Pro-personal vs state could easily be the liberals too -- Martin Luther King Jr for an easy example. Also GAY MARRIAGE == PERSONAL CHOICE which is being denied by the conservatives.No, by today’s standards he would be considered a conservative Republican who opposed the Dixiecrat standards. Democrats are the ones who passed prop 8 in California (exit polls 82% Repub, 64% Dem, 52% Independent) - a solid blue state.
By today's standards, MLK is just as much of a radical liberal as he was in the 60s.
Contrary to today's sanitized image of him, he was not just involved in African American civil rights, but in economic and social justice work. When he was shot he was supporting a Memphis Sanitation workers strike.Unless you think unions are now a conservative issue?
Anyway, I’m not going to get into a lib vs. conservative fight on a lib controlled board. Just wanted to offer up the op some movie suggestions.
I'm also amused by the conservative persecution complex. Lib controlled board? Seriously?
I haven't read or watched any of MLK's speeches lately, but as I recall he sounded extremely conservative, by our standards. I can't imagine many public/political figures nowadays other than Ralph Reed-Gary Bauer-Alan Keyes types talking about judging people by the content of their character.
When they start advocating for unions, get back to me.
I'm looking to find at least one movie that promotes conservative values and principles over liberal ideals.
Kinda like the opposite of Pleasantville and Footloose, movies where the whole point is that liberal living is better than conservative.
And I'm looking for a good example of the opposite.
I haven't seen pleasantville (it looked moronic to me) and it has been decades since I have seen footloose. But I believe what you are looking for is something along the lines of a group of people say we should abandon the past and present and instead create a new future. Another group cautions them to not do so, that there are reasons things are what they are. The first group institutes change and that change ends up backfiring on them horribly. The second group has to come in and save the day, trying very hard not to say, "Told you so dumbass."
Now nothing is jumping out for me at the moment, but I'll consider it. Also a problem is that rarely is not changing the best option. Some change is always going to happen and often should. As someone said above, most people with a conservative mindset (not necessarily the political version) don't want to return to an earlier time, they just want things to change cautiously, slowly, so that we can help mitigate the unforseen consequences.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
But I believe what you are looking for is something along the lines of a group of people say we should abandon the past and present and instead create a new future. Another group cautions them to not do so, that there are reasons things are what they are. The first group institutes change and that change ends up backfiring on them horribly. The second group has to come in and save the day, trying very hard not to say, "Told you so dumbass."
This is a common science fiction plot.
Group A wants to invent/discover something in the name of progress/science.
Group B says "You shouldn't do that, it could be dangerous".
Group A does it anyway, horrible things happen, a monster gets loose, etc.
Group B escapes/kills the monster/saves the day.
Take Jurassic Park for example. Group A (John Hammond and Co.) clones dinosaurs, against the protestations of Group B (Drs Grant, Sattler, and Malcolm). Dinosaurs get loose, eat almost everyone, Group B saves the kids, fixes the computers, and escapes the island.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
The problem is that the OP is looking for stories in which the past was better and more pure than the present. Which really is fiction, but aside from that... ;)
I might add Battlefield Earth to this list. You could argue that the aliens and John Travolta have enslaved the earth with their progress and the past was a humanocentric paradise. Of course, it's a terrible, terrible movie...
The problem is that the OP is looking for stories in which the past was better and more pure than the present.
I would echo an earlier recommendation of "The Lord of the Rings" series. It is probably the pinnacle of movies that positively feature a classically conservative mindset.
Other suggestions: "Anne of Green Gables," "Anne of Avonlea," "A Man for All Seasons," "A Distant Thunder," "The Trouble With Angels," and many Frank Capra movies (IE "It's a Wonderful Life").
Out of all these suggestions, if you want a movie to partner with lighthearted "Pleasantville" I would pick the drama "A Man for All Seasons." Despite differing genres, the films are superficially similar in pitting the protagonist(s) against society, and yet are ideologically opposite.
I haven't read or watched any of MLK's speeches lately, but as I recall he sounded extremely conservative, by our standards. I can't imagine many public/political figures nowadays other than Ralph Reed-Gary Bauer-Alan Keyes types talking about judging people by the content of their character.
I'm also amused that such a thing is considered conservative only. It's human. I hear people talking this point all the time on both sides.
|
Not true. Go back and watch the beginning of the movie again.
