The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: dandi on January 27, 2010, 01:07:38 PM
-
By POLITICO STAFF
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has come up with a novel way to energize the base and capitalize on the left’s antipathy to Fox News—a “Fact Check Fox†State of the Union rapid response team staffed by grassroots activists.
“This group of Democratic Party activists will stand at the ready to counter the lies and distortions that erupt from the rightwing media and Republican spin doctors like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck following President Obama's State of the Union address on Wednesday night,†reads the email, which will be sent out Wednesday to its 4 million-plus list. “You will receive rapid response fact check text alerts and a direct line to our Rapid Response team to tell us when you see Republican pundits and Members of Congress twisting the truth.â€
The DCCC email, which says it aims to recruit 5,000 new members to its fact check team by midnight, comes with head shots of four top Fox villains—Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32078.html
The democratics are bleeding popularity like an open jugular, Obama has run out of tricks after only one year, challenges to their seats coming from every direction and what do they do?
Go after 4 media pundits on a news channel.
:lmao: :mental:
Brilliant plan, DUmbasses! I highly encourage you to keep it up!
-
I can't wait to see some fact checking done about Lord Zero's lies in the SOTU.
-
O.M.G. I'm all a'twitter..... ::)
-
This oughta be good! :-)
-
I can't wait to see some fact checking done about Lord Zero's lies in the SOTU.
That's exactly what flashed through my mind...OhBummer need fact-checking alot more than any commentators do, he and his loyal minions haver been playing ever faster and looser with their bullshit stats lately, stimulus results for instance, to the point that they can't even all tell consistent lies.
-
They're going to fact check the media's response, but not the content of what the TOTUS says?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32078.html
The democratics are bleeding popularity like an open jugular, Obama has run out of tricks after only one year, challenges to their seats coming from every direction and what do they do?
Go after 4 media pundits on a news channel the most trusted news channel in America.
:lmao: :mental:
Brilliant plan, DUmbasses! I highly encourage you to keep it up!
Fixed 'er for ya, sir. :II:
-
The democratics are bleeding popularity like an open jugular, Obama has run out of tricks after only one year, challenges to their seats coming from every direction
You're totally right, and I find it somewhat frightening.
Not because I like the Democrats being in power any more than the Republicans, but because I fear the pushback that's going to be coming sooner or later. The Democrats have spent the last year completely ignoring conservatives and their role in politics and just using their majorities to cram legislation through. What's going to happen if the Republicans take huge majorities?
Same damned thing.
Our political pendulum is starting to swing out of control, people. Time to wake up and stop the vicious cycle, no?
-
You're totally right, and I find it somewhat frightening.
Not because I like the Democrats being in power any more than the Republicans, but because I fear the pushback that's going to be coming sooner or later. The Democrats have spent the last year completely ignoring conservatives and their role in politics and just using their majorities to cram legislation through. What's going to happen if the Republicans take huge majorities?
Same damned thing.
Our political pendulum is starting to swing out of control, people. Time to wake up and stop the vicious cycle, no?
I dunno, the Republicans aren't really very good at that. There are a lot of Centrists in their ranks, and most of them are of an age to remember how badly Newt overplayed his hand after the 94 elections, and not go down that road again. Newt mistook repudiation of the President's Leftist agenda for adoption of a Right-wing agenda, which was not what the electorate really had in mind at all.
-
You're totally right, and I find it somewhat frightening.
Not because I like the Democrats being in power any more than the Republicans, but because I fear the pushback that's going to be coming sooner or later. The Democrats have spent the last year completely ignoring conservatives and their role in politics and just using their majorities to cram legislation through. What's going to happen if the Republicans take huge majorities?
Same damned thing.
Our political pendulum is starting to swing out of control, people. Time to wake up and stop the vicious cycle, no?
Yeah...we should just play nice and include the democrats when we win back a huge majority in the house and senate.
DUmbass.
-
Thank Heaven we have the Ministry of Truth to keep us safe!
::)
-
Fixed 'er for ya, sir. :II:
Thanks! :-)
-
You're totally right, and I find it somewhat frightening.
Not because I like the Democrats being in power any more than the Republicans, but because I fear the pushback that's going to be coming sooner or later. The Democrats have spent the last year completely ignoring conservatives and their role in politics and just using their majorities to cram legislation through. What's going to happen if the Republicans take huge majorities?
Same damned thing.
Our political pendulum is starting to swing out of control, people. Time to wake up and stop the vicious cycle, no?
Q: What will you find in the middle of the road?
A: Yellow stripes and dead animals
-
Yeah...we should just play nice and include the democrats when we win back a huge majority in the house and senate.
DUmbass.
I'm not a Democrat, nor am I even very liberal. If anything, I'd say I swing more towards the conservative point of view. Your willingness to jump to such a conclusion when I display even the most fractional difference in opinions is perfect proof of how entrenched our political opinions have become in this country. Stagnation due to bigotry on both sides.
According to the Republicans the liberals are all commie Stalinists and according to the Democrats the conservatives are all racist rednecks and neo-nazis. It's amazing.
What happened to the intelligent political dialog of the past? This is what moved our nation forward. Not name-calling and finger pointing. Name-calling and finger pointing are political tricks meant to distract people from the real problems.
The real problem right now is that we are dealing with a government that is becoming increasingly corrupt and totalitarian/fascist regardless of the officeholders of the moment.
Q: What will you find in the middle of the road?
A: Yellow stripes and dead animals
Q: What will you find on the sides of the road?
A: Hitler, Stalin, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein, The Taliban...
-
Q: What will you find on the sides of the road?
A: Hitler, Stalin, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein, The Taliban...
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater...
I can play that game, too.
Centrist, middle of the road moderates are what got us democrat lite candidates like McCain and "geniuses" like Powell (who endorsed and voted for Obama) telling us how we needed to tone it down and moderate.
Uh, screw that.
Conservatism and drawing a distinct difference between the two candidates is what wins. You articulate common sense conservatism and you win every single time.
-
Conservatism and drawing a distinct difference between the two candidates is what wins. You articulate common sense conservatism and you win every single time.
Absolutely correct!
Problem is, dutch, I don't think you can do that with the Republican party anymore. It, just like the Democratic party, is too corrupt. Too full of corporate influence and talking heads with their own personal interests at stake.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/07/palin-tea-party-speech-ne_n_414965.html
Hell, they're even cashing in on some of the first grassroots movements we've seen in decades that should rightfully be totally against them and their sellout, greedy interests.
In the 2000 Congressional Elections, out of the 435 Congressional districts in which there were elections, 359 were listed as "safe" by Congressional Quarterly. [4] In all of these 359, there was no uncertainty as to who would win. The results a week later confirmed that very few House races were competitive. The 2000 House election resulted in a net change of only four seats (+1 for the Democrats, -2 for the Republicans and the electing of an additional independent). In total, 98% of all incumbents were re-elected.
It's safe to say that those numbers are not a good sign. Our politicians have become so comfortable in their positions that both sides have sold out. Nobody's there to remind them not to take their position and power for granted.
Tommy J. is one of the greatest American role models, so I don't think your ideals can be THAT far off from mine if we can agree on that point.
You can't just write off the entire liberal side of the political spectrum. We need compromise or our system is going to fail, because the fact that you will not budge is exactly the same as the fact that the liberals will not budge. And in the meantime, the politicos have been rigging the entire political system to create a plutarchy.
Keep refusing to budge, keep refusing to compromise, and they will continue to gain ground. Washington will continue to become a breeding ground for corporate interests and corrupt politicians because nobody will be there to stop them while we're all off fighting our meaningless little war of ideals.
-
Absolutely correct!
Problem is, dutch,
Uh, you're responding to me, wasp69.
I don't think you can do that with the Republican party anymore. It, just like the Democratic party, is too corrupt. Too full of corporate influence and talking heads with their own personal interests at stake.
You are familiar with the primary process in this country, yes? That's where common sense conservatism really comes into play.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/07/palin-tea-party-speech-ne_n_414965.html
You are linking the huffington post to make your point?
:rotf:
Hell, they're even cashing in on some of the first grassroots movements we've seen in decades that should rightfully be totally against them and their sellout, greedy interests.
I have yet to see any politician be able to honestly claim anything on the Tea Parties, but they are trying. The Tea Parties are a true grassroots movement and I don't think that the members will allow themselves to be co-opted by the GOP. After all, they're pissed off at the RINOs as well as the democrats.
It's safe to say that those numbers are not a good sign. Our politicians have become so comfortable in their positions that both sides have sold out. Nobody's there to remind them not to take their position and power for granted.
Elections, ballot box, Mass. Rebellion, any of this ringing a bell for you?
Tommy J. is one of the greatest American role models, so I don't think your ideals can be THAT far off from mine if we can agree on that point.
Tommy J? Did you honestly call one of the greatest minds in history Tommy J?
Jefferson is spinning in his grave at what is going on. And, FWIW, he was not a centrist. Not even close.
You can't just write off the entire liberal side of the political spectrum.
I don't intend to just write them off, I want their ideology destroyed.
We need compromise or our system is going to fail,
Heard this reach across the aisle crap way too many times. It doesn't work, we do not have honest opposition when it comes to democrats. "Compromise" to them is when their opponents do what they say. I, personally, am long past done with that.
because the fact that you will not budge is exactly the same as the fact that the liberals will not budge.
I'm not willing to budge on my freedom, my liberty, or my God given rights as a human being. I will not be subjugated by these marxist monsters.
And in the meantime, the politicos have been rigging the entire political system to create a plutarchy.
Ballot box, see above.
Keep refusing to budge, keep refusing to compromise, and they will continue to gain ground.
Have you been asleep for the past 4 months? VA, NJ, MA, hardly any democrat seat safe? Have you not been paying attention?
Washington will continue to become a breeding ground for corporate interests and corrupt politicians because nobody will be there to stop them while we're all off fighting our meaningless little war of ideals.
Keep telling yourself that. We'll be out winning hearts and minds with common sense conservatism while you're trying to play nice.
