Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 03-02-2009, 04:10 PM
Bobby G Bobby G is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 728
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Now, of course I am inclined to believe that the faculty at those universities listed are likely more liberal, as a group, compared to the general population. But I did want to point out that the data harkin gave were, in the abstract, the sort of thing one reaches for to confirm something one already believes, and not really as much of a slam dunk as a first glance might suggest.

And, anyway, my main beef still stands: that most people at Harvard, et al, preferred Obama is not the same as saying they all think alike, which is what Jonah said.
How would you respond to this claim:

"The idea that the faculty at places like Wheaton, Biola, and other conservative Christian colleges are monolithic is silly. After all, many of them have a kenotic interpretation of the Incarnation, some of them are open theists, who think that God doesn't know the future with regard to the free decisions of human beings, some of them think that God is outside of time and changeless, some of them think that the Bible is inspired, but not inerrant, etc.
"Now, of course, on the following beliefs all agree: God exists; Jesus was God; the Bible, in some important sense, can be taken to be God's word; you are not saved except through Christ; and God is triune in nature.
"There's so much more to Christianity than all those beliefs, though, so it's a bit silly to say that all these professors think alike."

I should think you'd say that the variety of difference in opinion among liberal Harvard faculty is vastly greater than the difference of opinion among Wheaton faculty. After all, Wheaton faculty have to sign a pledge before they can take jobs there. Fine, but first, I still think there's loads of stuff Wheaton professors disagree on, but if you don't want to go that route, just take the Christian professors at Notre Dame. There are a few Christian professors who don't think God exists, but very few; most of them do think God exists, is good, is very powerful, etc. Surely there is a very good, important sense in which all Christian ND faculty think alike?
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 03-02-2009, 04:45 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby G View Post
How would you respond to this claim: [...]
By recalling what I said elsewhere, about it being perfectly understandable to me that if one stands far enough off to the Right side, everything on the Left side of the spectrum appears indistinguishable. Replace Right with secular and Left with religious, obvs.

I am not trying to say there is no meaning to a statement S like "the Harvard faculty is generally more liberal than a group of the same size drawn at random from the entire US population." My only two points in this thread (where I haven't allowed myself to get sidetracked, admittedly) have been these: (1) Statement S is not the same thing as saying "all Harvard professors think alike," and (2) Jonah has failed, in this diavlog and in everything else I've ever seen of his, to demonstrate his awareness of (1).

The reason I won't shut up about this is because Jonah won't admit that he's merely a rigidly partisan polemicist who differs from the denizens of Hate Radio only by a few less flecks of spittle and a few more hours spent grubbing through his box of CliffsNotes. If he wants to play a Very Serious, Thoughtful Person on TV, particularly every week or two here, he has to be held to a higher standard of intellectual honesty and rigor.

Call it my windmill for the moment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby G View Post
I should think you'd say that the variety of difference in opinion among liberal Harvard faculty is vastly greater than the difference of opinion among Wheaton faculty.
Assuming I thought before I spoke, I would not say that. I would probably say, "The variety of difference in opinion among liberal Harvard faculty is vastly greater than the difference of opinion among Wheaton faculty, if the only differences among the Wheatonians we care about are their theological ones." This may well be because I am so far removed from believing in the same things about God, Jesus, the Bible, etc., as (I assume) they do. But I would not think that they necessarily shared opinions on all issues, particularly secular ones. For example, even sticking close to their Christian beliefs, I could well imagine polar opposites on questions of the death penalty, funding for Head Start, whether preemptive war is legitimate, and whether you can take Barack Obama at his word that he is a Christian.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby G View Post
Surely there is a very good, important sense in which all Christian ND faculty think alike?
A few pathological cases aside, you stand back far enough, everyone on the planet thinks alike.

I would like the diavloggers on BH.tv to stand a little closer, that's all.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 03-02-2009, 05:05 PM
PaulL PaulL is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 109
Default Will is Anti-authority.

