The braniacs of the right continue to illuminate our world with their nonsense. No wonder it is so easy for the right to wipe their butts with the constitution – they have no idea what it actually says.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Dennis Prager Says Equality Is Not An American Value
October 29th, 2008
32 Comments
I think Prager probably was talking about economic equality. He and the rest of the conservative clown commentariat are still convinced that the tax rates we had under Clinton and a Republican Congress (39.6% top marginal federal income; 20% top capital gains tax rate) are “socialist.”
Ah, PG, beat me to it. What he said, but less articulate.
The Declaration of Independence is mostly lies, so I don’t know whether it’s a good indicator of what makes an American value. Of the roughly 30 assertions in the document, I counted about 20 or so that are false or barely true.
Political equality is certainly an American value, and would have been much earlier if the economics hadn’t been against it.
Of the roughly 30 assertions in the document, I counted about 20 or so that are false or barely true.
You sayin’ the Founding Fathers were trolls?
The Constitution is my lodestar for American values. It keeps it real: the government isn’t here to protect our “pursuit of happiness,” but rather our life, liberty and property.
You sayin’ the Founding Fathers were trolls?
I hadn’t thought about it that way, but… shoot, now that you mention it. When Jefferson blames King George for forcing slavery upon the colonies… father of all trolling right there.
Here’s an interpretation that ought to piss off a bunch of people:
Prager was saying that America is a nation of equal OPPORTUNITIES.
The European models he cited pushed for equality of RESULTS.
We are promised the right to PURSUE happiness, not ACHIEVE it.
It’s still up to us to work for what we want.
J.
Here’s an interpretation that ought to make everyone happy:
Prager thinks Europe offers equal opportunity to gay people, the U.S. doesn’t and because God hates fags, the U.S. is Godly.
You mean like how George W. Bush’s daddy bailed him out of failure after failure? Or like how John McCain’s daddy got him through the academy based on family connections?
So Jay Tea, do you think that America is truly a nation of equal opportunities? Because if you do, you’re an idiot.
Which European nation has equality of result? If you say France, I have some ghettoized Muslims to introduce you to. No European nation has or even aspires to equality of result; what they do try to do is ensure some basic decencies of life, like education, health care and child care. If thinking that every child should be able to get annual checkups makes me a Commie, I’m OK with that.
Following up on mambo’s comment, the 14th Amendment guarantees equal treatment under the law to all American citizens.
So first of all, Prager needs to be far more specific than simply stating that equality is not an American value. It’s not only an American value, it’s a freaking right under the law in the Constitution.
Now if Prager meant that economic equality is not an American value I would ask him to point to a single policy promoted by the Democratic Party or Barack Obama that’s based on the notion of economic equality as a Constitutional right.
In the preamble of the Constitution states that one of its purposes is to “promote the general welfare.” I’m of the mind that it isn’t such a stretch to argue that a basic social safety net falls within that goal. Promoting the general welfare through a social safety net designed to maintain a substance level of food, shelter and health is hardly an attempt to create a system economic equality.
Another policy that comes under attack under these terms is affirmative action. But affirmative action is precisely designed to promote equal opportunity. It does not guarantee “equal results.”
In other words, Jay Tea, the only way your defense of Prager makes any sense is if we first acknowledge that Prager is distorting the philosophy and function of progressive policies. In that sense, I’d totally agree with you: Prager means exactly what you say he means because he’s a lying hack.
what they do try to do is ensure some basic decencies of life, like education, health care and child care.
Excatly. Providing basic necessities is not economic equality.
Here’s an interpretation that ought to piss off a bunch of people:
Prager was saying that America is a nation of equal OPPORTUNITIES.
The European models he cited pushed for equality of RESULTS.
Except Prager didn’t actually say any of that, Mr. Tea. What he said was:
You know, you show a much greater willingness to “interpret” when the speaker is a conservative. Why is that?
Parthenon: I hadn’t thought about it that way, but… shoot, now that you mention it. When Jefferson blames King George for forcing slavery upon the colonies… father of all trolling right there.
And he owned slaves. So you got’s yer trolling and hypocrisy in one neat package.
(Hmmm. Thomas Jefferson. “TJ”. Jay Tea. Coincidence?)
Jay “the idiot” Tea: “Prager was saying that America is a nation of equal OPPORTUNITIES.
The European models he cited pushed for equality of RESULTS.
We are promised the right to PURSUE happiness, not ACHIEVE it.
It’s still up to us to work for what we want.”
What Prager actually said: “Equality, which is the primary value of the left, is a European value, not an American value.”
Twins of stupidity.
Here’s what the DOI says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”
Here’s what the Constitution says: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Yeah, the founders of America hated equality so much that they enshrined in the DOI and later into the Constitution.
“Here’s an interpretation that ought to piss off a bunch of people:”
It should piss people off, because it is a fucking lie.
Now go away, you are useless in this debate.
We’re all about equality of result? Wow, news to me.
Jay, Prager attacked “equality” period, not “equality of results”.
Here’s a nice pdf chart for Dennis Prager and Jay Tea and their ilk to choke on:
http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP_International_F2.pdf
You were saying??