-
I'm not a Democrat, nor am I even very liberal. If anything, I'd say I swing more towards the conservative point of view. Your willingness to jump to such a conclusion when I display even the most fractional difference in opinions is perfect proof of how entrenched our political opinions have become in this country. Stagnation due to bigotry on both sides.
liberal talking point! //sarcasm
According to the Republicans the liberals are all commie Stalinists and according to the Democrats the conservatives are all racist rednecks and neo-nazis. It's amazing.
Again, confusing Republican and Conservative. And we think Obama is a fascist. We know that NAZI is a leftwing thing around here, always have.
What happened to the intelligent political dialog of the past? This is what moved our nation forward. Not name-calling and finger pointing. Name-calling and finger pointing are political tricks meant to distract people from the real problems.
What intelligent political dialogue of the past?
The real problem right now is that we are dealing with a government that is becoming increasingly corrupt and totalitarian/fascist regardless of the officeholders of the moment.
Isn't that what we just said?
Q: What will you find on the sides of the road?
A: Hitler, Stalin, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein, The Taliban...
Their admirers are running the government.
-
Took me a while to get here dopple but this is the philosophy of the local TEA PARTY where my membership resides. In fact, 2 years ago I sounded like YOU.
The Silent Majority – Silent No More
WE THE PEOPLE are standing up for principles not parties
Limited Government – As our Founding Fathers recognized, restraint of government is necessary to protect the liberties of the people.
Fiscal Responsibility – Government at all levels must learn to live within its means. To saddle future generations with the crushing burden of our excess spending is unconscionable.
Personal Responsibility – Liberty is unsustainable without responsibility. Each citizen must take responsibility for the consequences of his or her own actions while respecting the rights and dignity of others.
The Rule Of Law - Our Constitution is the “Highest Lawâ€. The rule of law must be consistent, independent, and uniform in its application which is critical to a free and prosperous society.
National Sovereignty – We must maintain a strong national defense, effective security for our borders, and sole control over our land and our laws resisting all governing from the outside .
State Sovereignty -The Tenth Amendment was adopted to emphasize the fact that the states remained individual and unique sovereignties; that they were empowered in areas that the Constitution did not delegate to the federal government. With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty and rendered unconstitutional.
There are no R's and D's in the Tea Parties, there are convictions. The dems are mistakingly taking our views as politics and that will be their downfall. The Repubs had better heed this warning also and wasp is right on the money...ballot box!
-
DCCC
I would think we agree that government should not favor one company over another with its policies and asctions. It should not be bailing out some banks at the expense of others or bailing out GM at the cost to its competitors. This is fascism. Corporations and politicians have been doing that since the beginning of politics, the first profession some call it. heh.
We the people need to take many powers away from governments at all levels.
Its not the problem of corporate money in politics, its those who take the money and get bought thats the problem. Those people are still getting electing and still have the same ideology whether they take the money or not.
-
Uh, you're responding to me, wasp69.
My apologies. I'm new here and I haven't exactly memorized the roster yet.
You are familiar with the primary process in this country, yes? That's where common sense conservatism really comes into play.
Oh, yeah. McCain is proof positive that the primary process works just dandy.
You are linking the huffington post to make your point?
:rotf:
Oh, sorry. Here.
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/01/27/sarah-palins-latest-disaster-tea-partiers-demand-refunds-for-palin-speech/
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/palin-tea-party-speech-netting-her-100000/question-812261/
I have yet to see any politician be able to honestly claim anything on the Tea Parties, but they are trying. The Tea Parties are a true grassroots movement and I don't think that the members will allow themselves to be co-opted by the GOP. After all, they're pissed off at the RINOs as well as the democrats.
Elections, ballot box, Mass. Rebellion, any of this ringing a bell for you?
Not really. The people were presented with two lousy gubernatorial choices. They picked the less lousy of the two.
Tommy J? Did you honestly call one of the greatest minds in history Tommy J?
Jefferson is spinning in his grave at what is going on. And, FWIW, he was not a centrist. Not even close.
What, would you prefer TJ? :evillaugh: Seriously, though, I never said he was. He sure as hell was centrist compared to some of the people here, though.
I don't intend to just write them off, I want their ideology destroyed.
Heard this reach across the aisle crap way too many times. It doesn't work, we do not have honest opposition when it comes to democrats. "Compromise" to them is when their opponents do what they say. I, personally, am long past done with that.
You need to stop and consider what you're saying. And do you honestly, honestly believe the Democratic politicians are the only ones lying to you? You think the Republican power-brokers aren't doing the same exact thing?
And do you think that these Democrats you are so willing to label as evil will not be just as effective as you at riling up extremists and going to war? Think for a moment before you take that fatal step.
I'm not willing to budge on my freedom, my liberty, or my God given rights as a human being. I will not be subjugated by these marxist monsters.
Religion in politics, the persecution of homosexuals, racism... here's what the Democrats are saying conservatives will do with power, buddy. And Republicans are just as bad. Any liberal officeholder is a Marxist, communist, atheist bastard.
Looks like you bought in hook, line, and sinker.
Ballot box, see above.
Have you been asleep for the past 4 months? VA, NJ, MA, hardly any democrat seat safe? Have you not been paying attention?
I don't particularly care whether it's a Democrat or Republican being seated or unseated. Both represent the same problem and ongoing animosity. Yes, the Democrats are going to see a big backswing soon, and yes, Republicans will gloat and abuse power just as badly, and probably try exactly the same steamrolling tactics that the Dems have for the past year. I'm supposed to be impressed?
Keep telling yourself that. We'll be out winning hearts and minds with common sense conservatism while you're trying to play nice.
If you can manage to do that, I'll cheer you on. In the meantime I'll try to keep people who buy into political ideologies like schmucks from killing one another or turning our state into a totalitarian circus.
-
Again, confusing Republican and Conservative. And we think Obama is a fascist. We know that NAZI is a leftwing thing around here, always have.
No I'm not. The Republican party tends to do most of the media talking for conservatives, and the Democratic party is the same for liberals. Both condemn one another AND the other side of the political spectrum constantly. To Democrats, all conservatives are Republicans, and vice versa. It's easier for all of them to broadbrush each other that way.
By the way, the common link between Nazis and Stalinists is that they are both authoritarian. Stalin was far left, Hitler was far right. Both authoritarian. Both equally scary. No, Hitler was not leftist - his social ideals were primarily conservative.
What intelligent political dialogue of the past?
Okay, you've got me there. But really, the past decade or two have seen a marked increase in exactly how ideologically entrenched the American people are.
Isn't that what we just said?
Well, not really. Or at least I haven't heard any agreement yet on the fact that it isn't just this administration that has contributed to our downfall.
Their admirers are running the government.
Agreed.
-
<I>Hitler was not leftist - his social ideals were primarily conservative
I doubt that very much. He was a socialist, he had praise for Karl Marx on almost every point.
He thought christianity was a gutter religion. He was a vegetarian.
Nothing about the man was conservative, as we know it in the US.
-
Wow. Thread derailment due to Hitler...15 yard penalty and no first down.
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif)
Wow. Thread derailment due to Hitler...15 yard penalty and no first down.
Damn you, Godwin!
-
Wow. Thread derailment due to Hitler...15 yard penalty and no first down.
Godwin's Law in action...
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif)
I don't know where that chart came from. Why should I trust it?
People have been getting Hitler wrong for decades on purpose. German National Socialist Workers Party. Same side of the coin as Hitler in any respects.
Anyone who thinks he was a small government conservative is an abject idiot.
-
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
Any extremism carried out to its logical ends is scary. Hitler was more conservative than liberal... that does not mean that the average conservative has ideals like Hitler's any more than the average liberal has ideals like Stalin's.
Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.
-
In 0BamaLand , private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the unions and state.
-
Here is a comment I left at Niles Gardner's Telegraph UK Blogs
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100024086/state-of-the-union-obama-gets-an-f-for-world-leadership/
It was a chest thumping would-be totalitarian in front of that podium saying “forget what the American want†and saying that he is not going to change directions.
He was Hugo Chavez without the medals and invective.
His diss of the SCOTUS ruling will be remembered forever as the day a President declared himself King of America.
I guess despite the ruling he will try to find a way to ban the books, films etc that he calls “feloniously politicalâ€. How dare the people think that they have a right to criticize their rulers!
How dare they believe that they can pool their resources and buy ads condemning a candidate. What do these little peasants think they have a right to assemble? association? speech?
Free speech is only for whomever Barack Obama says it is for! You are not supportive enough of Lord eVader to be allowed speech, begone!
And its George Bush’s forever and ever.
All hail King Barack, he is The One… do notice his shiny new clothes.
-
In 0BamaLand , private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the unions and state.
Totally agreeing with you there, friend.
The corporate corruption is rampant. If I trusted the Republican Party any more than I did the Democrats, and I thought that they would do something about the corruption, I'd vote for them... but I don't.
That's why I think this is the time for a grassroots third party to emerge. The ideal time. If that party was centrist to slightly centrist-conservative - sort of like Thomas Jefferson was for his time - if they could control the middle 20% of the vote or so, perhaps even less than that, they could wield enormous power with the swing vote. Enough power to force the other two sides into sensible compromise.
There are quite a lot of states right now that don't like either choice they're being presented with. 72 congressional districts, if I recall correctly, are expected to be 'swing' districts in our next congressional elections. That's 72 areas to hit hard with big grassroots campaigning. Don't accept any corporate funding, and anyone who proves themselves untrustworthy, boot out immediately. The goal would have to be going for just one or two seats at first. Don't aim for the presidency, because for an unknown third party to even think of taking the Whitehouse would be like a kid who has never fought before trying to take on Mike Tyson. But you would have to keep it moderate, keep it focused on solutions as low-drama and sensible as possible, and keep your ambitions strictly on becoming a 'swing' party that could act to enforce reason and compromise.