Except if the authority is a survey by five social psychologists.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 03-02-2009, 05:16 PM
Bobby G Bobby G is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 728
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

At this point, I'm getting confused as to what your claim is. Do you seriously think that Jonah Goldberg really thinks that all (or most) Harvard faculty think exactly the same on all (or most) political issues? If that's what you think, then I don't think you're being charitable to Jonah--and by "charitable" I don't mean nice; I mean "reasonably interpreting".

Look, in conversation, people make universal claims; it's just what people tend to do, intellectuals or not. I've known many a philosopher to say Christians aren't smart, and then when confronted by obvious counterexamples, like Barack Obama, they say, "Well, most of them aren't." And that was obviously their point all along. And I'd be silly if I didn't know that. It's only when the argument is about whether the general or the universal claim is true that this question is very important.

As for the perspective by which one evaluates these things, I think you're going too far with that. I'm a pretty fair observer of things, I'd like to think, and I understand the conversational claim that "everyone at Fox News is conservative" to be true. Most people are conservative there, although there are exceptions like Juan Williams and Ellis Hennicken, and even though there are internecine conservative disputes between neo-, meso-, paleo- and libertarian conservatives. It's nonetheless true that Fox News is conservative. I know this, even though I'm a conservative, and so am more sensitive to differences of opinions among conservatives than you.

Plus, I don't see why your claim about perspective doesn't equally cut against your interpretation of the Harvard faculty; I could just as easily say that you're overestimating the difference of opinion within the Harvard faculty because you're liberal.

I think I must be misunderstanding you.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 03-02-2009, 05:27 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby G View Post
At this point, I'm getting confused as to what your claim is. Do you seriously think that Jonah Goldberg really thinks that all (or most) Harvard faculty think exactly the same on all (or most) political issues? If that's what you think, then I don't think you're being charitable to Jonah--and by "charitable" I don't mean nice; I mean "reasonably interpreting".

Look, in conversation, people make universal claims; it's just what people tend to do, intellectuals or not.
I invite you to review Jonah's diavlogs and his writings, and collect all the times he says "liberals this" and "the left that" and "liberalism the other thing." I fully concede people sometimes make "all"-sounding generalizations when they mean "most," in casual conversations, but Jonah is far beyond that, and he does it when he's supposed to be being Very Serious and Thoughtful. Review this diavlog and watch when Peter (finally) calls him on his ridiculously sweeping and shallow assessments, and note how Jonah reacts. Buh-stid.

Quote:
As for the perspective by which one evaluates these things, I think you're going too far with that. I'm a pretty fair observer of things, I'd like to think, and I understand the conversational claim that "everyone at Fox News is conservative" to be true. Most people are conservative there, although there are exceptions like Juan Williams and Ellis Hennicken, and even though there are internecine conservative disputes between neo-, meso-, paleo- and libertarian conservatives. It's nonetheless true that Fox News is conservative. I know this, even though I'm a conservative, and so am more sensitive to differences of opinions among conservatives than you.
If I just wanted to be a polemicist, I would lump them all together. If, however, I were ever to agree to have a serious analytical conversation about Fox News's on-air personalities, and assuming I didn't set myself on fire to get out of what would have had to have been a momentary lapse of sanity, I would be careful to distinguish among their differences when appropriate. Believe it or don't believe it.

[Added: Juan Williams is most definitely a conservative, by my lights.]

Quote:
Plus, I don't see why your claim about perspective doesn't equally cut against your interpretation of the Harvard faculty; I could just as easily say that you're overestimating the difference of opinion within the Harvard faculty because you're liberal.
I think that you, a non-liberal, would agree that the statement "the Harvard faculty all think alike" is at least a gross oversimplification.

Quote:
I think I must be misunderstanding you.
Could be. Or maybe you just don't agree with the way I understand Jonah.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 03-02-2009 at 05:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 03-02-2009, 06:30 PM
Tara Davis Tara Davis is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 193
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate View Post
Only halfway through at the moment, but I am thoroughly enjoying the conversation. This is a terrific matchup. (...and I am of the firm opinion that the "Free Will" name should not be changed; it is catchy.)

