Conservative Ideology: A Big Lie

The odds are excellent that you will leave this forum hating someone.
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 14247
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: Conservative Ideology: A Big Lie

Post by cradleandshoot »

PizzaSnake wrote: Fri May 10, 2024 9:47 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Fri May 10, 2024 6:37 am Not sure where to put this, but this is part of the debate about a proposal by the GOP to ask a citizenship question during the census process, and eventually count only citizens in the census, in violation of the Constitution and the manner we have counted for census purposes since 1790. Worth the watch, noting that Raskin is speaking pretty much extemporaneously:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irJy2A6g84Q
We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution! 😀
I believe your mis stating the liberal ideology. What you would like is a constitution dreamed up by progressive types. Normal Americans understand what your objective is and it makes them want to 🤮
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 26117
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: Conservative Ideology: A Big Lie

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

cradleandshoot wrote: Sat May 11, 2024 6:21 am
PizzaSnake wrote: Fri May 10, 2024 9:47 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Fri May 10, 2024 6:37 am Not sure where to put this, but this is part of the debate about a proposal by the GOP to ask a citizenship question during the census process, and eventually count only citizens in the census, in violation of the Constitution and the manner we have counted for census purposes since 1790. Worth the watch, noting that Raskin is speaking pretty much extemporaneously:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irJy2A6g84Q
We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution! 😀
I believe your mis stating the liberal ideology. What you would like is a constitution dreamed up by progressive types. Normal Americans understand what your objective is and it makes them want to 🤮
Did you bother to listen to the YouTube?
Try doing so and commenting on that instead.

BTW, the Constitution was "dreamed up by" radical revolutionaries, not simply "progressives". Fortunately, they were quite concerned with creating a new form of government which could endure as a nation of law, based on justice and fairness, not mere passions of men. In this concern, one might call that 'conservative', but it was a radically new experiment nevertheless, the rejection of monarchy and autocracy.

"Normal", educated Americans understand quite well.
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 14247
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: Conservative Ideology: A Big Lie

Post by cradleandshoot »

MDlaxfan76 wrote: Sat May 11, 2024 8:40 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Sat May 11, 2024 6:21 am
PizzaSnake wrote: Fri May 10, 2024 9:47 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Fri May 10, 2024 6:37 am Not sure where to put this, but this is part of the debate about a proposal by the GOP to ask a citizenship question during the census process, and eventually count only citizens in the census, in violation of the Constitution and the manner we have counted for census purposes since 1790. Worth the watch, noting that Raskin is speaking pretty much extemporaneously:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irJy2A6g84Q
We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution! 😀
I believe your mis stating the liberal ideology. What you would like is a constitution dreamed up by progressive types. Normal Americans understand what your objective is and it makes them want to 🤮
Did you bother to listen to the YouTube?
Try doing so and commenting on that instead.

BTW, the Constitution was "dreamed up by" radical revolutionaries, not simply "progressives". Fortunately, they were quite concerned with creating a new form of government which could endure as a nation of law, based on justice and fairness, not mere passions of men. In this concern, one might call that 'conservative', but it was a radically new experiment nevertheless, the rejection of monarchy and autocracy.

"Normal", educated Americans understand quite well.
Radical revolutionaries willing to die for what they believed in. Oddly enough they were a bunch of pasty faced rich white guys. They sure as hell had more to lose than to gain. Had the revolution failed the collective group would have wound up with their neck in a noose hanging from the gallows. Somehow you forgot to mention that while composing your analysis. I wonder why??

" And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred honor." That Mr MD is called having skin in the game.

Profound stuff from a collective group of White Nationalist Christians. 8-)
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 26117
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: Conservative Ideology: A Big Lie

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

cradleandshoot wrote: Sun May 12, 2024 6:43 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Sat May 11, 2024 8:40 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Sat May 11, 2024 6:21 am
PizzaSnake wrote: Fri May 10, 2024 9:47 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Fri May 10, 2024 6:37 am Not sure where to put this, but this is part of the debate about a proposal by the GOP to ask a citizenship question during the census process, and eventually count only citizens in the census, in violation of the Constitution and the manner we have counted for census purposes since 1790. Worth the watch, noting that Raskin is speaking pretty much extemporaneously:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irJy2A6g84Q
We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution! 😀
I believe your mis stating the liberal ideology. What you would like is a constitution dreamed up by progressive types. Normal Americans understand what your objective is and it makes them want to 🤮
Did you bother to listen to the YouTube?
Try doing so and commenting on that instead.