Finally, use your newly-gained publicity to force corruption laws through. Purge both sides of corporate interests (and insane communists) because they will be forced to vote in favor of the vast part of the American populace, who will want reform. To do otherwise will be political suicide.
They'd have to be kept corruption free from the ground up, though. This would be the key.
-
I doubt that will happen while 95% of the media has taken sides with fascism and expect to benefit from it. Who is going to build those "high speed" trains to white elephant land? General Electric maybe? NBC/MSNBC/CNBC. It doesn't matter if they take a dime from GE, they know GE will push for them in their broadcasts and they will scratch GE's back. The politicians don't need to accept a penny from a corporation to make laws and budget items favoring one business over another.
When SEIU sends out a million volunteers (often paid to be there) for the Democrat Party during the campaigns, they don't need a dime from them to know whose side they are on and you get "Card Check" legislation. Big Pharma and Big Insurance ran how many tens of millions in ads for ObamaCare, under the rules Obama wants to go back to?
Why is it okay for George Soros to spend $100 million to run ads bashing capitalism if its illegal for me and my friends to buy a single local TV ad? I supposedly have freedom of association but Obama would deny that Association the right to have one political word even though the First Amendment was specifically drafted to prevent suppression of political ideas.
But yet this administration argued in front of the Supreme Court for the power to BAN BOOKS, FILMS and other media that mentions a candidate by name. Don't think for a second this would not include talk radio and the internet. They specifically said broadcasting and they even used a Kindle as an example.
The SCOTUS made the right decision.
-
I know. As I said, the corruption is rampant, including in campaigns. It needs to be fixed.
So do personal rights infringements and unnecessary entitlement programs.
And again, it would have to be a totally grassroots movement. It's likely the media would not endorse such a third party at first. But the internet's a great tool. You could target those 'swing' districts with online coordination. Flood local congressional districts with flyers, door-to-door campaigning, lawn candidate support signs, and the like. Make it a largely online campaign, which the media cannot regulate.
Laws on restricting corporate ads for politicians would be one of the first things to hammer through after the party was established enough to start proposing such legislation. And by then, things would be too well-publicized, the party too big and able to put out its own message, for the corporate/fascist media to simply quash it with unrecognition.
-
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
Any extremism carried out to its logical ends is scary. Hitler was more conservative than liberal... that does not mean that the average conservative has ideals like Hitler's any more than the average liberal has ideals like Stalin's.
Hitler was radically liberal - in the sense that "liberal" now has - not conservative; the fact that he built a part of his liberal edifice on the old Teutonic gods does not change the fact that he was liberal - none of the millenialist extremists in this country have been conservatives, either; they've all attempted to exert total, absolute power over every aspect of the lives of their followers - that is a completely different universe from the one in which conservativism holds sway.
-
And so Godwin makes a comeback...
absolute power over every aspect of the lives of their followers - that is a completely different universe from the one in which conservativism holds sway.
Yes, I know. The political compass does not have just two cardinal points, it has four. Those are right/left and authoritarian/anarchist. Saying 'right' is 'authoritarian' is just like saying 'north' is 'east' - it's patently impossible.
However, saying 'north' and 'west' - or liberalism - are the same is also just as wrong.
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif)
-
Forced eugenics, aborting or letting die unpure babies, Hitler Youth
oh and one of the first things they did on taking power was nationalizing
the welfare system that had been run through churches.
He also used much of the same rhetoric as the commies.
-
But what about the other things he reflected in his speeches?
Individualism over collectivism.
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.
Merit over equality.
Competition over cooperation.
Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
Capitalism over Marxism.
Realism over idealism.
Nationalism over internationalism.
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
Meat-eating over vegetarianism.
Gun ownership over gun control
Common sense over theory or science.
Pragmatism over principle.
Religion over secularism.
-
And so Godwin makes a comeback...
Yes, I know. The political compass does not have just two cardinal points, it has four. Those are right/left and authoritarian/anarchist. Saying 'right' is 'authoritarian' is just like saying 'north' is 'east' - it's patently impossible.
However, saying 'north' and 'west' - or liberalism - are the same is also just as wrong.
You're welcome to be as stupid as you wanna be; that doesn't change facts, and the fact of the matter is, what Hitler was, is what liberalism in America is today.
-
What a sad little denial, without any factual proof to back it up.
I won't argue that liberalism in this country has become just as rabid and blind as conservatism has, though. You've both got a while to go towards 'Hitler', but not that far.
-
What a sad little denial, without any factual proof to back it up.
That you're stupid? You're still here, what other proof do I need?
-
But what about the other things he reflected in his speeches?
Individualism over collectivism. please.
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance. Racism is leftist
Eugenics over freedom of reproduction. Leftist, read Margaret Sanger/George Bernard Shaw
Merit over equality. merit? loyalty to him you mean
Competition over cooperation. There was no competition, everything was regulated to the nth degree
Power politics and militarism over pacifism. Again, thats leftist/statist. Conservatism is leave me alone
One-person rule or self-rule over democracy. self-rule? He had dictatorial rule. Thats not conservative.
Capitalism over Marxism. There was no capitalism as we know it, it was a command economy
Realism over idealism. hahahaha... he didn't even live in the real world
Nationalism over internationalism. True. I already mentioned that I think
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
Meat-eating over vegetarianism. He was a veggie
Gun ownership over gun control Adolph seized all the private guns, one of the forst things they did
Common sense over theory or science.
Pragmatism over principle.
Religion over secularism. religion? He was anti-jew, anti-Catholic, anti-Christian
-
You know, it's funny, if I posted my original post on a leftist forum, only I'd said Hitler was leftist, they'd have done exactly what you just did, going through and saying 'racism is conservative', 'eugenics is conservative', 'militarism is conservative'...
It seems you agree on more than you think, you're just falsely letting the authoritarians tell you that the other side is 'evil'.
Let's pretend I'm liberal for a moment, which, a few years ago, I was.
Do you believe racism is bad?
Do you believe Eugenics are bad?
Do you believe power politics and militarism/military hostility are bad?
Do you believe dictatorship is bad?
Do you believe forced state religion/state control over religion is bad?
Most liberals' answer to all of those would be yes. So would most conservatives'.
There might be some differences, but not as many as we're being fooled into thinking. Big Brother has you hoodwinked, and meanwhile the American populace, who are mostly good, morally sound people, are so busy blaming one another that the problem of authoritarianism has grown unnoticed.
-
The leftists are the ones who vote for those people. They are statists. The DU site is full of statists.
-
By the way here is a good article written by a libertarian pointing out how business and stuff actually operated under Hitler.
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=507
No capitalism and free markets will you find.
-
FGL, I won't even argue with you - I don't believe you're totally correct, but I'll just give it to you. Uncle.
Here's the thing: even if liberalism is bad, most liberals aren't bad people.
And even if conservatism was bad, most conservatives aren't bad people.
I don't believe either is bad. I believe there are merits to both sets of values. But I believe authoritarianism, plutarchism, totalitarianism - call it what you want, I believe this is what has taken root in our system and what's made it dysfunctional and increasingly hostile to the American people.
You and I are not enemies. In fact I bet nearly everybody on this board is against racism, against eugenics, against dictatorship and power politics, against everything on that list... and yet if I were to believe the common stereotype that is propagated about conservatives on the liberal side and come here thinking it was true, I would think you believed in all of those things.
And if I believed the conservative side about liberals, I would think that most liberal Americans are authoritarian, racist, and power hungry... they are not.
Most Americans are fundamentally good. We must start out believing this, and stop believing the authoritarians in power who try to get us to fight amongst ourselves.
-
Do you believe racism is bad?
Liberals are racists. They believe minorities need government because they cannot help themselves.
Do you believe Eugenics are bad?
Liberals practice eugenics. Margaret Sanger is their hero, abortions are their sacrament.
Do you believe power politics and militarism/military hostility are bad?
Liberals are not pacifists, they simply want to disarm the other side before they put them against the wall and kill them. This happens where the leftists take power.
Do you believe dictatorship is bad? The left love Castro, Hugo Chavez and the rest. Wasn't it Friedman who said our government should be autocratic like China?
Didn't leftwing NEWSWEEK proclaim we are all socialists now?
Do you believe forced state religion/state control over religion is bad?
Liberals want to crush religion. Have you not been paying attention?
-
Damn it, man! Do you get what you just did? You listened to me tell you that most American people are, at heart, good people, and you countered by telling me all liberals are evil.
Do you believe every person in this country who voted for Barack Obama was evil? An evil person? Do you believe over half of the American people are evil? Do you believe roughly half of the country, give or take, are authoritarian evil-doers who need to be exterminated? Because if all people on the left are as evil as you paint them to be, if there is nothing between 'liberal' and 'conservative' and no room for reason, then you might as well start the killing now.
You have a lot of people to go through.
-
I think government needs to stop propping up failed businesses. AMTRAK, GM etc
I think government needs to stop funding private entities like Planned Parenthood or ACORN or charities.
I think government needs to stop putting up entry barriers to force less competition.
I think all welfare programs should be consolidated into one monthly cash payment not large enough to be comfortable on.
I think the government needs to stop trying to regulate the market.
I think government needs to stop bestowing benefits to non-citizens who came here illegally.
I think the government needs to get out of the banking, home loan and student loan business.
I think all forms of corporate and agricultural subsidies/quotas/licenses need to end.
I think government needs to get out of the school business.
I think government should not own land it does not need for a legitimate governing reason. Like a court house.
I think government has no business operating or funding TV channels, radio networks, art or anything else.
-
Do you believe every person in this country who voted for Barack Obama was evil? An evil person? Do you believe over half of the American people are evil?
Of course not. Uneducated, easy to fool and command come to mind.
-
I think government needs to stop popping up failed businesses. AMTRAK, GM etc
Agreed.
I think government needs to stop funding private entities like Planned Parenthood or ACORN or charities.
For the most part, agreed. These should be things that should be created by people who are interested in creating them, not the government that is supposed to represent us all.
I think government needs to stop putting up entry barriers to force less competition.
