Rand Paul wins KY Senate primary

[MotF Bane]

I'm all for abolishing Social Security.

1) Let current retirees stay on it.

2) Give every citizen a refund check for everything they contributed.

3) Bye bye Social Security

Where are you getting the funds for that?

 

[Siddhartha]

"And yet Paul's view that the federal government should not have the power to force integration on private businesses — part of 1964's landmark Civil Rights Act — didn't get the attention of the national press until Wednesday, following interviews with NPR's Robert Siegel and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. (Watch the exchange with Maddow below. Paul subsequently changed his position Thursday, after an intense 24 hours of media fallout.)"


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl2167

Yep, already flip flopping, this should be good.

Is this an issue for Kentucky? Would a majority of voters there mind if racial segregation was legal again?

 

[PJABBER]

Why don't you try being a little honest? That chart is from here:

http://radicalacademy.com/adiphidiagrams.htm

It doesn't say what you quoted are the tenets of postmodernism.

Thanks for putting up the link, good buddy! That is a fun WWW site with lots of interesting reading, though I do think they could use a better site designer.

Center for Applied Philosophy - Radical Academy

The Radical Academy is an analysis of the human condition as seen through the eyes of an authentic classical philosophic realism fundamentally grounded on the judgments of common sense, critically examined and expanded. The Academy discusses traditional philosophical, moral, and religious questions; contemporary political, social, and cultural problems and policies; current scientific and technological issues and speculations; challenges to the "conventional" wisdom, "popular" ideologies, and "accepted" paradigms of our culture; and the application of common sense realistic principles to all human affairs.

My purpose in providing that chart and the definitions was to give you, and anyone else that might be unfamiliar with the antecedents of postmodernism, a recounting of how we hillbillies got from there to here. :awe:

You keep insisting that I am trying to do something other than what I am actually trying to do. That's so postmodern of you!

I know you picked up the word on some blog or website decrying the evils of liberalism, but it's a shame that neither you or the author of that article actually looked into what it meant.

Well, I do admit that I regularly decry the evils of modern liberalism and extol the merits of classical liberalism, and I do believe the referenced WWW site is an exploration of philosophical thought, so maybe I DID pick up an odd word here or there and maybe there was where it was.

Naaaaaah, I found that WWW site about six months ago when I got into an argument with a maroon who couldn't understand how we got from Point A to Point B and I needed a chart to point to a la Glen Beck.

I actually discovered the joys of postmodern dissection not in surgery but in a bar in Cambridge, MA where a few Radcliffies agreed to pound shots with an old man that promptly put half of them under table or into the vomitorium. The remaining half were speaking a foreign language, the language of postmodern thought where words have different meanings than you might find in any standard dictionary.

Now, I am an international businessman. I speaka de Englisch pretty good, so I was amazed at their attempts at codespeak. It was like listening to a Captain Crunch decoder ring, would such a thing be possible.

As I admired their ability to hold copious amounts of vile limoncello I remained into the wee hours of whatever morning that was and got got a post doc level lecture on the dialectic. And a massive hangover. But I wander from the topic at hand.

As two of them massaged my shoulders, slumped from my own indulgence in alternating shots of pure agave tequila and a smoky single malt that shall not be named, the third was intent, much as you are, on convincing me of the errors of my ways. Or at least correct my realist perspective on the world as it is. You, on the other hand, have not given me much of a massage at all, and therefore I am loathe to offer you the same rapt attention.

Postmodernists may believe in moral relativism, but they are also poststructuralists. They don't have any grand plans for the state. They are into fragmentation and micropolitics. In other words, they share many ideals with Conservatives as well.

Well, the antecedents of postmodernism, should you be honest about it, stem from the Marxist-Leninist school of hard knocks. After Papa Bear Stalin and Mama Bear Mao and Baby Bear Pol Pot had their conniption fits not many with any sense wanted to hear about how everything was either too hot (millions died) or too cold (millions died, too) when it was just right ( and millions died anyway.)

But all of the scholars and the academics that had invested their CAREERS in supporting Marxism-Leninism couldn't just turn their backs and renounce their faith now, could they? I mean, tenure was at stake!

So they decided to "deconstruct" reality. Make words that made sense, meaningless. Make the real, well, unreal. Don't look behind the curtain, little girl! Nothing to see here!

And so millions of man hours were wasted in sophism. And propagandizing against the institutions that gave them this great privilege of educating the young. But, everyone knows that.

But, somehow, you confuse Conservatism with Postmodernism.

Frankly, your references are crap. You think a title that includes the two words means that they are linked? I am in need of a four handed massage. Right now!

Hell, just do one of your Google searches for "postmodern Conservative." I even found a very simple definition for you:

http://www.thepostmodernconservative.com/about/

What kind of crap is this??? Top 10 Swedish Songs of All Time? What are you, an ABBA fan? I need a smoky single malt, quick!

