The magic of dupery alchemizes Stalinists into civil libertarians, war-mongering worshippers of Che, Mao, and Ho into peace activists, and Communists into civil-rights activists. Paul Kengor has written a whole book on the phenomenon: "Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century." Read my column @ Human Events, which wonders if the real dupes aren't misguided liberals apologizing for totalitarians but the conservatives who believe that they act in good faith.

You should write a blog article about the correlation between healthy, growing unions and a healthy, growing American economy from 1945-1979, which is empirically irrefutable. You should also write a blog article about how liberals helped create child labor laws, OSHA standards, 40 hour work weeks, minimum wage laws, and important regulations that protect the stock market from crashing.

Then, you should write an article about how corporatists, ethical egoists, cultural Christian agnostics, neoconservatives, and anarcho-capitalists banded together to wage a 30+ year war against working people and decent regulation which decimated the greatest industrial apparatus the world has ever seen for short-term individual wealth maximization, and how that has contributed to useful peasants like asdf and the sloppy Teabaggers facilitating this destruction through b1zarre, sadomasochistic political activism.

The problem with liberals is that they can't help themselves from social and economic tinkering and all of the regulations and union structuring that were necessary for those times has morphed into standards requiring public money to keep them afloat to insure that one party maintains power.

The fact that those efforts have been skewed over time has zero to do with conservatives or Republicans.

"Christian agnostics". Good one. Alway entertaining.

I think though that your teabagger missed the mark and they are in your eyes as you seem to be not seeing very clearly these days.

asdf wrote,

The problem with liberals is that they can't help themselves from social and economic tinkering

It would be helpful if you defined your terms. Reagan revolution deficit spending is social and economic tinkering. NAFTA, which was supported by market fundamentalists including Clinton, Gore, and virtually every single Republican except Pat Buchanan, is a form of social and economic tinkering. In fact, politics in general is social and economic tinkering. That quoted statement is meaningless.

all of the regulations and union structuring that were necessary for those times has morphed into standards requiring public money to keep them afloat to insure that one party maintains power.

Wow! What does this even mean? Are you implying that unions were necessary during the Golden Era of American Prosperity, which is an extremely liberal ideological position? I'm not sure you even know what you mean.

The fact that those efforts have been skewed over time has zero to do with conservatives or Republicans.

If you're insisting that Republicans are not fundamentally opposed to unions, OSHA standards, Glass-Steagall regulations and other necessary regulations, and minimum wage laws, then you don't know basic facts about American history.

"Christian agnostics". Good one. Alway entertaining.

That wasn't meant to be intentionally misleading, although I can see how it would be. Any cultural conservative ethical egoist who claims to be an orthodox or literalist Christian does not understand what the Bible says, or what the requirements for salvation are. The vast majority of Christians are "cafeteria" Christians, those who choose to endorse and follow precepts and tenets with which they agree, and to disregard those that they find unpleasant.

Thomas Altizer is a famous Christian Atheist, and was featured on the cover of Time Magazine and wrote a book about it.

There are many forms of Christianity, including Christian Agnostics, Heretical Christians, and orthodox, literalist, or dogmatic Christians. Christians in continental Europe are generally liberals or Greens, Christians in America, the U.K., and elsewhere, are generally ethical egoists and conservative.

PMA, you've got to lighten up a bit and stick to the topic at hand...or at least try and refute it.

But, since you decided to stray off the topic...

Yes, a 40 hour work week was a step forward for the betterment of society, as are OSHA standards and child labour laws (btw, please present your evidence that Conservatives are against child labour laws...not even sure a Libertarian would argue against that).

Secondly, Unions have had their use in demanding and forcing better working conditions for their workers, but...and this is where your average Conservative parts ways with your argument...they have morphed into associations more concerned with unsustainable wages and perks rather than working in a mutually beneficial way with their employers. GM didn't go broke just because they built cars people didn't want.

Actually, ASDF made this point more succinctly than I have.