Well, they kidnapped her, and they psychologically programmed her to "go off" violently when exposed to specific subliminal messages.
Also it wasn't that the Alliance introduced PAX to Miranda, Miranda was working on it (with Alliance consent) and introduced it themselves. The Alliance has been trying to cover it up ever since however since they had given consent and the result was the Reavers (not to mention the embarrassment of the experiment gone wrong and the way it went wrong for the other 95% of the population).
Except this happened after the Unification War, the central event of the storyline that established that individual planets could have no autonomous control/self-governance. Miranda was a large-scale laboratory for the Alliance's PAX experiment, and its citizens were the guinea pigs.
Also to say that business isn't a villain isn't quite true either -- capitalism regularly plays an unspoken villain in the series as the crew are constantly broke, lacking supplies, unable to afford repairs and in dire need of a means of making ends meet.
Capitalism is about exchange of goods and services between a producer and a consumer. A producer wants to move as much of his or her product as possible at the best price possible - that's how they make a profit. Why are things so hard to come by in the story? Nothing can legally move anywhere without going through Alliance bureaucracy. If people can't get food or medicine, except through black market sources, that isn't the fault of capitalism. That is the fault of government over-regulation.
And the Captain intentionally avoids any chance at 'legal' work too -- so he's purposefully making things harder on himself and his crew by doing so (Inara points this out). He's a purposeful 'illegal worker' so to speak -- and many of the people he works for specifically desire to do 'evil' (wrong might be a better word -- but their wrong specifically hurts others on purpose for the sole purpose of self gain).
Mal is an entreprenuerial capitalist. He sees a market for people on the Outer Rim, who are suffering from the bureaucratically-caused shoratages of things like food and medicine. He provides it for them, and is even willing to negotiate a price they are willing to pay, in most cases.
Honestly I would say the whole series (and movie) are much more 'human condition' movies that simply 'liberal' or 'conservative'.
Sure, whatever. Liberal and conservative are rather broadly defined terms in this thread, anyways.
After all it's not like those corporations or businesses are doing anything to try and bring the 'evil' government down
How would a corporation undermine the government in this instance? Refuse to produce? What would stop the government from simply appropriating (with soldiers, guns, and spaceships) the corporation's means of production and imprisoning or executing the corporate officers?
-- or any of the citizens for that matter (indeed it's not even established that the entire government is as bad as Malcolm regularly suggests -- and if we are going to by his completely biased opinion alone... well he's no angel either).
Well, Malcolm Reynolds is the protagonist of the story, the person who drives the plot. It seems his opinion, biased or not, would have a strong influence on the overall message of the film.
Alright -- I'm going to name the points that really don't matter to me:
1. The alliance's implicit involvement with Miranda -- I'm not saying the alliance was uninvolved... but I am saying that I think it was through proxy and possibly the colonist had some idea of what was going on. Now I agree the alliance had a role, I don't think they were the front lines of it.
Now what I do care more about:
1. River does go 'off' but it's not to subliminal messages -- it's from commercials of the front corporation that was involved with her torture (I agree with it being called this) and experiments. Please note the 'men in blue' are government per se, but instead corporate boogie men. Specifically the Blue Sun Corporation. Now again I agree that the Alliance was involved... but again I would suggest implicitedly not explicitedly. Blue Sun is the corporation that did the experiments (and such) and Blue Sun could have been presenting a 'clean' image when the government officials came in to inspect the work being done. (source: Blue Sun)
2. Mal an entrepreneurial capitalist? Sure -- just like they are in Somalia. Part of the problem isn't over-regulation but lack of a working system in the outreaches. The government by Mal's own admittance isn't fully established, and 'entrepreneurial capitalist' such as Adelai Niska, Badger, Rans Burgess, and many others aren't helping anyone but themselves. Hell Mal himself regularly shoots unarmed surrendering people. Hero indeed. You can't have 'bureaucratic shortages' if the bureaucracy isn't even established in the area yet. And the 'entrepreneurial capitalist' have absolutely no reason to want that to happen -- after all it would cut into their profits to have to be honest about their 'business dealings'.
3. Capitalism is about profit. Nothing more nothing less. An exchange where you get the most you can while giving up the least you can -- preferably nothing if possible. Capitalism is greed by another name -- which is why it works so well... sin is always easier. The misunderstanding of what capitalism is and the assigning of values that it simply doesn't have has been two of the largest sources of misery and despair in the world. As many people point out Mal would be both much richer, and much more able to find work if he was willing to pursue legal work. He keeps running out of work (and money) because he refuses legal work -- IF there was such a boom and need for illegal work he would be making more money -- not less. In fact the very fact he continues to engage in loss bringing activity proves he's a very piss poor entrepreneurial capitalist.