Agreed, though I believe in this day and age it should be obvious that corporatism needs to be limited. Or at least the reach of corporate power into government or individual rights.
I think all welfare programs should be consolidated into one monthly cash payment not large enough to be comfortable on.
A damned good idea, though difficult to put into practice. We need to trim a lot of unnecessary spending at a time like this.
I think the government needs to stop trying to regulate the market.
Agreed. The banks, corporations, etc. that fail need to be allowed to fail. If capitalism is to succeed, it must succeed on its own merits.
I think government needs to stop bestowing benefits to non-citizens who came here illegally.
Agreed.
I think the government needs to get out of the banking, home loan and student loan business.
Very much agreed.
I think all forms of corporate and agricultural subsidies/quotas/licenses need to end.
Agreed.
I think government needs to get out of the school business.
Hm, somewhat agreed. But what if a really poor community cannot even afford a school? I do think local governments should be held accountable somehow for maintaining some sort of school system or at least ensuring that one exists for an area, but yes, I think the government is far too involved in our education.
I think government should not own land it does not need for a legitimate governing reason. Like a court house.
Agreed.
I think government has no business operating or funding TV channels, radio networks, art or anything else.
Agreed.
Of course not. Uneducated, easy to fool and command come to mind.
And you may well be right, FGL. Although some liberals are very educated and I don't necessarily think all educated liberals are evil.
The point I want to make is, those people are good. At heart, you and I know they do not believe in totalitarianism and authoritarianism. They have to be made to see that they are endorsing those things with our current government. I don't think it's possible with the Republican Party because that party is already too corrupt and too sold out to corporate America, just like the Democratic party.
Some other party needs to be put into power, and it needs to be the kind of party that is inherently good but does not strive to identify itself as liberal or conservative, because that would scare otherwise good people away. Many, many people have been lied to by our system.
-
The State of Texas and other states have free online K-12 schools. These are real public schools but online. They even have "field trips". They'll even pay for the PC and help pay for the internet access, and its still a bargain for the taxpayers. This is only for people who are able to have an adult watching over them and helping them of course, In POOR communities I could easily see a series of small community "schools" hooking up this way with a few local mothers being hired at a not inflated wage to help the kids and watch over them.
-
Damn it, man! Do you get what you just did? You listened to me tell you that most American people are, at heart, good people, and you countered by telling me all liberals are evil.
Do you believe every person in this country who voted for Barack Obama was evil? An evil person? Do you believe over half of the American people are evil? Do you believe roughly half of the country, give or take, are authoritarian evil-doers who need to be exterminated? Because if all people on the left are as evil as you paint them to be, if there is nothing between 'liberal' and 'conservative' and no room for reason, then you might as well start the killing now.
You have a lot of people to go through.
All of the people in my life who voted for Obama are good people except for perhaps my brother and I kind of have to love him so he doesn't count. I have a total moonbat for a friend back in Dallas who is the typical moonbat that comes packaged with a ton of mental health issues but she tries and I know how difficult life is for her so I over look a lot. She is probably the most well read and informed of all of my moonbat friends. She even had a copy of Atlas Shrugged on her bookcase but then she also had a Jimmy Carter book too so I'm not going to give her credit for the Atlas Shrugged. One time my daughter was in the car with her and her two daughters. Durring the 2008 campaign they were behind a carpenters truck, the truck had a McCain sticker on it. She said that now she knows which carpenter NOT to use. HA HA She knows my political views and knew my child was aware of my views (and has a few views of her own). When her kids would get in my car I always turned off talk radio because I didn't want to make her kids uncomfortable. Same thing with the news, when my daughters have friends over I turn the channel to something non-political. My daughter still brings the "carpenter incident" up frequently. In fact she said something about it yesterday. She said it made her feel like she didn't belong, like she wasn't wanted around.
Even with that I still like my moonbat friend, she has pulled a lot of shit and hurt quite a few people but at the end of the day, she really means well.
-
By the way I am independent.
I even tried to start a blog, a tongue-n-cheek "revolutionary" blog. I just posted on it for the first time since September.
I just posted the "I think" post from above.
http://unitedcitizen.blogspot.com/
-
The State of Texas and other states have free online K-12 schools. These are real public schools but online. They even have "field trips". They'll even pay for the PC and help pay for the internet access, and its still a bargain for the taxpayers. This is only for people who are able to have an adult watching over them and helping them of course, In POOR communities I could easily see a series of small community "schools" hooking up this way with a few local mothers being hired at a not inflated wage to help the kids and watch over them.
That's a pretty awesome idea, actually, and is exactly the sort of realistic and fiscally intelligent thinking I'd like to see out of government, as long as it was handled well. Do you trust either major party to handle a transition from our current school system to a system like that without royally FUBARing it?
Even with that I still like my moonbat friend, she has pulled a lot of shit and hurt quite a few people but at the end of the day, she really means well.
Yes, a lot of the time, it's good people who are attracted to politicians who talk the prettiest talk but don't follow through in their actions. This can happen on both sides of the aisle, but I think the left is especially vulnerable because the left tends to be more concerned with idealism than the right.
-
That's a pretty awesome idea, actually, and is exactly the sort of realistic and fiscally intelligent thinking I'd like to see out of government, as long as it was handled well. Do you trust either major party to handle a transition from our current school system to a system like that without royally FUBARing it?
No of course not. They would regulate them until they were the same as the failed public schools.
-
No of course not. They would regulate them until they were the same as the failed public schools.
Yup.
By the way I am independent.
Then perhaps you would be interested in trying to start some kind of movement to wake people the hell up. I don't care if it's called Centrist, Americanist, AverageJoeist, who cares. I know the Tea Party movement has already been started in this vein, but people on both sides need to be woken up and reminded that their fellow Americans are not the evil they need to watch out for. The Tea Party movement's problem is that it is almost purely conservative, because conservatives have been quicker to wake up to the facts, but the other half of our nation cannot be left behind. Good, average Americans who believe in essential rights and reducing the power of government in our lives need to group together and do something.
-
Quote
I think all welfare programs should be consolidated into one monthly cash payment not large enough to be comfortable on.
A damned good idea, though difficult to put into practice. We need to trim a lot of unnecessary spending at a time like this.
Do you realize how many massive bureaucracies there are just to deliver a tenth or possibly a quarter of the money budgeted for a welfare program to those who need it, and then the US is awful at making sure those signing up actually need it? If we could cut the overhead by half, which I think we could easily, we could save the taxpayers a huge bundle while helping out the real poor MORE than we do now.
I say all those bureaucrats should go bye bye. We should have a single bureaucracy devoted to it, they should even be able to visit homes of those getting it to make sure they were telling the truth and even be able to find poor people who didn't sign up, even take referrals from churches & apartment managers. Remember the old movies where the social workers actually walked the blocks, where they might even be from a church instead of a government employee? Beats the big impersonal monsster we have now.
-
Yup.
Then perhaps you would be interested in trying to start some kind of movement to wake people the hell up. I don't care if it's called Centrist, Americanist, AverageJoeist, who cares. I know the Tea Party movement has already been started in this vein, but people on both sides need to be woken up and reminded that their fellow Americans are not the evil they need to watch out for. The Tea Party movement's problem is that it is largely conservative, because conservatives have been quicker to wake up to the facts, but the other half of our nation cannot be left behind. Good, average Americans who believe in essential rights and reducing the power of government in our lives need to group together and do something.
If the movement stuck to what I wrote in that 'I think' post, I think they could be pretty successful.
-
I think government needs to stop propping up failed businesses. AMTRAK, GM etc
I think government needs to stop funding private entities like Planned Parenthood or ACORN or charities.
I think government needs to stop putting up entry barriers to force less competition or control markets and end all forms of corporate and agricultural subsidies/quotas/licenses.
I think all welfare programs should be consolidated into one monthly cash payment not large enough to be comfortable on.
I think government needs to stop bestowing benefits to non-citizens who came here illegally.
I think the government needs to get out of the banking, home loan and student loan business.
I think federal government needs to get out of the school business.
I think government should not own land it does not need for a legitimate governing reason. Like a court house.
I think government has no business operating or funding TV channels, radio networks, art or anything else.
lol. consolidated to 9 lines.
-
Those are all good, though I would add:
The government needs reform from special interest groups and corporations, and that reform has to come from somewhere that isn't already compromised.
and
The government needs to start enforcing our rights, not our entitlements.
I think a lot of people want this kind of reform, even people on the liberal side of the aisle (even if they've been fooled into believing otherwise). Part of the reason I used to believe I was liberal was because, as I mentioned before, liberal and conservative America tend to portray one another as evil. Once you're on one side, it's rare that you actually examine the motivations behind those who identify with the other. Once I did, I found conservatism more practical in many ways, but I cannot imagine all of the liberal people I know were simply 'evil' or had bad intentions.
And this is an ideal time for government reform. In fact, I bet we won't get another opportunity like this within the next several decades. Certainly it's the first of its kind for a long while.
But I need to crash out for the night. Thanks for the good debate. :cheersmate:
-
If government stopped propping up and doing favors for business, the corporations would have nothing to do in DC.
-
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
Any extremism carried out to its logical ends is scary. Hitler was more conservative than liberal...
The **** he was.
Conservatives don't agree with the mixing of government and corporations, centralized power, government services, disarming the people or eugenics. Those are strictly leftist agendas.
Get your facts straight, boy.
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif)
Well, now, would you look at that! Hitler was just slightly right of center.
Now, who was it on this thread that was saying that a centrist to slightly right of center 3rd party needs to emerge?
-
My apologies. I'm new here and I haven't exactly memorized the roster yet.
Not a problem, just throwing it out there.
Oh, yeah. McCain is proof positive that the primary process works just dandy.
It isn't perfect, but it wasn't from lack of trying to defeat Captain Amnesty. I may not have liked the outcome, but the process did it's part.
Oh, sorry. Here.
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/01/27/sarah-palins-latest-disaster-tea-partiers-demand-refunds-for-palin-speech/
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/palin-tea-party-speech-netting-her-100000/question-812261/
You went from citing the huffpo to alternet?!?
