These shows don't bother me; the networks don't bother me. The real threat to our children and our way of life is our children's social studies teachers, followed by their college professors.
Why are so many children convinced that:
-The Bill of Rights is "outdated" (even though they probably couldn't identify half of the 1st 10 amendments)
-The Constitution is a "living, breathing document"
-The electoral college serves no purpose, other than to deny them the popular vote.
-The whole "old, dead white men" line that liberals espouse time and time again, as if somehow being an old, dead white man means your ideas are inconsequential by default. Perhaps we should remind them that Marx and Engels are old, dead white men. Why should I care what Marx and Engels have to say? Also, while I would never wish death upon a person, I can't wait to use this line in reference to Chomsky! Stupid dead white man!
-Human beings possess no rights beyond that which is "gifted" to them by the State. All human life is expendable at the altar of the State.
1. I don't want to waste my time watching Alex Jones's conspiracy junk.
2. What's the one by ABC called?
3. I have a sneaking suspicion that the claims about the ABC show will be just as overblown.
4. Two channels airing two shows does not a "media-wide, long-term effort to demonize the Founding Fathers" make.
2. The ABC show is apparently called Founding Fathers.
3. Apparently it is set in modern times and casts militias in a negative light, alluding to the American Revolution.
4. It just shows how far-left the media has become. In addition, the video features federal government employees at FEMA saying that the Founding Fathers were "the first terrorist group in the United States."
Ummm... what you mean to say is A cable TV channel is making a show that treats one of the Founding Fathers irreverently.
It's not "media networks" (plural), it's just one channel. It's not about the Founding Fathers (plural) it's about only one of them. And there's no evidence they're going to demonize him. In fact, for all we know, Paul Revere will be portrayed quite positively.
Or do you think that the show Everybody Hates Chris is about how the character Chris is a lousy piece of ****?
There's no evidence that the show will have anything to do with the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment, you know, considering it's set years before either one was written.
Obvious troll post is obvious. Not one part of the OP is accurate.
So basically, you didn't watch the video. There are two of these shows coming out, one by AMC and one by ABC.
Nobody is talking about banning these TV shows, we're only pointing out how grossly partisan and inappropriate they are.
It's called entertainment. It isn't a matter of partisanship. Do you think that Tennis is partisan because Democrats are the main watchers?
If the reporters covering tennis regularly bashed the Founding Fathers and conservatives, then yes, I would consider it partisan. Viewership /=/ Content.
Is it really appropriate to characterize a comedy show like this as an attempt to demonize the Founders? And even if it is, don't get so caught up in defending the Second Amendment that you forget there is also a First Amendment.
Nobody is talking about banning these TV shows, we're only pointing out how grossly partisan and inappropriate they are.
For my one political topic this week, I bring this this to everyone's attention. The media has been working overtime lately in their long-time goal of demonizing the Founding Fathers. Do you think it is appropriate for the media to launch TV shows for the sole purpose of demonizing the Founding Fathers, Constitution, Second Amendment and patriots of the Revolution?
People have this notion that the federal government is supposed to pass laws all the time. The constitution was written such that it was hard to pass laws and harder to pass amendments. It favors a conservative approach rather than a progressive one.
To a degree. Any progress at all being allowed could be viewed as leaning progressive. A true conservative constitution would probably make it nigh impossible to change anything. They could have made it a lot harder but instead they made it possible to change it as needs changed.
Conservatives are pretty good at keeping our rights that we already have. Progressives are good at giving us new rights.
And actually a "conservative" point of view has actually changed the laws quite a bit in recent years. Taxes for example are sickiningly low across the board and yet we still have people in uproar about a slight budge in taxes at the highest of the high levels. Over time the conservative view has chipped away a massive amount of government taxation power. Its probably the #1 reason for the deficite which is not something either current political party will admit.
What happens when the group that claims to "bring new rights" is also trying to take-away existing rights?
Anything that can be used to prevent the passage of more legislation is a good thing. It's pathetic that Congress feels the need to pass several hundred bills a year just to pretend they're actually doing something.
I believe our rights stem from natural human rights. There are three things all sapient beings naturally desire in their society, and as a result, form part of the social contract between individuals and their government. I am of course referring to the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property?).
Unlike the liberals, I do not hate the Constitution, in fact, I have the utmost respect for it. My problem lies with how it started down the right path, but never quite reached it's destination.
