Liberals are true philosophers

[Peter_Kropotkin]

After some thought, I think that liberals are philosophers
and conservatives are theologians. Conservatives
believe, (have faith) in their ideology, Liberals
are rationalist, philosophers. Now an example of this is,
Conservatives will say for example, USA is number one.
Now instead of reacting emotional as the conservative has
done, I would ask myself, what standard has the conservative
used. I mean, depending on the standard used, you can
make the argument that Sudan is number one or Monaco
or Iraq. You say militarily, but we are losing a war
in Iraq against, by generous guess, 3,000 insurgence’s.
If you say, by economically, well again, depends on the standard
used. Per capita, we are not top 5 in the world for standard
of living. So it depends upon what you mean, we are number one.
And that is the standard of a philosopher. You rationally, not
emotional, but rational try to understand the world.
A theologian believe in faith. A philosopher deals with
rationalism, facts, science, and logic. A conservative
might say, God exist. that is a statement of faith.
A liberal might say, what is your proof? The liberal
rational tries to understand the world. the liberal uses
philosophical methods to understand the world and
his/ hers place in the world. A conservative accept
the proposition that " Democracy is the best form of government"
Or 'capitalism is the best economic system" They have faith.
A liberal would ask, How do you know? What is your standard for
making that judgement? The conservative takes it on blind faith
that their judgements are correct. The liberal doubts and
doubt is the true calling card of a philosopher. In certainty
exist the priest and conservative.
A conservative is about feelings, theologian and the liberal
uses rational thought, philosopher.

Kropotkin

[Impenitent]

very clear rational thought… bush is hitler!! seig heil! seig heil!

-Imp

[Peter_Kropotkin]

Impenitent: very clear rational thought… bush is hitler!! seig heil! seig heil!

K: I have never said bush was Hitler. I said he used the exact same
techniques and he does. Creates fear from events he created,
Hitler used the Reichstag fire to get supreme power,
bush used the war in Iraq to get power, same thing.
Hitler used the laws to take away people’s civil rights,
bush did the same thing.
Hitler practices legal discrimination
and bush does the same thing.

Karl Rove and Goebbels, no difference there.

I stand by the statement that the village idiot used
the same techniques as Hitler.
Again, I used facts to support my position.
I don’t use emotionalism, I used rational thought.

Kropotkin

[Gobbo]

You really can’t deny the parallels.

It’s funny cause the US sits around and wonders why everyone hates them, but the people in occupied Germany didn’t see themselves as evil. They were really afraid of the Jews.

There was no real reason to be, but they were scared nonetheless.

[Impenitent]

@Peter Kropotkin

Impenitent: very clear rational thought… bush is hitler!! seig heil! seig heil!

K: I have never said bush was Hitler. I said he used the exact same
techniques and he does. Creates fear from events he created,

right. bush created the war on terror. bush caused 9-11. where is the clear rational thought that proves this conclusion?

Hitler used the Reichstag fire to get supreme power,
bush used the war in Iraq to get power, same thing.

bush was elected. TWICE. the democRATS have not gotten more than 50% of the vote in a national election since CARTER.

Hitler used the laws to take away people’s civil rights,
bush did the same thing.

name ONE civil right bush has eliminated. name it

Hitler practices legal discrimination
and bush does the same thing.

evidence please?

Karl Rove and Goebbels, no difference there.

evidence please?

I stand by the statement that the village idiot used
the same techniques as Hitler.

and I stand by the fact that you are using ad hominem character assassination and smear, with no actual evidence or proof or argumentation. all you have is name calling and fallacy. not logical at all.

Again, I used facts to support my position.
I don’t use emotionalism, I used rational thought.

I laugh at your “rational” thought.

Kropotkin

finis

-Imp

[Peter_Kropotkin]

I shall answer all your points when I get
back from my father’s day dinner.
My daughter is taking me out, which means
I am probably paying for it.
A father’s work is never done, especially if daughter
still thinks you are a walking ATM machine.

Kropotkin

[Impenitent]

have a nice dinner

-Imp

[Phaedrus]

Same old Pete! I can’t wait til he’s done with dinner.

[Peter_Kropotkin]

Sorry for my lateness. Dinner took far longer then I thought it
would.