4. The idea that Conservatives have some connection with or higher desire for human qualities that liberals don't have is laughable. While there are many differences between liberal and conservative opinions and schools of thought basic human conditions and qualities do not apply more to one than to the other. ANY suggestion to the contrary is at best deluded, and at worse simply another attempt at dehumanization for the purposes of denunciation without actual effort to refute or consider the other sides position.
5. I agree his position brings a strong impression to the film -- but when have you been one to simply let someone else tell you how it is without double checking to see if he's lying, insane, or simply ignoring reality?
Capitalism is greed by another name -- which is why it works so well...
Greed and capitalism are not the same thing. Greed is just as real in any other economic system as it is in capitalism. If practiced in a sustainable manner, capitalism is perfectly fine. It may be about profits, but what is done with those profits is the important thing. Profits put back into the system via wages, research and development, and other beneficial manners to sustain long term development and maintenance are not only helpful, they are required to sustain a certain level of societal well being. Greed is something else entirely, as it focuses on the short term needs of an individual or society while ignoring the full cost. Capitalism tries to reduce costs, and if they can get something free, great, but practiced wisely, it does not completely ignore them; doing so inevitably ends up costing more in the long run.
Braveheart? Not so far from the same themes as was in the Patriot and pagan to boot.
It's been a long time since I've seen Braveheart, so could you refresh my memory as to how it was pagan? Scotland was Christian for hundreds of years by this point.
I think people in general mistake rules and laws for morality. They are told not to do something, and never to question why. But without asking why a rule exists, we can never put it in its proper context or perspective. Thus, we never learn whether it is relevant or truly moral.
Morality is a totally different thing from just doing what you're told. This argument comes up often at work, where a particularly old school lady believes that morality and laws are necessarily one and the same in every instance. One day, I asked her whether a law allowing me to come to work and shoot a random person in the foot once a week would be moral? It's an extreme example, but very odd and very immoral rules and laws do exist in the world (just look at some parts of Africa), and many laws are still on the books in this country that are not based on true morality, but on public biases, perceptions, and even prejudices that were at large at the time those laws were made. Same for many religious laws and customs.
Anyway, all of this is to preface that while I am sure there are plenty of conservatives who are morally upright people, the very definition of a conservative is actually not that. At its most simple definition, a conservative is a person who believes in the slowest possible progress for society, people, science and beliefs, and who believes in not spending a lot of money. Those things are not moral. They are just attitudes. That they are often tied to morality is questionable at best, because clinging to rules and past attitudes (as mentioned above) often causes people to hold onto very bad prejudices, and to feel they have the right to act on them. Especially fearful people.
To take the OP's example of Pleasantville, the opposite would be the worst, most immoral kind of world to live in. We're talking about a limit on simple freedoms, the right of the mob to attack and subjugate and destroy the property of those who are even a little different from them, the right of the government to censor the citizenry and to use mob rule to enforce it, etc. Though a movie is at its heart meant to be an exaggeration of real life, these are the realities of what conservativism has offered this country, and it is no wonder the people who most feel threatened by those actions and censorship (artists) express outrage against it, in movies, rock & roll, etc.
Art requires freedom, and freedom, especially in art, is the opposite of restraint and limit. In other words, an opposite impulse from the impulse to be conservative. Not that we don't use restraint in art to create borders on it and to help it make sense. Restraint is a great tool. But it is not a end unto itself.
I could do this all day. I don't want to. I try to avoid these topics because I like you people for the most part, and these sorts of things always make people angry at each other. I just don't like the notion of a simple philosophy in attitude having an automatic sheen of morality attached to it. We would all take those things we feel as being signs of our morality (but are really just attitudes) and turn them on their heads until we were blue in the face.
And about LoTR being somehow conservative? Bogus. Tolkien refused all comparisons to such modern political hokum. The values in those books are neither conservative or liberal, but human, as someone similarly pointed out. Again, what makes conservatives think they have a lock on courage, valor, or strategy in war? I'll throw out the most extreme example: Jesus was way liberal for his time and place. Waaaaay liberal. Jesus was a freakin' radical.