More for Jay Tea:
http://thepoorman.net/2008/10/29/step-1-forcefully-apply-head-to-desk-step-2-repeat-until-election-is-over/
This is who they are.
Nothing more enlightening than seeing the inner glimpses of what the in crowd here understands about the Constitution and our founding fathers.
First up
PG
The Constitution is my lodestar for American values. It keeps it real: the government isn’t here to protect our “pursuit of happiness,” but rather our life, liberty and property.
You seem to misunderstand your lodestar of American Values.
The Constitution is a written and defined limitation of the powers of the Government. We protect ourselves from the government.
Next up Fafaroo
“Another policy that comes under attack under these terms is affirmative action. But affirmative action is precisely designed to promote equal opportunity. It does not guarantee “equal results.” LOL, nor does it provide for equal protection under the law.
“In the preamble of the Constitution states that one of its purposes is to “promote the general welfare.” I’m of the mind that it isn’t such a stretch to argue that a basic social safety net falls within that goal. Promoting the general welfare through a social safety net designed to maintain a substance level of food, shelter and health is hardly an attempt to create a system economic equality.”
Despite the mangled syntax if the general welfare mentioned in the Constitution is a right then it becomes a duty for the citizens to be provided with such. A right to meals and a place to live? Why not a right to a big screen plasma TV or a fancy new car? This is the thinking process of members of a welfare state. While we’re at it let’s force a minority of the citizens to pay for these new “rights” for everyone else.
Strangely that is Obama’s very simple plan, to pander to the desires of a majority by taking the money from a minority and buying votes with it. Socialism, an ever bigger welfare state providing more and more of the needs and services desired by a people once free.
“Why not a right to a big screen plasma TV or a fancy new car? This is the thinking process of members of a welfare state.”
And the thinking of paranoid, reactionary idiots leads to “welfare queens and liberals want to take MY plasma TV and car.” Which is, of course, why you’re not voting for a black man. Why it’d be just like handing your TV and car to lazy (black) people.
Listen, Amused, you live in a fantasy world of right wing rhetoric. Providing the basic means of survival, like fucking FOOD! for god sakes, doesn’t lead to people demanding filet mignon every meal. It leads to people who have a basic chance to improve themselves and their situation and a reasonable expectation that they will be able to do that because they aren’t fucking starving.
Jesus christ.
“LOL, nor does it provide for equal protection under the law.”
Affirmative action is the law you moron and its been challenged in court. Certainly formulas for affirmative action have been struck down. Others upheld as constitutional.
It’s almost like you have no idea what you’re talking about.
AO,
Fifth Amendment: “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” See anything in there about the “pursuit of happiness”?
The Constitution is a written and defined limitation of the powers of the Government.
That’s not all it is, despite what you may wish. See, e.g., the Seventh Amendment, which gives a positive right of jury trial in CIVIL suits over amounts more than $20. How does that define and limit the powers of the Government? How does the Thirteenth Amendment define and limit the powers of the Government, when it forbids slavery (which the government did not practice — that is, the government did not hold slaves — though it did legislate and execute laws to support slaveowners’ rights)?
I could keep going, but the point has been made: the Constitution isn’t solely about defining and limiting the power of government, despite your and Prager’s regrets about the 13th Amendment.
If equality is such a core American value of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, how does slavery and blacks being equal to 3/5th of a person fit into that scheme? How many slaves did the Founding Fathers own between them while they were agreeing, on paper, that “all men are created equal”? And how equal were women to men? How about property owners vs. non-property owners?
I cannot believe we are having this discussion.
The trolls are actually arguing against the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and in favor of inequality.
Have you no shame? At long last, have you no sense of decency?
After November 4th, you tools really need to go to a nice quiet spot and re-evaluate your lives and your world views. Do it for the team.
Equality is a core value of the Constitution even if it was not always practiced. I agree that the Constitution is flawed, but we have been working on correcting the flaws. Note that several people have pointed to the 14th Amendment, which established the U.S. citizenship of persons born or naturalized in the U.S., and which was part of the correction of the Constitution, much like the 13th Amendment forbidding slavery, the 15th Amendment guaranteeing the right to vote regardless of race, and the 19th Amendment guaranteeing the right to vote regardless of sex. That’s why liberals kept talking about how the Federal Marriage Amendment would rewrite inequality into the Constitution, when the last 200-odd years have been a long, slow march toward the equality that the Founders talked about but didn’t always carry out in practice.
Never a perfect union, but always a MORE perfect union.
“If equality is such a core American value of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, how does slavery and blacks being equal to 3/5th of a person fit into that scheme?”
It’s really astonishing what some people will say when they’re desperate.
PG,
“Fifth Amendment: “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” See anything in there about the “pursuit of happiness”?
Certainly you are aware that you are mixing two documents.
The tenth amendment sums up my position.
Your comments regarding the abolishment of slavery are completely uncalled for. Neither myself nor Prager had taken that position, as you very well know.
Slavery has existed for thousands of years and indeed is still happening in Africa. This country has paid a huge price for participating that age old practice.
But, once again, that’s not what we’re talking about.
If you’re actually interesting in FACTS and would like to hear Dennis Prager discuss precisely what he said then move the slider to 40:00 here: http://dennisprager.townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=d41b7565-71f5-4804-9c21-e981bdfa9639