I suggest that the next time you read a blog that attempts to sound intelligent by throwing in words like humanist, modern, postmodern, that you at least take the time to look them up before parroting them.

I think YOU need to read your links before you post them!

Here's another:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/26/combining-postmodern-conservative-philosophies/

A postmodern deconstruction of Kirk does not equal postmodern conservatism. Now I really need both a blonde AND a brunette to squeeze my shoulders and then, switch!

Postmodernism is not a political movement.

Who said it was? Not me! I said it was the philosophical basis of the current liberalism as defined in the U.S.

I can't spend more time on this. The sun is shining, I feel the need for speed, hopefully the winds are up on Chesapeake Bay so that the Friday night races will be lively.

Thank you, Cliffies! For the memories, for the tutelage, for the chance to kick around the philology. If I could only remember your names, I would send you flowers.

:awe:

 

[cubby1223]

Those who pop on tv and call this Rand Paul a racist, I think it's an insult on the real fight against racism.

The Civil Rights Act is probably something he never had to give much serious thought to, as he was just 1 year old at the time of its passing. Rand Paul is not a career politician. I understand now why no political ever says anything of actual substance.

If you get any other politician to open up on substance, I bet you can find all sorts of things to tear each and every one of them apart. What have we accomplished?

I caught a small glimpse of MSNBC last night, and you just have to shake your head at that.

 

[PJABBER]

Before I go sailing, dear friends, so that you are not confused about how a Rand Paul might develop such a following and why he might be a harbinger of a sea change, let me offer up an article written a few years back that, while kinda self-serving, does a good job in recounting the passage of historical events and shows how the past can well lead into the present and thereon to the future...

The coming crack-up of postmodern liberalism

By Fred Hutchison

January, 2005

In 1980, I wrote a twenty page paper in which I predicted the collapse of Liberal Humanism. A year or two earlier I had predicted the gradual decline and collapse of the Soviet Empire. One out of two is not bad.

Now I am predicting the crack-up of Postmodern Liberalism. In this essay I shall explain why I predicted the demise of liberal humanism and where I went wrong. Then, I shall present the rationale for my new prediction of the crack-up of postmodern liberalism.

The Rise of Liberal Humanism

Liberal Humanism (or Liberal Modernism) has its roots in the French Enlightenment thought of the middle eighteenth century. By the early nineteenth century Liberal Humanism had coalesced around two core beliefs. The cluster of ideas which gathered around these core beliefs has gradually changed over time but have retained a family resemblance. My 1980 prediction of the collapse of liberal humanism was mainly concerned with the ideology of liberalism which had prevailed from 1932 to 1980.

The first core belief of liberalism is that man is inherently good and that civilized society is responsible for the corruption of men and for all human ills. Man can be perfected by changing society. This idea was first clearly articulated by Jean Jacques Rousseau. (1712 – 1778). If man is good, then progress is possible. This had led to a perverse but common notion among liberals that we should not blame the criminal for crime because this amounts to "blaming the victim." We should blame "society" instead and should look to socio-economic "root causes."

The second core idea was that progress is inevitable leading to a future utopia. Rationalists like Voltaire and Kant thought that progress would come slowly in fits and starts through the triumph of reason. Historicists like Compte, Hegel and Marx thought impersonal forces of history were the engine of progress. Many liberals of a utilitarian temper emphasized change through education and social reform. The Fabian Society of England tried to usher in socialism through gradual degrees. They thought socialism was the means of curing society, perfecting human nature, stimulating progress and ushering in the utopia. The Fabian style of creeping socialism became the dominant form of liberal humanism in America during the era when the ideas of FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society held sway (1932 – 1980).

Karl Marx believed that socialism must be brought in through violent revolution and revolutionary socialism must be a dictatorship which can destroy the allegedly evil middle class and compel human nature to change. Marx claimed that after Communist Man had been created through socialism, the state would "whither away" and the utopia would come. This is sheer fantasy, of course, but notice the striking conceptual similarities of Fabian socialism and Marxism. The New Deal/Great Society liberalism was gentler, more compassionate and more pragmatic than Marxism but was built upon some of the same fantasies of progress, human nature, and socialism.

The Decline of Liberal Humanism

The belief in the inherent goodness of man suffered terrible blows from the two world wars and the cold war. Disclosures of the holocaust and the mass murders of Stalin and Mao were particularly devastating to American liberals because it shook their faith in the goodness of man. The extreme abuse of the dictatorial powers by Stalin turned Soviet state socialism into a mass concentration camp where the most cunning and evil individuals held the levers of power. Pure socialism led to a hell on earth instead of an utopia.

Disillusionment about the inevitability of progress came early to continental Europe as a result of the cataclysm of World War I. Resilient England did not lose faith in the inevitability of progress until the aftermath of World II. Even after the cream of the British youth were wiped out by machine guns and point-blank artillery in Flanders during WWI with only a few hundred yards of muddy ground to show for it, the stoic resilient Brits still generally believed in Empire and progress during the twenties and thirties. The blitz of London during WWII brought the trauma of war to the folks at home. The "stiff upper lip" of stoic British patience saw them through the war. After the war their trust in progress collapsed in a flood of traumatic memories. They dumped Churchill and elected the Labor party which had a socialist and anti-empire agenda.