On the whole "liberaltarianism" thing; I find the pull from both the left and the right to be an interesting concept in and of itself. (apart from the actual merits of the arguments which themselves are also interesting)

I understand why such ideas are entrenched on both sides (both historically and practically), but I often wish I could visit an alternate universe where most things were exactly the same as ours, but the two major parties (or ideologies or whatever) were defined in a different way, with libertarians in one party and whatever their counterpart ("populists" or something?) on the other side. In other words, have a socially progressive/fiscally conservative party vs. a socially conservative/fiscally progressive party.
You've hit on something.

Libertarians are not a broad coalition, but a small force of people with a few important shared principles. All this talk of "liberaltarian" vs. "paleocon" is never going to get us anywhere. As libertarians, we all *must* be prepared to stand with any coalition from either party, shoulder to shoulder, when they are working towards the cause of liberty, and our their backs just as quickly on recent allies who wish to broaden the size, scope and power of The State.

Liberals ARE our allies when they work towards freedom as a vehicle towards social justice. Conservatives ARE our allies when they work towards free markets. Neither group is when they work counter to these ideals.

We need to focus less on the divide between Western "Goldwater" libertarians (who have been a staple of the GOP ranks since at least the Reagan Years) and the New England (and Iowan) Liberaltarians who helped elect Obama, and instead pay much more attention to the important concepts which unite us.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 03-02-2009, 06:45 PM
JoeK
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tara Davis View Post
New England (and Iowan) Liberaltarians who helped elect Obama, and instead pay much more attention to the important concepts which unite us.
People who couldn't even support Ron Paul because of bogus claims of racism.

Libertarians don't exist: there are only small-government conservatives and there are their enemies - liberals.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 03-02-2009, 07:01 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeK View Post
People who couldn't even support Ron Paul because of bogus claims of racism.

Libertarians don't exist: there are only small-government conservatives and there are their enemies - liberals.
Congratulations Joe! Not many people have the talent to befriend nearly everybody here while simultaneously solving all of our pesky problems with political nomenclature! Thanks man, we appreciate it.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 03-02-2009, 07:05 PM
bkjazfan bkjazfan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Los Angeles, Ca.
Posts: 1,192
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Ron Paul seems to be getting more airtime now than when he ran for president. I wonder why? It could have something to do with his anti-Keynesian/Stimulus/Bailout Blues views. Wake me when the highly touted Stimulus starts to stimulate something other than talk and the Northern Virginia/government employment.

John

Last edited by bkjazfan; 03-02-2009 at 07:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 03-02-2009, 07:16 PM
JoeK
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Congratulations Joe! Not many people have the talent to befriend nearly everybody here while simultaneously solving all of our pesky problems with political nomenclature! Thanks man, we appreciate it.
It wasn't directed toward Tara personally. I do respect her a lot and think she is the smartest commenter here.
My blood just boils when I recall how bhtv libertarians acted in the campaign.
bhtv libertarians are: McArdle, Wellch, that silly silent-dancer with Mexican name who got arrested for his idiotic silent dancing in public, and of course our happily-ever-after couple of the how-to-do-top-down-social-engineering-libertarian-style kind.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 03-02-2009, 07:30 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkjazfan View Post
Ron Paul seems to be getting more airtime now than when he ran for president. I wonder why?
Because the GOP leadership still thought they still had something going on in spring 2008, and then after nominating Sarah Palin to run for VP, appointing "Joe" the "Plumber" as Spokesman-in-Chief, and realizing 98% of their guys in Congress believe they have to ask Rush Limbaugh for permission to pee, they finally decided, hey, what do we have to lose?
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 03-02-2009, 07:42 PM
bkjazfan bkjazfan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Los Angeles, Ca.
Posts: 1,192
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Who is the silly dancer? I got the others but am stumped with this one.

John
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 03-02-2009, 07:55 PM
JoeK
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkjazfan View Post
Who is the silly dancer? I got the others but am stumped with this one.

John
Julian Sanchez, here is the link: http://www.juliansanchez.com/2008/04/12/hijinks-ensue/

Now I am not sure if he danced himself or just thought it was a big deal they got arrested and wrote about it, which is equally stupid.

