Glenn Beck is a [insert favorite insulting term here]
26 06 08 13:18 by vagrant
Glenn Beck has an article on how he could simply not vote for Obama, but maybe McCain. Certainly more of the "Oh, I am an independent, not a Republican" facade position that he and others of his ilk (Rush, Hannity) like to portray. Drivel mostly, but he felt compelled to include a list of what 'a conservative believes' items. Lets go through them, shall we?
A conservative believes that our inalienable rights do not include housing, health care or Hummers.
And of course all our lives are improved by homeless, sick people laying about on the pavement (when they are not mugging us and taking our stuff). We are a society, its how we have gotten us to where we are. If not we would still be huddled near our huts throwing rocks at anyone else who came near. And part of the societal contract is that we need to take care of some of the less fortunate people. Not that we can't also have expectations for those less fortunate to try to improve their lot, but we can't just cut them loose. And I cannot fathom where this mindset comes from. Have all the conservatives who float this managed to delude themselves that they were left in the woods as infants and managed to survive solely by their own force of will?
A conservative believes that our inalienable rights DO include the pursuit of happiness. That means it is guaranteed to no one.
And who is this arguing against? Is there someone saying that everyone must be guaranteed happiness? It would be good for us as a society if we can keep everyone at least a little happy though wouldn't it? Of course that might require a compromise for the good of the whole and we can't have that now can we?
A conservative believes that those who pursue happiness and find it have a right to not be penalized for that success.
Penalized how? You are talking about taxes and wealth here aren't you, Glenn? Can't really think of a case of someone being penalized for coming to a deep sense of satisfaction about their life. Taxes are the price of admission to a civil society. They maintain the "commons" for us all be it government, resources, etc. And quite often those who find success (wealth) use a larger share of the commons. So isn't it fair that they put in their share?
A conservative believes that there are no protections against the hardship and heartache of failure. We believe that the right to fail is just as important as the chance to succeed and that those who do fail learn essential lessons that will help them the next time around.
So again the societal contract is meaningless? Why did we group together in the first place? We work better that way. Sure if you do something stupid, you should have to deal with the consequences. But things like illness can bring hardship. So just because capricious chance (or your ever and all loving god) visits some horror upon a unlucky schmuck, we should stand back and do nothing? So even after your botched surgery on your head..er..ass, you should have been cut loose. And you called for reform in health care. Free market alone going to do that for you, Glenn? Guess again.
A conservative believes in personal responsibility and accepts the consequences for his or her words and actions.
I actually have no disagreement with this one. It make me feel kind of dirty though being in full agreement with Glenn Beck on anything. Ewwwww.
A conservative believes that real compassion can't be found in any government program.
Compassion isn't the point. We don't pay taxes for hugs. We pay them for reasons like roads, safety, expertise, and the economy of scale. Government is there to do the things we cannot as individuals.
A conservative believes that each of us has a duty to take care of our neighbors. It was private individuals, companies and congregations that sent water, blankets and supplies to New Orleans far before the government ever set foot there.
Wait, what about rugged individualism? And it was incompetence that fucked up Katrina, Beck. You know why there hasn't been the outcry with the recent Midwest flood? FEMA was there beforehand, the Corp was there beforehand and both are there now. Shoring levees, providing aid and shelter, and doing their jobs which we pay for with our taxes. That didn't happen in New Orleans. Open your fucking eyes.
A conservative believes that family is the cornerstone of our society and that people have a right to manage their family any way they see fit, so long as it's not criminal. We are far more attuned to our family's needs than some faceless, soulless government program.
Yep. Our families are our responsibility. And we should look to ourselves first for solutions. But what if I am incompetent as a parent? What if I fall ill. My innocent children should just suffer? Come say that to my face. Look me in the eye and say it.
A conservative believes that people have a right to worship the God of their understanding. We also believe that people do not have the right to jam their version of God (or no God) down anybody else's throat.
