Conservative Blog - Latest Comments in The Problem with Uninformed Liberals

Re: The Problem with Uninformed Liberals

Cory — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:14:20 -0000

The commenter below is a liberal bigot who discounts firsthand experience as "drivel." Please ignore him for the sake of your sanity. Free market is the best method that has been devised. It is not perfect, but nothing better has come along so far. Hanlon has been watching the liberal media, and cites them as reliable. Nothing in this world is ever perfectly reliable, except firsthand knowledge. The authors, "These are real examples from real people liberals that I have encountered throughout my life experience" should have made it clear that he was not quoting Hannity or Rush. Hanlon decided to ignore that portion. People who ignore the other side should not be listened to themselves.

Re: The Problem with Uninformed Liberals

susanwallace — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 13:38:24 -0000

AN OUTSIDERS PONT OF VIEW
I am a Canadian who happened onto this site by mistake. Each time I post this and I have done it twice before I find my commenct erased shortly after I post it while the other comments remain.

It seems this blog is only for ranting and raving and not for serious and thoughtful discussion of the issues. I do get the message that many of you feel that both as a group and as individuals that you have almost no say in political matters. This I agree with. But I think you are all dead wrong about the cause.
If your enemies are the atheists and statists and liberals why then when you sent George Bush to the white house and elected a Republican congress and senate did you not see things go your way.
Well from this outsiders point of view you have simply identified the wrong enemy. American conservatism depends for it’s very existence on grass roots conservatives like yourselves never making the mental connection that is obvious and self evident everywhere else on the planet. Your interests are not alined with the RICH. The laissez faire capitalism and free markets you support whole heartly has simply led to corporate America and the Super Rich it creates getting almost total control over your political system and your cultural system. So much so that they consistently convince you to act against your own self interests.
The statists you so decry – (those that believe that economic and and politcial power should be controlled by a central government leaving individuals with relatively little say) exist alright and they are in control. But they are not the socialists or liberals you rail at. They are the very people you support .
To be blunt your real enemy is the Super Rich be they Democrat or Republican.
And they have convinced you to abandon equality and economic security at the historical moment when you need them the most. If you are still reading and have not yet grabbed a pie you would like to throw in my face re-read my previous post to understand why what I am saying is undeniable.
It AIN”t the liberals in control there are practically none of them left in the US.
The latest figures on income distribution in the United States shows that the top-heavy spread continues to grow. A mere 300,000 people have incomes equal to the total income of the bottom earning half of the entire population. That's 150 million people. Those 300,000 had incomes 440 times greater than the average income in the United States. The last time the income imbalance was so large was in the 1920s&30s. In the 40s to 60’s the gaps between wealth and income were lessened thanks to war, the income tax, pro-employee legislation and labor organizations that forced a mild redistribution of the profits. That's all gone.
Your constitution intended that there would be one vote for one person. But since money is political power in America the selection of politcal candidates is in the hands of Golden 300,000. They more or less decide who gets on the ballot: Under your present political arrangement the two major-party nominees represent little more than disagreeing factions within the Golden 300,000, and you get to help choose which one is elevated to the ultimate power in the White House.
Some choice, but that is what you are left with and will continue to be stuck with unless the income gap is chopped down, way down, so that the top people are hauling in only 150 times the average income of the rest of you. Outsiders like myself do not call that democracy and it is certainly not what your founding fathers intended. But you can be certain that any effort to chop it down will be met with huge opposition from the Golden few with millions spent on television adds . It is time that ordinary Americans especially conservatives started asking themselves why they support candidates ,parties and policies be they republican or democrat that continue to enrich the Golden few at their expense.
The Canadian politician who brought Universal Health Care to Canada over the dead bodies of the Insurance industry and the rich asked Canadians that very same question. He put it this way,“WHY DO THE MICE KEEP VOTING FOR THE CATS”
Conservatives should stop buying into the Republican cries of shared values ie issues like abortion which they always support and do nothing about after they get elected. These are smoke screens. Americans had better start paying attention to the real issue- HE WHO HAS THE GOLD MAKES THE RULE. And the rules are that the rich have no intention of publicly funding education, health care, energy reform or any other program that will result in the redistribution of income that is so desperately needed if the United States is to remain a functioning democracy. Because issues are so complicated today it is easy for the Golden 300,000 to mount huge televison scare campaigns to make people believe they are on their side protecting their freedom of choice, fighting deficits and defeating that old boondoggle Socialism. But all Americans need do is to keep their eyes on the MONEY.
In the Health fight ahead while the republicans scream that a government program will cause you to lose your choices please ask yourself if that isn’t exactly what the private insurers having been doing for years. And when the blue dog democrats and the republicans ask who will pay for Health care reform scream in one loud voice the Golden 300,000 –it’s the least they can do.
The election of Obama defied these realities because the internet allowed him to raise huge amounts of money from millions of small donations from ordinary citizens. But make no mistake the members of the house both republicans and blue dog democrats know full well they will not get on the ballot for re-election if they defy the interests of the Golden 300,000.