But that's not the point. I am pretty sure he was very vocal in attacking Paul in the midst of the campaign.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 03-02-2009, 07:59 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeK View Post
Julian Sanchez, here is the link: http://www.juliansanchez.com/2008/04/12/hijinks-ensue/

Now I am not sure if he danced himself or just thought it was a big deal they got arrested and wrote about it, which is equally stupid.

But that's not the point. I am pretty sure he was very vocal in attacking Paul in the midst of the campaign.
You're a conservative who thinks that making a big deal about peaceful people breaking no laws getting arrested is "stupid?"
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 03-02-2009, 08:11 PM
JoeK
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
You're a conservative who thinks that making a big deal about peaceful people breaking no laws getting arrested is "stupid?"
You are boring.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 03-02-2009, 08:18 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeK View Post
You are boring.
Aw jeeze, Joe. I thought we were pals!
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 03-02-2009, 08:39 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeK View Post
You are boring.
Worst. Comeback. Ever.

Someone take JoKe's keyboard away from him before he hurts himself.

==========

(Stand by for harkin to pounce with "AHA! HE'S CALLING FOR BANNING AGAIN!!!1!" in 5... 4... 3...)
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 03-02-2009, 10:11 PM
blofeld42 blofeld42 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 43
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by pampl View Post
They haven't, though, and you'd have to be a sucker to think otherwise. That's the problem. Goldberg is either being a sucker or playing off them.
Um, excuse me, that's the prior FOUR democratic party presidential candidates that advocate the fairness doctrine: Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. Plus the speaker of the house, plus the senate majority whip, plus a host of bigfoot senators, plus various planks in the Democratic part platform over the years, plus lots of "progressive" activists.

At what point does it become legitimate to point out that lots of important Democrats support the fairness doctrine? Just wondering.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 03-02-2009, 10:15 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by blofeld42 View Post
Um, excuse me, that's the prior FOUR democratic party presidential candidates that advocate the fairness doctrine: Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. Plus the speaker of the house, plus the senate majority whip, plus a host of bigfoot senators, plus various planks in the Democratic part platform over the years, plus lots of "progressive" activists.

At what point does it become legitimate to point out that lots of important Democrats support the fairness doctrine? Just wondering.
Or, conversely, how long does a non-issue need to not acted on before it ceases to be an effective partisan pi鎙ta?
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 03-02-2009, 10:15 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
bhtv libertarians are: McArdle, Wellch, that silly silent-dancer with Mexican name who got arrested for his idiotic silent dancing in public,....
WTF is a "Mexican name?"
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y s璲uela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 03-02-2009, 10:17 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
WTF is a "Mexican name?"
Obviously: "Julian."
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 03-02-2009, 10:31 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
WTF is a "Mexican name?"
Obviously: "Julian."
You owe me a new keyboard and a fresh mouthful of coffee.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 03-02-2009, 10:46 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
.... and realizing 98% of their guys in Congress believe they have to ask Rush Limbaugh for permission to pee ...
And speaking of the ever-diminishing testicular fortitude of every Republican official in the nation, here is your brave new Chairman of the RNC!!!

Saturday 28 February 2009:

Quote:
Steele: Rush Isn't The GOP's Leader -- He's An Entertainer

Check out this interview Michael Steele did Saturday night with D.L. Hughley on CNN, in the wake of Rush Limbaugh's speech at CPAC proudly proclaiming that he wants President Obama to fail.

Finding himself in unfriendly territory, Steele said that Rush is not the leader of the Republican Party -- Steele is:

[video at link]

"Let's put it in the context here," said Steele. "Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment."

"Yes, it's incendiary," Steele added. "Yes, it's ugly."
Monday 2 March 2009:

Quote:
Steele Apologizes To Limbaugh, Praises His Leadership

In the new game of chicken between Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh, the loser is...Michael Steele, who now says he never meant to diminish the voice and leadership of Limbaugh.

In an interview with the Politico, Steele said: "My intent was not to go after Rush - I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh. I was maybe a little bit inarticulate...There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership."