K: I have never said bush was Hitler. I said he used the exact same
techniques and he does. Creates fear from events he created,

IMP: right. bush created the war on terror. bush caused 9-11. where is the clear rational thought that proves this conclusion?

K: You cannot deny how much the GOPers and this
administration has benefited immensely from 9/11.
For this reason, I believe that the village idiot and friends
knew about 9/11 before the attack. Their responses doesn’t make
sense unless they knew what was coming. I mean less then 24 hours
after 9/11, chaney was already talking about invading Iraq!
Not the recovery, not about more possible attacks, not the
damage done, no he was talking about attacking Iraq.
That is not logically. If you are vice-president of the U.S.
less then 24 hours after a major attack, what do you do?
does it make sense chaney was pressuring intelligence officials
to say it was Iraq before anything else? I personally would worry
about a follow up attack or perhaps the thousands of deaths,
or loss of property or something else, but not attacking another
nation so soon. (again less then 24 hours after 9/11) that response
makes no sense in the context of a situation if you knew
nothing of the impeding attack. It does make sense if you
knew the attack was coming.

K: Hitler used the Reichstag’s fire to get supreme power,
bush used the war in Iraq to get power, same thing.

IMP: bush was elected. TWICE. the democRATS have not gotten more than 50% of the vote in a national election since CARTER. [/b]

K: bush was not elected twice. The united states supreme court
in a 5-4 decision, by one person, put bush in office in 2000.
the village idiot got far less votes then gore in 2000.
I believe there is clear evidence that the GOPers stole both
2000 and 2004 elections (thus proving my contention we
are no longer a democracy, but an dictatorship)
vote totals in 2000 gore got 50,999,897
vote totals in 2000 bush got 50,456,002

Thus gore out totaled bush by 543,895 or over a half a million
votes.
And in a few years someone will prove that in 2004
the village idiot stole Ohio via the voting machines.

IMP: Hitler used the laws to take away people’s civil rights,
bush did the same thing.

IMP: name ONE civil right bush has eliminated. name it"

K: easy, I can name several. Try free speech.
The village idiot has declared what is called
“free speech zones” which is to say, you cannot
boo, you cannot have a sign negative of the president,
you cannot jeer, you cannot do anything negative of the
president. These “free speech zones” began in 2001 of a block
or two of anywhere where the president speaks.
Now they extend several miles away in every direction
from where the president speaks. You are not allowed free
speech in these so called “free speech zones” or you will
be arrested. Zones that don’t allow free speech are against
the very essences of the constitution. Don’t believe me.
Feel free to try it. Go to one of his speeches with a t-shirt
negative of the president and you will get arrested.
Carry a “negative” sign and you will get arrested.
might I point out cindy sheened was arrested at
the last state of the union address for wearing a so called
negative t-shirt. That was her big crime, wearing a t-shirt
stating how many soldiers had died in Iraq.

K: Hitler practices legal discrimination
and bush does the same thing.

IMP: evidence please?"

K: Hitler put into law discrimination against jews,
gays, catholics. Bush by his gay marriage attack is
trying the same thing. Putting into law discrimination against
a group. A more direct means is via the use of signing laws.
Basically this means the village idiot has claimed the right
to ignore any law, yep any law, passed by congress
and among the laws he has chosen to ignore is affirmative
action laws meant to prevent discrimination. He is allowing
discrimination via presidential fiat thus he has allowed legal
discrimination.

K: Karl Rove and Goebbels, no difference there.

IMP: evidence please?"

K: I am creating a whole post outlining the similarities
between geobbels and rove. Just for you.

K: I stand by the statement that the village idiot used
the same techniques as Hitler.

IMP: and I stand by the fact that you are using ad hominem character assassination and smear, with no actual evidence or proof or argumentation. all you have is name calling and fallacy. not logical at all.

K: As you are conservative, you have faith you are right and I am
wrong. No matter what the facts are, you are certain, have faith in,
that you are right in this matter. I know no matter what I say,
you will never, NEVER, lose your absolute faith in your religion.
As long as its clear, you are a theologian with your faith,
then I am ok with you not believing what I have to say.

Kropotkin

[Impenitent]

@Peter Kropotkin

Sorry for my lateness. Dinner took far longer then I thought it
would.