PS You keep being told that your media like CNN is contolled by the liberals--HA! HA! Ha!
How can Americans believe that !!! when they are owned by the corporations Canadians and Europeans think your news chanels are a joke.

Re: The Problem with Uninformed Liberals

HOBOBOH — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:54:11 -0000

My post about UC and real choice was reffering to the fact that I polaced the Memorial thread here, where it might not have really belonged. I only meant that and that alone. Funny how your mind works. maybe that is what makes a liberal, over sensitivity mixed with a lack of economic understanding. Hmmm..

Hey Zues,

I just meant I observed it. It's pretty simple really. I shouldn't have to explain it to you.

out.

Re: The Problem with Uninformed Liberals

OhHolyKnight — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:13:02 -0000

Mr. H, why aren't you addressing me exactly?

You say "This is a free country and u can do as u please," and "he is a conservative and believes in real choice. Thanks UC." How can you sit there and tell me this is a free country, and you can do whatever you want, and that UC is so super fantastic for believing in "real choice," and that's why conservatives are great, and then turn around and tell me that I CAN'T do certain things on that day? If I have "real choice," I can do whatever the hell I want, including getting absolutely wasted, if I so choose. I wouldn't, cus I'm not that guy, but that is so typical of conservatives, and liberals too. Both camps love to say that freedom is great and you have the right to do and say what you want, UNTIL you say or do something that goes against what i believe.

Classic.

†

Re: The Problem with Uninformed Liberals

HeyZues — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:36:55 -0000

Ok, what does not watching tv have to do with Memorial Day? And dedication and conviction?

I'm just wondering what you do on memorial day that makes you different than someone else?

Re: The Problem with Uninformed Liberals

HOBOBOH — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:01:05 -0000

Well, I can still tell them apart. Then again, I think mostly from within and am not easily affected by outside pressures. It's called CONVICTION. It's called DEDICATION.
No, I don't sit and watch others. GG!! I'm a do'er, not a watcher. I simply don't CELEBRATE the day. Pretty simple. I do read alot but not so much of a TV viewer. All of my guest rooms have big flat screens in them. Go into my bedroom suite and voila, no TV at all. It's mostly drivel anyways. My wife likes to watch some govt. show on sundays and sometimes I watch for the laugh factor (think george stephenopolooza).

out.

Re: The Problem with Uninformed Liberals

HeyZues — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:16:27 -0000

How do you observe Memorial Day? Do you sit and watch the people celebrating with their families? In my eyes, celebrate and observe have been so intermingled with eachother that no one can tell them apart anymore

Re: The Problem with Uninformed Liberals

HOBOBOH — Wed, 28 May 2008 11:29:46 -0000

@ OHK,

ur hopeless. so I won't bother responding to u. Jeesh!

@ HeyZues,

Glad ur not AGAINST it! Whew!! That's a load off my mind. :)
I just pointed out how I OBSERVE Memorial day. I suspect the celebration ideas came from ppl who sell cars and BBQ'S. Whatever. This is a free country and u can do as u please. I CHOOSE not to celebrate. Besides, think about what ur celebrating. It doesn't even make sense. For me, it's like a secular Ramadan (of course not literally). A little bit of sacrifice, in HONOR of those who sacrificed everything. That's all. I leave the festivities for the 4th of July. Now that is something to CELEBRATE!
Try it next year HeyZues. You might be surprised how it will affect u.