Disillusionment with progress came very late to America, the homeland of optimism, where the folks prefer to "walk on the sunny side of the street." As late as the election of John F. Kennedy, a large majority of Americans, whether Democrats or Republicans, Anti-communists or Communist apologists, had a belief in the inevitability of progress. In spite of bad memories of the depression and two wars plus the nuclear threat and the cold war, the exuberance of main street America was undaunted. Most people had a sunny feeling of confidence in a vague, indefinable but happy "progress." Only a few ill-tempered bipolar liberals spoke of utopias and existential despair. Sullen liberal writers have tried to convince us that the fifties was an unhappy and scary time. Nonsense. The strutting, singing "greatest generation" of which my parents were good exemplars was irrepressibly cheerful. Most of them assumed without question that the twentieth century was the American century and that America was to be the engine of world progress. The New Deal God and Country Democrats who sang "happy days are here again" shared in the general cheeriness and chipperness of the time. Jiminy Cricket! Give a little whistle. I cannot think of those days without feeling like whistling a happy tune.

Disillusionment with progress came to America in stages. It began with the Cuban missile crisis and the assassination of President Kennedy. The next blow was the rejection of Nelson Rockefeller by the Republican convention of 1964 and the nomination of Barry Goldwater. (Rockefeller was a liberal humanist of the happy "brotherhood of man under the Fatherhood of God" genre. He married a woman with the nickname "Happy.") The American conservative movement of 1964 which defeated Rockefeller and the Republican eastern establishment had come far since its humble origins in the 1940's. Conservatives denied the inherent goodness of Man and insisted that man is a contradiction. Conservatives scoffed at the inevitability of progress as a myth. They laughed at utopias and explained how utopian thinking had led to many of the disasters of the twentieth century. The conservatives refused to allow the liberals to sweep Stalin's atrocities under the rug or get away with denying that Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy and Harry Dexter White was a Soviet agent. Evil exists in the world you fools.

Disillusionment with the social engineering of the Great Society programs under Lyndon Johnson and disillusionment with the Vietnam War led to a rising tide of disillusionment with "progress." The counter-cultural eruptions of the narcissistic sex-crazed baby boomer generation were perfectly timed to give the lie to the standard liberal line one heard at every high school commencement ceremony — that the boomers were a special generation and the hope of the future. What a joke. The TV coverage of Jim Crow racial injustice and the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were further blows to the optimism of the liberal true believer in the goodness of man.

Hubert Humphrey was the last presidential candidate (1968) who talked openly of things like "the inherent goodness of man," "the dignity of man," and the "inevitability of progress." He sounded like a bouncy, chipper throwback to the fifties. Humphrey was the last "happy warrior" of the liberals. He was defeated by Richard Nixon, a somber and pragmatic realist. Subsequently, a tone of pessimism and complaint would characterize the left wing of the Democratic party. No more "happy days are here again." The Democrats have been the "bitterness party" ever since. Nothing produces collective bitterness like the collapse of a shared ideal. A bitter person cannot sustain hope or faith in the future.

1980 Predictions and Postmortems

In 1980, I assumed that the belief in the inevitability of progress was a fatal blow to liberal humanism which was now terminally bitter. Starting with George McGovern, every major Democratic leader seemed to speak with an undertone of bitterness. I assumed that the loss of faith in human nature and progress was the main source of the bitterness. I theorized that with the loss of the core, the bundle must unravel, and liberal humanism must collapse. I was not entirely wrong. The bitterness and paranoia of the Democrats reached a high watermark in the name-calling lies of the election of 2004 — at the very moment when the Democrats were no longer the majority party.

My optimism about the imminent death of liberal humanism was buoyed by the 1980 campaign of Ronald Reagan. The FDR campaign of 1932 marked the end of the era of limited government. 1932 – 1980 was the era of unlimited government. Ronald Reagan seemed to be the smiling prophet of a new era of the restoration of limited government. Such a restoration must be a disappointment of all the hopes and dreams of liberal humanism, I reasoned. Interestingly, it was Reagan, a conservative, who inspired a revival of American optimism. Amazing. Happy conservatism. Unhappy liberalism. When in all history has their been such a development?

I made several miscalculations in my prediction of the death of liberal humanism. Although the faith in progress was gone a residual historicism remained. Many liberals believe that man is a creature of the society and culture of a moment in history. Therefore, as society is in constant flux, human nature must be in constant flux. Therefore, liberals still have contempt of "outdated ideas and values" and are in horror of "turning back the clock." But this contempt is no longer addressed at those who have no faith in "progress." It is a contempt for those who deny historicism. Historicist assumptions about the continuous change of human nature are perfectly absurd, of course. But they still seem vaguely plausible to this generation because we are still living in the shadow of an extinct Modernism (1750 – 1980) and the old mental habits die hard.