Cultural Christian Agnostics? I guess I'm name calling here but that's more descriptive of your average Church shopping progressive (see Barry going to a church for upwards of 20 years give or take and then throwing his pastor over the side because it was politically expedient) than your average Conservative.

Christian Atheist? Whether Thomas Altizer describes himself as one or not, the phrase (and concept) is an oxymoron. Kinda funny though.

"Any cultural conservative ethical egoist who claims to be an orthodox or literalist Christian does not understand what the Bible says, or what the requirements for salvation are."

Well that's just insulting to everyone and total crap.

Teabaggers...? It's almost not worth debating when you come from such a condescending and ignorant point of view ( ya damn Commie!)

See...doesn't further the debate at all.

"Reagan revolution deficit spending is social and economic tinkering. NAFTA, which was supported by market fundamentalists including Clinton, Gore, and virtually every single Republican except Pat Buchanan, is a form of social and economic tinkering. In fact, politics in general is social and economic tinkering."

Now that I agree with. Not necessarily any of the programs you cited, but merely with the comment that "in general" politics is about social and economic tinkering.

Kudos for pointing that out.

Oh, and a little postscript. Which Unions would you say are healthy these days, and what makes them healthy? (please don't say b/c they vote Democrat...please?)

Unions are unhealthy and dying, and are essentially a political arm of the Democratic party. If they exercise independence, and try to hold establishmentarians accountable, as they attempted in Arkansas against Blanche Lincoln, they are viciously attacked by establishmentarians, and told to shut up and fall in line.

The point, which is proven by empirical evidence, is that when unions are healthy and growing, the American economy is healthy and growing. Conservatives are fundamentally opposed to healthy, growing unions, which is why they are fundamentally opposed to healthy, sustainable economic growth. They advocated policies which dismantled decent regulation (Glass-Steagall), tilted the rule of law in favor of the parasitic finance sector and bloated, inefficient corporations (think Phrma, the Illness Opportunity Industry, Microsoft, the MIC), and created tax policies which incentivized liquidation of the industrial base for short-term individual wealth maximization, thus destroying the greatest industrial apparatus in human history.

Conservatives support boom and bust bubble economies as an economic policy. We only need look at the data from 1945-1979 and 1981-present (the devastating Reagan Revolution and beyond) to see the devastation this has wrought, particularly on the working poor and middle class.

NR wrote,

Well that's just insulting to everyone and total crap.

I'm sorry that you find orthodox Christian doctrine insulting and total crap. I didn't make the rules, the human authors of the Bible did.

Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.
-Luke 12:33, KJV

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
-Mark 12:29-31 KJV

Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
-Matthew 7:20-24, KJV

And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
-Matthew 18:28-29, KJV

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
-Matthew 18:23-24, KJV

I know it's tough for you, but you can't cherry pick what you want from the Bible and pretend you can just say, "I'm sorry Jesus, please forgive me" and proceed to do whatever the hell you want. It doesn't work that way, although cultural conservative ethical egoist Christians will scream it is so until they're blue in the face.

I'm glad, for your sake, that God doesn't exist. Why? Because there's a very clear criterion for salvation: sacrificing everything you have, giving everything away to the poor, loving your neighbor as yourself, and bearing fruit for God. If you don't do that, you're simply not saved. Christ will say "Depart from me, I never knew you."

Wow, PMA, you sure do know how to cut and paste quotes from the bible. However, they're all great quotes even though you've quoted them out of context. Try reading the verses around them.

For example:

Jesus talking of selling all your possessions and giving the proceeds to the poor...well, he's specifically talking to his disciples, ie. those twelve guys spreading the word.

As for the rich man getting into heaven, here's another quote for you, "This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is NOT RICH TOWARDS GOD." Luke 12:21. In other words, hoarders who don't display Christian charity. Sure, it's not easy for a rich man to get into heaven, but nowhere does it say he can't.

You certainly seem to love to try and stereotype Christians. Loved your rant about how Christians ask Jesus' forgiveness and then do whatever they want. Sure, some do, but then they really aren't Christians, are they?

