|
On April 15 2009 16:07 Tyrant wrote:
I get the impression that your digestive tract is contiguous with a pipe leading from your mouth to your favorite news source's anus. Trying to compartmentalize everyone into a quaint little box is juvenile and shows how little you know about people.
You come across as very insecure suggesting that the party you don't agree with should, "get over it" -- followed by a statement to reassure yourself that you're on the winning side, but having the balls to end with a lecture of hypocrisy is the icing on the cake. If you really believe what you said then I'd venture to say that you're -- at best -- no better in your thinking than those you've aimed to demonize.
Free thinking will always trump blind faith and ignorant partisanship.
And you sound like somebody who isn't quite grasping what cz wrote. He's pointing out that the very people who were quick to accuse anybody critical of official policy as un-American are now critical of the new administration themselves. It's pretty apparent to anybody whose native language is English that the second paragraph isn't expressing his personal opinion, but rather of the people he is accusing of hypocrisy. His closing statement is pretty much also throwing the words of right-wingers back in their face.
But since you're from South Korea and English probably isn't your native language, I suppose you can be forgiven 
|
Out of line prolly, but I noticed there was only one non-north american that posted in this whole thread. Funny, because it means this situation concerns only maybe a half continent, if not less.
|
On April 15 2009 16:36 InToTheWannaB wrote:
At some point the republicain party has to change. They are playing to their base way to much. All these crazy fucking religulous nuts are NEVER going to vote democratic anyway. All they did with all this gay marriage/ stem cell research/abortion crap is push people in the center towards the democratic party because they look slightly less insane. There really is no place in both partys for fiscal conservatives anymore. People who want smaller goverment and low taxes are pretty much assed out. They wont split with the republican party because then you just have two smaller weaker partys. However they clearly have to retake control of the party and the neo cons have to go on the back burner for a while.
Actually at least on gay marriage, the Republican stance is the mainstream American stance (that is Americans generally oppose gay marriage). So why aren't you arguing that the gay rights are pushing their moderates toward the right since they took the stance further from the center.
Also, being pro-life is hardly fringe:
As for stem cells, I agree that the GOP should drop that (except it should still be illegal to sell fetuses or stem cells just like it is illegal to sell organs). There is nothing inherently wrong with stem cells. People just hear the word and think that for some reason they don't quite understand, they are supposed to oppose it.
As for neocons (I take that to be those who want aggressive foreign policy), I also hope that they diminish and lose power.
EDIT: Also, note that neoconservative (although not a fixed definition) primarily refers to foreign policy and NOT domestic religious/traditional views. Traditional conservatives are fiscally conservative, pro-traditional family values, and otherwise socially conservative. Neocons are not defined by that.
"Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States. It espouses an interventionist approach to defend national interests. Unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state; and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes."
"Believing that America should "export democracy", that is, spread its ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to reject U.S. reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish these objectives. Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives take a more idealist stance on foreign policy; adhere less to social conservatism; have a weaker dedication to the policy of minimal government; and in the past, have been more supportive of the welfare state."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative
|
Mister Churchill wasn't a fan of anything pertaining to forms of government. He definitely favored ultimate victory and a mob rule.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
That's because the average voter is just that -- average. Average people are (very) stupid and below average people are downright dangerous if given any resemblance of power.
Unfortunately that quote lends itself to some harsh extrapolation and therefore is retarded and merely showcases how stupid people would prefer to hold their hand out to make a living rather than put some effort into something that might create purpose and a sense of belonging through responsibility. It's rather strange that those who would claim to be disenfranchised are among the laziest and pitiful people in the world.
|
The neo-conservative movement was created by socialists who, because of the percieved failures of state control, argued that a new method for achieving the "common good" must be adopted.
Note, the neo-conservatives agree with "the left" that "the good of society" is the proper and good goal of government. So the difference between neo-cons and socialists are, basically:
(1) the place of moral education in society. The neo-cons argue, in many respects like Marx, that the populace at large needs a moral education. Most on the "left" don't like this -- at least not when its not their ideology. ---Please note that this view of moral education translates directly into a view on foreign policy -- that is, invasion of foreign countries is argued for on the basis of "teaching about the good" or "bringing freedom and democracy"
(2) The path to "the common good" -- the neo-cons simply argue that human nature was not as flexible as marx thought and as a result the most basic objection to socialism -- the incentive problem -- had to be given more weight.