K: I have never said bush was Hitler. I said he used the exact same
techniques and he does. Creates fear from events he created,

IMP: right. bush created the war on terror. bush caused 9-11. where is the clear rational thought that proves this conclusion?

K: You cannot deny how much the GOPers and this
administration has benefited immensely from 9/11.

benefitted? democRAT ideas fail and you blame 9-11?

For this reason, I believe that the village idiot and friends
knew about 9/11 before the attack. Their responses doesn’t make
sense unless they knew what was coming.

evidence?

I mean less then 24 hours
after 9/11, chaney was already talking about invading Iraq!

they were the biggest threat at the time

Not the recovery, not about more possible attacks, not the
damage done, no he was talking about attacking Iraq.
That is not logically.

yes it is. we were hit. who did we think would want to hit us? iraq. did they want to hit us? yes. we hit them first. where is your logic?

If you are vice-president of the U.S.
less then 24 hours after a major attack, what do you do?
does it make sense chaney was pressuring intelligence officials
to say it was Iraq before anything else?

you don’t understand warfare and the animal nature of humanity.

I personally would worry
about a follow up attack or perhaps the thousands of deaths,
or loss of property or something else, but not attacking another
nation so soon. (again less then 24 hours after 9/11) that response
makes no sense in the context of a situation if you knew
nothing of the impeding attack.

yes, it actually makes more sense than anything. we were hit. who wanted to hit us? iraq. hit them first so they can’t hit us. perfect sense.

It does make sense if you
knew the attack was coming.

no, it makes sense if you know who your enemies are.

K: Hitler used the Reichstag’s fire to get supreme power,
bush used the war in Iraq to get power, same thing.

IMP: bush was elected. TWICE. the democRATS have not gotten more than 50% of the vote in a national election since CARTER. [/b]

K: bush was not elected twice. The united states supreme court
in a 5-4 decision, by one person, put bush in office in 2000.
the village idiot got far less votes then gore in 2000.

no, he did not get far less. bush won the elections both times. bush was elected twice.

I believe there is clear evidence that the GOPers stole both
2000 and 2004 elections (thus proving my contention we
are no longer a democracy, but an dictatorship)
vote totals in 2000 gore got 50,999,897
vote totals in 2000 bush got 50,456,002

Thus gore out totaled bush by 543,895 or over a half a million
votes.

I thought you knew that american elections are based on the electoral college.

And in a few years someone will prove that in 2004
the village idiot stole Ohio via the voting machines.

right, they will prove it via voting machines.

IMP: Hitler used the laws to take away people’s civil rights,
bush did the same thing.

IMP: name ONE civil right bush has eliminated. name it"

K: easy, I can name several. Try free speech.

he hasn’t eliminated free speech

The village idiot has declared what is called
“free speech zones” which is to say, you cannot
boo, you cannot have a sign negative of the president,
you cannot jeer, you cannot do anything negative of the
president. These “free speech zones” began in 2001 of a block
or two of anywhere where the president speaks.
Now they extend several miles away in every direction
from where the president speaks. You are not allowed free
speech in these so called “free speech zones” or you will
be arrested. Zones that don’t allow free speech are against
the very essences of the constitution.

that is called security. why let flakes who want to do harm to the president near him?

Don’t believe me.
Feel free to try it. Go to one of his speeches with a t-shirt
negative of the president and you will get arrested.
Carry a “negative” sign and you will get arrested.
might I point out cindy sheened was arrested at
the last state of the union address for wearing a so called
negative t-shirt. That was her big crime, wearing a t-shirt
stating how many soldiers had died in Iraq.

sheehan broke a house rule and was removed.

and where in the constitution does it say you have the right to invade the space where the president happens to be? regardless of what you wear?

K: Hitler practices legal discrimination
and bush does the same thing.

IMP: evidence please?"

K: Hitler put into law discrimination against jews,
gays, catholics. Bush by his gay marriage attack is
trying the same thing.

hardly

Putting into law discrimination against
a group. A more direct means is via the use of signing laws.
Basically this means the village idiot has claimed the right
to ignore any law, yep any law, passed by congress

show me the congressional law that allows homosexual marriage

and among the laws he has chosen to ignore is affirmative
action laws meant to prevent discrimination.

evidence?