They why do they seem so hell bent to do it? It is not the left claiming that this is a Xian nation. It is not the left saying that atheists like me should not even be considered citizens. You are talking crap here, Mr. Beck. And importantly, most everybody I encounter doesn't want to prevent you from worshiping what ever, how ever, and/or whom ever you choose. It is when you try to turn religion from a personal thing to control thing that we have problems.
A conservative believes that people go to the movies to be entertained and to church to be preached to, not the other way around.
So movies need to be vapid and empty of social import? They cannot try to illuminate wrongs or injustices nor educate?
A conservative believes that debt creates unhealthy relationships. Everyone, from the government on down, should live within their means and strive for financial independence.
Yep, but how come we never see it in practice? Two major leaders of conservatism Reagan and Bush the lesser have almost bankrupted this country. So just who are you talking to?
A conservative believes that a child's education is the responsibility of the parents, not the government.
And parents as a group decided to cede that to government due to resources and economy of scale.
A conservative believes that every human being has a right to life, from conception to death.
Better find wombs for all those products of in vitro, Glenn.
A conservative believes in the smallest government you can get without anarchy. We know our history: The larger a government gets, the harder it will fall.
Small does not equate to efficient and/or effective. And "without anarchy" doesn't mean peace. It means just short of anarchy. Is that really what you want? Just enough government to keep complete chaos from erupting?
Glenn, you don't make a hell of a lot of sense. Your beliefs are self contradictory is some places, woefully and deluded in others. Some much of it seems driven from simple greed. A complete unwillingness to accept a compromise for the good of all if that comprise requires even the slightest sacrifice from you. It is petty, small, and sad.
A conservative believes that our inalienable rights do not include housing, health care or Hummers.
And of course all our lives are improved by homeless, sick people laying about on the pavement (when they are not mugging us and taking our stuff). We are a society, its how we have gotten us to where we are. If not we would still be huddled near our huts throwing rocks at anyone else who came near. And part of the societal contract is that we need to take care of some of the less fortunate people. Not that we can't also have expectations for those less fortunate to try to improve their lot, but we can't just cut them loose. And I cannot fathom where this mindset comes from. Have all the conservatives who float this managed to delude themselves that they were left in the woods as infants and managed to survive solely by their own force of will?
A conservative believes that our inalienable rights DO include the pursuit of happiness. That means it is guaranteed to no one.
And who is this arguing against? Is there someone saying that everyone must be guaranteed happiness? It would be good for us as a society if we can keep everyone at least a little happy though wouldn't it? Of course that might require a compromise for the good of the whole and we can't have that now can we?
A conservative believes that those who pursue happiness and find it have a right to not be penalized for that success.
Penalized how? You are talking about taxes and wealth here aren't you, Glenn? Can't really think of a case of someone being penalized for coming to a deep sense of satisfaction about their life. Taxes are the price of admission to a civil society. They maintain the "commons" for us all be it government, resources, etc. And quite often those who find success (wealth) use a larger share of the commons. So isn't it fair that they put in their share?
A conservative believes that there are no protections against the hardship and heartache of failure. We believe that the right to fail is just as important as the chance to succeed and that those who do fail learn essential lessons that will help them the next time around.
So again the societal contract is meaningless? Why did we group together in the first place? We work better that way. Sure if you do something stupid, you should have to deal with the consequences. But things like illness can bring hardship. So just because capricious chance (or your ever and all loving god) visits some horror upon a unlucky schmuck, we should stand back and do nothing? So even after your botched surgery on your head..er..ass, you should have been cut loose. And you called for reform in health care. Free market alone going to do that for you, Glenn? Guess again.
A conservative believes in personal responsibility and accepts the consequences for his or her words and actions.
I actually have no disagreement with this one. It make me feel kind of dirty though being in full agreement with Glenn Beck on anything. Ewwwww.
A conservative believes that real compassion can't be found in any government program.
Compassion isn't the point. We don't pay taxes for hugs. We pay them for reasons like roads, safety, expertise, and the economy of scale. Government is there to do the things we cannot as individuals.