P.S. Yes the chicken WILL eat an egg. I raised a rooster from birth (name was MAJOR). He would eat just about everything I gave him. In the beginning I'd go outside with him and roll logs and teach him about termites (mmm delicious). After awhile he grew out of that (too small). He did eat eggs if I cooked them. He also sat on my shoulder like a parrot. I even taught him how to kick a small ball around the yard,, he'd do it for hours. So yes, they WILL eat an egg! :)

By the way I posted the memorial comment here because UC hadn't blogged the topic. Not that he needed to. I was just here and figured why not. Luckily he is a conservative and believes in real choice. Thanks UC.

out.

Re: The Problem with Uninformed Liberals

HeyZues — Wed, 28 May 2008 09:58:50 -0000

HOBOBOH,

Im not against Memorial Day or the support of troops or honoring those who have sacrificed; however, I am confused. (What's new, right... haha.) :)

Why not take the day to celebrate with your family because those who have fallen have allowed you to do so?

P.S. Another chicken or egg question..... If you fried an egg for a chicken, would it eat some of it??

Re: The Problem with Uninformed Liberals

OhHolyKnight — Wed, 28 May 2008 09:58:05 -0000

HOBOBOH, do you honestly think a bunch of people are running around out there going, "It's memorial day, let's all get tanked!!!" If people drink on Memorial Day, it's because they drink whenever they can, not because Memorial Day is the all-holy day for alcoholics across the country. The fact that you would try and elevate yourself above everyone else for accusing them of trying to host a kegger on this holiday is kinda laughable.

And UC, ur running a great blog sir. Keep up the fight against UNINFORMED libs.

Just out of curiosity, why are we talking about how great Memorial Day is, and how we salute the fallen soldiers, on the "Problem with Uninformed Liberals" thread? Hmm, I sense an oh so subtle political commentary...

†

Re: The Problem with Uninformed Liberals

HOBOBOH — Tue, 27 May 2008 12:01:16 -0000

@ UC

ur running a great blog sir .. keep up the good work!!

out.

Re: The Problem with Uninformed Liberals

Guest — Mon, 26 May 2008 10:11:48 -0000

@HOBOBOH

I echo your words, exactly:

I SALUTE the fallen and will always remember .. ALWAYS.

Re: The Problem with Uninformed Liberals

HOBOBOH — Mon, 26 May 2008 08:33:00 -0000

Well, it's Memorial day here in the US folks. A day to honor those who have fallen to give us the freedom we all enjoy today. A day to honor those who when their country called, they answered. They answered and paid the supreme sacrifice for you and I.
Everybody does things in their own way but here in HOBOBOH land, we OBSERVE the day, we don't CELEBRATE it. No KEGGERS here today. No drinking whatsoever on this solemn occasion. That is more appropriate on the 4th of July. At least in my book. They sacrificed everything .. EVERYTHING. For that HOBOBOH is especially grateful and honored to be an American on this day.

I SALUTE the fallen and will always remember .. ALWAYS.

out.

Re: The Problem with Uninformed Liberals

HOBOBOH — Sun, 25 May 2008 10:56:46 -0000

Naturally OHK cannot stay on point. The question was about chickens, not dinosaurs. The same holds true however. What gave birth to the first dinosaur was something that was not quite a dinosaur, but close enuf to allow mutation and or gene drift to give birth to a new model.

As for the rest of it, Roosevelt hardly led us to prosperity. If anything he hindered the recovery. His policies were not solutions. World War 2 was the real catalyst force of our recovery. Using "Bush/Iraq" analogy, every liberal MUST believe that F.D.R. conspired to get our boys killed. He knew darn well the Japanese would attack. Right? Or doesn't that shoe fit? 9/11 : WW2 , both have numbers in them. Coincidence?

You are right not to want to compare the INEPTITUDE & COWARDICE of the Dem's Congress of the Vietnam era and todays "Iraq" Congress. The stain of blood on the 60's dem's is far worse than todays pol's. And for that we (in the present tense) are grateful. But hey, the Dem's are not finished yet. Let's just watch the waffle and retreat and add the numbers up a decade later. Thankfully the media won't report it to us. This way we can learn our lesson about liberalism with more blood from our sons and daughters, throw the lib bums out and repeat every 30 years or so. Sounds like a good way to run a country.