I still remember a friend who was disgruntled by the behavior of people at work and suddenly ventilated his frustration in a primal scream, "This is 1976!!" He blurted out his semiconscious assumption that gross barbarity of behavior surely could not exist in this enlightened moment — this glorious pinnacle of history — this 1976 of our hopes and dreams. The obnoxious people at work must be monstrous anomalies in this golden age. I thought at the time and still think that the assumptions behind my friend's volcanic eruption, "This is 1976!" are the most perfect nonsense that has ever been uttered by the human tongue. But for two centuries of confused modernism such notions passed without question. Some liberals are using the myth of historicism in the way my friend used the myth of progress. In moments of impatience, they still blurt out goofy apostrophes like "You are behind the times — you want to turn back the clock." However, there is no more primal scream of the shocked true believer in progress. The primal scream went out in the seventies along with the dying embers of faith in man and faith in progress. The baby boomers who were counter cultural hippies and anti-establishment protesters had no primal screams left in them. Only a deadening narcissism remained. The happy greatest generation is followed by the wretched baby boomers — the least admirable of generations.

Historicism without optimism about progress is not capable of being a confident advancing ideology. Without confidence, the standard bearers like Kerry must flip flop. But historicism serves adequately for a rearguard defense of guerilla counterattack as practiced by Democrats in the bitter mud-slinging election of 2004. Some of the liberal ideas which used to cluster around "progress" now cluster around historicism. Liberalism changed, darkened and weakened but did not collapse. Although liberalism is in decline, it is still very much in control of academia, government bureaucracy, education, the media, and much of the legal profession, all engines for propagating ideas. Liberalism has tremendous institutional momentum. It is like a giant oak tree that is rotting on the inside but keeps standing for many years. Dan Rather, a symbol of the liberal establishment, is discredited but cannot be knocked down.

My prediction, vintage 1979, of the progressive collapse of the Soviet Empire, was based on insider reports of demoralization. It seemed that no one in that system still believed that the Soviets would win the cold war or that dictatorial socialism would perfect human nature or that an utopia was coming. Russians became experts in mouthing the party line without paying any attention to it. Arrogant statements like, "We will bury you," and "We are the vanguard of history," were long gone. I reasoned that the heavy machine of Soviet socialism could be kept running as long as a certain number of enthusiastic true believers were willing to fight, toil and sacrifice for the dream. Somewhere at the levers and gears of the great machine there had to be driven men who compelled an inefficient, awkward and inhuman machine to keep cranking forward. But by the late seventies, nearly everyone in the system was demoralized and merely going through the motions. Therefore, I predicted that the great machine must collapse of its own weight — in the relatively near future.

I hit a home run with this prediction. The momentum of the gigantic Soviet locomotive kept it going for a while but vexing and disillusioning events slowed it down. The Soviets were unnerved when Israeli pilots trained in America and flying American jets, shot down 80 soviet MIG's flown by Syrian pilots trained in Russia without any Israeli losses. The Soviets were demoralized when they were defeated by Muslim tribesmen in the Soviet-Afghan war. The Soviet economy had been in decline for years and was economically ruined after the Afghan war. Gorbachev gave up all thoughts of winning the cold war when Reagan refused to cancel the Star Wars program and told him that the arms race was one he could not win. Reagan's historic utterance "Mr Gorbachev, tear down that wall!" sent shock waves throughout the brittle Soviet regime. The amazing supremacy of American high-tech arms in the first Gulf War was the last straw. The last ounce of confidence drained out of the Soviet system and the monumental machine fell apart — twelve years after my prediction. The evil empire of iron which had seemed so solid and permanent was suddenly gone. Sixty years of liberal apologetics for the Soviet "experiment" was silenced and millions of liberals quietly changed the subject. Many liberals abandoned their dalliance with a now discredited Marxism and turned their infatuated gaze towards a dark postmodernism.

New Predictions about Liberalism

Postmodern liberals have a stranglehold on academia. The students must go through four years of political propaganda in the class room like Russian students used to have to endure. However, we seeing few if any true believers in Postmodernism among our recent college graduates. They vote much like their parents and their religious denominational preferences are much like their parents. The students are expert at parroting the party line in class so as to get good grades and avoid persecution by their professors. They are proficient at tuning out the class room propaganda like so much static on the radio — much as the young soviets did in the seventies. When the baby boomer professors, who were radicalized in the sixties and seventies, begin to retire, the next generation of professors will be void of true believers in a fading ideology.

