The downfall of the right
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Sunday, August 30, 2026 17:08
VIEWED: 5911
PAGE 2 of 9
Quote:Yes. By stepping on the Constitution, Mr. Bush certainly reminded us of it.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Who else was going to express ideas of freedom and remind folks what the Constitution is about, were it not for them?
The so-called "Republicans" you hold up as men of honour are gone, my friend- their time is over. Their damage done. Time for the REAL Conservatives to seize the moment next time- those that would CONSERVE our financial resources, our natural resources, those that would SHRINK government, not balloon it, those that would adhere to the Constitution and the separation of Church & State- in short, all that you despise, Au, all that you fear.
Ha ha ha ha!! NeCons are a footnote in history now, the rise of the new has engulfed you; paddle hard, poor doof.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
• Harm/care. It is wrong to hurt people; it is good to relieve suffering.
Though this is always modified by group ideals - it is OK to harm some, or ignore the suffering of some, under some circumstances, whether it is tearing their still-beating heart out or dropping a bomb on them or passing by the thirsty homeless person on the street.
• Fairness/reciprocity. Justice and fairness are good; people have certain rights that need to be upheld in social interactions.
Begs the definition of people. To the Spartans only citizens were people. To the Icelanders (that halcyon of libertarianism \ anarchism to which we are all supposed to aspire) a thrall was property who could not even defend themselves against physical attack, and definitely NOT a person with rights.
• In-group loyalty. People should be true to their group and be wary of threats from the outside. Allegiance, loyalty and patriotism are virtues; betrayal is bad.
Probably the only constant in this list.
• Authority/respect. People should respect social hierarchy; social order is necessary for human life.
I can think of several large-scale exceptions.
• Purity/sanctity. The body and certain aspects of life are sacred. Cleanliness and health, as well as their derivatives of chastity and piety, are all good. Pollution, contamination and the associated character traits of lust and greed are all bad.
This is awfully Roman\ Christian of him. Cleanliness, chastity and piety aren't the end all and be all across humanity he thinks they are. People DO conform to socially determined body-requirements, though, such as tattooing, painting, dressing, scarification etc; to sexual mores and to group religions.
***************************************************************
In general, I would be far more inclined to go with the authoritarian leader\ authoritarian follower \non-authoritarian division because it's been well-studied, is highly reproducible, and in simulations, predicts actual differences in behavior.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jesus, what the hell? I'm sorry, I just spent the last hour trying to understand this guy's stuff and I need to vent. And I mean VENT!
Signy, sorry but that website looks like a total brain wank. It's just so bizarre to me when academics in this day and age look out at all the data they've laboriously compiled and come up with "The 5 Fundamental Moral Impulses." WTF? Hello, Thomas Aquinas called, he wants his angels and pin back! My moral impulses don't even show up on his chart and every one of the ones he counts could use a chapter's worth of definition.
"Purity" and "Loyalty" and "Fairness?" The only one I got any feeling for what the hell he's talking about, REALLY, is "Harm."
Okay, yeah, harm, that's an issue.
And I have some very strong feelings about respecting authority, but I don't mean what he means by "authority," and, Jesus H. Christ, how we define "respect" is worth a book by itself.
So, I take his "foundationals" quiz, and I get high scores in "Harm" and everything else is a one or two with "fairness" closest to zero (might have been a zero if the questions were more relevant to my understanding--kept having to answer with "slightly's" 'cause I couldn't answer the questions conclusively 'cause they were nearly meaningless).
Then I get to the second quiz and I right away reach the question "How many civilian deaths would be morally acceptable" and it wants a 
number! WHO THE THINKS LIKE THIS??? "Oh, well, I could definitely go with 6, 6 civilian casualties for every one terr'st, but if I see 7 dead, that's it, I'm comin' out there to clean house!" The whole thing is a mental masturbatory non-event.
That, or it's a sickness. The whole project is skewed toward pigeonholing others, toward telling other people what they should and shouldn't do, toward thinking a person has any moral authority to decide how many people it's okay to kill on the other side of the world based on guesswork. That quiz wanted me to base my moral decisions solely on the 100 words or so it gave me at the top of the page.
I'm sorry, moral decisions cannot be made based on 100 words!
And yet untold multitudes of Internet habituées just went ahead and answered the question, like they had THE RIGHT. Yeah, guess I'm tending toward sickness now that I think of it, not non-event.
Anyway, anyway, as I said, I just hadda vent. I think this guy's notion of morality is disgusting and immoral and my loyalty to you all required immediate action in the hopes of preventing any further harm. It's only fair. 
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Rappy, your right-wing heroes have done nothing in their lives except be draft-dodging doughy blowhards. They've studied nothing, sacrificed nothing, learned nothing.
Erm. Sarah Palin's son is in Iraq. Pretty good chance of being sacrificed there.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
*stands behind HKC with a pair of pom-poms cheering*
Mostly cause I happen to be too drunk to do much more than wholeheartedly approve his arguments.
Speakin of which, some day I *would* like to buy you a round, alcoholic or not, dude.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Rappy, your right-wing heroes have done nothing in their lives except be draft-dodging doughy blowhards. They've studied nothing, sacrificed nothing, learned nothing.
Erm. Sarah Palin's son is in Iraq. Pretty good chance of being sacrificed there.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Doesn't McCain have 2 sons who also served/ are serving in Iraq or Afghanistan ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Doesn't McCain have 2 sons who also served/ are serving in Iraq or Afghanistan ?
You mean the "draft-dodging doughy blowhard" who spent several years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, crippling him for life?
Per Snopes:
Doug is a Navy pilot (like his dad), now retired.
Jack attends the Naval Academy.
Jimmy is a Marine and has been stationed in Iraq.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Chickenhawks.
A term that means 'hawks that eat chickens'. Funny how the Left co-opted the meaning and completely inverted it. But it's how they view life, upside down, so it makes perfect sense.
To them.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Rappy's BIGGEST right-wing hero (and I mean that in ranking not in size, altho it works both ways) is hillbilly heroin addicted viagra-popping doughboy Rush Limbaugh. His next biggest hero is Bush, and the one after that is Cheney. Add in Hannity and Beck, and you've got a perfect royal flush of know-nothings.
Rappy, your right-wing heroes have done nothing in their lives except be draft-dodging doughy blowhards. They've studied nothing, sacrificed nothing, learned nothing.
---------------------------------
They pit us like dogs against each other and rake it in. And I'll bet they laugh when they hear dupes like you defend the system that fucks you over and rewards them so nicely! But the one thing they'll stamp out in horror as if it were the spark of conflagration is any whiff of socialism. That should tell you something.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The Left has it in for you guys, and yer goin' down, ha ha! Get ready for sweeping change, comrade.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Funny how the Left co-opted the meaning and completely inverted it.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME