I don't think the other side is evil. I think their ideology is evil. I think that most of the people who disagree me are well intentioned, I have said that numerous times and for you to pretend otherwise is either disingenuous or ignorant on your part. Again, my favorite person of all time is Alexander Hamilton.
If you think they are misled and following an evil path, you are still condescending to them (and myself), as well as still being unable to work with them. How can you work with people whose goal is evil tyranny? You will thereby live on the fringe unless your party has a major majority. And in this scenario you can contribute nothing beyond partisan bickering, which is wholly unneeded.
I don't sound remotely like Sean Hannity, but I know to expect unfair comparisons when dealing with you. If it's not a Hannity impressions it's implications of supporting slavery or segregation.
No. I just point out that your ideology would condone both...or at least the preservation of both. In fact, it is your ideology that Southern states used to defend both practices. To ignore that is to ignore reality in favor of a form of revisionist history.
And by comparing you to Sean Hannity, I mean you called the other side's philosophy evil and have walked it back now to saying they are "well intentioned" but misguided in their evil deeds. That is Beckian, but the ending note is that the other side is evil and your views are righteous. That is what Sean Hannity implies every night. He just does it in a smugger, more dishonest way. But the end post is still the same: "They are bad and we are good." You can rationalize it any way you want, but you have the same message.
I have yet to see a single piece of evidence supporting the accusations that he implied John McCain ha a black baby out of wedlock. Heard the accusation numerous times though.
Are you saying you don't believe the lies were spread that are well documented and McCain has commented on many times...that have also appeared in descriptions of conversations he had with Bush in Woodward books? Or are you asking for direct evidence that the rumormongers that implied that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock, was attending brothels, and that Cindy McCain was a drug addict were originated by Karl Rove. That I'd have to look up, but everyone knows who was responsible for those lies. His name starts with a "K" and ends "arl Rove." But like the months before Scooter Libby came clean, there's no concrete evidence the Bush administration leaked that, right?
His record in Texas was as a bipartisan governor. His first achievement was working with Teddy Kennedy on No Child Left Behind. [b\He was a more partisan politician than Al Gore or John Kerry.[/b] Not that that's necessarily a great achievement.
?????
I guess we do agree. BTW you didn't comment on his running on persecution of gays and unconstitutional bigotry in the 2004 election.
I would love to have a conversation with Palin because I do believe I could guide her to the proper conclusions (it's easy when you have history on your side).
Good for you. You could be her Lady MacBeth.
Ah, once again we have the idiocy of assuming that intending to do good is the same as doing good.
Progressives have also supported segregation and eugenics.
Again, most of the goals of Progressives are fine. Minimum wage laws have hurt most of the people they were trying to help.
Perhaps your partially right; the progressives also pursued the foolish prohibition that led to a spike in criminality. I tend to consider minimum wages a good thing however (though rent controlled housing is another story).
But overall the progressive agenda has done a lot of good things for this country and to say that it springs from evil is just insulting. And has no room in the national discourse from someone who thinks he'll become a senator or governor one day. It only contributes to a terrible wall of noise that has more to do with cable news' perceptions of reality than the problems we as a country do face.
My "demonstrating time and again that I care nothing about facts" is nothing more than having a more accurate account of history than your professors taught you. Every position I have is based on fact.
"Your level" is that of a cliched Political Science major whose information stems less from an analysis of primary sources but instead a heavy reliance on commentary from professors who have a view of the world I do not share. I find the complaints about ad hominem attacks bizarre coming from you, it's been a specialty of yours.
For the record my view of history stems from knowing historians from multiple backgrounds in academia, public policy, and the private sector my whole life. And learning from them, as well as reading numerous biographies and historical texts--particularly around the area of the Antebellum Period through Reconstruction in the South--and the Southern politics that formed as a result of those events leading to race riots and segregation by the end of the century. I am no scholar on the 20th centur, though I have studied Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Nixon exhaustively. I also have enjoyed talking to many people who actually lived through the Depression and WWII...not just read about it in a book.
You try to view history through a political philosophy....I prefer just to view history and gather my thoughts on what it meant from there. Historical context comes first, philosophical musings and interpretations come after. Your brand of libertarianism is more likely to be found articulated in a political science class by cocky undergrads trying to prove their superior intellect with argumentative, contrarian, and highly inaccurate viewpoints. And that is why their view is a footnote in history.
I view Ayn Rand much like I view Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite of the largest degree, doesn't mean that I don't consider the Declaration of Independence beautiful and poignant or the Kentucky Resolutions valueless. I can separate the ideas of a person, the creations of a person separate from the person his/herself.
Fair enough. I know you hate Jefferson. Something tells me though Jefferson would hate Rand. But that would be a fun debate to watch.