Ok, seriously? The massive flood of pro-surveillance, pro-police movies, anti-terrorist movies and even pro-torture TV-shows? A veritable inundation of war movies, action movies, disaster movies? Every Disney movie there is, most fantasy movies? Every lawyer show and movie around? Rom-coms?
You can't be serious.
I'm looking to find at least one movie that promotes conservative values and principles over liberal ideals.
Kinda like the opposite of Pleasantville and Footloose, movies where the whole point is that liberal living is better than conservative.
And I'm looking for a good example of the opposite.
Try:
"Love Comes Softly"
"Fielders Choice"
"Dear John"
Any of the Narnia series movies ...
"The Theory of Everything"
"Talledga(sp?) Nights"
"Walk Hard"
"Easy A"
"The Princess Bride"
In service,
Rich
www.drgames.org
The day after the revolution, even the staunchest revolutionary becomes a conservative. This could be the problem with trying to find a truly convservative film- after a while, they all are.
So you want a movie where everyones goes away going "Man, I really think we shouldn't be required to help our fellow man." "Yeah, down with the government!"
Considering that Conservatives give to charity at a much higher rate than Liberals, your statement is patently false on the surface. Conservatives believe that such should be an individual choice, not mandated by government. And government should be limited so individual freedom is not squashed, but I guess you like being a slave to the State.
Considering that Conservatives give to charity at a much higher rate than Liberals, your statement is patently false on the surface. Conservatives believe that such should be an individual choice, not mandated by government. And government should be limited so individual freedom is not squashed, but I guess you like being a slave to the State.So you want a movie where everyones goes away going "Man, I really think we shouldn't be required to help our fellow man." "Yeah, down with the government!"
This is more than a little binary, don't you think?
This is more than a little binary, don't you think?What? People are more nuanced than one and zero?!
Hey, the way I heard it there are ten types of people in the world...
More nuanced than one and zero?
No.
You might even consider a movie like: No Strings Attached. I haven't actually seen it, I dislike Ashton and think Natalie is overrated. Yet if what I've read about the plot is true, you have a two people trying to have an extremely liberal sexual relationship (just sex, no attachments), only to find out that ultimately that doesn't work (at least for them). They end up in a more "conservative" standard relationship in the end, because they find that their liberalized free-love lifestyles weren't ultimately making them happy. I believe there may be a same-sex couple in the movie as well, but still it is pretty conservative, them being in a committed relationship.
Friends with Benefits is probably the exact same thing, I would guess.
|
|
You can't make a movie with a conservative moral because conservatives are always on the wrong side of history. If you make a historical movie, the conservatives will always be the villains of the piece.
A movie about a straight, white, Christian man in a position of power who uses his power to crush the dreams and ambitions of a bunch of minorities wouldn't appeal to most people, because most people want stories about overcoming adversity and rising to the challenge, and crushing those who are weaker and less privileged than you is not overcoming adversity or rising to a challenge. It's just kind of mean and bullying.
I haven't seen Captain America yet, but I doubt its pro-conservative (unless you define pro-America as pro-conservative, which is BS). In World War II the conservatives in America were anti-war and pro-Hitler. I mean, who is more conservative than the Nazis? Nobody.
|
|
Considering that Conservatives give to charity at a much higher rate than Liberals, your statement is patently false on the surface. Conservatives believe that such should be an individual choice, not mandated by government. And government should be limited so individual freedom is not squashed, but I guess you like being a slave to the State.So you want a movie where everyones goes away going "Man, I really think we shouldn't be required to help our fellow man." "Yeah, down with the government!"
That's a very misleading claim. Conservatives give to charity at a slightly higher rate than liberals because conservatives are more likely to go to church, and thus more likely to give money to their churches - which counts as charitable givings. But the billions of dollars raked in every year by TV evangelists and hate-groups like Focus on the Family aren't "charity" in anything but the legal sense. Buying a fleet of new cars for Billy Graham isn't "charity."
And conservatives only believe in individual freedom for straight, white, Christian men with wealth. Look around the country and every effort to strip rights from entire classes of people -- women, gays, minorities -- is being organized and fought for by conservatives. Conservatives love to claim they stand for "individual freedom," but actions speak louder than words, and conservative action is all about denying other people freedom. Always has been, always will be.