P.S. HeyZues, I dunno, I think both (chicken & egg) can be prepared quite deliciously. That question may be harder than which came first? I suppose chicken WITH egg would be the most desirable. :D

out.

Re: The Problem with Uninformed Liberals

HeyZues — Fri, 09 May 2008 09:45:21 -0000

Well what is more delicious... chicken or eggs?
§

Re: The Problem with Uninformed Liberals

OhHolyKnight — Thu, 08 May 2008 09:13:00 -0000

Any sensible person knows the egg came first simply because of evolution. Dinosaurs laid eggs when chickens weren't alive. There. Egg. That's the serious reason, and I'm stickin to it.

HOBOBOH, I think it is YOU who is missing the big picture. Communism cannot possibly hold the record for the most deaths in history, as it is an incredibly new idea. It has only existed for a single century, whereas religion has existed for thousands of years, sparking wars and conquests and, yes, subjugation. Communism may have killed many people in the last 50 years, but religion absolutely holds the award. I've already told about religious dilemmas, like then Holocaust, the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, but how many religious conflicts do you know about that don't involve Christianity? Roman mythology was only spread and "accepted" through warfare, as was that of Greece. The various dynasties in Chinese history feuded and flipflopped over what to embrace, between Buddhism and Legalism and Confucianism. Hindus also conflicted with Buddhism and other eastern religion. That's not to mention the thousands of years of strife, and millions of lives, that have plagued the Middle East. Religion is the cause of the world's greatest problems.

I am not sure if I believe you when you say people are inherently evil. They are not. Some people? Still no. They may be more prone to becoming evil, but it's all about how they are raised or the society in which they grow up. And the fact of the matter is that no matter where you go on Earth to bear a child, that child will be born into a religiously divisive world. Depending on how strong those religious views are, that child might be more susceptible to becoming bigoted and hate-filled towards other religions. If we took religion out of the equation, strong nations might still subjugate weaker nations, but they would have NO FACADE TO HIDE BEHIND. They would subjugate simply because of imperialism and greed, and they can't pass it off to the public as anything religious. In that case, the vast majority of people who might have supported it before would no longer do so. The government wouldn't be able to act, and (virtually) no subjugation would take place. This is all theoretically, obviously, since we'll never get rid of religion. But if it were to happen, then human beings' true motivations would be exposed, without anything to hide behind. So taking religion away would be a good thing.

You say liberals aren't deserving of "the wheel" when we're in a crisis. You realize of course that during our nation's greatest crisis, the Great Depression, it was a democrat that led us to prosperity? And that same president brought us (and the Allies) to victory in WWII? And don't use Vietnam as an example of why liberals are inept. Because I need say no more than the War in Iraq, and the horribly wayward (if existent) planning that the REPUBLICAN administration had conducted. And why isn't smoking an issue? Or the environment? You claim that liberals attack smoking and global warming because they can't fight back, or they're not real issues, when those are just as worthwhile arguments as gun control or abortion or anything else conservatives fight for. Plus, smoking and the destruction of the environment DO fight back, in two ways. One, they affect us and harm us themselves (only ignorant people denounce second-hand smoke as a farce). Two, the people who oppose those views fight against them. Any issue you pick will fight back, so those points are just invalid.

†

Re: The Problem with Uninformed Liberals

HOBOBOH — Thu, 08 May 2008 07:07:40 -0000

Haha HeyZues,

Well I could wait for OHK to respond but heck, he could have been involved in a SWAT team takedown at his abode last night for all I know. I'm sure those old hippies are used to it by now eh? JK!!

So, which came first, the Chicken or the Egg?

Ppl have been bantering this one around forever (there's a joke in there), but the answer is quite simple and works within the realm of scientific reality as well. Always a plus. No need to invoke a burning bush (what was that guy on?)

Okay here goes and it's quite simple.

Which came first?

The egg came first. The egg will always come first. They are selfish and needy. They roll around thinking oh boy, I'm just sooo round and cute, just look at me!! lol ok here goes for real.