Postmodern liberalism is an inhuman doctrine which involves a revolt against reason and an individualistic nihilism regarding morality and truth. I think it is unsustainable without the passion of true believers or the social controls of group think. During the last ten years, politically correct speech and action has been subject to a tremendous public ridicule. Only twelve years ago, I was persecuted at work for refusing to write with awkward gender-neutral English and refusing to accept a feminist male-bashing session for a professional educational program I organized. However, these mindless fads seem to be in retreat. Women no longer automatically correct my generic "mankind" or my generic "he." Thank God that is over. Conservative students are starting to fight back against persecution on campus and are sometimes winning the battle for freedom of speech.

I predict that as the Soviet regime collapsed, the postmodern liberal vice grip on academia, the media, and education must fall apart. It might even happen before the last baby boomers retires. Many professors surely must notice that their propaganda is winning no real converts — that the students are telling them what they want to hear — and that almost half of the students secretly plan to vote Republican. The academic concentration camp is losing the battle for the mind. The students are using the ideological fads to their own personal ends and are laughing at them in secret.

Group think cults seem invincible for a season. But such cults rarely have much staying power. They are brittle and shatter easily. The ideas of the cult seem absurd to those outside the group. Any political movement which depends upon group think and guerilla rearguard attacks to sustain their power is doomed. Therefore, I predict the extinction of postmodern liberalism as we know it. In spite of its institutional momentum, it lacks the intellectual and moral vigor that liberal humanism and Marxism used to have. Therefore, it cannot have the extended twilight existence which liberal humanism and Marxism had.

After the crack-up of postmodern liberalism, various fragments of the older liberal humanism are likely to survive. As the liberal cluster of ideas have detached themselves from core beliefs about human nature and progress, they will not be able to find a permanent home on the dying vine of historicism which is too absurd an idea to be sustained apart from a faith in progress. The detached and floating liberal ideas may be absorbed in other ideological systems. An example of this is the formerly liberal, now conservatively allied "neocons" who are still semi-liberal in various ways.

Predictions of Realignment

The political alignments will suddenly change after the fall of the left. I predict that there will be a schism in the conservative movement. Libertarians will unite with refugees of postmodernism on the common ground of atomistic individualism and their rejection of a universal moral law. Their movement will be a magnet for anti-religious secularists. Traditionalist conservatives, the religious right and natural law groups will unite in support of the universal moral law, the defense of the family and the restoration of culture. Those supporting a strong national defense will tend to gravitate towards this coalition. The "Neocons" have introduced floating fragments of liberal humanism into the conservative movement and will continue to do so. Some conservatives have indigestion from these fancy tidbits. Other conservatives will tolerate the new confections because the neocons have a special ability to argue for a strong national defense and are very good at refuting the hyper-individualistic libertarians and postmoderns. The traditionalist conservative ideas of Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk will be employed to refute both the neocons and the libertarians on a variety of issues. The conservative movement is destined to suffer upheavals and break away movements until it formulates a stable political coalition. Political stability will not be achieved until the culture war and the war on terror are won. Until then, conservatives must make common cause with neocons and libertarians.

 

[BigDH01]

My purpose in providing that chart and the definitions was to give you, and anyone else that might be unfamiliar with the antecedents of postmodernism, a recounting of how we hillbillies got from there to here. :awe:

Your purpose of the chart was an attempt to look intelligent while simultaneously being disingenuous.

You keep insisting that I am trying to do something other than what I am actually trying to do. That's so postmodern of you!

In what way?

Well, I do admit that I regularly decry the evils of modern liberalism and extol the merits of classical liberalism, and I do believe the referenced WWW site is an exploration of philosophical thought, so maybe I DID pick up an odd word here or there and maybe there was where it was.

Naaaaaah, I found that WWW site about six months ago when I got into an argument with a maroon who couldn't understand how we got from Point A to Point B and I needed a chart to point to a la Glen Beck.

Yes, your knowledge of postmodernism is about as deep as Glenn Beck's.

I actually discovered the joys of postmodern dissection not in surgery but in a bar in Cambridge, MA where a few Radcliffies agreed to pound shots with an old man that promptly put half of them under table or into the vomitorium. The remaining half were speaking a foreign language, the language of postmodern thought where words have different meanings than you might find in any standard dictionary.

Now, I am an international businessman. I speaka de Englisch pretty good, so I was amazed at their attempts at codespeak. It was like listening to a Captain Crunch decoder ring, would such a thing be possible.

As I admired their ability to hold copious amounts of vile limoncello I remained into the wee hours of whatever morning that was and got got a post doc level lecture on the dialectic. And a massive hangover. But I wander from the topic at hand.

As two of them massaged my shoulders, slumped from my own indulgence in alternating shots of pure agave tequila and a smoky single malt that shall not be named, the third was intent, much as you are, on convincing me of the errors of my ways. Or at least correct my realist perspective on the world as it is. You, on the other hand, have not given me much of a massage at all, and therefore I am loathe to offer you the same rapt attention.

So hidden in all this verbosity is the fact that you claim to have learned about postmodernism from a bunch of drunk guys at a bar. Outstanding. This is what I have come to expect from you. You misrepresent facts and then try to hide behind anecdote and storytelling. It doesn't work.