Keep in mind that many of today's conservatives were alive forty years ago, and fought against desegregation, against women's rights, against gay rights, etc. The claim that conservatives give two shakes about freedom is a facile lie that has no basis in reality.
Considering that Conservatives give to charity at a much higher rate than Liberals, your statement is patently false on the surface. Conservatives believe that such should be an individual choice, not mandated by government. And government should be limited so individual freedom is not squashed, but I guess you like being a slave to the State.So you want a movie where everyones goes away going "Man, I really think we shouldn't be required to help our fellow man." "Yeah, down with the government!"
Anything else you want to conflate to sound like they are related?
Considering that Conservatives give to charity at a much higher rate than Liberals, your statement is patently false on the surface. Conservatives believe that such should be an individual choice, not mandated by government. And government should be limited so individual freedom is not squashed, but I guess you like being a slave to the State.So you want a movie where everyones goes away going "Man, I really think we shouldn't be required to help our fellow man." "Yeah, down with the government!"
That's a very misleading claim. Conservatives give to charity at a slightly higher rate than liberals because conservatives are more likely to go to church, and thus more likely to give money to their churches - which counts as charitable givings. But the billions of dollars raked in every year by TV evangelists and hate-groups like Focus on the Family aren't "charity" in anything but the legal sense. Buying a fleet of new cars for Billy Graham isn't "charity."
And conservatives only believe in individual freedom for straight, white, Christian men with wealth. Look around the country and every effort to strip rights from entire classes of people -- women, gays, minorities -- is being organized and fought for by conservatives. Conservatives love to claim they stand for "individual freedom," but actions speak louder than words, and conservative action is all about denying other people freedom. Always has been, always will be.
Keep in mind that many of today's conservatives were alive forty years ago, and fought against desegregation, against women's rights, against gay rights, etc. The claim that conservatives give two shakes about freedom is a facile lie that has no basis in reality.
I know what you mean, every single one of those female conservative politicians would be working extremely hard to keep women down. And those minority conservative politicians, would be keeping the minorities down. Heck, I even heard somewhere that Eric Cantor was a Nazi and went back in time to send some of his own relatives to the gas chambers.
I know what you mean, every single one of those female conservative politicians would be working extremely hard to keep women down. And those minority conservative politicians, would be keeping the minorities down. Heck, I even heard somewhere that Eric Cantor was a Nazi and went back in time to send some of his own relatives to the gas chambers.
Your last line is a poor attempt to make the other two accusations sound like farces in the face of their demonstrable truth.
I know what you mean, every single one of those female conservative politicians would be working extremely hard to keep women down. And those minority conservative politicians, would be keeping the minorities down. Heck, I even heard somewhere that Eric Cantor was a Nazi and went back in time to send some of his own relatives to the gas chambers.Your last line is a poor attempt to make the other two accusations sound like farces in the face of their demonstrable truth.
"Truth" is such a funny word to use in politics.
"Truth" is such a funny word to use in politics.I know what you mean, every single one of those female conservative politicians would be working extremely hard to keep women down. And those minority conservative politicians, would be keeping the minorities down. Heck, I even heard somewhere that Eric Cantor was a Nazi and went back in time to send some of his own relatives to the gas chambers.Your last line is a poor attempt to make the other two accusations sound like farces in the face of their demonstrable truth.
Demonstrability is truth. If I can produce a conservative woman riffing planned parenthood or birth control, you know like Michelle Bachmann, your attempt at a farcical defense falls on its face.
I removed an offensive post and the replies to it.
Also, can the political debate go elsewhere?
|
|
Conservative women politicians are at the forefront of stripping women's rights. Minority conservatives support policies that are extremely destructive to minorities. I am failing to see your point. I mean, do you really think women would be better off if Palin or Bachmann got elected? Palin who wanted to force women to pay for their own rape kits? Bachmann who wants to take away access to all sex ed and contraception?
Don't evn get me started on that fraud Cain.
I know what you mean, every single one of those female conservative politicians would be working extremely hard to keep women down. And those minority conservative politicians, would be keeping the minorities down. Heck,...Considering that Conservatives give to charity at a much higher rate than Liberals, your statement is patently false on the surface. Conservatives believe that such should be an individual choice, not mandated by government. And government should be limited so individual freedom is not squashed, but I guess you like being a slave to the State.So you want a movie where everyones goes away going "Man, I really think we shouldn't be required to help our fellow man." "Yeah, down with the government!"