[...]

"I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren't what I was thinking," said Steele. "It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently."
If the GOP can't stand up to Rush Limbaugh, how will they ever stand up to the turrurists???
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 03-02-2009, 11:09 PM
JoeK
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
And speaking of the ever-diminishing testicular fortitude of every Republican official in the nation, here is your brave new Chairman of the RNC!!!

Saturday 28 February 2009:



Monday 2 March 2009:



If the GOP can't stand up to Rush Limbaugh, how will they ever stand up to the turrurists???
Steele should resign. To call what Rush does "ugly" is inexcusable. You can say Rush is fat, but not that he is ugly. Rush Limbaugh is a beautiful human being and Steele should have known better. Now, he should apologize once more and then resign. Its enough to have one prominent political figure who gives blacks a bad name. We dont need another one.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 03-02-2009, 11:09 PM
blofeld42 blofeld42 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 43
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Or, conversely, how long does a non-issue need to not acted on before it ceases to be an effective partisan pi鎙ta?
Who says it's a non-issue? There are all these important democrats supporting it. It routinely crops up as a party platform plank, either at the national level or the state level. "Progressives" on the hustings demand it.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 03-02-2009, 11:10 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
[...]
Rush should be proud. Republican pathos is directly proportional to the size of his ego, at this point. It's a sad thing.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 03-02-2009, 11:21 PM
blofeld42 blofeld42 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 43
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Fun coincidence department: Gavin M. begins a long essay on, among other things, conservative fake grass-roots movements,* thus:
Sadly, no. Playboy and TPM have taken down the posts that allege the Konservative Konspiracy, likely lest they run afoul of libel law.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...pmhcs.asp?pg=1 for some actual reporting, rather than speculation.


Quote:
If you visit the Ole Perfesser's post and vote (or view results), you can see the comments ... and probably why conservatives don't like to enable them.
I read the first page of comments. They're all either sophomoric sexual puns and stupid or just stupid. The second page was no better. If that's your argument for allowing comments at instapundit, you don't really have an argument.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 03-02-2009, 11:22 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by blofeld42 View Post
Who says it's a non-issue? There are all these important democrats supporting it. It routinely crops up as a party platform plank, either at the national level or the state level. "Progressives" on the hustings demand it.
Man, are you still yammering on about this?

Well, believe what you want, but it is my considered opinion that the Dems you so fretfully quote have pwned you.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 03-02-2009, 11:25 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by blofeld42 View Post
Who says it's a non-issue? There are all these important democrats supporting it. It routinely crops up as a party platform plank, either at the national level or the state level. "Progressives" on the hustings demand it.
You mentioned names going to Dukakis, right? That's twenty years of nothing happening, during forty-percent of which there was a Democratic President, four or five years of a Democratic Congress, and more years with a mixed Congress. That's what says it's a non-issue. Show me the legislation on a track to an actual vote. Or show me some discernible movement in that direction. Then it will be an issue.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 03-02-2009, 11:26 PM
pampl pampl is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 750
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by blofeld42 View Post
Um, excuse me, that's the prior FOUR democratic party presidential candidates that advocate the fairness doctrine: Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. Plus the speaker of the house, plus the senate majority whip, plus a host of bigfoot senators, plus various planks in the Democratic part platform over the years, plus lots of "progressive" activists.

At what point does it become legitimate to point out that lots of important Democrats support the fairness doctrine? Just wondering.
Only one of the quotes was actual support. The rest were the vaguely related nonsense of any conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories about Diebold or accusations that the right is waging a war on Islam have vastly better reservoirs of out-of-context quotes and slightly less lack of perspective and ignorance of the political process. If Goldberg wants to spend his time talking at that level then he should partner himself with the kinds of people who believe in that stuff.

