Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
With that said - there have been many notable conservative intellectuals in history, as well.
Really? What a concept. I've never associated 'conservative' with 'intellectual', at least as far as social issues go. That is what makes them so dangerous, it's all about hate and intolerance.
I'll let someone else argue about the stereotyped "it's all about hate and intolerance" viewpoint - that's a pretty broad brush to paint people with. I'm not interested in arguing about liberal vs conservative viewpoints - each side will defend it's side with general statements painting the other side as villains. Nothing will be settled in this thread, and it will only flare tempers. If it were that easy to settle, parties wouldn't exist. So please - just be aware that each side can fling insults at each other all day long.
If you take a jog through history, you will find many intellectual conservatives, and many liberal conservatives. You can find them in Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Ancient India, China, etc, etc. The balance of liberals and conservatives varies according to the culture they are living in, the government, etc. It's a mistake to think that all conservatives are idiots, and that all liberals are smart. It's just wishful thinking. There are many cultural, religious and social influences at work in how the balance between them is perceived during different periods of time. I don't limit myself to JUST the Bush Administration when assessing them.
If you take a jog through history, you will find many intellectual conservatives, and many liberal conservatives. You can find them in Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Ancient India, China, etc, etc. The balance of liberals and conservatives varies according to the culture they are living in, the government, etc.
Well no doubt, Mattardo! No argument there. My post addressed the issue of American social conservatives. Obviously I spent many years in the UK, and whilst most of my devout Anglican friends were outright conservatives (the Tories at prayer?), I never saw anything like what I now see with the American Religious Right. It is beyond my capacity to understand that mentality, and my apologies.
Religious Right = Taliban. Same concept, different flags.
Far far leftist hate speech, Jason. You need to chill out.
Well, sorry. From what I have read, they don't seem much different to me. The respective objectives are much the same, and it seems apparent IMO that they need each other to exist. The Religious Right is the Taliban's best ally in the US. And vice versa.
If you really want to talk about celebreities playing piano, there's always Asia Carrera - who supposedly played at Carnegie Hall a few times. Sure, she's not a politician - but she would probably be very persuasive if she were one...
Why would anyone with a high IQ and accomplished musical skills become a pornstar??
Working On-
Deux Arabesques, Debussy
On Queue-
Danse Russe from Petroushka, Stravinsky Toccata, Ravel
I don't know his personal politics, but Rachmaninoff despised both the pre-revolution Russian regime and the far-left Communist regime that replaced it.
As for the United States of America, he said this:
Quote
“In his last days he spoke with pride of his newly acquired American citizenship, remarking,
“This is the only place on earth where a huyman being is respected for what he is and for what he does, and it does not matter who he is or where he is from.â€
From "Sergei Rachmaninoff, a Bio-Bibliography" by Robert Cunningham.
Moderate Liberal.
Working On-
Deux Arabesques, Debussy
On Queue-
Danse Russe from Petroushka, Stravinsky Toccata, Ravel
You don't have to be incredibly intelligent to be a conservative, but all incredibly intelligent people (who care about other people)are.
Hmm, then I guess Einstein wasn't very intelligent.
Nor, going by Damon's account, are most university professors and scientists. Strange world, eh?
Ah, but surely you'll admit that the intelligence of those people pales beside the intelligence of the millions of true-blue American conservatives who believe that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, that Socialists are out to take away their Medicare, and that not only is Barack Obama a Moslem, but he may also actually be the Antichrist.
Religious Right = Taliban. Same concept, different flags.
That sounds like hate speech, Jason. You need to chill out.
That's a bad comparison, Jason - especially if the only two things they share in common are religious views, and even then they are two different religions.
Christianity has left it's crusading days - they no longer use the sword to gain converts, as far as I know.
Christopher Hitchens is fond of this argument - almost all of his arguments can be boiled down to: "Terrorism is bad and should be wipe out. The terrorists are religious zealots. Religious zealots come from religion. Religion is bad and should be wiped out." Sometimes, he adds the argument "scientists are awesome" lol.
You see - that doesn't really work. It's one of those logical examples that people usually work on in school, and laugh because they lead to absurd conclusions.
Religious Right = Taliban. Same concept, different flags.
That sounds like hate speech, Jason. You need to chill out.
That's a bad comparison, Jason - especially if the only two things they share in common are religious views, and even then they are two different religions.
Christianity has left it's crusading days - they no longer use the sword to gain converts, as far as I know.
Christopher Hitchens is fond of this argument - almost all of his arguments can be boiled down to: "Terrorism is bad and should be wipe out. The terrorists are religious zealots. Religious zealots come from religion. Religion is bad and should be wiped out." Sometimes, he adds the argument "scientists are awesome" lol.