That's a very misleading claim. Conservatives give to charity at a slightly higher rate than liberals because conservatives are more likely to go to church, and thus more likely to give money to their churches - which counts as charitable givings. But the billions of dollars raked in every year by TV evangelists and hate-groups like Focus on the Family aren't "charity" in anything but the legal sense. Buying a fleet of new cars for Billy Graham isn't "charity."
And conservatives only believe in individual freedom for straight, white, Christian men with wealth. Look around the country and every effort to strip rights from entire classes of people -- women, gays, minorities -- is being organized and fought for by conservatives. Conservatives love to claim they stand for "individual freedom," but actions speak louder than words, and conservative action is all about denying other people freedom. Always has been, always will be.
Keep in mind that many of today's conservatives were alive forty years ago, and fought against desegregation, against women's rights, against gay rights, etc. The claim that conservatives give two shakes about freedom is a facile lie that has no basis in reality.
This is where things get truly sticky. I dont' think it's that minorities or women who are in conservative power bases feel that they must now join the oppressors to keep anyone down, but instead that they feel that their goals were met, and are now joining an organization that will protect what they have gained. Like I said before, the day after the revolution, the radicals become staunch conservatives.
Demonstrability is truth. If I can produce a conservative woman riffing planned parenthood or birth control, you know like Michelle Bachmann, your attempt at a farcical defense falls on its face.
All squares are rectangles must therefore imply that all rectangles are squares, right? ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...but I guess you like being a slave to the State.
It appears this is OK, but sarcasm (and sarcastic avatars) are now forbidden.
Will Paizo just outright ban political conversation already? It would be a lot easier on everyone. I can't discern any consistent criteria for what is and isn't OK anymore.
...but I guess you like being a slave to the State.It appears this is OK, but sarcasm (and sarcastic avatars) are now forbidden.
Will Paizo just outright ban political conversation already? It would be a lot easier on everyone. I can't discern any consistent criteria for what is and isn't OK anymore.
Well considering this is OK as well ...
In World War II the conservatives in America were anti-war and pro-Hitler. I mean, who is more conservative than the Nazis? Nobody.
Demonstrability is truth. If I can produce a conservative woman riffing planned parenthood or birth control, you know like Michelle Bachmann, your attempt at a farcical defense falls on its face.All squares are rectangles must therefore imply that all rectangles are squares, right? ;)
Except that wasn't your argument. Your argument was the entire idea that female conservatives or racial minority conservatives actually attack the rights of their own minority group was absurd. Which is demonstrably false. Conservative, not Republican, women are at the forefront of pushing women back to being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Racial minority conservatives, not Republicans, are practically shopping for fire hoses. Clarence Thomas by himself is practically the embodiment of this. Replacement for Thurgood Marshall my foot.
...but I guess you like being a slave to the State.It appears this is OK, but sarcasm (and sarcastic avatars) are now forbidden.
Will Paizo just outright ban political conversation already? It would be a lot easier on everyone. I can't discern any consistent criteria for what is and isn't OK anymore.
Well considering this is OK as well ...
In World War II the conservatives in America were anti-war and pro-Hitler. I mean, who is more conservative than the Nazis? Nobody.
I agree. That is a bridge too far. I mean, how could you slander Nazis like that? They weren't conservatives; they were genocidal racists. Totally different.
Except that wasn't your argument. Your argument was the entire idea that female conservatives or racial minority conservatives actually attack the rights of their own minority group was absurd. Which is demonstrably false. Conservative, not Republican, women are at the forefront of pushing women back to being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Racial minority conservatives, not Republicans, are practically shopping for fire hoses. Clarence Thomas by himself is practically the embodiment of this. Replacement for Thurgood Marshall my foot.Demonstrability is truth. If I can produce a conservative woman riffing planned parenthood or birth control, you know like Michelle Bachmann, your attempt at a farcical defense falls on its face.All squares are rectangles must therefore imply that all rectangles are squares, right? ;)
Actually the original argument is that ALL conservatives want to [insert insane comments].
Also, I feel a lot of people fall into the "no true scotsman" mindset. That is why I find the idea of "truth" when it comes to politics so funny.
*sigh* Moderators, will you please shut this thread down. It's become nothing more than a bashing thread. I agree with Bugleyman, political discourse just has to go as well. This thread is a great example.
Also, can the political debate go elsewhere?
Apparently it can't. Thread locked.