This is a great book about neo-conservativism written by an ex neo-con:
http://www.amazon.com/America-Crossroads-Democracy-Neoconservative-Legacy/dp/0300122535/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239783397&sr=8-3
|
And you sound like somebody who isn't quite grasping what cz wrote. He's pointing out that the very people who were quick to accuse anybody critical of official policy as un-American are now critical of the new administration themselves. It's pretty apparent to anybody whose native language is English that the second paragraph isn't expressing his personal opinion, but rather of the people he is accusing of hypocrisy. His closing statement is pretty much also throwing the words of right-wingers back in their face. But since you're from South Korea and English probably isn't your native language, I suppose you can be forgiven
Oh, trust me -- I fully grasp his steaming rhetoric.
You're making this too easy on me. You really think that I didn't fully understand what he was saying before I posted? I'm sorry, but I thought about every word I typed and none of it was off the hip.
1. cz claims XYZ is partisan.
2. cz makes partisan statements.
3. cz inserts the pipe and begins sucking hard like it's the last cherry Slurpee on the planet.
|
I have nothing against money.
But I think capitalism is self destructive.
I hope we someday develop a sustentabilism or something, our core doctrine as a race cant be a character flaw(greed).
Can you imagine if Colbert became the president after obamas second term ?
|
On April 15 2009 18:05 D10 wrote:
I have nothing against money.
But I think capitalism is self destructive.
I hope we someday develop a sustentabilism or something, our core doctrine as a race cant be a character flaw(greed).
Can you imagine if Colbert became the president after obamas second term ?
It seems to me that stupidity is self-destructive, not capitalism. We could imagine an entirely private market that, for reasons beyond altruism, was interested in developing the lives of the least wealthy. It seems to me that there are two reasons it is smart (and self-interested) for wealthy investors to funnel money to the poor.
(1) Funneling large amounts of investment would squelch much of the persausive power of marxist rhetoric by demonstrating that capitalism does not lead to labor for base substinence.
(2) Happy, culturally developed workers contribute to a market in many more ways than disgrunteled, mindless laborers.
|
You're worried about "right wing extremism" when both the presidency and congress are decidedly left wing? Are you a moron or something? The election was less than 6 months ago. People voted them in. Your concerns are no different than people during the late 80's who were still concerned that America might turn communist.
|
Uh, yeah, he IS worried that conservatives who feel that the government is dominated by an opposing ideology will feel as if they need to take radical measures outside of the current system due to the fact that the current system doesnt' represent them or cater to their wants or needs. Shocker that one, eh?
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 15 2009 15:51 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2009 15:40 Railz wrote:On April 15 2009 15:33 Savio wrote:On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote:
-
If these conservatives spent half the time protesting their new government as they did actually reading what is Constitutional and what isn't, we actually might get a decent third party.  Sooo...you are saying conservatives read the constitution too much and should just get out there and protest something? No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops. Fun fact: The income tax was not originally in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, it's ratification was somewhat contentious.
Fun fact: The Constitution was a pro-slavery document and women originally could not vote. As a matter of fact, the abolishment of slavery was somewhat contentious.
The Sixteenth Amendment exists. Get over it.
|
people tend to lean to the extremes when times get rough.
see: Germany 1929-1945, Russia 1914
|
On April 15 2009 21:00 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2009 15:51 Caller wrote:On April 15 2009 15:40 Railz wrote:On April 15 2009 15:33 Savio wrote:On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote:
-
If these conservatives spent half the time protesting their new government as they did actually reading what is Constitutional and what isn't, we actually might get a decent third party. Sooo...you are saying conservatives read the constitution too much and should just get out there and protest something? No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops. Fun fact: The income tax was not originally in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, it's ratification was somewhat contentious. Fun fact: The Constitution was a pro-slavery document and women originally could not vote. As a matter of fact, the abolishment of slavery was somewhat contentious. The Sixteenth Amendment exists. Get over it.