Yes, it's still the egg.

What laid the egg was something which was ALMOST a Chicken .. but not quite. It was as close to being a chicken as you can get, but ol mother nature threw a curve ball and guess what?! A chicken comes out and the parents freak!! What the buckbuck is this? They probably would have just thrown *it* out of the nest but it did come out of those darn super cute eggs. They're sooo round. And BAM the first chicken was born, showing the others what they were missing. See, you guys should be chickens, I'm cool. Buckbuck.

And that's the story and I'm sticking to it.

out.

Re: The Problem with Uninformed Liberals

HeyZues — Wed, 07 May 2008 19:02:29 -0000

CHICKEN OR THE EGG!?!?!?! I WANNA KNOW THE ANSWER!!!!

Haha, thanks Hoboboh :)

Re: The Problem with Uninformed Liberals

HOBOBOH — Wed, 07 May 2008 10:34:04 -0000

Yes I meant G*D as the modern mans interpretation of it*. I wasn't talking about the point of creation (whatever the heck that is). I was talking about the last adult fairy tale version.

Well as for Costa Rica, their economy and laws are primarily based on ours. That is why they are doing so well in the present tense. Not always so. It is the beacon of freedom and individual rights which shine so brightly from our shores. That is what brings PPL here and that is what infected Costa Rica with its success. By the way every country which lessens its government and REDUCES taxes prospers. Just look at Ireland (southern).
As for England and flaws, you are missing the point. ANY society which can subjugate a lesser enabled society will do so. Again this is a human nature thingy. It knows no geographical or religious, or societal borders. It is something inherently human. For better or worse, that is who we are as a PPL. As for ruthlessness of subjugation I must take issue. If we are talking about degrees of subjugation, the Communists win hands down. More PPL have been wiped off the planet under the rule of Communism than ANY other. And if you want to get picky, we can throw in the democratic congress during the Vietnam war. Their utter spinelessness to win the war (which was won already militarily) and its unwillingness to help South vietnam after the North broke its peace pledges (of course), millions were killed and displaced. Heck the Khmer Rouge killed about 1.5 million PPL alone. I believe this is one of the very reasons why liberals must not be at the wheel when our ship is in trouble. Liberals lost their guts in Vietnam and have never recovered from it. It was the liberals following WW2 which led the fight against communism more than any other political group. One could argue that the counter culture revolution so relished by liberals in the 60's in fact has been the leading cause of the failed liberal political movements since ( as in unable to get to the White House, i.e. Humphrey, McGovern Dukakis, Kerry). But after Vietnam, lib's tend to fight things which don't fight back (think second hand smoke, global warming). But it is the Communists OHK who hold the grand title of oppressive regimes. Not religion.

By the way and as an added bonus I can also answer the "chicken or the egg" question as well. let me know if you are interested or perhaps you already know the answer.

out.

Re: The Problem with Uninformed Liberals

OhHolyKnight — Wed, 07 May 2008 09:57:11 -0000

Yeah, man did make God, in the conventional sense. That's simply to say that we don't have a guy in white robes with a big long beard. But that's not to say, necessarily, that there is no universal, fundamental or encompassing order beyond simple humanity. I personally am a Deist--I believe there is something out there, a higher being, be it chemical or otherwise, and I call whatever that essence or presence is, "God." But diesm is a natural religion, not an organized one. It is organized religion I have the problem with. I think people should take a word from Emerson and choose their own paths. Why can't there be one religion per person? Well, it's human nature to ban together to prove themselves right and their enemies wrong. That's why religion is there today (coupled with people's lack of education and quest to define how what they didn't know about worked). Yes, we did manufacture many different ideas about who God is. I agree with you when you say that God does not exist but in the minds of feeble men. A higher order? I am not about to dismiss that just yet.

That said, your comment about England has flaws. If I want to move to, say, Costa Rica, one of the most progressive and stable countries in the western hemisphere, I wouldn't have to worry about the history of the Mayans or the Aztecs because Costa Rica is not a Mayan or Aztec country right now. I am not mad at the Brits for what the Saxons or the Norse did hundreds of years ago. I am angry at England for what ENGLAND has done. Costa Rica's government and people are completely separate from that of the Aztecs and the Mayans. So that is not the issue.