He is allowing
discrimination via presidential fiat thus he has allowed legal
discrimination.

you haven’t proven anything

K: Karl Rove and Goebbels, no difference there.

IMP: evidence please?"

K: I am creating a whole post outlining the similarities
between geobbels and rove. Just for you.

K: I stand by the statement that the village idiot used
the same techniques as Hitler.

IMP: and I stand by the fact that you are using ad hominem character assassination and smear, with no actual evidence or proof or argumentation. all you have is name calling and fallacy. not logical at all.

K: As you are conservative, you have faith you are right and I am
wrong.

[b]wrong again. I am no conservative. god remains dead. especially the god of marxists. the state as god is fucked.

[i]VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!

KILL THE FUCKING MARXIST REVOLUTIONARIES!!![/i][/b]

No matter what the facts are, you are certain, have faith in,
that you are right in this matter. I know no matter what I say,
you will never, NEVER, lose your absolute faith in your religion.

no marxist slave, you are the only one with religion

As long as its clear, you are a theologian with your faith,
then I am ok with you not believing what I have to say.

Kropotkin

the fact that what you say is factually and logically incorrect is the only reason why I do not believe what you say

-Imp

[kabinger]

@Peter Kropotkin

After some thought, I think that liberals are philosophers
and conservatives are theologians. Conservatives
believe, (have faith) in their ideology, Liberals
are rationalist, philosophers. Now an example of this is,
Conservatives will say for example, USA is number one.
Now instead of reacting emotional as the conservative has
done, I would ask myself, what standard has the conservative
used. I mean, depending on the standard used, you can
make the argument that Sudan is number one or Monaco
or Iraq. You say militarily, but we are losing a war
in Iraq against, by generous guess, 3,000 insurgence’s.
If you say, by economically, well again, depends on the standard
used. Per capita, we are not top 5 in the world for standard
of living. So it depends upon what you mean, we are number one.
And that is the standard of a philosopher. You rationally, not
emotional, but rational try to understand the world.
A theologian believe in faith. A philosopher deals with
rationalism, facts, science, and logic. A conservative
might say, God exist. that is a statement of faith.
A liberal might say, what is your proof? The liberal
rational tries to understand the world. the liberal uses
philosophical methods to understand the world and
his/ hers place in the world. A conservative accept
the proposition that " Democracy is the best form of government"
Or 'capitalism is the best economic system" They have faith.
A liberal would ask, How do you know? What is your standard for
making that judgement? The conservative takes it on blind faith
that their judgements are correct. The liberal doubts and
doubt is the true calling card of a philosopher. In certainty
exist the priest and conservative.
A conservative is about feelings, theologian and the liberal
uses rational thought, philosopher.

Kropotkin

I think both are full of shit.

[GliderPendalehaven]

IMP:

name ONE civil right bush has eliminated. name it"

Peter:

easy, I can name several. Try free speech.

free speech was gotten rid of a long time before president bush was in office ever heard of being politically correct

Peter:

Hitler practices legal discrimination and bush does the same thing.

IMP:

evidence please?"

Peter:

Bush by his gay marriage attack is trying the same thing. Putting into law discrimination against
a group.

this law is not discrimination, discrimination is set against one group of people, this law is against everyone, no one can marry the same sex, not just gays.

[GliderPendalehaven]

Gabbo:

That’s pretty fine line.

It’s like saying one can have ice cubes, not just those with hot drinks.

not the response i expected, ummm i’m not sure what you are trying to get at? cuz that line(the one about the ice cubes) is true, why is it a fine line?

please clearify your meaning

[willem]

this law is not discrimination, discrimination is set against one group of people, this law is against everyone, no one can marry the same sex, not just gays.

the nazi’s were very tolerant as well… everybody could have the religion of their choosing, except jewish… and it was equal for everybody that they all had to follow the reich’s culture and not oppose it’s propaganda…

equality and freedom, courtesy of hitler and the SS

[someoneisatthedoor]

@willem

this law is not discrimination, discrimination is set against one group of people, this law is against everyone, no one can marry the same sex, not just gays.

the nazi’s were very tolerant as well… everybody could have the religion of their choosing, except jewish… and it was equal for everybody that they all had to follow the reich’s culture and not oppose it’s propaganda…

equality and freedom, courtesy of hitler and the SS

That would be the Socialist part of the Nazi philosophy. In truth, it’s a brilliant and fascinating combination, just one that was bound to produce war.