:lmao:
What's next? Daily Kos? Democratunderground?
Do you have anything other than flaming leftist sites to make your point?
Not really. The people were presented with two lousy gubernatorial choices. They picked the less lousy of the two.
Can't speak for NJ, but are you seriously calling Bob McDonnell a lousy choice?
What, would you prefer TJ? :evillaugh:
Touche, sir, and well played.
:bow:
Seriously, though, I never said he was. He sure as hell was centrist compared to some of the people here, though.
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."
Thomas Jefferson
Care to try that centrist bullshit again?
You need to stop and consider what you're saying.
My thoughts and conclusions come from true history and what I see happening to my country. But I thank you for your input and will take it under advisement. :whatever:
And do you honestly, honestly believe the Democratic politicians are the only ones lying to you?
Nope.
You think the Republican power-brokers aren't doing the same exact thing?
Yep, quite a few of them are just as bad.
And do you think that these Democrats you are so willing to label as evil will not be just as effective as you at riling up extremists and going to war?
Ummmm, where have you been? They've been doing that for damn near 40 years.
Think for a moment before you take that fatal step.
Fatal step? Drama much?
Religion in politics, the persecution of homosexuals, racism... here's what the Democrats are saying conservatives will do with power, buddy.
Thank you, Captain Obvious. Like I didn't know this already?
And Republicans are just as bad. Any liberal officeholder is a Marxist, communist, atheist bastard.
The republicans don't have the balls to say anything like that. Which is why I'm not a Republican.
Looks like you bought in hook, line, and sinker.
Sorry, sugar pants, I don't need to be told by anyone that the present day democrat party is a detriment to our freedom and liberty and they want to rule our lives while they get to live like kings.
I don't particularly care whether it's a Democrat or Republican being seated or unseated. Both represent the same problem and ongoing animosity.
Which is why a relative unknown, articulating common sense basic conservatism, dislodged a senate seat that had been occupied by a liberal cretin for over 40 years.
Pay attention to the primary season this year, you might see something new and exciting.
Yes, the Democrats are going to see a big backswing soon, and yes, Republicans will gloat and abuse power just as badly, and probably try exactly the same steamrolling tactics that the Dems have for the past year. I'm supposed to be impressed?
Steamrolling the socialist bullshit backwards is what I'm interested in. If the republicans can't do that, then they will be sent back to the minority, as they were in 06. Whether you're impressed or not is irrelevant.
If you can manage to do that, I'll cheer you on.
NJ, VA, MA, no democrat seat safe. It seems that it's happening but somehow or another you are missing it.
In the meantime I'll try to keep people who buy into political ideologies like schmucks from killing one another or turning our state into a totalitarian circus.
:ohnoes:
:whatever:
There is no dealing with liberals. They have proven it over, and over, and over ad infinitum. When it gets to the point that you cannot deal reasonably with another party, the only other answer is to defeat them. The way that happens is drawing a distinct difference between yourself and them, articulate your position, and win people over.
-
No, Hitler was not leftist - his social ideals were primarily conservative.
Feel free to drop the centrist conservative charade at any time. That is a standard talking point of a leftist.
-
The Left and the Right keep trying to gift each other Hitler, he really doesn't fit either one in classic terms and it's basically a pointless exercise. He had a bunch of Left-wing social programs, but he was all about social conservative values at least as far as the Herrenvolk were concerned (At the expense of all the non-Herrenvolk). Whatever kind of social organization he had in mind was distorted by the war and the need to allocate short resources, which every other country including us did as well.
If you have to classify him as anything for 'No-he's-YOURS' purposes, I'd say he was the ultimate anti-Libertarian...and Libertarians aren't necessarily either Left or Right.
-
but he was all about social conservative values at least as far as the Herrenvolk were concerned (At the expense of all the non-Herrenvolk).
Such as?
-
The **** he was.
Conservatives don't agree with the mixing of government and corporations, centralized power, government services, disarming the people or eugenics. Those are strictly leftist agendas.
Get your facts straight, boy.
No, those are authoritarian agendas.
Get your facts straight, boy.
lib⋅er⋅al  [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA
Use liberal in a Sentence
–adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
con⋅serv⋅a⋅tive  [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Show IPA
–adjective
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
7. Mathematics. (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.
–noun
8. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
9. a supporter of conservative political policies.
au⋅thor⋅i⋅tar⋅i⋅an  [uh-thawr-i-tair-ee-uhn, uh-thor-] Show IPA
Use authoritarian in a Sentence
–adjective
1. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2. of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
3. exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent.
Do you care to debate the dictionary? Or are the standard definitions of liberal, conservative, and authoritarian all incorrect?
-
You went from citing the huffpo to alternet?!?
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100114/NEWS01/1140332/Palin-to-allow-media-to-cover-Tea-Party-speech
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/palin-to-headline-tea-party-convention.html
I can keep finding more sources if you'd like - my only point was the $500+ cost to attend and Palin's nice little paycheck. Even conservative sources won't dispute that.
Strike that: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/No_fee.html?showall
So, I'll give you that it looks like Palin did it for free but was offered the $100k, for which I applaud her.
The organizer of the event, however, is still raking in the dough. Not so grassroots, eh?
Can't speak for NJ, but are you seriously calling Bob McDonnell a lousy choice?
No, I was talking about the MA election, not VA.
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."
Thomas Jefferson
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
"The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object."
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
And, most importantly...
"If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it."
Our house is on fire. Stop worrying about blaming each other for who started it, and start working on getting the damned thing put out.
Nope.
Good.
There is no dealing with liberals. They have proven it over, and over, and over ad infinitum. When it gets to the point that you cannot deal reasonably with another party, the only other answer is to defeat them. The way that happens is drawing a distinct difference between yourself and them, articulate your position, and win people over.
Yes, the Democratic party is just as bad as the Republican party. But you're not winning people over by calling them evil, or by calling liberalism evil. You need to understand this - you're winning nobody. Not a single soul. Why do you think the Democrats were even able to take as big of a majority as they did in the last election cycle?
Stop targeting liberalism and start targeting the Democratic Party. And the Republican Party. They both represent corporate interests and totalitarianism, and are largely enemies to the American people. Like it or not, you cannot represent the views of the American people with a strictly conservative party. More conservative than liberal, maybe... but you cannot wipe out half of the political spectrum. Can't, won't, and never will, even if you embrace totalitarianism and try to stamp it out. No dictator or tyrant yet has been able to stamp out either conservative or liberal thinking, because they are both as old as the ancient political debate itself.
-
No, those are authoritarian agendas.
Get your facts straight, boy.
Do you care to debate the dictionary? Or are the standard definitions of liberal, conservative, and authoritarian all incorrect?
There is nothing liberal about liberalism but they still call themselves liberals. I will not apologize for using their nomenclature, bastardized though it may be. The call themselves liberals but they are as AUTHORITARIAN as any pissant tin pot dictator. Your beef isn't with me but with the regressive progressives and illiberal liberals.
Your Hitler brush-slap is still misplaced. Conservatives--as defined by conservatives--subscibe to nothing that served as the vehicle of Hitler's power. The closer you get to true American conservativism--as defined by conservatives--the more unlikely any authoritarian figure could emerge. That's what we're conserving and it has none of the trappings of authoritarianism.
-
There is nothing liberal about liberalism but they still call themselves liberals. I will not apologize for using their nomenclature, bastardized though it may be. The call themselves liberals but they are as AUTHORITARIAN as any pissant tin pot dictator. Your beef isn't with me but with the regressive progressives and illiberal liberals.
Your Hitler brush-slap is still misplaced. Conservatives--as defined by conservatives--subscibe to nothing that served as the vehicle of Hitler's power. The closer you get to true American conservativism--as defined by conservatives--the more unlikely any authoritarian figure could emerge. That's what we're conserving and it has none of the trappings of authoritarianism.
But I am not authoritarian, and I am liberal on some issues, conservative on others. Fiscally, I am very conservative. And when I say 'liberal', I mean real liberalism, not the bastardized version you so often see in America. There are many more like me - most of them, of course, are not on debate boards. How do we express our political views without being labeled as crazies by either conservatives or 'liberals'? You see that even coming here, I have to defend myself from being called an authoritarian who has embraced the same authoritarian principles that the Democratic party has even though I don't share those views. This is the problem I want to point out - the systemic hatred that has been bred in Americans against one another when there is no need for it to exist. It needs to be redirected at the people who do deserve it.
You are correct that Hitler was far more authoritarian than he was conservative. However, saying he was liberal - if we're talking about real liberalism, not the pseudo-liberalism espoused by the DP - is also incorrect.
-
Problem is the words mean whatever people want them to mean. Talking about modern American Conservatives and what they define themselves to be is problematic right there because even that means different things to different ones. And if you go there, you can't take the Conservatives' definition of Liberal as meaning anything, you'd have to get the modern American Liberal's opinion on what that means to them.
Then trying to bootstrap people from other times and places into those modern American floating-point definitions is just piling logical flaws and defective analogies on top of each other. Going back to 'Other times and places' means looking at contexts where support of the divine right of kings was Conservative and being for democratically-elected government was Liberal, and Fascism is indeed a lot more like the former than the latter, and also irrelevant to the present. The whole stupid charade of trying to stick the other side with ugly historical figures is a meaningless diversion of mental effort and accomplishes about as much as playing a video game.
-
But I am not authoritarian, and I am liberal on some issues, conservative on others. Fiscally, I am very conservative. And when I say 'liberal', I mean real liberalism, not the bastardized version you so often see in America. There are many more like me - most of them, of course, are not on debate boards. How do we express our political views without being labeled as crazies by either conservatives or 'liberals'? You see that even coming here, I have to defend myself from being called an authoritarian who has embraced the same authoritarian principles that the Democratic party has even though I don't share those views. This is the problem I want to point out - the systemic hatred that has been bred in Americans against one another when there is no need for it to exist. It needs to be redirected at the people who do deserve it.