Look at Rome. Look at Greece. Now look at England (and the United States). What do all of these empires have in common? They use religion to motivate the people to their cause. I know England isn't governed by the Vatican, because the Vatican is strictly Catholic. That's not to say it's independent from religion. Religion upsets me because so many people get so defensive about it for reasons they don't even understand. If I walk up to a Christian and tell him "Jesus was a fake," that person will get mad at me and try to convince me I'm absolutely wrong, or just get so sick and disgusted with me that they walk away in irritation. And I pick on Christians because our nation is Christian, and because Christians are the most stubborn religion ever to walk the earth, I feel. Maybe it's not fair--if you'd like, I could pick on others. But I have two parents who are still uncomfortable when I say I won't go to Church. Why? Not only because they think and believe and assume Church is right, but also because they can tolerate other religions only until it enters their family. And my parents are not bad people. In fact, they have told me that they respect my decision. But it makes them uncomfortable. That is the issue.

Yeah, a tiny island becoming a massive colonial power is a feat. And they have done good things. But part of being imperial DEMANDS subjugation. Brits subjugated Indians, Native Americans, and the Chinese; the Japanese subjugated China and much of southeast Asia; Mongolia subjugated everyone from Russia, to India, to the Middle East; Spain subjugated the Aztecs and every other Central American people alive in the fourteen- and fifteen-hundreds; we subjugated the Filipinos, and now we are subjugating the Iraqis. To be a colonial powerhouse demands you subjugate. Even economic colonialism means infiltrating native economies with your own country's tactics and styles to benefit yourself with the facade of benefiting them. But no imperial power has been so ruthless in its colonialism nor its subjugation as have been the Catholics (and other Christians). Again, I am not about to say i don't enjoy learning about Rome or Greece, or England, or America. I love history. I love learning about history. I love going to imperial war museums, not because I support imperial war, but because it is insightful, and you can gain knowledge and connect a colonial power today to one yesterday, and make estimates about the ones tomorrow. If you hand me a plane ticket to England, I am not going to wave it away because I don't agree with all of its policies or history. Every nation on Earth has a story, and every story has at least two sides. I am merely answering your question as if you asked me to list my "favorite countries" in the world--in that case, England is simply not high up there. It's as simple as that.

†

Re: The Problem with Uninformed Liberals

HOBOBOH — Wed, 07 May 2008 08:37:20 -0000

OHK,
Well you have quite a list of countries that you consider "not good", including I'm going to assume most of the western world. I guess we can throw in Mexico and Central Americas too because of the horribly violent past societies of the Aztecs and Mayan, Inca Empires. That doesn't leave much, boy oh boy.
My inquiry into England was more than a passing thought. You touched upon it there briefly in their imperialism. That's my next point. England was a fantastically successful Colonial Empire. I mean from such a tiny island, a mighty empire was built. That is an accomplishment in and of itself, for good or ill, it is still an impressive feat. My point is, ahem, they didn't do it for the vatican. Being vehemently Protestant I mean, the vatican was not the catalyst for their expansion (although competition for resources could). So I put it to you, while religion has been a motivating factor of colonialism, it would have happened anyway. With or without religion, the colonial periods of our world would have happened. When one society meets another, and when one of those societies has "progressed" (that word is debatable), and the other hasn't (think Aboriginal), guess what is going to happen? I'll go back to one of my previous points. It's not a religious fallacy, it's a HUMAN fallacy. We are a violent species. This is a violent world. Nature is unbelievably violent and unfair as well. We are a working model of how this planet is set up. I'm not saying it's good. It's not. It is reality however. So don't hang your hat on religion so much, because in every case of expansion it was a Man who made those decisions.
Just as a bonus because I'm feeling particularly generous, I will answer the age old question of religious origins:
Who made G*D? Something cannot come from nothing right? We have all heard that before in some similar context. So .. Who made G*D? Well silly, WE DID. Man made G*D. Really quite simple.

out.