The point it becomes legitimate to point out that lots of important Democrats support it is the point when it's actually true. This would probably not be the day after over 80% of Senate Democrats banned the possibility of even raising the issue.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 03-02-2009, 11:38 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by blofeld42 View Post
Sadly, no. Playboy and TPM have taken down the posts that allege the Konservative Konspiracy, likely lest they run afoul of libel law.
Points to you on this one.*

Quote:
I read the first page of comments. They're all either sophomoric sexual puns and stupid or just stupid. The second page was no better. If that's your argument for allowing comments at instapundit, you don't really have an argument.
And this one.

==========

* [Added] And Lameness Awards for both of those sites for just taking the posts down, and not putting explanations at the same URL.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 03-02-2009, 11:42 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeK View Post
Steele should resign. To call what Rush does "ugly" is inexcusable. You can say Rush is fat, but not that he is ugly. Rush Limbaugh is a beautiful human being and Steele should have known better. Now, he should apologize once more and then resign. Its enough to have one prominent political figure who gives blacks a bad name. We dont need another one.
By "we don't need," I presume you're talking about Alan Keyes.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 03-02-2009, 11:56 PM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

So:

Man uses "Goddamn America" analogy in a sermon (referring to a passage from the Bible, of all places) and he is demonized, and he anyone who went to his church has their Patriotism questioned.

But the biggest radio personality in the country and figurehead of the GOP wishes that the stimulus package will fail, while nearly 4 Million of us are out of work, but that's not even "ugly" let alone un-patriotic.

Interesting set of standards.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 03-03-2009, 12:22 AM
brucds brucds is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 940
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

"Joe K" - one more drooling moron giving white people a bad name. What else is new ?
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 03-03-2009, 12:26 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeK View Post
Steele should resign. To call what Rush does "ugly" is inexcusable. You can say Rush is fat, but not that he is ugly. Rush Limbaugh is a beautiful human being and Steele should have known better. Now, he should apologize once more and then resign.
(We'll need the above for reference later on.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Rush should be proud. Republican pathos is directly proportional to the size of his ego, at this point. It's a sad thing.
Indeed.

On a related note, here's some interesting thinking from Steve M. at No More Mr. Nice Blog (written before Steele's weenie-ing out episode):

Quote:
I'm not going to get too excited about the anti-Limbaugh apostasies of Michael Steele and Eric Cantor. This moment is probably just going to follow the pattern we recall from the period after John McCain won the nomination last year: movement conservatives are going to howl at the notion that someone who deviates from Correct Thinking is besmirching the Republican name, there'll be talk of mass defections from the party ... and then everyone's going to remember how unspeakably evil we Democrats and liberals are and they're all going to join hands and sing "Kumbaya." The apostates are probably also going to start parroting Correct Thinking soon, just as McCain did, possibly even overdoing it a bit in order to win back alienated rank-and-file wingnuts, just as McCain did with the Palin pick and the McCarthyite fall campaign. This will make the reconciliation go down more easily.

But there will be long-term fallout. Bitterness will linger in the background. The heresy of Steele and Cantor reduces by two the number of people the crazy base will hereafter regard as truly "pure" -- which means that no matter how extreme Cantor and Steele are in the future in their wingnuttiness, any failure on their part (say, a loss of seats by Steele's party in the 2010 midterms) will be explained away as the failure of the impure, not as the failure of mainstream Republican/conservative thinking. The crazy base will simply deny that conservatives were rejected at the polls, because now, whenever it's convenient, Cantor and Steele can be dismissed as not "real" conservatives. It doesn't matter that they're classic wingnuts in 99.99999% of what they say and do -- one drop of impurity will be enough to make them suspect.
If JoeK is any measure, I'd say Steve understands that branch of the GOP pretty well.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 03-03-2009, 01:17 AM
blofeld42 blofeld42 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 43
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by pampl View Post
Only one of the quotes was actual support. The rest were the vaguely related nonsense of any conspiracy theory.
Sigh. I hate engage in postmortem equine corporal punishment, but I feel I must in the face of such skepticism.

1. Pelosi.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/pelosi...ness-doctrine/
Quote:
Talk radios suspicions of a movement to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine were confirmed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Tuesday June 24 during her comments at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast. When John Gizzi, an editor for Human Events asked Speaker Pelosi whether she favored a return of the Fairness Doctrine, she told him an unhesitating yes, reports Gizzi.