You see - that doesn't really work. It's one of those logical examples that people usually work on in school, and laugh because they lead to absurd conclusions.
Given his uneasy alliance with American neocons on the basis of their strong support for the war on terror, I hardly think Hitchens would agree that the Christian right is anywhere near as bad.
Religious Right = Taliban. Same concept, different flags.
That sounds like hate speech, Jason. You need to chill out.
That's a bad comparison, Jason - especially if the only two things they share in common are religious views, and even then they are two different religions.
Christianity has left it's crusading days - they no longer use the sword to gain converts, as far as I know.
Christopher Hitchens is fond of this argument - almost all of his arguments can be boiled down to: "Terrorism is bad and should be wipe out. The terrorists are religious zealots. Religious zealots come from religion. Religion is bad and should be wiped out." Sometimes, he adds the argument "scientists are awesome" lol.
You see - that doesn't really work. It's one of those logical examples that people usually work on in school, and laugh because they lead to absurd conclusions.
Given his uneasy alliance with American neocons on the basis of their strong support for the war on terror, I hardly think Hitchens would agree that the Christian right is anywhere near as bad.
It's hard to tell with him - you have a very good point. He might be biting the hand that feeds him there! Fortunately, it's not just neo-conservatives that believe terrorism should be wiped out. I don't think it's as simple as fighting a war against, say, Germany - and the only true solution is one that would not appeal to the modern mind, but it's something that's easily used as a political poker chip.
I gave up on Hitchens after watching him debate the Reverend Al Sharpton - he had already shown signs that he had basically one argument, but this was the icing on the cake. The Reverend won the debate quite handily, even though Hitchens never quite understood how he was losing the debate. It just demonstrated his one-track mind and his inability to adapt to a rebuttal he hadn't prepared for - he kept repeating himself over and over, even though Sharpton had demonstrated the fallacy of his argument. It was sadly pathetic. The audience all loved Hitchens, and laughed at the Reverend - but it was quite clear that the Reverned, despite the audience's hooting, had the better arguments.
If anyone can get a hold of that debate (it's easily torrented in a collecion called Atheist Videos), it's well worth watching. It's a wonder that it hasn't been supressed by Hitchens. It's surprising to me, how well-spoken and reasoned Al Sharpton was in that debate. I had to change my opinion of both men.
Religious Right = Taliban. Same concept, different flags.
That sounds like hate speech, Jason. You need to chill out.
That's a bad comparison, Jason - especially if the only two things they share in common are religious views, and even then they are two different religions.
Christianity has left it's crusading days - they no longer use the sword to gain converts, as far as I know.
Christopher Hitchens is fond of this argument - almost all of his arguments can be boiled down to: "Terrorism is bad and should be wipe out. The terrorists are religious zealots. Religious zealots come from religion. Religion is bad and should be wiped out." Sometimes, he adds the argument "scientists are awesome" lol.
You see - that doesn't really work. It's one of those logical examples that people usually work on in school, and laugh because they lead to absurd conclusions.
Given his uneasy alliance with American neocons on the basis of their strong support for the war on terror, I hardly think Hitchens would agree that the Christian right is anywhere near as bad.
It's hard to tell with him - you have a very good point. He might be biting the hand that feeds him there! Fortunately, it's not just neo-conservatives that believe terrorism should be wiped out. I don't think it's as simple as fighting a war against, say, Germany - and the only true solution is one that would not appeal to the modern mind, but it's something that's easily used as a political poker chip.
I gave up on Hitchens after watching him debate the Reverend Al Sharpton - he had already shown signs that he had basically one argument, but this was the icing on the cake. The Reverend won the debate quite handily, even though Hitchens never quite understood how he was losing the debate. It just demonstrated his one-track mind and his inability to adapt to a rebuttal he hadn't prepared for - he kept repeating himself over and over, even though Sharpton had demonstrated the fallacy of his argument. It was sadly pathetic. The audience all loved Hitchens, and laughed at the Reverend - but it was quite clear that the Reverned, despite the audience's hooting, had the better arguments.
If anyone can get a hold of that debate (it's easily torrented in a collecion called Atheist Videos), it's well worth watching. It's a wonder that it hasn't been supressed by Hitchens. It's surprising to me, how well-spoken and reasoned Al Sharpton was in that debate. I had to change my opinion of both men.
No argument there. My post addressed the issue of American 
![[Linked Image]](http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0901/asia-carrera-asia-carrera-port-star-genius-demotivational-poster-1233262393.jpg)