[willem]

i was being sarcastic of course… (but you know that) … i think i’ll have to rewrite the definition of ‘socialism’ in my book if it includes what the nazi’s did… you need rules to put a community together, but taken to an extreme, like anything, is quite disastrous

i had a college friend who was going to make all fat people pay double for the bus… that sort of stuff… i got quite mad at him at some point… although i consider myself a quite social person

[someoneisatthedoor]

Fat people should have to pay more for fatty foods but they shouldn’t have to pay more for public transport or healthcare or whatever. I’m all in favour of weighing people and having that determine what they are allowed to buy to eat. It would be grossly unpopular but in these days of postironic politics where bad is good and everyone lies so it’s alright, I reckon that it could fly.

[gemty]

Glider:

this law is not discrimination, discrimination is set against one group of people, this law is against everyone, no one can marry the same sex, not just gays.

Unfortunately glider you are incorrect in your assessment of whether or not this law is discriminatory. It is set against one group of people, the people who want to marry someone of the same sex. Only homosexual and bi-sexual people want to marry someone of the same sex, heterosexual people, by definition, won’t. As such, its discriminatory.

Let’s put this another way, imagine we made up a law that said no person who was pregnant was allowed to work. By your logic, this law wouldn’t be discriminatory since you could rephrase it as “no one who is pregnant can work.” But the only people who can be pregnant are women, ipso facto, its discriminatory in exactly the same way that same sex marriage laws are.

cheers,
gemty

[GliderPendalehaven]

Unfortunately glider you are incorrect in your assessment of whether or not this law is discriminatory. It is set against one group of people, the people who want to marry someone of the same sex. Only homosexual and bi-sexual people want to marry someone of the same sex, heterosexual people, by definition, won’t. As such, its discriminatory.

not really, marriage includes some awsome tax cuts, exculsive rights that are only allowed to the married individuals and other benefits. marriage has only resently in history been something that was done for love, and sex doesn’t have to exist in marriage eather, so it is not just for homosexual and bi-sexual people. i have already heard of people thinking about it this way…but i don’t remember the source so take that as it is, just me saying

Let’s put this another way, imagine we made up a law that said no person who was pregnant was allowed to work. By your logic, this law wouldn’t be discriminatory since you could rephrase it as “no one who is pregnant can work.” But the only people who can be pregnant are women, ipso facto, its discriminatory in exactly the same way that same sex marriage laws are.

ummmmm pregnacy is a condition as you say only for women, marriage is for everone. i fail to see the connection

and so you don’t have to keep arguing with me as though i hate gays or something stupid (hate is generally useless) like that, i dont care if homosexuals, sisters, brothers, animals and humans get married, i just can’t care i’m fine with it, i was just pointing out the flaw with peter’s argument in this one case

[gemty]

I never asserted that you hated gay people, and that wasn’t why I responded.

When you make claims that marriage doesn’t include sex, and that marriages are only recently about love, you miss the point of the discussion. The overwhelming majority of those who wish to enter same sex marriages are homosexual.

Same sex marriage laws are a deliberate attempt to prevent same-sex romantically attached couples from gaining rights and recognition equal to those of heterosexuals. They are not an attempt to stop other types of marriages from proliferating.

Since the vastly overwhelming majority of people who are affected by the prevention of same sex marriage are from one group, the law is discriminatory regardless of whether or not some other people might be affected by it. Heterosexual’s ability to get married is not affected by this law, only homosexual’s are.

It’s true that heterosexuals may not be able to have certain types of relationships redefined as marriages under these laws, but homosexuals cannot have any marriage at all under these laws since homosexuality requires a same sex marriage. For heterosexuals, these laws prevent some redefinition of marriage, for homosexuals, they prevent marriage completely. So, you can see that it actually does pick on one group rather more than another.

And if you don’t think that homosexuals are still discriminated against:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5100828.stm

cheers,
gemty