A conservative believes that each of us has a duty to take care of our neighbors. It was private individuals, companies and congregations that sent water, blankets and supplies to New Orleans far before the government ever set foot there.
Wait, what about rugged individualism? And it was incompetence that fucked up Katrina, Beck. You know why there hasn't been the outcry with the recent Midwest flood? FEMA was there beforehand, the Corp was there beforehand and both are there now. Shoring levees, providing aid and shelter, and doing their jobs which we pay for with our taxes. That didn't happen in New Orleans. Open your fucking eyes.
A conservative believes that family is the cornerstone of our society and that people have a right to manage their family any way they see fit, so long as it's not criminal. We are far more attuned to our family's needs than some faceless, soulless government program.
Yep. Our families are our responsibility. And we should look to ourselves first for solutions. But what if I am incompetent as a parent? What if I fall ill. My innocent children should just suffer? Come say that to my face. Look me in the eye and say it.
A conservative believes that people have a right to worship the God of their understanding. We also believe that people do not have the right to jam their version of God (or no God) down anybody else's throat.
They why do they seem so hell bent to do it? It is not the left claiming that this is a Xian nation. It is not the left saying that atheists like me should not even be considered citizens. You are talking crap here, Mr. Beck. And importantly, most everybody I encounter doesn't want to prevent you from worshiping what ever, how ever, and/or whom ever you choose. It is when you try to turn religion from a personal thing to control thing that we have problems.
A conservative believes that people go to the movies to be entertained and to church to be preached to, not the other way around.
So movies need to be vapid and empty of social import? They cannot try to illuminate wrongs or injustices nor educate?
A conservative believes that debt creates unhealthy relationships. Everyone, from the government on down, should live within their means and strive for financial independence.
Yep, but how come we never see it in practice? Two major leaders of conservatism Reagan and Bush the lesser have almost bankrupted this country. So just who are you talking to?
A conservative believes that a child's education is the responsibility of the parents, not the government.
And parents as a group decided to cede that to government due to resources and economy of scale.
A conservative believes that every human being has a right to life, from conception to death.
Better find wombs for all those products of in vitro, Glenn.
A conservative believes in the smallest government you can get without anarchy. We know our history: The larger a government gets, the harder it will fall.
Small does not equate to efficient and/or effective. And "without anarchy" doesn't mean peace. It means just short of anarchy. Is that really what you want? Just enough government to keep complete chaos from erupting?
Glenn, you don't make a hell of a lot of sense. Your beliefs are self contradictory is some places, woefully and deluded in others. Some much of it seems driven from simple greed. A complete unwillingness to accept a compromise for the good of all if that comprise requires even the slightest sacrifice from you. It is petty, small, and sad.
Why I don't believe Pt. 1
12 06 08 13:33 by vagrant
Why I don't believe. Part 1
I have had people ask me why I don't believe and I tell them that there are multiple reasons and levels to my disbelief. There is my disbelief in the supernatural, the existence of any god, the xian (Abrahamic) god in particular. Beyond that is the belief that the Abrahamic god is not worthy of worship, based upon his supposed inspired word recorded in the "holy" books. It really is a big ball of a bunch of reasons that comprises my disbelief. I thought it would be a good idea to pull some of them off and investigate/explain them. So here goes with a big one...
Let's, for sake of argument, assume the omnimax god exists.
[note: in this discussion, the part of the painfully vapid straw-man-esque farcical theist will be played by italics]
Yay! I win!
And now lets get down to business:
How did the universe come into being?
Goddidit!
Yes, I understand that. But how? When he created it, even if it all poofed into existence all at once, something had to have happened. Matter appeared. What was that like? How did it form? From what was it created and if nothing how did that happen? Goddidit explains the causal source, but it doesn't explain the how.
But goddidit!
Uh, yeah. Let's try something different. What about life?
That's EASY! Goddidit! Yay god!