Please explain why it is that you think liberals hate the Constitution? It protects my rights just the same as it protects yours. Why would I hate it?
Liberals think the Constitution is "outdated" and that it needs to be replaced. They often view it as something that stands in the way of their ideology. This isn't anything new for the left, FDR was very upset with the Constitution, as it directly conflicted with many of his New Deal plans. On top of this liberals love to talk about how "evil" the Founding Fathers were, and they even go so far as to regularly attack them by calling them all "racist, sexist, homophobic, slave-owning, fascist, Bible-thumping bigots who waged a war on women."
While it is obviously true that the Founding Fathers had differing opinions on a number of topics, to deny that there isn't an overarching American culture and ideal is simply incorrect and offensive.
Take for instance American exceptionalism, which dates back to America's founding. America is fundamentally different from all other countries, in that we are the first country to adopt the classical liberal ideas of freedom, an armed citizenry, republican government, strict Constitutionalism and free markets. The idea of a society without the classes of Europe, a society where anyone can pull themselves up from their boot-straps and be successful.
American exceptionalism is the idea that we should promote these American ideals abroad. Similarly, democratic theory is the idea that democratic countries are less likely to go to war with other democratic countries, thus democratic countries have a vested interest in promoting the ideas of democracy. There's also another underlying idea, that goes along with American exceptionalism and democratic theory, the idea that we need to defend American values and ideals. That our ideals often conflict with those of other countries, this is more true now than ever, with anti-American groups setting themselves up within our society with the goal of subverting the Constitution, American ideals and American values.
I'm not entirely sure whether some of my views on government can be considered "conservative" or "liberal" in the modern sense of the terms. I have a philosophy all of my own, stemming predominately from the principles upon which America was founded, making them right-wing in nature. The fact of the matter is that the United States Constitution, while being the greatest form of government yet introduced, is deeply flawed. Unlike the liberals, I do not hate the Constitution, in fact, I have the utmost respect for it. My problem lies with how it started down the right path, but never quite reached it's destination.
The Constitution wasn't strong enough and over time, it allowed degenerates to stagnate and pervert our country. The Constitution did not embody protections to ensure that the ideology it represents would remain forever dominant. I view a constitution as a document that is set in stone, one that shall last indefinitely.
It is often said that the role of the state is the ultimate question in political philosophy. Many disagree on what this role should be, some argue that government should play as little of a role as possible and respect the fundamental rights of the people. Others view government as an entity which needs to constantly intervene in and control the lives of it's citizens. Which of these is correct? Is there a middle-ground? This is the question we have been struggling to answer since our beginnings.
As I previously mentioned, I believe the American Founding Fathers had started down the right path. However, they did not complete the journey, possibly because they underestimated just how corrupt and perverted we would become. This could have been prevented through provisions ensuring ideological purity.
To ensure ideological purity, we would need to educate the people. The Founders did this in the short-term through the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. However, the Founders did not plan for the long game, they did not enact constitutional provisions to educate future generations. Perhaps they operated under the assumption that America's values and ideas would be passed down throughout the generations, but clearly this did not happen; due to the corruption of man.
The first steps towards ideological purity would be the utilization of educational institutions. These institutions would not only teach sciences and arithmetic, but the principles of the nation as well. In order to become a citizen, individuals would have to serve in the military and swear loyalty to the Constitution and principles of the nation. In addition to performing their military duties, all who serve would be required to regularly study the Constitution and principles of the nation. After earning citizenship, citizens would be free to vote and run for public office. All citizens would be required to keep arms for both defense of the state and defense from the state, should it ever become necessary. Foreigners wishing to immigrate to the nation would have to undergo service and study of both the Constitution and the principles of the nation.
What should happen to those who refuse to serve the state? I imagine that would be a matter of some debate, at first. Though it may sound "harsh," it may very well be necessary to re-educate such individuals. There would be no reason to not become a citizen, however, as the principles of the nation would be non-partisan. They would the universally agreed upon facets of society, ideas such as freedom, republican government, an armed citizenry, (con)federalism and the separation of powers. Citizens would be free to hold any views that they may like and the state would not discriminate against those for voicing such views, be they socialistic or libertarian.
I'm not entirely sure what to think of all that I have typed out above at this point, but I would like to know what you think.
Really stop it with the liberal hate.
I argued with you before. Liberal is a loose coalition of many factions who are temporarily bound for political expediency.
