Your political views?

I assume you've followed the Dartmouth board alumni controversy, then.

Remember 'Indoctrinate U'? Cruise around Evan Coyne Maloney's blog.

And that you've ignored Ben Stein's craptastic movie.. would be good to reference against, for credibility, though.

Are you following the Canadian HRC Show Trials? That's the most depressing thing in our society today.

Google Mark Steyn


On the other side:

The Myth of Political Correctness: The Conservative Attack on Higher Education

 

Steve, that's an interesting topic. Here are a few links to articles.

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.2 ... detail.asp

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/1 ... on-campus/

http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-the- ... -2790.html

 

Thanks for the help all, as this paper will be front and center for my weekend plans :x :?

And I though I was done w/ all this nonsense when I graduated a long time ago.

Don, your point number 2 is entirely off base.

NeoCon philosophy is so self-contradicting and illogical, that it's best appreciated if you don't have an inquiring mind nor a college education.

I root my conservative thought in Jeffersonian ideals that go back to Edward Burke, the Magna Carta, and more. Any political philosophy course will cover these men in detail. I will be doing my part to promote conservative thought in my classrooms to my young students as they will be exposed to more than enough liberal thought in their curriculum.

Inquiring mind or college education? I beg to differ. And I'll bet a copy of the Wealth of Nations on my point.

Also, I like the politically correct movement -- it is proof that I haved lived long enough for the left to have ceded the freedom of speech issue to those of us on the right side of the spectrum. Thank you Berkeley, Boulder, and the like.

 

Don, I have to take exception to point number two, also. The hate and scorn is coming from you when you basically claim that conservatives are intellectually inferior. If that isnt intolerant thinking I dont know what is. I'm not surprised though because I hear it everyday where I live - a very liberal suburb of Cleveland with Obama signs as far as the eye can see. I learned long ago not to discuss anything other than liberal ideas with my friends because of the reception any other type of thought received. Always wondered how it is liberal not to be capable of listening to other points of view, other ideas, or to stop challenging your ideals.

I also always wondered why they cant extend the same tolerance and understanding of Muslim groups who oppress women to the "crazy right-wing Christians" right here in their own country.

 

Fixed your post.

DENY IT !!!!

 

Let's examine the Dem Congress... what they said they'd do {remember the '100 days'?} and what they did?

Let's look at how they would fix energy costs, and who they blame for the price of gas. Just like you, without presenting a shred of evidence.

 

It would appear the "con" in neo-con is confusing the issue. Of course you're not helping matters by flipping back and forth between using neo-con and "right" when firing your little barbs. While most conservatives probably don't consider themselves neo-cons (I hope not, at least), they damned sure consider themselves "on the right". That's probably why people are taking things you write personally when it doesn't really apply to them.

 

No, I've got a pretty good idea where you're coming from and know who you were referring to. I only brought it up b/c I'd gathered you don't believe Mo and Steve hold neo-con beliefs, and weren't referring to them, yet you found yourself in the position of having to explain yourself.

As for Fog, that's your tango, Bubba. I reckon I've got that one pegged as well. Will find out for sure over that beer. :wink:

Oh, and for the record....I can't stand Bush for the exact reasons you mentioned, don't trust McCain to be much better, but find the alternative even less attractive. Especially with a dem stranglehold on the Legislature. I'm not a fan of letting either party run full bore.

Come to think of it, I'm not a fan of either party these days...

 

While I was using the links provided in this thread to find sources for this paper (thanks Mo and Fog) I happened to notice Don's reference to Seig Heil Barbie. The funny thing was that when I first read it I apparently was having a dain bramaged moment -- I had no idea who he meant!

Now that I figured out who that is, her name still isn't worthy of mention.

Oh, and the paper is coming along slowly but steadily.

 

I read the the Wall Street Journal Op-ed's but not as much as I read the New York Times Op-ed's. I listen to Limbaugh or Hannity occasionally and watch O'riley more frequently but not as often as I watch Olberman. And of course I read p-fog and his endless righty blogs all the time, that must count for something!

As far as books are concerned I've been staying away from the flavor of the moment political books and reading novels instead. Can't say I've taken in any classic political theory as of yet.

So I take in both sides but more of mine than the other. I suspect thats the case for most people who bother to take in anything at all (that I'm afraid is a minority in itself though).

 

That goes both ways.

It seems the majority simply go with the flow and struggle to justify it under scrutiny while those that do hold opposite opinions, more of them than you think sometimes, don't push them when its clear there not in a friendly environment.

 

Which, I guess, is why I'm a Neocon.... for lack of better definition. I scorn the idiots on both sides, {note Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are paleo-cons} and they scorn me.

 

So let's get back to the original subject and original poster.

Having my own ideas on what Anarchy entails, somehow I neglected to referencethe wiki on it

There's a lot of interesting background there on anarchic societies, but little mention on how rare practicing anarchy is in any modern society.
I note that back in 1651 this truth AND a misstatement was made:

Indeed he rightly states that man, without rule of law, is subject to whatever lusts drive him. But he says that Amerindians were under this state of Anarchy. Which we now know to be, in large part, incorrect.

So, considering we have seen in recent posts that FFC24 sees no need for private automobiles, he gets along nicely taking the bus; nor Credit Cards, cash works just fine we have to assume that anyone in his circle of anarchy would feel the same.
But what if they dont? Who gets to decide if private transportation is allowable? And what .. are bicycles allowed? OR do we agree that no motorized vehicle will be privately owned? Does the anarchic collective own the bicycle? Who gets to decide who uses it? What if someone hogs it?
What about farmers?
Or does everyone work the collective? So who invents the tractor.. or is it invented at all, considering an ox can pull the plow. But wait... what benefit did the guy who invented the plow get or who learned how to make an ox pull it? You can turn ground with a stick. But why grow stuff at all? It grows free in nature.
And who gets to decide who eats what?

Further... suppose that there was arranged a Convention of Modern Anarchists somewhere in the South Pacific and a plane chartered to get there. On board are nothing but anarchists.

The plane is for some reason forced down and the whole bunch ends up on an uncharted desert island.. like "Lost".

So now we have 100 anarchists marooned on a hospitable land and with a chance to build their dream society. We assume there are, among them, woodmen, survivalists and former boy scouts who know how to make stuff out of nothing. But also many accountants and lawyers.

Oh... there's 60 males and 40 females.

Will we have that 'anarchic society'.. everyone 'doing their own thing' and all?

I
Dont
Think
So
- - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -
{aside}
How can anyone imply that Limbaugh and Hannity are interchangable? I'm not talking about their political views, they mostly are. I'm speaking of the subjects and verbiage used on their respective programs. Hannity is pre-school conservatism and endless repeating of conservative talking points. You cant tell if you're listening to a current day program or one from 18 months previous.
The ONLY reason for listening to Hannity for anyone who listens to Rush are his interviews with pols and strategists. it's what they have to say that's interesting, not Hannity.