Re: The Problem with Uninformed Liberals

OhHolyKnight — Tue, 06 May 2008 18:22:58 -0000

I realize, Mr H., that we have struck an accord on that particular issue. I realize that neither of us are fond of organized religion. That's not what I'm arguing with you anymore. I argue about the "virtues" of Christianity with other conservatives, like UC, but again, I am glad I found at least one strike of similarity between us. It makes me feel like you're not ENTIRELY ignorant of liberal greatness ;)

That was a joke. I am well aware that not every liberal is intelligent, as I am aware that not every conservative is foolish or ignorant. To be honest, I am fiscally conservative, so I'm not all bad, right UC? But I'd like to elaborate on the points I was making earlier.

The Holocaust I explained thoroughly enough in a religious view, and you know what that is anyway.

The Spanish Inquisition I guess is something not many people know about. It was, as I said, a time in Spanish history that started right after the Reconquista (about 1478), in which the native Spaniards kicked out the Muslim occupiers and Ferdinand and Isabel established a Christian monarchy (which was actually sort of a diarchy). They set up the Inquisition (which was not officially repealed until 400 years later in the late 1800s), which struck down on all Jews, Muslims, and even Christian converts (the Jews and Muslims who converted to Christianity for the sole purpose of escaping persecution). In essence, they were kicking everyone who was not orthodox Christian out of the country, if not killing them or torturing them. (If you get the chance, check out "History of the World Part I," with Mel Brooks; it's got a great Spanish Inquisition bit in there) I'll have to double-check my statistics, but I'm pretty sure that within one decade, more than 2000 people were burned at the stakes and 16,000 people were "processed." That's in just 10 years. When the Protestants emerged in the 1600s in Spain, the Inquisition gained an all new motive, and propaganda spread again.

McCarthyism is basically the Christian United States claiming that anyone who doesn't believe in God is both a Communist and an enemy to be dealt with immediately (a good movie that deals with this issue and how blind it was is called "The Majestic" with Jim Carrey). The Christian right at its finest.

The Crusades, in which Christians tried to justify conquering the Holy Land by saying it was God's divine plan, proved, if anything, that Christianity is dead wrong. The Crusaders conquered Jerusalem in the first crusade, but they lost in immediately afterwards. When they launched the second (and third, and fourth, and fifth and sixth and seventh and eighth and ninth...), they attacked Jerusalem, but never retook it. The Muslims held it every single time. And I love the argument some non-Catholic Christians have for that one: "That just means the Catholics are wrong, but we're still right!" In fact, Protestantism, Lutheranism, Evangelicalism, and most other major veins of Christianity branched off of Catholicism. They have roots there. They believe the same things, they read the same doctrines. It all came from Catholicism. One's wrong, they're all wrong.

I'm sure I just bored you with this, as I am, like you said, preaching to the choir. I just like stating the historical background from time to time. I note that you're an exception, but most of the conservative right in America is Christian, and most of that Christian right remains (and prefers to remain) ignorant of both their religion and their national political platforms. We are in a holy war right now with Iraq, and many conservatives are blending church and state to justify what shouldn't be justified. THAT's when I take offense. Not only have those two elements, which SHOULD be forever separated, blended, but the people who speak up in support of the war often have some macabre religious thought in the back of their mind or subconscious, such as the inherent evil of Islam. Conservatism is built on isolationism, not open-mindedness. It simply the definition. I am not trying to bash, it's just fact. And if you are claiming to dislike religion, then you might be more socially liberal than you think.

As for England, no. For the most part, I am not a fan. While I do admire Europe, including England, for several things (most notably honking the horn at someone who is driving slowly in the passing lane on the highway), England, specifically, is not my cup of tea, no pun intended. I have been there, and it was all right, but there's too many things about its history I just don't like. It has an occupational, imperial history, just like the United States. And yeah, I am going down that road--soon, I won't like the United States either, if we keep occupying every country that denies us some oil. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot about England I find fascinating, as with any country in the world. The Imperial War Museum was particularly astounding (the Holocaust exhibit, the WWI trench, etc). But its history is malignant. Its presence in both India and China (not to mention the countless others) strike close to home for me, and are examples of sheer imperialism (the Opium Wars in China were caused by Brits, who wanted to keep growing opium in China and exporting, while the Chinese didn't want to be associated with the drug anymore).