You are a conservative. But your views don't align with the Christian Right wing. I don't see you talking in here preaching Jesus.
In your mind, a conservative is a righteous hero. You defend liberty, protect
the nation. You are courageous powerful. You stand for everything good and holy.
A liberal is a coward. You believe them to be weak, spineless, destroyers of the nation, haters of everything good. You impute upon them every dark thing you can think of. Liberals are devils, weakminded individuals.
You are good. They are evil.
There's alot of things wrong with thinking of things like that. I know it feels
mighty good to think of yourself that way. You're a hero son, a defender of liberty. Does it feel good to think of yourself in this way? I'll bet it does.
I'm here to inform you, you are buying into a lie, a story that makes you feel good inside. And worse you're buying into a school of thought that will make you lose influence among people.
The liberal isn't this dark scoundrel like a disney villian. They are people--people you happen to share the country with.
Liberal is for now, the loose coalition of the interests of hollywood, environmentalists, minorities, pro-choice individuals, gay rights activists, unions.
Conservative is for now, the loose coalition of the religious right, pro-gun lobbyists, oil and big business interests, pure market advocates, and many many more factions you yourself named in a previous posting.
Study history and you realize, the current conception of liberal and conservative is a fleeting vapor in the wind. What if I called you a raging stupid Dixiecrat? A constitution hating Whig. A completely spineless Federalist. These are American political alliances that existed in the past, but have lost relevancy to the passage of time. The current conception of Liberal and Conservative won't hold either.
Don't place your self worth on identifying as a Conservative.
What if the next Republican candidate was a religious holy man who believed all guns should be abolished. But the Democrat candidate was 2nd amendment loving gay rights activist.
Which side would you vote for then? Would you be a traitor and vote democrat? Or would you recognize that in American politics, whichever side can unite more of these interest groups wins the next four years. It's a game bro.
What if a pro-lifer was the next conservative candidate, except that he was so pro-life he is also anti-gun and pacifistic. Would you support your conservative hero then?
It's not like the religious right are so motivated by the 2nd amendment anyway. What does a man of God care about defending your right to own a gun? The bible doesn't say anything about this. In fact the truly religious believe that the laws of God are higher than the laws of Man---even the Constitution. I dare you to go to any truly religious man and ask if you had to place one above the other which would you choose: The Constitution or the Word of God?
The man of God cares about what he cares about, and you care about what you care about. You don't have much in common with him, except for that fact that politically you two are temporarily aligned.
You know why listening to Rush is bad and will lose you influence? Because the center, the swing voters can't stand him. In fact, many people on this forum can't stand him. Sorry but in this game of politics, you need to convince the center to win. And unless conservatives actually win in politics, they;re going to become another footnote in US history, like Dixiecrats and Whigs.
You just can't maintain political power and influence in this nation without securing the independent swing voters. There are simply too many of them.
And if majority of them can't stand to listen to Rush, then bringing his ideology to them will probably yield similar results.
Bottom line, if Rush can't get the center independent voters to listen to his program, you won't be able to them to listen to you either by spouting his views.
If you want to start winning people over to the right side, stop demonizing your opponent. It's mentally lazy and is nothing but a feel good attitude, but it doesn't convince a single one of them to join your cause and ideas. In fact you'll probably drive away more of the center towards the liberal cause.
There are PLENTY of decent and strong arguments for the conservative agenda. So instead of walking around with an attitude that all liberals are haters of the constitution, learn some rational arguments and articulate them. As a moderate liberal, I think these are good non-partisan counter-arguments to liberal ideologies.
--against gun control, I think the lack of emphasis on our mental health system is a great counterargument to the gun debate, and that gun restriction is entirely misplaced.
--against deficit spending, I think a great argument is that Keynesian monetary policy creates liquidity traps and fails to stimulate the economy, putting us in debt. See Japan.
--against Military spending, I think that military spending can be reallocated towards military research, and that concentration of financial spending in our military yields economic efficiencies that are otherwise difficult to obtain.
You're going to have to decide at some point Swazi Spring, whether you just want to listen to people who already agree with you (Rush), or whether you want to go out and convince people who don't agree with you to actually join the conservative cause. Remember every Liberal you win over, is not only a win for you, but a loss for them as well.