You are correct that Hitler was far more authoritarian than he was conservative. However, saying he was liberal - if we're talking about real liberalism, not the pseudo-liberalism espoused by the DP - is also incorrect.
And what do you consider yourself definitionally liberal about?
Speaking ONLY for myself I think I can make reasonable--and even conservative--arguments for such things as the FDA.
I have no desire to see gays punished by laws but I refuse to deprive the entire populace the right to enact laws that reflect their values on matters such as military enlistment and marriage.
I'm against the legalization of maijuana but I'm FOR the freedom to vote for it.
I'm dead set against such things as heavy-handed business regulation, regulations and taxation for glow-bull warming, elective abortion etc
-
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100114/NEWS01/1140332/Palin-to-allow-media-to-cover-Tea-Party-speech
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/palin-to-headline-tea-party-convention.html
I can keep finding more sources if you'd like - my only point was the $500+ cost to attend and Palin's nice little paycheck. Even conservative sources won't dispute that.
Strike that: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/No_fee.html?showall
So, I'll give you that it looks like Palin did it for free but was offered the $100k, for which I applaud her.
The lesson here is look before you leap.
The organizer of the event, however, is still raking in the dough. Not so grassroots, eh?
So, the organizer of an event has to pay for the space, utilities, janitorial services, et cetera and that somehow proves that the Tea Parties are beholden to a political party?
How many knots did you have to tie yourself into to come up with that?
More importantly - don't go to lib websites for analysis, that crap will rot your brain faster than MTV.
No, I was talking about the MA election, not VA.
Got it. Now, how was electing someone who is against obamacare and for tax cuts a bad thing?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
"The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object."
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
And, most importantly...
"If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it."
And this proves he's a centrist how exactly?
Our house is on fire. Stop worrying about blaming each other for who started it, and start working on getting the damned thing put out.
I am, I'm working to get rid of the leftists.
Good.
Wow! Thank you!
:whatever:
Yes, the Democratic party is just as bad as the Republican party. But you're not winning people over by calling them evil, or by calling liberalism evil. You need to understand this - you're winning nobody. Not a single soul.
Okay, I'm going to say this one more time. Make sure you read it slowly so you can grasp every word: Draw a clear distinction between yourself and the other side, articulate your position, convince people that common sense government is a good thing.
Recent off year and special election results show that you are wrong. Common sense conservatism works every time it is tried, the results do not lie.
Why do you think the Democrats were even able to take as big of a majority as they did in the last election cycle?
Because the republicans did not govern as they had promised. This really isn't that hard.
Stop targeting liberalism and start targeting the Democratic Party. And the Republican Party.
Right now, liberalism is the democrat party. Their RINO comrades are in serious jeopardy as well.
They both represent corporate interests and totalitarianism, and are largely enemies to the American people.
What is your hard-on with corporations? Really, I'm curious.
Like it or not, you cannot represent the views of the American people with a strictly conservative party. More conservative than liberal, maybe... but you cannot wipe out half of the political spectrum.
Right now, I'm looking to stop the car from going off the cliff. Conservatism will do that.
Can't, won't, and never will, even if you embrace totalitarianism and try to stamp it out. No dictator or tyrant yet has been able to stamp out either conservative or liberal thinking, because they are both as old as the ancient political debate itself.
As a conservative, I do not embrace any type of totalitarianism. I am looking to stop those who do. It's not like I haven't been saying that for several posts.
-
And what do you consider yourself definitionally liberal about?
I believe censorship is an enemy of freedom of expression.
I believe in a tolerant attitude towards foreigners and foreign culture, but not a foolhardy attitude that lacks caution.
I believe in rights for gays, but not if those rights are against the will of majority.
Ditto your views on marijuana.
I am not certain whether I believe the media hype about global warming, however, I do believe in reducing our environmental footprint and trying not to f*** up natural habitats.
However, I also believe in:
Getting rid of 'big government'.
Getting rid of 'heavy-handed business regulation', as you put it.
Reducing the role and scope of the Federal government until it is an organization that binds the American people only because they choose to let it bind them, not because it holds them hostage.
Kinda hard to identify with either liberals or conservatives in this country, but I share bits and pieces of both philosophies.
-
You know, it's funny, if I posted my original post on a leftist forum, only I'd said Hitler was leftist, they'd have done exactly what you just did, going through and saying 'racism is conservative', 'eugenics is conservative', 'militarism is conservative'...
It seems you agree on more than you think, you're just falsely letting the authoritarians tell you that the other side is 'evil'.
Let's pretend I'm liberal for a moment, which, a few years ago, I was.
Do you believe racism is bad?
Do you believe Eugenics are bad?
Do you believe power politics and militarism/military hostility are bad?
Do you believe dictatorship is bad?
Do you believe forced state religion/state control over religion is bad?
Most liberals' answer to all of those would be yes. So would most conservatives'.
There might be some differences, but not as many as we're being fooled into thinking. Big Brother has you hoodwinked, and meanwhile the American populace, who are mostly good, morally sound people, are so busy blaming one another that the problem of authoritarianism has grown unnoticed.
People can SAY anything they want...just listen to one of 0's speeches and then the lack of action that follows (or the exact opposite of that flowery rhetoric). Actions speak louder than words. Look at what liberal policies have done to the black family. Their lives are hardly improved in the inner city plantation they reside in. This is ENTIRELY a democrat machine at work. They own the big city political machines. They own the teacher's union that sets education policy (and get more money per student than schools in suburbs and rural areas). In DC poor minority families finally found a way to get their children the SAME quality education as liberal elites can afford to provide for their children. AND IT WAS SUCCESSFUL! Through vouchers. One of the first things dems did when they got power was rip that opportunity out from under them. If you think about it, though, the left can't risk losing poor inner-city blacks. They'd lose much of that voting block. Keeping blacks poor and under-educated, setting up a system of "government as daddy", as dependent as they were when democrats had them working the cotton fields on plantations, keeps them frightened, living on the edge, and wholly beholden to the left. There are plenty of ways to give them a hand up (welfare reform proved it) but dems want none of it. At least, thankfully, seniors have woken up.
Democrats (the left) may spew rhetoric about being against eugenics, but that squares neither with their abortion policy nor their rhetoric. Their big hero, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a rabid eugenicist. "The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Want something a little more recent? How about Ruth Bader Ginsberg: "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion." Conservatives believe ALL life is precious, including minority babies being born to dirt poor minorities (better to help the mother out of poverty so both can have a better life) and children with physical and mental challenges.
Well, you'd have to explain what you mean by "power politics". Are you talking about the kind in some third world countries where leaders are elected with "90%" of the vote? Or those in Iran where people vote but their vote is TRULY stolen? Or maybe like China, Cuba, Venezuela? As for the militarism, no I don't believe all "hostility" is bad. If someone breaks into my house, I'm going to shoot his ass, period! If a person, group, country, warped religion kills 3000 of my fellow citizens then, yeah, I want hostility, until the enemy is dead, surrenders, or both. I don't mind being the biggest bad ass on the planet and having other nations resent us because of that. The fact is, we've come to their rescue before and would again if they needed it. Because we're GOOD people. Hell, we don't even "keep" the countries we conquer. If we did, Japan and Germany would be states 51 & 52 (or 58 & 59 if you're using Obama's count).
Of course dictatorship is bad. Show me ONE dictator who embraced TRUE (founding father-type) conservative principles. The same ones those of us on this board hold so dear. You've yet to prove Hitler was right wing...a stupid little chart made by another person who has bought into the rewrite of history isn't proof. I want to know why YOU believe he was a right wing conservative. Not the HuffPo, alternet, or any other leftist site. In other words, I want from you Hitler believed "X, Y, Z" and so do right wingers and here's the proof I'm providing (quotes, actions, etc.) to back up my claims.
Who the hell is arguing state controlled religion is a good thing? It's what the 1st amendment is about. Though it says NOTHING about separation of church and state. That warped view comes from ONE letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a pastor. I could just as easily find letters or how about the FEDERALIST PAPERS) written by James Madison, you know, the FATHER of the Constitution that talk about the importance of a close relationship between religion and statehood. But we don't because the Constitution stands on it's own. We don't need to dig through old letters to find something that's not there.
Talk is cheap.
Cindie
-
So, the organizer of an event has to pay for the space, utilities, janitorial services, et cetera and that somehow proves that the Tea Parties are beholden to a political party?
How many knots did you have to tie yourself into to come up with that?
$549 per ticket is a little steep for space, janitorial services, et cetera. You'd pay less to go to an NFL game.
Got it. Now, how was electing someone who is against obamacare and for tax cuts a bad thing?
I don't think Brown's views are bad. Actually, I think they're pretty close to Centrist; a neutral stance on abortion, gay rights, and support for the MA healthcare reform while opposed to Obama's fed healthcare, with relatively conservative to moderate-conservative views on everything else (except maybe the death penalty). MA picked somebody whose views were closer to old-fashioned, pre-corrupt Democratic Party views.
It's just too bad he's a member of a corrupt mainstream party. Lesser of two evils, and for the residents of MA, who have been old-school liberal for decades, the less lousy of two choices.
And this proves he's a centrist how exactly?
Man, please point out where I said he was centrist. I've said he definitely wasn't extreme right, so much closer to the center than many in his time. You're putting words in my mouth. :mental:
Jefferson was a leader in developing republicanism in the United States. He insisted that the British aristocratic system was inherently corrupt and that Americans' devotion to civic virtue required independence. In the 1790s he repeatedly warned that Hamilton and Adams were trying to impose a British-like monarchical system that threatened republicanism. He supported the War of 1812, hoping it would drive away the British military and ideological threat from Canada.
Jefferson's vision for American virtue was that of an agricultural nation of yeoman farmers minding their own affairs. His agrarianism stood in contrast to the vision of Alexander Hamilton, who envisioned a nation of commerce and manufacturing, which Jefferson said offered too many temptations to corruption*. Jefferson's deep belief in the uniqueness and the potential of America made him the father of American exceptionalism. In particular, he was confident that an underpopulated America could avoid what he considered the horrors of class-divided, industrialized Europe.