Moreover, when Gizzi asked if she supports the Broadcaster Freedom Act, She added that the interest in my caucus is the reverse and that New York Democratic Rep. Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now, he writes.

Representative Slaughter (D-NY) introduced the 2004 MEDIA Act to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and reintroduced it in 2005 as the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act.
(the Boradcaster Freedom Act would have prohibited the Fairness Doctrine from coming back.)

2. John Kerry. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art..._Reimposed.php
Quote:
Senator John Kerry is calling for reimposition of the fairness doctrine.

In a radio interview on WNYC's The Brian Lehrer Show, excerpted on YouTube, Senator Kerry said he thought the doctrine should return. Calling it one of the "most profound changes in the balance of the media," he said conservatives have been able to "squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views. I think it has been a very important transition in the imbalance of our public dialog," he said.
3. Al Gore: http://media.nationalreview.com/post...c3YzAzMTRjYzM=
Quote:
GORE: And the first concerns among defenders of democracy arose with radio. And that's why the equal time provision and the Fairness Doctrine and the public interest standard were put in place here. Those protections were almost completely removed during President Reagan's term.
Bill Clinton: http://www.politico.com/blogs/michae..._airwaves.html
Quote:
"Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side," Clinton said, "because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows and let face it, you know, Rush Limbaugh is fairly entertaining even when he is saying things that I think are ridiculous...."

Clinton said that there needs to be either "more balance in the programs or have some opportunity for people to offer countervailing opinions." Clinton added that he didn't support repealing the Fairness Doctrine, an act done under Reagan's FCC.

In the past week, a couple Democratic Senators, Debbie Stabenow and Tom Harkin, have both spoken favorably about the Fairness Doctrine, or holding hearings on radio accountability.
Dukakis: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8067496.html
Quote:
Presidential candidate Michael S. Dukakis said yesterday he supports reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine that was repealed by the Federal Communications Commission last year.
Dick Durbin, Senate majority whip:http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-06-27.html
Quote:
Its time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).
Feinstein, Kuchinich: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...ne_Revival.php

Harkin: http://www.politico.com/blogs/michae...ine_back_.html

Senator Bingaman: http://www.infowars.com/democrat-bin...ness-doctrine/
Quote:
A prominent liberal Democratic senator, while being interviewed on a conservative talk radio station Tuesday, said he hopes a new administration and Congress will re-impose the Fairness Doctrine on radio and TV broadcasters.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) told radio station 770 AM KKOB in Albuquerque, N.M., that he didnt know if Democrats in Congress will try to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine next year but he would certainly like them to.
Democratic party national platform, 2000: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29612
Quote:
Democrats call for the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine by the Federal Communications Commission.
I can continue down the food chain of various congressmen and "progressive" groups if you like. I apologize for going on at length, but you quite literally asked for it.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 03-03-2009, 01:54 AM
JoeK
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
(We'll need the above for reference later on.)



Indeed.

On a related note, here's some interesting thinking from Steve M. at No More Mr. Nice Blog (written before Steele's weenie-ing out episode):



If JoeK is any measure, I'd say Steve understands that branch of the GOP pretty well.
So, what do you actually predict I am going to do. I don't get it.

But, let me make one analytical point that is about the Limbaugh's speech and is at the same time even pertinent to a discussion on the so called liberalterianism, which was supposedly the reason why we all gathered together in the first place.
If you pay attention to what Limbaugh was saying in his speech on Saturday -- and I hope all of you listened to the speech carefully at least twice -- you will notice how Rush describes conservatism as almost exclusively pro free-market capitalism and pro individual liberty kind of ideology. He leaves other two pillars of the movement -- social conservatism and militaristic (aka strong) foreign policy -- completely out of the picture.
It is true that when quoting Jefferson he makes a pause after saying "Life,..", which was, observably, by those in the audience understood as a reference to the anti-abortion agenda (thats what you liberals call whistle blow, right?), but he never mentions pro-life program again.
It appears that where Rush wants to lead the party is strongly toward small-government conservatism and away from emphasizing conservative social issues. More than that, I would say, Rush is making a sharp turn toward libertarianism and since we are talking about downplaying traditional social values -- toward liberalterianism. Apparently, for that move Limbaugh is finding a strong support among the party activist.
So one of these days Will Wilkinson will have surely announced his recent registration with Republican Party, unless, of course, cultural snobbery prevents him from doing it.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 03-03-2009, 02:39 AM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Alright, I listened to the whole thing.