A very well thought out post, I agree with much of what you posted. You make a lot of good points about appealing to independent voters and I agree with you. The problem is the media, the liberal media has become so powerful that even if every Christian fundamentalist suddenly died, the liberal media would still attack the right for being "racist, Christian, homophobic, fascist war on women, Bible-thumping bigots." They would continue to throw every buzzword they could find at anyone who opposes them, especially if it isn't true.
If we lived in a world where the media was non-partisan, then what you propose would work. There are also some things that can never be compromised on. We're not going to compromise on the Constitution or freedom, these are what we believe in. The Democrats have moved so far left that it is almost impossible to compromise with them, as doing so would result in giving up our freedom and the Constitution. I don't know about you, but I pot doing the right thing above trying to win over a few undecided voters. Also note that the Republicans won the vast majority of independent voters in the last election, so it would seem that there is no need to win them over.
I'm not entirely sure whether some of my views on government can be considered "conservative" or "liberal" in the modern sense of the terms. I have a philosophy all of my own, stemming predominately from the principles upon which America was founded, making them right-wing in nature. The fact of the matter is that the United States Constitution, while being the greatest form of government yet introduced, is deeply flawed. Unlike the liberals, I do not hate the Constitution, in fact, I have the utmost respect for it. My problem lies with how it started down the right path, but never quite reached it's destination.
The Constitution wasn't strong enough and over time, it allowed degenerates to stagnate and pervert our country. The Constitution did not embody protections to ensure that the ideology it represents would remain forever dominant. I view a constitution as a document that is set in stone, one that shall last indefinitely.
It is often said that the role of the state is the ultimate question in political philosophy. Many disagree on what this role should be, some argue that government should play as little of a role as possible and respect the fundamental rights of the people. Others view government as an entity which needs to constantly intervene in and control the lives of it's citizens. Which of these is correct? Is there a middle-ground? This is the question we have been struggling to answer since our beginnings.
As I previously mentioned, I believe the American Founding Fathers had started down the right path. However, they did not complete the journey, possibly because they underestimated just how corrupt and perverted we would become. This could have been prevented through provisions ensuring ideological purity.
To ensure ideological purity, we would need to educate the people. The Founders did this in the short-term through the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. However, the Founders did not plan for the long game, they did not enact constitutional provisions to educate future generations. Perhaps they operated under the assumption that America's values and ideas would be passed down throughout the generations, but clearly this did not happen; due to the corruption of man.
The first steps towards ideological purity would be the utilization of educational institutions. These institutions would not only teach sciences and arithmetic, but the principles of the nation as well. In order to become a citizen, individuals would have to serve in the military and swear loyalty to the Constitution and principles of the nation. In addition to performing their military duties, all who serve would be required to regularly study the Constitution and principles of the nation. After earning citizenship, citizens would be free to vote and run for public office. All citizens would be required to keep arms for both defense of the state and defense from the state, should it ever become necessary. Foreigners wishing to immigrate to the nation would have to undergo service and study of both the Constitution and the principles of the nation.
What should happen to those who refuse to serve the state? I imagine that would be a matter of some debate, at first. Though it may sound "harsh," it may very well be necessary to re-educate such individuals. There would be no reason to not become a citizen, however, as the principles of the nation would be non-partisan. They would the universally agreed upon facets of society, ideas such as freedom, republican government, an armed citizenry, (con)federalism and the separation of powers. Citizens would be free to hold any views that they may like and the state would not discriminate against those for voicing such views, be they socialistic or libertarian.
I'm not entirely sure what to think of all that I have typed out above at this point, but I would like to know what you think.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
2. The ABC show is apparently called Founding Fathers.
3. Apparently it is set in modern times and casts militias in a negative light, alluding to the American Revolution.
4. It just shows how far-left the media has become. In addition, the video features federal government employees at FEMA saying that the Founding Fathers were "the first terrorist group in the United States."
So basically, you didn't watch the video. There are two of these shows coming out, one by AMC and one by ABC.
If the reporters covering tennis regularly bashed the Founding Fathers and conservatives, then yes, I would consider it partisan. Viewership /=/ Content.
Nobody is talking about banning these TV shows, we're only pointing out how grossly partisan and inappropriate they are.
Your rights end only when they directly violate the rights of someone else. Today MTGS learns that there are laws against murder.
What happens when the group that claims to "bring new rights" is also trying to take-away existing rights?