BTW, the Constitution was "dreamed up by" radical revolutionaries, not simply "progressives". Fortunately, they were quite concerned with creating a new form of government which could endure as a nation of law, based on justice and fairness, not mere passions of men. In this concern, one might call that 'conservative', but it was a radically new experiment nevertheless, the rejection of monarchy and autocracy.

"Normal", educated Americans understand quite well.
Radical revolutionaries willing to die for what they believed in. Oddly enough they were a bunch of pasty faced rich white guys. They sure as hell had more to lose than to gain. Had the revolution failed the collective group would have wound up with their neck in a noose hanging from the gallows. Somehow you forgot to mention that while composing your analysis. I wonder why??

" And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred honor." That Mr MD is called having skin in the game.

Profound stuff from a collective group of White Nationalist Christians. 8-)
Keep drinking that Kool-Aid
Seacoaster(1)
Posts: 4550
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am

Re: Conservative Ideology: A Big Lie

Post by Seacoaster(1) »

MDlaxfan76 wrote: Sun May 12, 2024 8:30 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Sun May 12, 2024 6:43 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Sat May 11, 2024 8:40 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Sat May 11, 2024 6:21 am
PizzaSnake wrote: Fri May 10, 2024 9:47 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Fri May 10, 2024 6:37 am Not sure where to put this, but this is part of the debate about a proposal by the GOP to ask a citizenship question during the census process, and eventually count only citizens in the census, in violation of the Constitution and the manner we have counted for census purposes since 1790. Worth the watch, noting that Raskin is speaking pretty much extemporaneously:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irJy2A6g84Q
We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution! 😀
I believe your mis stating the liberal ideology. What you would like is a constitution dreamed up by progressive types. Normal Americans understand what your objective is and it makes them want to 🤮
Did you bother to listen to the YouTube?
Try doing so and commenting on that instead.

BTW, the Constitution was "dreamed up by" radical revolutionaries, not simply "progressives". Fortunately, they were quite concerned with creating a new form of government which could endure as a nation of law, based on justice and fairness, not mere passions of men. In this concern, one might call that 'conservative', but it was a radically new experiment nevertheless, the rejection of monarchy and autocracy.

"Normal", educated Americans understand quite well.
Radical revolutionaries willing to die for what they believed in. Oddly enough they were a bunch of pasty faced rich white guys. They sure as hell had more to lose than to gain. Had the revolution failed the collective group would have wound up with their neck in a noose hanging from the gallows. Somehow you forgot to mention that while composing your analysis. I wonder why??

" And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred honor." That Mr MD is called having skin in the game.

Profound stuff from a collective group of White Nationalist Christians. 8-)
Keep drinking that Kool-Aid
..and misreading history. Jesus.
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 32460
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: Conservative Ideology: A Big Lie

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

Asked what he thought of Western civilisation, Mahatma Gandhi is said to have quipped that such a thing “would be a good idea”. (The West, he suggested, was not so enlightened.) But as Josephine Quinn makes clear in her new book, Western civilisation has always been a bad idea, or at any rate a wrong-headed one. To compartmentalise history into a set of distinct and essentially self-contained civilisations is a misguided quest that has dangerously distorted our understanding of the world, Ms Quinn asserts: “It is not peoples that make history, but people, and the connections that they create with one another.”

Ms Quinn, a historian and archaeologist who teaches at Oxford, does not spend 500-odd pages trashing what generations of schoolchildren have been taught to take pride in as European achievements. Instead, she demolishes the underlying concept of what she calls “civilisational thinking”. Her argument is simple, persuasive and deserving of attention.

The idea of civilisation, Ms Quinn points out, is relatively recent. The word was first used only in the mid-18th century and did not take hold of Western imaginations until the late 19th century. In that imperialist age, historians found that Greek, Roman and Christian civilisations made nice building blocks that could be stacked into a grand-looking construct, which they labelled “Western” or “European” civilisation. To this they attributed a host of inherited “classical” virtues: vigour, rationality, justice, democracy and courage to experiment and explore. Other civilisations, by contrast, were regarded as inferior.