But, your stereotyping is just another form of cherrypicking...some Christians are bad...therefore they must all be. That is the argument you're making, whether you fancy it up with your "cultural Conservative ethical egoist Christian" moniker (please tell me you made that one up...it's quite the mouthful) or not. Sure, you're using a nifty label, but we both know you're trying to lump the totality of Christians together.

I know it's tough for you (love that condescending phrase), but we're not all hypocrites. Just like not all (or really any) Blacks are lazy, or Jews are cheap...or any of the slurs you would condemn while making one yourself.

As for Unions...Conservatives are not opposed to "healthy" Unions, just the statist and party motivated ones you described in your last post.

Atheism actually scares me more than fundamentalism. Mao...Stalin...Hitler...Pol Pot. All Atheists (although Hitler was a bit of a spiritualist nut), and in the twentieth century their policies and personalities killed more people than any organized religion.

So Good luck with that Atheism thing.

Oh, and nice play on my words by the way. I don't find Orthodox Christian doctrine insulting and total crap. Just your mischaracterization of the average Christian. Tell you what, I'll get that speck out of my eye when you get that log out of yours.

I find it interesting that the same leftists who constantly carp about Christians won't say boo about Muslims.

It’s likely because the murder factor with Christians is nil and they fear any violent repercussions from Islamists. So why do Christians bother them so much if they are less prone to force their religion on us? Are Christians really that much of a threat? Don’t think so.

Proves to me, once again, what hypocritical wimps the left are.

NR wrote,

"Sure, you're using a nifty label, but we both know you're trying to lump the totality of Christians together."

You can claim certain knowledge about my motives and internal thought processes if it makes you feel better. I certainly respect many Christians, including Kant, Descartes, Aquinas, MLK Jr., and many liberation theologists that truly followed Christ's calling to love your neighbor and plead the cause of the poor and needy, many of whom were also murdered by conservative religious and political leaders.

For example, Ignacio Ellacuría

The political implications of Ellacuría's commitment to his ideas met strong opposition from the conservative religious and political forces in El Salvador. This opposition led to Ellacuría’s murder by the Salvadoran army in 1989 at his residence in UCA along with five other fellow Jesuit priests and two employees.

He was one of countless liberal Christians who's been murdered by corporatist conservatives in South America. The fundamentally anti-Christian nature of conservatism certainly has reared its ugly head in our hemisphere over the past half century.

In other words, hoarders who don't display Christian charity. Sure, it's not easy for a rich man to get into heaven, but nowhere does it say he can't.

If you want to play games with Christ's words, fine. I don't want to interfere with your quest to rationalize and assuage your feelings of guilt. But in an interconnected, global environment when every 1.5 to 3 seconds a human being starves to death, and you can save lives by clicking a mouse button, not selling all of your possessions, giving everything away, taking up the cross of Christ and bearing fruit constitutes a gross violation of the Chief Commandments. Go ahead and play games, but I'm not sure your God will participate. (this is why the vow of poverty is a crucial component of spiritual leadership in the Catholic Church)

I don't think only conservative Christians are hypocrites. Anyone who claims the high ground morally is a hypocrite if they haven't done everything they can to save human life.

James Rachels sums things up very nicely, and I've quoted this before:

To summarize: Jack Palance, who refuses to hand a sandwich to a starving child, is a moral monster. But we feel intuitively that we are not so monstrous, even though we also let starving children die when we could feed them almost as easily. If this intuition is correct, there must be some important difference between him and us. But when we examine the most obvious differences between his conduct and ours—the location of the dying, the differences in numbers—we find no real basis for judging ourselves less harshly than we judge him. Perhaps there are some other grounds on which we might distinguish our moral position, with respect to actual starving people, from Jack Palance's position with respect to the child in my story. But I cannot think of what they might be. Therefore, I conclude that if he is a monster, then so are we—or at least, so are we after our rationalizations and thoughtlessness have been exposed.

According to Rachels, the following three propositions are incompatible:

1. There is no morally relevant difference between Jack Palance and us.

2. Jack Palance is a moral monster.

3. We are not moral monsters.

asdf wrote,

I find it interesting that the same leftists who constantly carp about Christians won't say boo about Muslims.