Liberals think the Constitution is "outdated" and that it needs to be replaced. They often view it as something that stands in the way of their ideology. This isn't anything new for the left, FDR was very upset with the Constitution, as it directly conflicted with many of his New Deal plans. On top of this liberals love to talk about how "evil" the Founding Fathers were, and they even go so far as to regularly attack them by calling them all "racist, sexist, homophobic, slave-owning, fascist, Bible-thumping bigots who waged a war on women."
Take for instance American exceptionalism, which dates back to America's founding. America is fundamentally different from all other countries, in that we are the first country to adopt the classical liberal ideas of freedom, an armed citizenry, republican government, strict Constitutionalism and free markets. The idea of a society without the classes of Europe, a society where anyone can pull themselves up from their boot-straps and be successful.
American exceptionalism is the idea that we should promote these American ideals abroad. Similarly, democratic theory is the idea that democratic countries are less likely to go to war with other democratic countries, thus democratic countries have a vested interest in promoting the ideas of democracy. There's also another underlying idea, that goes along with American exceptionalism and democratic theory, the idea that we need to defend American values and ideals. That our ideals often conflict with those of other countries, this is more true now than ever, with anti-American groups setting themselves up within our society with the goal of subverting the Constitution, American ideals and American values.
A very well thought out post, I agree with much of what you posted. You make a lot of good points about appealing to independent voters and I agree with you. The problem is the media, the liberal media has become so powerful that even if every Christian fundamentalist suddenly died, the liberal media would still attack the right for being "racist, Christian, homophobic, fascist war on women, Bible-thumping bigots." They would continue to throw every buzzword they could find at anyone who opposes them, especially if it isn't true.
If we lived in a world where the media was non-partisan, then what you propose would work. There are also some things that can never be compromised on. We're not going to compromise on the Constitution or freedom, these are what we believe in. The Democrats have moved so far left that it is almost impossible to compromise with them, as doing so would result in giving up our freedom and the Constitution. I don't know about you, but I pot doing the right thing above trying to win over a few undecided voters. Also note that the Republicans won the vast majority of independent voters in the last election, so it would seem that there is no need to win them over.
The Constitution wasn't strong enough and over time, it allowed degenerates to stagnate and pervert our country. The Constitution did not embody protections to ensure that the ideology it represents would remain forever dominant. I view a constitution as a document that is set in stone, one that shall last indefinitely.
It is often said that the role of the state is the ultimate question in political philosophy. Many disagree on what this role should be, some argue that government should play as little of a role as possible and respect the fundamental rights of the people. Others view government as an entity which needs to constantly intervene in and control the lives of it's citizens. Which of these is correct? Is there a middle-ground? This is the question we have been struggling to answer since our beginnings.
As I previously mentioned, I believe the American Founding Fathers had started down the right path. However, they did not complete the journey, possibly because they underestimated just how corrupt and perverted we would become. This could have been prevented through provisions ensuring ideological purity.
To ensure ideological purity, we would need to educate the people. The Founders did this in the short-term through the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. However, the Founders did not plan for the long game, they did not enact constitutional provisions to educate future generations. Perhaps they operated under the assumption that America's values and ideas would be passed down throughout the generations, but clearly this did not happen; due to the corruption of man.
The first steps towards ideological purity would be the utilization of educational institutions. These institutions would not only teach sciences and arithmetic, but the principles of the nation as well. In order to become a citizen, individuals would have to serve in the military and swear loyalty to the Constitution and principles of the nation. In addition to performing their military duties, all who serve would be required to regularly study the Constitution and principles of the nation. After earning citizenship, citizens would be free to vote and run for public office. All citizens would be required to keep arms for both defense of the state and defense from the state, should it ever become necessary. Foreigners wishing to immigrate to the nation would have to undergo service and study of both the Constitution and the principles of the nation.
What should happen to those who refuse to serve the state? I imagine that would be a matter of some debate, at first. Though it may sound "harsh," it may very well be necessary to re-educate such individuals. There would be no reason to not become a citizen, however, as the principles of the nation would be non-partisan. They would the universally agreed upon facets of society, ideas such as freedom, republican government, an armed citizenry, (con)federalism and the separation of powers. Citizens would be free to hold any views that they may like and the state would not discriminate against those for voicing such views, be they socialistic or libertarian.
I'm not entirely sure what to think of all that I have typed out above at this point, but I would like to know what you think.
Okay, enough is enough. Troll warning.