It does not take much unpacking by Ms Quinn to expose the folly of this approach. Behold, for instance, John Stuart Mill, a philosopher in the 19th century, claiming that the Battle of Marathon, Persia’s first invasion of Greece in 490bc, was more important to English history than William the Conqueror’s triumph at Hastings in 1066. (Without an Athenian victory, the logic goes, the magical seed of Greek civilisation might never have grown into Western civilisation.) Or consider “The Clash of Civilisations” (1996) by Samuel Huntington, an American historian, who declared it impossible to understand history without classifying humanity into mutually hostile civilisations between which, “during most of human existence”, contact has been “intermittent or non-existent”.

What is non-existent is any truth to that notion. Ms Quinn’s brisk, scholarly romp across the arc of European history shows that, far from being rare, contact across and between cultures, often over surprisingly long distances, has been the main motor of human advancement in every age. Rather than being prickly and inward-looking, most societies have proved receptive to ideas, fashions and technologies from their neighbours.

Ancient Greece, for example, was less a place of origins than of transmission from Egyptian, Sumerian, Assyrian and Phoenician cultures, which themselves had mixed and exchanged ideas. And rather than being the wellspring of democracy, Athens was “something of a latecomer” to a form of governance that appears to have been first tried in Libya and on the islands of Samos and Chios. Persians, eternally cast as Greeks’ polar opposites, actually imposed democracy on the Greek cities they ruled, suggesting “considerable Persian faith in popular support for their own hegemony”, Ms Quinn notes.

This retelling of the West’s story scintillates with its focus on the unexpected and on the interstices between realms and eras rather than on history’s big, solid bits. But it is also an admirable work of scholarship. Ms Quinn’s 100-plus pages of footnotes reveal that she relied not only on a wide range of primary sources, but also on scientific studies on climate change and very recent archaeological research.

Even seasoned history buffs will find much that is new and fascinating. “How the World Made the West” joins a growing sub-canon of works that explores the broad sweep of history using new intellectual framings, such as Yuval Noah Harari’s “Sapiens” (2011), Peter Frankopan’s “The Silk Roads” (2015) and “Fall of Civilisations”, a forthcoming book by Paul Cooper, a British journalist, based on his popular podcast. Anyone who thought history was passé could not be more wrong.
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 14247
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: Conservative Ideology: A Big Lie

Post by cradleandshoot »

Typical Lax Dad wrote: Sun May 12, 2024 9:40 am Asked what he thought of Western civilisation, Mahatma Gandhi is said to have quipped that such a thing “would be a good idea”. (The West, he suggested, was not so enlightened.) But as Josephine Quinn makes clear in her new book, Western civilisation has always been a bad idea, or at any rate a wrong-headed one. To compartmentalise history into a set of distinct and essentially self-contained civilisations is a misguided quest that has dangerously distorted our understanding of the world, Ms Quinn asserts: “It is not peoples that make history, but people, and the connections that they create with one another.”

Ms Quinn, a historian and archaeologist who teaches at Oxford, does not spend 500-odd pages trashing what generations of schoolchildren have been taught to take pride in as European achievements. Instead, she demolishes the underlying concept of what she calls “civilisational thinking”. Her argument is simple, persuasive and deserving of attention.

The idea of civilisation, Ms Quinn points out, is relatively recent. The word was first used only in the mid-18th century and did not take hold of Western imaginations until the late 19th century. In that imperialist age, historians found that Greek, Roman and Christian civilisations made nice building blocks that could be stacked into a grand-looking construct, which they labelled “Western” or “European” civilisation. To this they attributed a host of inherited “classical” virtues: vigour, rationality, justice, democracy and courage to experiment and explore. Other civilisations, by contrast, were regarded as inferior.