1) Wilkinson on Canada was surprising and reasonable.
2) I'm more or less a standard-issue liberal, but I come to my liberalism by pretty much the same paradigm that Wilkinson is now working in. I wonder where it'll take him.
3) I'm a fan of Haidt and I think Wilkinson's angle of attack on him is really interesting.
4) I'd probably buy Wilkinson's book.
5) I decided to stop paying attention to libertarians recently (because they're really a bunch of glib utopian wind-up artists), but Wilkinson has gotten more interesting at the same time. Therefore, I must conclude he is no longer a libertarian.
6) I listened to the podcast, so I can't be sure, but I'm pretty sure I could hear Wilkinson rolling his eyes at Goldberg.

Last edited by claymisher; 03-03-2009 at 01:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 03-03-2009, 06:08 AM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeK View Post
So, what do you actually predict I am going to do. I don't get it.

But, let me make one analytical point that is about the Limbaugh's speech and is at the same time even pertinent to a discussion on the so called liberalterianism, which was supposedly the reason why we all gathered together in the first place.
If you pay attention to what Limbaugh was saying in his speech on Saturday -- and I hope all of you listened to the speech carefully at least twice -- you will notice how Rush describes conservatism as almost exclusively pro free-market capitalism and pro individual liberty kind of ideology. He leaves other two pillars of the movement -- social conservatism and militaristic (aka strong) foreign policy -- completely out of the picture.
It is true that when quoting Jefferson he makes a pause after saying "Life,..", which was, observably, by those in the audience understood as a reference to the anti-abortion agenda (thats what you liberals call whistle blow, right?), but he never mentions pro-life program again.
It appears that where Rush wants to lead the party is strongly toward small-government conservatism and away from emphasizing conservative social issues. More than that, I would say, Rush is making a sharp turn toward libertarianism and since we are talking about downplaying traditional social values -- toward liberalterianism. Apparently, for that move Limbaugh is finding a strong support among the party activist.
So one of these days Will Wilkinson will have surely announced his recent registration with Republican Party, unless, of course, cultural snobbery prevents him from doing it.
The prediction is that you will exhibit behavior not unlike a very large number of fellow travelers (hereinafter known as a "mob", or alternatively, the "base.") The base will, as conservatives are wont to do, find that those whom Rush has castigated (to be known as "apostates," or colloquially as "scapegoats") are impure, and therefore suitable for blame for any and all failings of the party for the foreseeable, medium term, future.

Rush will, of course, continue to serve up red meat, and continue to show the back of his hand to those who dare disagree (thus providing a constant supply of "apostates," and "scapegoats." The party will continue to be weakened, with a great deal of inertia attached to any non-Rush Limbaugh approved thought expressed publicly via the disapproval of base.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!

Last edited by AemJeff; 03-03-2009 at 06:17 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 03-03-2009, 06:54 AM
a Duoist a Duoist is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 108
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

An interesting discussion, where Mr. Goldberg has a much better grasp of the religiosity of ideology than Mr. Wilkinson does, even though political theory is Mr. Wilkinson's strong suit.

From their discussion, I believe 'liberaltarianism' is essentially an attempt by atheist libertarians to make another secular ideology (civil religion) out of libertarian philosophy. Ooops. Once again, the libertarians reveal themselves to be hopelessy confused.

Libertarianism is a philosophy about devolving power. Therefore, as an ideology about acquiring power it contains its suicidal, internal contradiction.
Mr. Wilkinson might want to consider the unintended results of imitating proselytizing priests in his call for a new think tank to promote his liberaltarian ideo/theology.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.