* - And I agree with him. Here's why I dislike big corporations.
You have to remember that for his time, these were pretty novel, untried ideas. Hamilton and Adams were conservative.
I am, I'm working to get rid of the leftists.
Again, impossible, short of mass murder. Liberal political philosophy is not just going to wither up and die. It's existed since the time one caveman said 'Let's try this new idea' and the other said 'No, let's stick with this one we've already got because it works'.
Okay, I'm going to say this one more time. Make sure you read it slowly so you can grasp every word: Draw a clear distinction between yourself and the other side, articulate your position, convince people that common sense government is a good thing.
But you can't do that simply by telling other people that their philosophy is evil and wrong. People react to that with hostility. Instead, show them that your philosophy is good, reason with them.
I don't really care, you can say 'you're wrong!' as many times as you want. I also post on liberal boards, and I know that they, too, think you are all evil and want to turn the country into a religious intolerant state. Sensible viewpoints, like the ones you say you espouse - and I believe you - need to be presented in non-hostile ways. Breeding more animosity does not help win anybody over.
Because the republicans did not govern as they had promised. This really isn't that hard.
Sure they didn't, and neither have the Democrats. Why should we believe either will start doing that now?
What is your hard-on with corporations? Really, I'm curious.
That corporate interests largely control Washington. It's fascism in practice. I am in favor of removing restraints on corporations as long as they keep the hell out of our government. Right now, they aren't.
Right now, I'm looking to stop the car from going off the cliff. Conservatism will do that.
Maybe, but not belligerent conservatism.
As a conservative, I do not embrace any type of totalitarianism. I am looking to stop those who do. It's not like I haven't been saying that for several posts.
Good, I believe you. I'm not arguing to try and convince you of anything else, I'm just arguing to try and convince you that a lot of people on the 'other side' of the aisle also don't believe in those things, and that calling them communist, DUmmies, whatever the slang is... it doesn't help. Especially to a (real) liberal point of view, because intolerance is the bane of true liberalism, and if you are perceived as intolerant, your words will never hold sway there.
-
That corporate interests largely control Washington. It's fascism in practice. I am in favor of removing restraints on corporations as long as they keep the hell out of our government. Right now, they aren't.
They are only doing it because the politicians are involved in business. Hey, lets raise taxes and regulations so those little companies won't get big and take profits away from my favored company! Cool, lets stop anyone else from growing peanuts, we'll allow only a limited number of licenses. If the politicians weren't trying to give advantages to one business over another then the businesses would not bother with Washington.
That is why I think we need to stop all forms of corporate subsidies and stuff. Thats why government shouldn't be building railroads and a bunch of other things. They will also play favorites and disrupt the markets.
-
People can SAY anything they want...just listen to one of 0's speeches and then the lack of action that follows (or the exact opposite of that flowery rhetoric). Actions speak louder than words. Look at what liberal policies have done to the black family. Their lives are hardly improved in the inner city plantation they reside in. This is ENTIRELY a democrat machine at work. They own the big city political machines. They own the teacher's union that sets education policy (and get more money per student than schools in suburbs and rural areas). In DC poor minority families finally found a way to get their children the SAME quality education as liberal elites can afford to provide for their children. AND IT WAS SUCCESSFUL! Through vouchers. One of the first things dems did when they got power was rip that opportunity out from under them. If you think about it, though, the left can't risk losing poor inner-city blacks. They'd lose much of that voting block. Keeping blacks poor and under-educated, setting up a system of "government as daddy", as dependent as they were when democrats had them working the cotton fields on plantations, keeps them frightened, living on the edge, and wholly beholden to the left. There are plenty of ways to give them a hand up (welfare reform proved it) but dems want none of it. At least, thankfully, seniors have woken up.
Well, you're not really saying anything I particularly disagree with here. I dislike the American liberal stance on most racially-motivated issues like affirmative action, et cetera. I think they're inherently racist by seeking to draw distinctions between races.
Better to simply lay out rules that give all poor people advantages. If there are more poor people in a given minority, the benefit to that minority as a group will be larger for exactly as long as it needs to be larger.
(This is one of my views that gets me called 'racist' and 'conservative' on liberal boards.)
Democrats (the left) may spew rhetoric about being against eugenics, but that squares neither with their abortion policy nor their rhetoric.
<snip>
Most liberals that I know perceive abortion as more an issue of feminism than of race. Calling abortion eugenics is making a pretty big stretch, although I am not in favor of abortion.
Well, you'd have to explain what you mean by "power politics". Are you talking about the kind in some third world countries where leaders are elected with "90%" of the vote? Or those in Iran where people vote but their vote is TRULY stolen? Or maybe like China, Cuba, Venezuela?
Or in countries with governments like The Taliban or racially intolerant governments that commit genocide like in Rwanda. Yes.
Of course dictatorship is bad. Show me ONE dictator who embraced TRUE (founding father-type) conservative principles.
Obviously I couldn't. Similarly, you couldn't show me a dictator who embraced liberal/libertarian philosophies, unless we want to consider Gandhi a dictator.
Who the hell is arguing state controlled religion is a good thing? It's what the 1st amendment is about. Though it says NOTHING about separation of church and state. That warped view comes from ONE letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a pastor. I could just as easily find letters or how about the FEDERALIST PAPERS) written by James Madison, you know, the FATHER of the Constitution that talk about the importance of a close relationship between religion and statehood. But we don't because the Constitution stands on it's own. We don't need to dig through old letters to find something that's not there.
Well, I will firmly disagree with you on separation of church and state, which I think is a very good thing. It keeps cults out of government just as effectively as it keeps mainstream religion out of government.
Talk is cheap.
Cindie
Indeed!
-
$549 per ticket is a little steep for space, janitorial services, et cetera. You'd pay less to go to an NFL game.
Again, I fail to see how this ties them to any major political party. As far as the NFL, that all depends on where you sit. :-)
I don't think Brown's views are bad. Actually, I think they're pretty close to Centrist; a neutral stance on abortion, gay rights, and support for the MA healthcare reform while opposed to Obama's fed healthcare, with relatively conservative to moderate-conservative views on everything else (except maybe the death penalty). MA picked somebody whose views were closer to old-fashioned, pre-corrupt Democratic Party views.
It's just too bad he's a member of a corrupt mainstream party. Lesser of two evils, and for the residents of MA, who have been old-school liberal for decades, the less lousy of two choices.
From your own description, it sounds as if the Mass voters elected someone who is more like themselves than the uppity shitheads that have dominated their politics for so many years. No matter what his party affiliation.
I don't see where that makes him "lousy". I think that makes him a winner for common sense voting of the electorate.
Man, please point out where I said he was centrist. I've said he definitely wasn't extreme right, so much closer to the center than many in his time. You're putting words in my mouth. :mental:
You have to remember that for his time, these were pretty novel, untried ideas.
Thomas Jefferson was a radical for his time. Being such, he was nowhere near centrist. For that matter, our first war against islamic fascism was fought by Jefferson. Congress couldn't make up their minds about whether or not to actually do something about the Barbary Pirates or pay them off so he waited until Congress was recessed and sent forces to the Med. That stunt earned our actions on the Barbary Coast being called Jefferson's War.
The man was a giant and a standard to which many should hold themselves to.
But he was in no way a go along to get along centrist. He was above and beyond anything that is in this country today.
Hamilton and Adams were conservative.
Hamilton was an idiot and a monarchy-lite individual. Very few of his ideas I actually find in any way palatable.
Again, impossible, short of mass murder. Liberal political philosophy is not just going to wither up and die. It's existed since the time one caveman said 'Let's try this new idea' and the other said 'No, let's stick with this one we've already got because it works'.
Oh, you misunderstand. I want it to exist and I want it to exist as a way to show how not to do things. I am speaking, of course, of the modern American version of hard leftist liberalism.
But you can't do that simply by telling other people that their philosophy is evil and wrong. People react to that with hostility. Instead, show them that your philosophy is good, reason with them.
What makes you think I don't? That's what the whole "drawing a distinction and articulating" thing is about.
I don't really care, you can say 'you're wrong!' as many times as you want.
Mirror, mirror, on the wall...
:-)
I also post on liberal boards, and I know that they, too, think you are all evil and want to turn the country into a religious intolerant state. Sensible viewpoints, like the ones you say you espouse - and I believe you - need to be presented in non-hostile ways. Breeding more animosity does not help win anybody over.
If you have, then you should know by now the typical liberal standard of debate - denial, threats, discredit the source, ignore, et cetera. And before you do, there is absolutely no comparing what you get from posters on conservative sites. Not even close.
Sure they didn't, and neither have the Democrats. Why should we believe either will start doing that now?
Because the latest elections show that when the governed collectively twist the arms of the "representatives" they do respond. If they don't, they go home.
That corporate interests largely control Washington. It's fascism in practice. I am in favor of removing restraints on corporations as long as they keep the hell out of our government. Right now, they aren't.
The biggest controlling interests in DC right now are liberal special interest arm twisting groups and union thugs.
Maybe, but not belligerent conservatism.
Maybe? Ronald Reagan ring a bell?
Good, I believe you. I'm not arguing to try and convince you of anything else, I'm just arguing to try and convince you that a lot of people on the 'other side' of the aisle also don't believe in those things, and that calling them communist, DUmmies, whatever the slang is... it doesn't help.
I don't care what the hard left thinks no more than I care about what the hard right thinks. And, quite frankly, if the boot fits.....
Especially to a (real) liberal point of view, because intolerance is the bane of true liberalism, and if you are perceived as intolerant, your words will never hold sway there.
You do understand that to the hard leftists, you're not a "real liberal", right?
-
Well, you're not really saying anything I particularly disagree with here. I dislike the American liberal stance on most racially-motivated issues like affirmative action, et cetera. I think they're inherently racist by seeking to draw distinctions between races.
