The Sore-Loser Party Wow. How did this article get to 46 posts without
THIS getting posted yet??? :^D
Posted on 11/08/2004 1:33:40 PM PST by finnman69
The Sore-Loser Party
Understanding Smiley, Dowd, Raines, Krugman, Maher, Sarandon, et al.
Enough.
The first resort of a sore loser is to gripe about how the game itself was unfair, how the other team doesn't play nice, how the very act of winning is all the proof necessary that the other side will "do anything" to win. The second resort is to simply make junk up about the other guy that makes you feel better about yourself.
"The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry," writes Jane Smiley, a woman who couldn't catch a clue if you used one as a pestle and her brain pan as the mortar. Smiley's now-famous hissyfit places a great deal of emphasis on the fact that the Republican base is "ignorant" while the Democratic one is enlightened. A similar point was made by the British Daily Mirror, one of whose headlines asked, "How Can 59,054,087 People Be So DUMB?"
One might ask if the Democrats really want to place so much emphasis on "ignorance" of the base as a defining difference between the parties. By all means let's break out the number-two pencils and pit the homeschoolers, tractor drivers, and Sunday-school teachers against the voters who wouldn't have shown up at the polls lest they miss a chance to meet P-Diddy.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
That's funny: I don't recall hearing their names called and their going up onstage to receive life-size replicas of themselves at the "World's Smartest Person Awards" on CBS.
Now lets look at this logically.
Two years ago the country was united behind our President as we went to war.
As a Democrat how do you defeat a President of a united nation in time of war?
You divide the nation....
So it is not the strategy of the Republicans, is it??
It might surprise you to learn that I was an atheist too until minoring in Philosophy in college. Only then did I see that, as in Plato's theory of forms, that which is merely perceived has some essence.
My views on God are not the norm, and I although I was raised Catholic, I came to a belief in the Judeo-Christian worldview later in life. (Mostly through the revelation that an act of ultimate sacrifice was unique)
I remain unchurched, and it seems to me that what religion could be considered important in life is that which was accurately captured by the Founding Fathers....iow, that there is a creator that endowed us with certain inalienable rights. That there is just moral cause.
To me, religion is not church or fellowship, but is that foundation which acknowledges man's true place in the order of things, and that something larger than us moves just beyond our senses.
FReegards.
Sprayed keyboard!
BTTT
The Sore-Loser Party Wow. How did this article get to 46 posts without
THIS getting posted yet??? :^D
To me, religion is not church or fellowship, but is that foundation which acknowledges man's true place in the order of things, and that something larger than us moves just beyond our senses.
That was an excellent personal anecdote about my point...religion and philosophy are the same in the types of questions they answer and human needs they fulfill.
I know you are aware, but for the benefit of everyone, there is a basic schism in philosophy, essentially between Plato and Aristotle, updated through the ages. Virtually all of 'modern' philosophy (in the sense of what you would be taught at a university today (or for the last 50 years) is Platonic or falls on the Platonic side of the schism. In philisophical terms, Kantian philosophy is the most modern foundational, then there are lots of variations and derivations on that, but they are essentially all on the Platonic side of that schism. And that includes the philisophical foundations of Marxism that is so prevalent in academia.
In most schools, the closest you can come to the Aristetilian side is Medieval (Aquinus) and often not even that...often Aristotle himself hasn't been updated. That side of the schism is essentially ignored. The last time the Aristitelian side was stongly influential was the enlightenment philosophy of our founding fathers.
As a parallel, imagine the military duel between offense and defense (sword and shield) and comparing the two sides, but considering all of the advances on one side, but none on the other. The Knight in Shining Armor meets the Hellfire missile. That is essentially what has happened in academic philosophy...except they avoid mentioning the temporal difference...they simply present their (platonic/kantian) side as superior.
Both sides have patched holes in their side and poked holes in the other for millenia...but academia presents the latest of one and the earliest of the other and declares a winner to the duel. It has gotten so bad that the Aristitilean side is largely absent today...virtually every philisophical issue debated today is about minor differences between theories on one side of the divide, and they ignore the really big questions of the ages between the two sides of the schism. That is why philosophy was so important to our founding fathers and is reduced to navel gazing today...modern philosophy ignores the big issues...and IMHO (well, not so humble) they have the wrong answers to the big questions.
I guess my point to all of this is that most here are religious warriors against the radical secular left which is attacking the foundations of this country. I just want some here to notice that they are not alone. I am a philisophical warrior, an atheist fighting for those same principles, even though I arrived at them very differently.
"There are other complaints as well. Take the two leading liberal columnists at the New York Times, Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman. As we all know, one's a whining self-parody of a hysterical liberal who lets feminine emotion and fear defeat reason and fact in almost every column. The other used to date Michael Douglas
When liberals are out of power, they get funnier. There's something about liberal ideas that makes one wonder how any one can take them seriously. People who fly off the reservation should NEVER be entrusted with the levers of power. A majority of Americans agree.
Bookmarked and PING!
They did cut it short, why I don't know. I will say the extension is a common phrase in Catholicism, just not in the LP.
LOL! That's great! (And so true!)
Thanks for the ping, Dutchgirl. It was a good read.
I actually woke up this morning with the crystalized thought that our liberal brethren are suffering so much because they have invested so much of themselves into the worship of their political ideals. They have made an idol of secular humanism notions. They have made an idol of ends justifying means. They have made an idol of doing anything they can to remove a President simply because they have bought the lies about him and hate him and therefore he should be removed. They have made of themselves an idol, believing that all intellect, wisdom, and goodness resides in their humanist bastions. They have learned that their god has clay feet.
I feel compassion for them, for their worlds truly are in upheaval.
Because of the exit polls indicating the strength of "Morality" issues being one of the foremost issues in voters' minds, we are now seeing them quoting scripture to us so they look like they are now moral. Perhaps, by God's grace, if they begin reading the scriptures, some may have an epiphany and be saved.
I feel for them also. Thanks for the ping!
Such thinking and expression is representative of the best of FreeRepublic...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