Well, the antecedents of postmodernism, should you be honest about it, stem from the Marxist-Leninist school of hard knocks. After Papa Bear Stalin and Mama Bear Mao and Baby Bear Pol Pot had their conniption fits not many with any sense wanted to hear about how everything was either too hot (millions died) or too cold (millions died, too) when it was just right ( and millions died anyway.)

I don't even know what you are trying to say. Earlier, you said postmodernism is an excuse for failed Socialism and Communism. It is clearly not, and anyone who knows anything about postmodernism can tell you this.

I'm not sure what argument you are trying to make here. If you are claiming that postmodernism rejects the grand-narratives of the past, then you are correct. But then, that hardly makes postmodernism a defense of modern liberalism or Marxism, does it?

But all of the scholars and the academics that had invested their CAREERS in supporting Marxism-Leninism couldn't just turn their backs and renounce their faith now, could they? I mean, tenure was at stake!

You further prove your lack of knowledge regarding postmodernism.

So they decided to "deconstruct" reality. Make words that made sense, meaningless. Make the real, well, unreal. Don't look behind the curtain, little girl! Nothing to see here!

And it keeps going.

And so millions of man hours were wasted in sophism. And propagandizing against the institutions that gave them this great privilege of educating the young. But, everyone knows that.

I think you have trouble reconciling your beliefs, but I already knew this given your past of both embracing classical liberalism and then posting links that you apparently didn't read that tell us that individual rational actors don't lead to superior outcomes.

But, somehow, you confuse Conservatism with Postmodernism.

No I do not. You must have missed my last line where I said postmodernism is not a political movement. Thus, there are postmodern Liberals AND Conservatives.

Frankly, your references are crap. You think a title that includes the two words means that they are linked? I am in need of a four handed massage. Right now!

It's not a reference, it's a dumbed down explanation that even someone like you might read and understand.

What kind of crap is this??? Top 10 Swedish Songs of All Time? What are you, an ABBA fan? I need a smoky single malt, quick!

You stay classy, Mr. "All Liberals Put Everyone Else in Boxes" man.

I think YOU need to read your links before you post them!

I'm sorry, was there something I missed?

A postmodern deconstruction of Kirk does not equal postmodern conservatism. Now I really need both a blonde AND a brunette to squeeze my shoulders and then, switch!

Exactly. Because postmodernism is NOT A POLITICAL MOVEMENT. Thus it makes no sense to claim that a Liberal is a postmodernist (at least not more correct than it is for me to say a Conservative is postmodernist) and it is especially incorrect to say that modern liberalism came from postmodernism. You demonstrated you know nothing of the philosophy or its history.

Who said it was? Not me! I said it was the philosophical basis of the current liberalism as defined in the U.S.

And you are wrong, your understanding of what you post is shallow.

I can't spend more time on this. The sun is shining, I feel the need for speed, hopefully the winds are up on Chesapeake Bay so that the Friday night races will be lively.

Thank you, Cliffies! For the memories, for the tutelage, for the chance to kick around the philology. If I could only remember your names, I would send you flowers.

:awe:

Why do you constantly post such dribble? I know you have to divert attention from your ignorance by displaying arrogance, but it is a little thick for my taste.

 

[Lemon law]

How Rand Paul escaped from having to defend his libertarian views in the KY GOP primary is the only softball miracle to note.

The fact is, there has never been a successful even semi-large government that operated on Libertarian principles in the long long history of the planet earth. As a result, Libertarian government may pass the pie in the sky utopia test, but on any semi- critical examination, its going to yield huge contradiction in terms with our constitution and existing set of laws.

As long as the "opposition" allows Rand Paul to frame his discussion in pie in the sky terms, Rand may be able to sell his ideas, but when the opposition starts to force Rand Paul to defend and square his Libertarian views with things like the 1964 civil rights laws, those contradictions in terms will come by the dozens and dozens. And on this one particular civil rights law thing, Rand is trying to cop out by making an exception for racism by claiming he is four square against that. But the point is and remains, that one single issue civil rights issue he flubbed is just one of thousands of issues where Libertarianism fails the casual sniff test.

Sooner or later Rand Paul is going to have to debate Conway, and if Conway is smart, he will put Rand through the ringer as Conway forces Rand to flip flop through a endless series of the horns of a dilemma questions. And there will be no way that Rand can square Libertarianism with practical governance.

Thus far we can only say McConnell's hand picked GOP opponent was not very smart in making his case and lost, and now we must wait and see if Conway will be equally dumb even after Rand has now shown his Achilles heel for all the world to see.

In short, he who lives by the slogan may die by his own slogans.

 

[BigDH01]

Before I go sailing, dear friends, so that you are not confused about how a Rand Paul might develop such a following and why he might be a harbinger of a sea change, let me offer up an article written a few years that, while kinda self-serving, does a good job in recounting the passage of historical events and shows how the past can well lead into the present and thereon to the future...