What would you like me to say?

I'd prefer you to say nothing about either. You use Christianity to take the higher moral ground to frame your argument when it suits you and rail against it when it doesn't.

You want to go on about Conservative scumbags, by all means. But leave Christ out of the argument if you please.

PMA wrote:

I don't want to interfere with your quest to rationalize and assuage your feelings of guilt.

Believe me dude, I have no guilt about my religion.

You reduce yourself to a caricature when you claim that Christians must sell all their possessions and live like paupers to get into heaven.

You also do everyone a misservice when you claim (and that's what you're doing) that Christians are a bunch of misers who don't contribute to the betterment of mankind. I'll let my foster kid ecide whether I'm a miser.

ASDF...what I love about pretty much every Atheist I've ever met or talked to is that they are so sanctimonious about religion (ironic in itself) in general and Christianity specifically, yet don't see their lack of faith as a religion of sorts in it's own right, and their zealotry in regards to it.

True, I don't know PMA's motives (although a crushing hatred of anyone of faith...his absolving examples aside seems obvious, or his internal processes, but the examples of his views given here shed light into those self-same processes and prejudices.

PMA says:

"f you want to play games with Christ's words, fine"

I'll have to respond with, same with you. You were the one who cherrypicked quotes w/o the surrounding context and then claimed a sort of "unspiritual" authority.

Irony of irony, you had nothing to say about the excesses (and that's a polite term for it) of Atheists in the 20th century.

And your Jack Palance argument is a straw man and a great example of formal fallacy.

You say it yourself, yet you use it as an example of what? That Christians are hypocrites because they don't wear sack cloth?

It's almost as if you argue by word count. PMA wrote (or cut and paste) the most...therefore he must be right. Also a fallacy.

I would have to agree with that and it's tiring when professed atheists, instead of being secure in their decision and commitment to have no God, go out of their way to discourage those who do have faith. It makes them appear to be phonies at the least and confused about their true beliefs at most. Which, I think they are.

It’s also interesting to me too that most atheists tend left and love to flaunt their atheism as a right ot passage to leftist views. Furthermore, as they can’t logically defend their letftist positions, they use the Right’s overall belief in Christianity as an excuse for an argument. Another straw man? I think so.

I just wonder what a leftist phony like PMA thinks about his hero Obama professing to be a Christian? Not to worry though, Obama is the kind of “Christian” who comes out only when he’s in trouble and needs the support of the very people he urinates on.

But we know what kind of “Christian” he is by his actions. The kind of “Christian” who covered up the crosses at Georgetown when he spoke there, the kind of “Christian” who mistakes his faith as his Muslim faith, the kind of “Christian” who talks about people clinging to religion.

Disingenuous hypocrites all.

And to profess ignorance of what you're talking about when you ask him his views on the Muslim religion (whether Radicalized or Moderate) is also disingenuous.

PMA is quite smart, and eloquent. I had to look up Anarcho-Capitalism (which the Reagan administration does not fit...he would have been better off to point out the Bush administration's use of civilian contractors such as Blackwater if he were to have any chance of that argument sticking) and the term Cultural Christian. However, I question the wisdom of his arguments.

We all tend to stereotype. Not all Democrats are bad, or all Republicans good, or all Christians good, or all Muslims bad...or even all Atheists. I'm just sick of Christians being the whipping boys of the left.

I feel bad for poor Jack Palance to have been caught up in such a flawed thought experiment. It doesn't take into account real life. It suggests that all inaction is an active choice (confusing thought in itselt), and yet that is simply not the case.

Every time someone is asked at a book store or grocery store to donate, they have a choice. Choosing not to does not necessarily make you a moral monster (too many variables to factor...lack of means or suspicion of where the funds actually go would be two examples)

I would give credit to those nasty Capitalists for giving people that option, even if it is just "good business."

Final thought on Atheism versus faith: If Christians (or Muslims, or Buddhists or whatever) are wrong about an afterlife...no harm, no foul. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

If Atheists are wrong...ironically...God help them.