It does not take much unpacking by Ms Quinn to expose the folly of this approach. Behold, for instance, John Stuart Mill, a philosopher in the 19th century, claiming that the Battle of Marathon, Persia’s first invasion of Greece in 490bc, was more important to English history than William the Conqueror’s triumph at Hastings in 1066. (Without an Athenian victory, the logic goes, the magical seed of Greek civilisation might never have grown into Western civilisation.) Or consider “The Clash of Civilisations” (1996) by Samuel Huntington, an American historian, who declared it impossible to understand history without classifying humanity into mutually hostile civilisations between which, “during most of human existence”, contact has been “intermittent or non-existent”.

What is non-existent is any truth to that notion. Ms Quinn’s brisk, scholarly romp across the arc of European history shows that, far from being rare, contact across and between cultures, often over surprisingly long distances, has been the main motor of human advancement in every age. Rather than being prickly and inward-looking, most societies have proved receptive to ideas, fashions and technologies from their neighbours.

Ancient Greece, for example, was less a place of origins than of transmission from Egyptian, Sumerian, Assyrian and Phoenician cultures, which themselves had mixed and exchanged ideas. And rather than being the wellspring of democracy, Athens was “something of a latecomer” to a form of governance that appears to have been first tried in Libya and on the islands of Samos and Chios. Persians, eternally cast as Greeks’ polar opposites, actually imposed democracy on the Greek cities they ruled, suggesting “considerable Persian faith in popular support for their own hegemony”, Ms Quinn notes.

This retelling of the West’s story scintillates with its focus on the unexpected and on the interstices between realms and eras rather than on history’s big, solid bits. But it is also an admirable work of scholarship. Ms Quinn’s 100-plus pages of footnotes reveal that she relied not only on a wide range of primary sources, but also on scientific studies on climate change and very recent archaeological research.

Even seasoned history buffs will find much that is new and fascinating. “How the World Made the West” joins a growing sub-canon of works that explores the broad sweep of history using new intellectual framings, such as Yuval Noah Harari’s “Sapiens” (2011), Peter Frankopan’s “The Silk Roads” (2015) and “Fall of Civilisations”, a forthcoming book by Paul Cooper, a British journalist, based on his popular podcast. Anyone who thought history was passé could not be more wrong.
Everybody is in to writing books. I prefer to wait for the mini series. I read Steven Ambrose book Band of Brothers before the mini series came out. I would argue that hands down the book and the mini series were the finest pairing ever. Band of Brothers never glorified war. It did a magnificent job of telling the story of the men who went to fight and how much they suffered.
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
Seacoaster(1)
Posts: 4550
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am

Re: Conservative Ideology: A Big Lie

Post by Seacoaster(1) »

JD Vance and Tommy Tuberville attended the Trump trial today. Value add.
Seacoaster(1)
Posts: 4550
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am

Re: Conservative Ideology: A Big Lie

Post by Seacoaster(1) »

Nice workaround:

https://apnews.com/article/montana-atto ... 6ca244c8c6

"Montana’s attorney general told supporters he skirted the state’s campaign finance laws by inviting another Republican to run against him as a token candidate in next month’s primary so he could raise more money for the November general election, according to a recording from a fundraising event.

“I do technically have a primary,” Attorney General Austin Knudsen said last week when asked at the event who was running against him. “However, he is a young man who I asked to run against me because our campaign laws are ridiculous.”

Knudsen separately faces dozens of professional misconduct allegations from the state’s office of attorney discipline as he seeks a second term. He made the comments about his primary opponent during the fundraiser on May 11 in Dillon, Montana, according to the recording obtained by the Daily Montanan, which is part of the nonprofit States Newsroom organization.

In the recording, Knudsen is heard saying that Logan Olson “filed to run against me simply because under our current campaign finance laws in Montana, it allows me to raise more money. So, he supports me and he’s going to vote for me.”

Olson, a county attorney in rural northeastern Montana, denied being recruited by Knudsen. Campaign finance records indicate his filing fee was paid by a longtime Republican operative who is also a Knudsen donor.

The state’s campaign finance watchdog agency, the Commissioner of Political Practices, is investigating complaints filed by the executive director of the Montana Democratic Party that allege an agreement between Knudsen and Olson.

Under state law, a person cannot pay or “promise valuable consideration” to another person to induce them to be a candidate, or to withdraw as a candidate."
Post Reply

Return to “POLITICS”