (or resists) change. Moreover both of these great figures have been consistently held up as just that by the same "conservative" institutions the author so defames.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Both of them were Liberals in every sense of the word. They challenged traditional notions both in art and in society.

By that interesting definition, Margaret Thatcher was a Liberal.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The fact that Leonardo had a hard time making his ends meet - and hired himself out to create military inventions and pieces of art for Conservative rulers - does not discount this.

Do you claim to know his inner thoughts and motivations?

0 Replies

I claim that his actions stood in direct opposition to the majority society in which he lived, in many ways.

Quote:

I don't think that one's sexual preferences have any connection to either politics or the degree to which he welcomes (or resists) change.

I disagree, when the norm is to limit the rights and freedoms of a particular mode of sexual preference; and what more, the same group - Conservatives - have consistently attempted to limit these rights and freedoms for quite the historical span.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Yeah, conservatives don't like gays and lesbians using that sacred word "marriage," because over 50 percent of heterosexual marriages end up in divorce.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Yeah, conservatives don't like gays and lesbians using that sacred word "marriage," because over 50 percent of heterosexual marriages end up in divorce.

And the top ten states for divorce? Southern Conservatives states, by a factor of almost two to one.

The lowest? Mass., which allows gays to marry.

Funny how that works, really

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Yeah, conservatives don't like gays and lesbians using that sacred word "marriage," because over 50 percent of heterosexual marriages end up in divorce.

And the top ten states for divorce? Southern Conservatives states, by a factor of almost two to one.

The lowest? Mass., which allows gays to marry.

Funny how that works, really

Cycloptichorn

But heterosexual marriage is sacred....so's the 2nd....and the 3rd....and so on....and so on.....

If gay's should be denied marriage based on the sanctity of the institution, then 2nd (3rd, etc) marriages should also be denied.

0 Replies

Both of mine were sacred as hell.

0 Replies

I betcha conservatives don't even know what the hell we're talking about.

0 Replies

June 14, 2007
Bid to Ban Gay Marriage Fails in Massachusetts

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I claim that his actions stood in direct opposition to the majority society in which he lived, in many ways.

Quote:

I don't think that one's sexual preferences have any connection to either politics or the degree to which he welcomes (or resists) change.

I disagree, when the norm is to limit the rights and freedoms of a particular mode of sexual preference; and what more, the same group - Conservatives - have consistently attempted to limit these rights and freedoms for quite the historical span.

Cycloptichorn

Did the self-styled "progressive" totalitarian societies of NAZI or Stalinist or Maoist socialism treat theirs any better? Did the founders of the "great" liberal universities of the "Blue" states treat theirs any better ? Quite the contrary.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I claim that his actions stood in direct opposition to the majority society in which he lived, in many ways.

Quote:

I don't think that one's sexual preferences have any connection to either politics or the degree to which he welcomes (or resists) change.

I disagree, when the norm is to limit the rights and freedoms of a particular mode of sexual preference; and what more, the same group - Conservatives - have consistently attempted to limit these rights and freedoms for quite the historical span.

Cycloptichorn

Did the self-styled "progressive" totalitarian societies of NAZI or Stalinist or Maoist socialism treat theirs any better? Did the founders of the "great" liberal universities of the "Blue" states treat theirs any better ? Quite the contrary.

The struggle for positive change includes as many mistakes as it does correct guesses. I don't seek to take the good while ignoring the bad; there have been instances in which the Progressive forces either chose the wrong path to go down, or chose to work to the benefit of a small group of people in a society to the detriment of the others. This in no way changes the validity of the original proposition.

As for the 'Blue States,' yes, we do treat those of differing sexual orientation better. See the article right above your last post. It's taken a long time to get to this point and it will take even longer for actual equality to be achieved. And it is the Liberal and Progressive force that will accomplish this, not the Conservative one.

I should call Godwin's law on you for invoking Nazis, but I'll let it pass.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

You - and the author of the screed you pasted - are simply treating your thesis as a tautology - defining as "liberal" or "progressive" anyone who did anything you later define as good or beneficial. However the truth is that "progressives" - by contemporary definitions - are no more associated with good than are their "conservative" opponents.

0 Replies

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know