Clever. An article written by a pastor and, coincidentally, is the first hit on Google if you search "postmodern liberalism." I had suspected as such given your propensity to post links from quick Google searches when you are called out on your beliefs. Is this the depth of your understanding of postmodernism? Is this your defense? Like usual, you probably should've read it if you are going to post it.

Here are your previous definitions of postmodernism that you gleaned from someone else's work.

Epistemological Subjectivism: The doctrine that objective truth is impossible; truth is completely relative.

+

Moral Relativism: The doctrine that objective moral principles don't exist; moral principles are always relative. There is nothing basically moral or immoral.

+

Social Collectivism: The doctrine that human individuals live only for the benefit of the state or society, from which all rights are derived.

=

Modern Liberalism/Progressivism

Postmodernism is the latest apologetic extension of the communist/socialist ideals that have always proved to bankrupt in application. It is actually a label for ignorance. Postmodernists are afloat in a boat without sails, yet, to their mind, should be control of everyone's destiny. All the way down to Davy Jone's locker.

Welfare liberalism, or plain "liberalism" as described in the U.S., is the choice of class over the individual. It could be racial, economic, national origin, whatever, but the group definition is always more important than the individual in all aspects of life as they see it. It is, by definition, the choice of dependencies over individualism. They cannot be post-racial as they define everything in terms of classes, including those of race.

I don't use them interchangeably, but, for all practical effect, the modern American liberal's roots derive almost entirely from the emptiness of postmodernism.

And the latest article you post, which you claim is a good source of information.

The political alignments will suddenly change after the fall of the left. I predict that there will be a schism in the conservative movement. Libertarians will unite with refugees of postmodernism on the common ground of atomistic individualism and their rejection of a universal moral law. Their movement will be a magnet for anti-religious secularists. Traditionalist conservatives, the religious right and natural law groups will unite in support of the universal moral law, the defense of the family and the restoration of culture. Those supporting a strong national defense will tend to gravitate towards this coalition. The "Neocons" have introduced floating fragments of liberal humanism into the conservative movement and will continue to do so. Some conservatives have indigestion from these fancy tidbits. Other conservatives will tolerate the new confections because the neocons have a special ability to argue for a strong national defense and are very good at refuting the hyper-individualistic libertarians and postmoderns. The traditionalist conservative ideas of Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk will be employed to refute both the neocons and the libertarians on a variety of issues. The conservative movement is destined to suffer upheavals and break away movements until it formulates a stable political coalition. Political stability will not be achieved until the culture war and the war on terror are won. Until then, conservatives must make common cause with neocons and libertarians.

Postmodern liberalism is an inhuman doctrine which involves a revolt against reason and an individualistic nihilism regarding morality and truth.

In spite of its institutional momentum, it lacks the intellectual and moral vigor that liberal humanism and Marxism used to have. Therefore, it cannot have the extended twilight existence which liberal humanism and Marxism had.

So what is it? Is it about the collective or the individual? Is it about the state or the community? Is it defending Marxism or attacking it? Hell, given that you claim to be a classical liberal, this author is basically claiming that YOU are a postmodernist, or at least share a lot of common ground.

You claim certain things about it but then post an article that seems to refute yourself. Please, do us a favor and read your Google hits before you post them next time.

 

[ayabe]

Jabber finally found a decent sailing companion on Rentboy, he probably won't respond as his hands are quite busy at the moment.

 

[PJABBER]

So hidden in all this verbosity is the fact that you claim to have learned about postmodernism from a bunch of drunk guys at a bar. Outstanding.

I really haven't time to indulge in responding to your rant, but I did want to correct one particular misconception that you have.

I would rather be lectured, and massaged, by most any drunk Radcliffe Fellow in a bar in Cambridge, or was it Somerville?, than a maroon like you any day of the week. Except maybe Sunday, if I am in a penitent mood and emerging from a particularly personal level of Hell.

Radcliffe, back in ye olde days, was primarily an institution for women, and those who wanted to be women. Some Cliffies wanted to be men, even then, come to think of it. Most, thankfully, only temporarily. Though rumours persist to the contrary.

What I am trying to say is that, so far as I can ascertain, being Cliffies and all, the two young ladies massaging my weary bones to keep me in the fight, so to speak, were, in fact, female. When I asked them to put some muscle into it, they put a wicked hurt on, to my great delight. Athletic, too.

They called me a cad, however, when I asked them to box my ears with their, uh, feminine parts, and all my subsequent entreaties were claimed to be a diversion from the debate at hand. Which was as true then, as it isn't now. :awe:

A Fellow can be a gent, but it does not follow that they are male. As any lady Fellow can attest.

 

[Lemon law]

I have to be somewhat struck the the Fred Hutchison contention cited by PJABBER, namely, "The first core belief of liberalism is that man is inherently good and that civilized society is responsible for the corruption of men and for all human ills. Man can be perfected by changing society."