Okay. Again, "Goddidit" explains the causal agent, but what is life? What is the animating force?
Duh, a soul?!?
But only humans have souls, right? Isn't that the line? Animals and plants and microorganisms are alive too. And if there is a duality, why can't we find any actual evidence of a soul? Again, goddidit doesn't explain anything. It doesn't get us any closer to understanding anything.
You suck.
And what about the old favorite of infinite regress? Goddidit claims that all was caused by god, but god doesn't require a cause. That just leaves more questions than it explains.
Even though I am farcical, I really don't enjoy spending time with you in the least.
And finally, and my favorite part, is that if you cut out the goddidit part, nothing really changes. The questions still need answers. Think of it in terms of stars and elements. Heavier elements are "born" in stellar furnaces. The star is the cause. But should it stop there? Isn't it good to know what actually happens in the star that results in the heavier elements? It doesn't mean the star isn't the cause or that it isn't worthy of investigation in its own right, but it also doesn't mean that "they come out of stars" is the end of the explanation.
So even if a god did exist, just how much closer to truth does that get us. Considering that the xian god is an inscrutable fuck, it doesn't do anything to further understanding. A deity just adds to the questions.
Coming up in Pt. 2 - Another good reason and more from the painfully vapid straw-man-esque farcical theist played by italics!
I have had people ask me why I don't believe and I tell them that there are multiple reasons and levels to my disbelief. There is my disbelief in the supernatural, the existence of any god, the xian (Abrahamic) god in particular. Beyond that is the belief that the Abrahamic god is not worthy of worship, based upon his supposed inspired word recorded in the "holy" books. It really is a big ball of a bunch of reasons that comprises my disbelief. I thought it would be a good idea to pull some of them off and investigate/explain them. So here goes with a big one...
The existence of an omnimax deity has zero explanatory power.
Let's, for sake of argument, assume the omnimax god exists.
[note: in this discussion, the part of the painfully vapid straw-man-esque farcical theist will be played by italics]
Yay! I win!
And now lets get down to business:
How did the universe come into being?
Goddidit!
Yes, I understand that. But how? When he created it, even if it all poofed into existence all at once, something had to have happened. Matter appeared. What was that like? How did it form? From what was it created and if nothing how did that happen? Goddidit explains the causal source, but it doesn't explain the how.
But goddidit!
Uh, yeah. Let's try something different. What about life?
That's EASY! Goddidit! Yay god!
Okay. Again, "Goddidit" explains the causal agent, but what is life? What is the animating force?
Duh, a soul?!?
But only humans have souls, right? Isn't that the line? Animals and plants and microorganisms are alive too. And if there is a duality, why can't we find any actual evidence of a soul? Again, goddidit doesn't explain anything. It doesn't get us any closer to understanding anything.
You suck.
And what about the old favorite of infinite regress? Goddidit claims that all was caused by god, but god doesn't require a cause. That just leaves more questions than it explains.
Even though I am farcical, I really don't enjoy spending time with you in the least.
And finally, and my favorite part, is that if you cut out the goddidit part, nothing really changes. The questions still need answers. Think of it in terms of stars and elements. Heavier elements are "born" in stellar furnaces. The star is the cause. But should it stop there? Isn't it good to know what actually happens in the star that results in the heavier elements? It doesn't mean the star isn't the cause or that it isn't worthy of investigation in its own right, but it also doesn't mean that "they come out of stars" is the end of the explanation.
So even if a god did exist, just how much closer to truth does that get us. Considering that the xian god is an inscrutable fuck, it doesn't do anything to further understanding. A deity just adds to the questions.
Coming up in Pt. 2 - Another good reason and more from the painfully vapid straw-man-esque farcical theist played by italics!
New bumper sticker
09:06 by vagrant
McCain a maverick? Bullshit!
(or alternately 'Bull! for the PG-13 crowd)
Just getting a record down.
(or alternately 'Bull! for the PG-13 crowd)
Just getting a record down.