bump
Maybe the lefties should go to North Korea.
Darwin's theory on evolution has been overturned time and time again. It's as wrong-headed as the Big Bang explanation but idiots still lay claim to it.
ping
They just don"t get it! Religion and Morality are not synonymous words. Morality pertains to character and behavior, from the point of right and wrong. 50% paying 95% of the taxes is not Morality, EPA, EEOC, OSHA, Affirmative Action, Amnesty for Illegal Aliens, no Parental permission for underage abortion, Gay Marriage, etc., is not Morality.
Morality is character and behavior and personal responsibility, not the punishment of those who are and have worked for success.
Ping!
Typical liberal nonsense and elitist attitude (not to mention their intolerance and bigotry):
"If indeed all those blue states all got together and seceded from the union, think what would be left for those red states --
nothing. There would be no educational system. You would have
nothing. What would be left to you? I mean, where is all of this talent in this country? It's on both sides, the Northeast corridor."
-Geraldine Ferraro
"GW Bush and the American right wing Taliban are endangering the entire planet. If the rest of the world had a say, Bush and
Cheney would be in jail. Is it now morally excusable to organize
midnight raids on republican [sic] groups in the red states and 'terminate' them with extreme prejudice? Watching Bush's
acceptance speech on [November 3], with the Cheneys on stage as well
... who would not have liked to see a bomb go off under the stage and wipe out the whole despicable slimy lot of them?"
-Bill Maher
Ignoramuses like Wills (and yes, I know he has a reputation as a "serious intellectual", however actually reading any of his books will quickly dispel that notion) always forget that there were two "Enlightenments" - the French and the Scottish.
The French one led to the Terror, the Commune, the spread of armed Socialist movements like Communism and National Socialism and finally to the complete moral and metaphysical bankruptcy of deconstruction and multiculturalism. The French Enlightenment produced nothing of any value.
The Scottish Enlightenment, however, produced such lights as Adam Smith who helped put practical concerns like economics on a rigorous analytical footing. It led to the explosion of brilliant scientific and technological innovations that made tiny Scotland the intellectual cradle of the Industrial Revolution.
The Scottish Enlightenment produced or provided the impetus for much of the comforts of modern life, including the economic system that made them possible.
I'll take Hutcheson over Rousseau any day, Wills, you silly old hack.
They just don't get it!
WOW !!! bump
Bookmarked, this one is a keeper.
This is way too much in an overly personalized "them vs. us" confrontational mode. Assuming for a minute that his description of Kidman's movie is accurate, how many people have actually seen and liked it? And if we substitute some other, better-known "envelope pushing" movie for it, how accurate is the assumption that people either like the movie or support "In God We Trust" but not both or neither? Why not both? Or neither? Are people heavily into movies always the same as committed secularists? Aren't some film aficionados rather indifferent to politics? Might some actually like having the existing motto on our coins?
Secular savants believe that SUVs constitute a greater threat than MTV, that minuscule increases in air pollution merit more vilification than a gang of corporate pimps who've been corrupting children for more than two decades.
Kerry country is SUV country, at least if you're talking about affluent liberal East Coast suburbs and the Kerry-Heinz household. But why is it necessarily one or the other? Plenty of Kerry voters drive SUV's and worry about MTV. That in itself doesn't make them good or bad people. And some Bush voters have no love for either mass culture or massive personal transport. Indeed, some young Bush supporters probably have much familiarity with Music Television in all its atrociousness than is good for them.
They believe that secondhand smoke is more deadly than sexual promiscuity, that politics trumps personal morality and that political correctness provides absolution for chronic narcissism.
Up to a point, yes, but in questions like environmental pollution, purely personal morality may not be enough. And Kirk does seem to be doing substantially what he attacks in liberal elitists: he's raising a political banner and arguing that it makes him a better person. He's claiming greater virtue because he cares about what's really important. It's likely that he is closer to what is really important, at least in words. But it's deeds and achievements that count more, and so often they're harder to accomplish than speeches and poses, and less visible to outsiders.
Pornography and promiscuity are wrong, but it's a mistake to try to turn morality into a political party or faction, whether it's done by liberal environmentalists or conservative anti-elitists. Much of what's moral comes through conversation and self-examination, rather than from throwing down a provocative gauntlet at the opposing party.
Politicizing virtue, and saying that the right or good in some areas matters because it suits one's political outlook and doesn't matter in other things because they belong to the "other side" is usually the end of real virtue, whoever does it. So yes, if someone tells you that caring about whales or Kyoto makes them superior, they're wrong, but beware since personal morality and chronic narcissism aren't fixed properties of right or left.
I've got a newspaper article from four years ago with the title, "How To Be A Good Liberal" along with practically every one of these points, word-for-word. I really hope there isn't some sort of plagiarism occuring here.
I'll dig it out a box downstairs and type it here for comparison.
~ Blue Jays ~
THANK GOD, I'M A DOLT!
Hannity: "Thank you GOD!"