Better to simply lay out rules that give all poor people advantages. If there are more poor people in a given minority, the benefit to that minority as a group will be larger for exactly as long as it needs to be larger.
(This is one of my views that gets me called 'racist' and 'conservative' on liberal boards.)
How about policies that really do some good instead of creating a permanent dependent class. I could give a rip if the rich gets richer as long as everyone ends up better off. I'm perfectly happy with my middle class life. If I won the lottery that would be peachy, too. I don't want a permanent dependent class.
Most liberals that I know perceive abortion as more an issue of feminism than of race. Calling abortion eugenics is making a pretty big stretch, although I am not in favor of abortion.
Well they certainly SAY that's what it's about. But how do you reconcile that with the quotes from the LIBERALS I quoted. Or how is it feminist (which I thought was all about choice) to fight to have an ad pulled about a woman who CHOSE life. If it were about true feminism they wouldn't feel threatened by people who chose to NOT have an abortion. Look at how Sarah Palin was disparaged because she had a Downs Syndrome baby. Why do abortion proponents refer to the baby growing inside a womb a "mass of tissue"? It's not. It may not may be able to survive outside the womb anymore than an infant can survive without someone to feed and care for it, but it isn't a blob. Why be afraid to tell women what they're really choosing? Because more might choose life? And how do you account for the fact that 90% of Downs Syndrome babies are aborted. Why? The test is encouraged by doctors and "options" are discussed. Eugenics is ridding society of "undesirable" elements. Why not require women to have an ultrasound before making the decision to abort? Why not tell them honestly the connection between abortion and breast cancer? If the truth will set you free than maybe it's not really free choice that feminists want.
Or in countries with governments like The Taliban or racially intolerant governments that commit genocide like in Rwanda. Yes.
Obviously I couldn't. Similarly, you couldn't show me a dictator who embraced liberal/libertarian philosophies, unless we want to consider Gandhi a dictator.
Actually, libertarian philosophy has more in common with conservative philosophy than liberal. It's why many Libertarians will vote for Republicans (all that keep your government out of my life stuff). Wanting to run health care, education, banks, retirement funds, police thoughts (hate crimes legislation), regulation of this or that industry, deciding what kind of energy "we the people" are allowed to have and WHERE we are allowed to get it (should be a state issue) are liberal philosophies. Again, look at their actions, not their words.
Well, I will firmly disagree with you on separation of church and state, which I think is a very good thing. It keeps cults out of government just as effectively as it keeps mainstream religion out of government.
Indeed!
You can disagree with me all you want but it also means you're disagreeing with the Constitution which prohibits a STATE religion (like the Church of England) but doesn't prevent the FREE EXERCISE thereof...even on government property...need proof? Pull a dollar bill out of your pocket. It doesn't say "In wood elves, environmentalists, and government do we trust".
Cindie
-
Get the government back to its basic operations. Defend the country from foreign invasion, protect us from infringement on our Constitutional rights, throw criminals in prison and make sure that a pound or an ounce in one state is equal to a pound or ounce in another.
Thats about it.
If we did that how many people or corporations would give a care who is in charge of DC?
-
How about policies that really do some good instead of creating a permanent dependent class. I could give a rip if the rich gets richer as long as everyone ends up better off. I'm perfectly happy with my middle class life. If I won the lottery that would be peachy, too. I don't want a permanent dependent class.
I'd be all for that, but do you have a plan to actually remove that unnecessary support system without causing a lot of hardship on the way? Simply yanking it out would cause thousands if not millions of people to end up on the streets. Surely there must be a better, more sensible way than just 'get rid of it right now'.
A bit of a thread derail, but if I started a new thread later when I get back from work (I have to run in just a moment), would you be willing to try and figure out some kind of multi-step plan to accomplish what you're talking about? I would gladly try and lay out a basic plan and let others pick it apart and make suggestions and corrections.
Well they certainly SAY that's what it's about. But how do you reconcile that with the quotes from the LIBERALS I quoted.
Those are some pretty radical-sounding quotes. Most Americans would reject them even if they support abortion.
As for the rest, I can't disagree with it... like I said, I dislike abortion.
Actually, libertarian philosophy has more in common with conservative philosophy than liberal.
Not necessarily - you could be a liberal libertarian and believe very strongly in things like internationalism and the removal of censorship, or you could be a very conservative libertarian and believe in the kind of 'religion in state' that you mention below and nationalism. Both would be anti-strong-state, though.
You can disagree with me all you want but it also means you're disagreeing with the Constitution which prohibits a STATE religion (like the Church of England) but doesn't prevent the FREE EXERCISE thereof...even on government property...need proof? Pull a dollar bill out of your pocket. It doesn't say "In wood elves, environmentalists, and government do we trust".
Cindie
Well, yeah. As a fairly non-religious person I prefer not to have my government tell me which religions deserve to be made publicly enshrined, though.
-
Like I said we could merge all of the different welfare programs into a single monthly "dole". We could dump about 7 big bureaucracies back into the unemployment line.
The dole would be enough to survive on without making it too comfortable that they might want to stay there for generations.
If local government want to spend money on "council flats" then they can do that I guess.
-
I'd be all for that, but do you have a plan to actually remove that unnecessary support system without causing a lot of hardship on the way? Simply yanking it out would cause thousands if not millions of people to end up on the streets. Surely there must be a better, more sensible way than just 'get rid of it right now'.
I don't know anyone who would advocate just cutting people off. That's not what the SUCCESSFUL welfare reform (that Clinton was dragged to kicking and screaming) was about either. But what the seems to think compassion is giving them a monthly check that merely allows them to subsist with one hand and pushes them back down with the other. Change will be slow especially since this government nanny mentality has been ingrained through several generations. But, look, in Washington DC poor minority children FINALLY got a voucher program that allowed them to attend private schools instead of failing public schools. And it was incredibly successful. Imagine, inner city black children sitting in a classroom next the the uber-privileged Obama girls, children of senators and diplomats and SUCCEEDING. For the first time in their young lives, getting an education that could truly allow them to lift themselves out of poverty. Public school teachers were against it (who wants a program that boldly illustrate just how incompetent they are), so bowing to pressure from a union with more money than these disadvantaged families will ever see, the Democrats yanked it from them. If they were truly the compassionate people they claim to be, they should've put the needs of the poor over the selfish interests of a deep pocketed union. And while we're at it, let's have a voucher system available for all children in failing schools. At least we'd finally be getting something for our tax dollars. Maybe public schools should have to compete to earn our tax dollars. It's only one of the most important investments we make in our nation...preparing the next generation.
And how about we require slum lords like Valerie Jarrett to use the government subsidies they get to fix up the run down, filthy tenements before they get another dime of our money and are invited into the inner circle of the White House where they have the president's ear all damn day. Give people something to take pride in and teach them to keep it up. How about day care while single mothers are getting their GED and learning a skill. I bet you could even find people in the neighborhood to work at said day care and you have another group of people learning a skill! I think it's perfectly fine to supplement their income while they're working an entry level job. Success and the pride that comes with it is it's own reward, but there's also got to be some kind of consequences for slipping back into old habits. These are just a few things we could do by using existing money that now goes to simply house and feed their hopelessness. And it's good for the country, too. More tax revenue from more workers and less citizens dependent on their fellow citizen's hard earned dollars. Everyone's take home pay goes up because instead of "spreading the wealth" (which involves taking the earnings of someone else), we're spreading opportunity and obligation, inviting them to participate in building this great nation instead of being a drag on it. One of the saddest things I saw was the video of that woman practically worshiping Obama as if he were a god while standing in line to merely APPLY for some "Obama" money. It's just painful to see Americans reduced to what amounts to begging and groveling at the feet of someone who has convinced people his hype is the real thing. Disgusting when you know that only a handful of the hundreds of people in line will get any of the money provided by the taxpayers, NOT Obama. But he gets his ego massaged and we all know what a self-centered narcissist he is. None of these things will ever happen until we get the entrenched Democratic machines out of the inner cities. That will require their enablers in the government come clean about their own malfeasance. Fat chance.[/quote]
Those are some pretty radical-sounding quotes. Most Americans would reject them even if they support abortion. As for the rest, I can't disagree with it... like I said, I dislike abortion.
Well, whether most Americans would or not, one quotee sits on the Supreme Court. She said it in an interview she gave to the New York Times. She litigated women's rights cases at the ACLU...that's pretty mainstream for the left. Evidently, it's a woman's right to know she's carrying a baby with Downs Syndrome (and be encouraged to have an abortion) but not her right (or obligation) to understand the full implication of her choice to have her "mass of tissue" stabbed in the head and sucked out of her womb. Frankly, I don't think it's any less radical to LIE to a woman by telling her the life inside her is just a mass of tissue. That's pretty cold. Truth is, Planned Parenthood often doesn't discuss any option but abortion. Not only is that NOT the "choice" they're supposed to be the champions of, but they're forcing women to be complicit in a murder they may not want to be a part of if given all the information. Not very liberating. The main reason: money! The abortion industry rakes in over a billion dollars a year and gets a third of their money from good old Uncle Sam! I'd say that makes it one of those rich special interests!
As for the rest, I can't disagree with it... like I said, I dislike abortion.Not necessarily - you could be a liberal libertarian and believe very strongly in things like internationalism and the removal of censorship, or you could be a very conservative libertarian and believe in the kind of 'religion in state' that you mention below and nationalism. Both would be anti-strong-state, though.
Well, yeah. As a fairly non-religious person I prefer not to have my government tell me which religions deserve to be made publicly enshrined, though.
I don't know about the liberal part, but I can tell you, you can't be a libertarian (even a conservative one) and believe in state controlled religion. Remember, the Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom from religion. That means if you want to go to a Christian church on Sunday (and Christian senators want to pray together for guidance), while my preference is to dance naked around an oak tree to honor the goddess of the month, I can do that freely (albeit not in public owing to public nudity laws). But the way some people act towards Christians, you'd think we were all burning crosses on everyone's lawn.
Cindie