†

Re: The Problem with Uninformed Liberals

HOBOBOH — Tue, 06 May 2008 11:10:56 -0000

OHK,
OHK said in above post - "You're right. I am anti-religion. I grew up a Catholic. I was raised Catholic, and for a time, I believed in it. Then I started to wonder what made that religion so right, and I researched more and more, and here I am. I believe that religion is both a blessing and a curse. It can give people--lonely people, solitary, depressed people--a sense of community and belonging. It can give them something to believe in. But as soon as another community enters and presents opposing views, then they clash, and that's where we get our conflicts, the ones that have raged throughout history."
....
....
We are in complete agreement there (oh Lawdy, my watch just stopped!). If you are looking for an argument from me on religion, you are preaching to the choir kiddo. In fact my upbringing was basically the same. I just never turned bitter over it.

out.

Re: The Problem with Uninformed Liberals

HOBOBOH — Tue, 06 May 2008 11:01:19 -0000

Hey-Zues,

How do you train a mind? Are you serious about this? OK, how about teaching economics in every grade? I'm not talking about how to balance your checkbook. One of the main problems in American society (I won't presume for others), is that MOST ppl don't understand what are the mechanisms and policies that make up our industrial greatness. Most PPL are completely mystified by the Wall Street Journal (one of the finest all around papers in the world). Most PPL don't understand monetary policies. Most PPL don't understand that a "corporate" tax is really a consumer tax. I could go on and on, but I won't.
About the books. I haven't disregarded anything. In FACT, I have read and enjoyed those books. Aren't all authors trying to say something? I mean really sir. If you want to pick and choose which ones are correct(?), which ones are truly dead on, that's your choice. Try Guns, Germs, and Steel on for size. I think you might enjoy it.

out.

Re: The Problem with Uninformed Liberals

OhHolyKnight — Tue, 06 May 2008 10:21:25 -0000

HOBOBOH,

First of all, I'm not going to reply to most of what you directed at HeyZeus, simply because I can let him hammer that out. But I will say that Emerson is one of my favorite authors, and if you knew anything about that time period, you'd know he clearly wasn't writing those essays for the money. In fact, a lot of people back then didn't write for money. Before the Internet and the TV and mainstream advertising, only very few authors became really famous and well-known. Emerson wrote those because he believed in it. And some of the greatest quotes ever written were in his essay "Self-Reliance."

That said, I will address your arguments directed at me.

You're right. I am anti-religion. I grew up a Catholic. I was raised Catholic, and for a time, I believed in it. Then I started to wonder what made that religion so right, and I researched more and more, and here I am. I believe that religion is both a blessing and a curse. It can give people--lonely people, solitary, depressed people--a sense of community and belonging. It can give them something to believe in. But as soon as another community enters and presents opposing views, then they clash, and that's where we get our conflicts, the ones that have raged throughout history.

Religion has done some good things. In the long-run, though, it only divides. I mean, look at China. It is the longest-lived empire in the history of the world. The national religion? Buddhism, if you can call that a religion. I consider it much more of a philosophy. We, the United States, are a Christian nation. And we have peaked, and are now descending. Religion ruins lives and countries. It works to divide the world, not unite it.

The Holocaust took place during the Second World War. Hitler, a Christian, rounded up a bunch of different people from various backgrounds and ethnicities, especially the Jews. After the Holocaust, in which hundreds of thousands were killed, the Christian world felt guilty about it and promised to take some Muslim land and give it to the Jews. Palestinian conflict.

The Spanish inquisition was a period circa 1492 in which the Spanish Christian rulers, Fernando and Isabel, expelled the Muslims, who had been in control of Spain until then, in a violent manner. They killed thousands who did not accept Christianity.

McCarthyism was a period in United States history in which Senator Joe McCarthy accused countless people of being Communists (Atheists) when we were at war with the Soviets. Many were sent to prison, and even more lost their jobs.

The Crusades were Christians trying to take back the Holy Land, under papal orders, from the Muslims, in the name of God. They failed repeatedly.

I am pressed for time right now, so I'll answer your question about Britain a bit later....

†