And maybe that comes to somewhat the heart of the differences between the republican and democratic parties. And to a great extent, buying the contention, hook line and sinker, that man is inherently good and government should not interfere in any way is the heart of the GOP and Libertarian core beliefs.

And the real modern liberal is not quite as gullible, they still believe man is inherently good, but there are still some bad men that will take unfair advantage if government does not keep the playing field level.

And between the extremes of no regulation and too much government regulations is what modern governments tend to flip flop between. But case certain in our recent financial melt down, the sin was in too little regulation.

 

[PJABBER]

Jabber finally found a decent sailing companion on Rentboy, he probably won't respond as his hands are quite busy at the moment.

Eastport Yacht Club Beer Can Racing this evening.

Kupaianaha!

LOL! :awe:

 

[BigDH01]

I really haven't time to indulge in responding to your rant, but I did want to correct one particular misconception that you have.

I would rather be lectured, and massaged, by most any drunk Radcliffe Fellow in a bar in Cambridge, or was it Somerville?, than a maroon like you any day of the week. Except maybe Sunday, if I am in a penitent mood and emerging from a particularly personal level of Hell.

Radcliffe, back in ye olde days, was primarily an institution for women, and those who wanted to be women. Some Cliffies wanted to be men, even then, come to think of it. Most, thankfully, only temporarily. Though rumours persist to the contrary.

What I am trying to say is that, so far as I can ascertain, being Cliffies and all, the two young ladies massaging my weary bones to keep me in the fight, so to speak, were, in fact, female. When I asked them to put some muscle into it, they put a wicked hurt on, to my great delight. Athletic, too.

They called me a cad, however, when I asked them to box my ears with their, uh, feminine parts, and all my subsequent entreaties were claimed to be a diversion from the debate at hand. Which was as true then, as it isn't now. :awe:

A Fellow can be a gent, but it does not follow that they are male. As any lady Fellow can attest.

This is not a reply. This is ad hominem wrapped in a story that no one cares about. We get it, you hide behind stories and verbiage to disguise your lack of depth of knowledge in these areas. It's transparent, you aren't fooling people.

 

[PJABBER]

This is not a reply. This is ad hominem wrapped in a story that no one cares about. We get it, you hide behind stories and verbiage to disguise your lack of depth of knowledge in these areas. It's transparent, you aren't fooling people.

Sorry, shorty, you just don't get it. Better stick with your day job! LOL! :awe:

 

[heyheybooboo]

"" Itttt's Official! ""
(for those of you old enough to remember the greyhound races on TV 40+ years ago)

Is it so difficult to grasp the concept of a brief summary with link?

Congratulations. You owe me a new wireless mouse as the scroll-wheel now squeaks in great agony.






--

 

[nick1985]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ctions/kentucky/election_2010_kentucky_senate

Getting closer to my $50. I'm thinking an epic BWW meal :awe:

 

[dainthomas]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ctions/kentucky/election_2010_kentucky_senate

Getting closer to my $50. I'm thinking an epic BWW meal :awe:

I think I read that everyone who votes for him gets a free ophthalmology certification.

 

[nick1985]

I think I read that everyone who votes for him gets a free ophthalmology certification.

Fine with me as long as I get my $50

 

[Lemon law]

Nick, you might win $50.00 and lose your ass in the process. Just another be careful of what you wish for.

 

[nick1985]

Nick, you might win $50.00 and lose your ass in the process. Just another be careful of what you wish for.

huh?

 

[spidey07]

Screw it. Against all better judgement, tebagbump for November Ownage and Nick's money. All major news are calling it for Rand Paul and even Senator Mitch McConnel is now addressing him as Senator-Elect. Watching the local news the Conway party is empty. Still too early to tell IMHO, but the lead is strongly convincing with 20% of polls reported. I don't want to jinx. But happy days may indeed be ahead, oh happy days, oh happy days, oh taking our country back are WE!

 

[PJABBER]

Congrats to Rand Paul, Nick(I am a witch!)1985 and the libertarian wing of the Republican Party!

Thanks for bumping this thread from May, spidey. Just one of many threads that can be used tonight to say, "I told you so!"

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Where is Nick? I'm counting on him and Spidey for my dose of humor tonight.

It is hard to beat the sound of Democrats screaming and whining.

 

[Red Dawn]

Screw it. Against all better judgement, tebagbump for November Ownage and Nick's money. All major news are calling it for Rand Paul and even Senator Mitch McConnel is now addressing him as Senator-Elect. Watching the local news the Conway party is empty. Still too early to tell IMHO, but the lead is strongly convincing with 20% of polls reported. I don't want to jinx. But happy days may indeed be ahead, oh happy days, oh happy days, oh taking our country back are WE!

Yeah back to the glory days of the early 2000's only with a lot more carzy.

 

[Zargon]

54% of vote with 62% in