True. It does exist. And your point is well taken, Jibba, the constitution -- rather, the creation of the united states -- is no example of pure goodness (welcome to human history, you and I would both say, right?). But this does nothing to address the question of whether or not the 16th should exist. (that, of course, is a much larger and more fundmantal debate).
|
United States22883 Posts
Fox News has nothing to do with libertarians. 99% of republican senators love spending and government intervention as much as 99% of democratic senators love spending and government intervention, but they only like it when it's for their agenda. It's a partisan topic, but both parties share the same ideology. It's politically advantageous for Jindal to say he's resisting government influence, because he only accepts 3.7 billion out of 3.8 billion government dollars offered.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no coverage of libertarians who truly believe in conservatism (or liberalism, as it should be known.) It's mind boggling, because Ron Paul is extremely entertaining, even if he is wrong.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 15 2009 21:03 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2009 21:00 Jibba wrote:On April 15 2009 15:51 Caller wrote:On April 15 2009 15:40 Railz wrote:On April 15 2009 15:33 Savio wrote:On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote:
-
If these conservatives spent half the time protesting their new government as they did actually reading what is Constitutional and what isn't, we actually might get a decent third party. Sooo...you are saying conservatives read the constitution too much and should just get out there and protest something? No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops. Fun fact: The income tax was not originally in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, it's ratification was somewhat contentious. Fun fact: The Constitution was a pro-slavery document and women originally could not vote. As a matter of fact, the abolishment of slavery was somewhat contentious. The Sixteenth Amendment exists. Get over it. True. It does exist. And your point is well taken, Jibba, the constitution -- rather, the creation of the united states -- is no example of pure goodness (welcome to human history, you and I would both say, right?). But this does nothing to address the question of whether or not the 16th should exist. (that, of course, is a much larger and more fundmantal debate).
Redistributive policies are always contentious and make people upset, but I'd wager that more people care about the services provided by the federal government than the tax they'd have to pay. In fact, without those services being provided I can't imagine the type of country we'd be living in.
And I don't mean publicized services like welfare programs, that actually take up a small portion of the budget. I mean historically things like funding WWI/II, roads, polio immunizations, etc.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 15 2009 19:08 Mortality wrote:
You're worried about "right wing extremism" when both the presidency and congress are decidedly left wing?
I think the OP is just worried about someone shooting the president. After going to a speech by a director in the Secret Service, I'm a bit worried too. o.O
|
On April 15 2009 19:08 Mortality wrote:
You're worried about "right wing extremism" when both the presidency and congress are decidedly left wing?
There is no such thing as left wing in mainstream American politics ._.
|
On April 15 2009 21:17 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2009 21:03 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 15 2009 21:00 Jibba wrote:On April 15 2009 15:51 Caller wrote:On April 15 2009 15:40 Railz wrote:On April 15 2009 15:33 Savio wrote:On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote:
-
If these conservatives spent half the time protesting their new government as they did actually reading what is Constitutional and what isn't, we actually might get a decent third party. Sooo...you are saying conservatives read the constitution too much and should just get out there and protest something? No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops. Fun fact: The income tax was not originally in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, it's ratification was somewhat contentious. Fun fact: The Constitution was a pro-slavery document and women originally could not vote. As a matter of fact, the abolishment of slavery was somewhat contentious. The Sixteenth Amendment exists. Get over it. True. It does exist. And your point is well taken, Jibba, the constitution -- rather, the creation of the united states -- is no example of pure goodness (welcome to human history, you and I would both say, right?). But this does nothing to address the question of whether or not the 16th should exist. (that, of course, is a much larger and more fundmantal debate). Redistributive policies are always contentious and make people upset, but I'd wager that more people care about the services provided by the federal government than the tax they'd have to pay. In fact, without those services being provided I can't imagine the type of country we'd be living in. And I don't mean publicized services like welfare programs, that actually take up a small portion of the budget. I mean historically things like funding WWI/II, roads, polio immunizations, etc.
It could be that humanity, at large, is not yet ready (if ever..) for true self-governance. If that is the case we can only hope that the stupid masses will succesfully (somehow) determine the smart individuals to rule them.
But come on man, surely you can imagine a society of individuals who act collectively and, at the same time, without coercion.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this reminds me of a religious crisis actually, something along the lines of millenarianism which had its moments during times of perceived crises. there is the impending fundamental disaster, and the accompanying feeling of living on the edge of crisis, complete with an understanding that only the chosen few could comprehend the true situation.
besides being hilarious, this 'movement' is surprisingly well received. i have only two complaints, given the low baseline expectations implicit in talking about american politics. these people seem less funny than ron paul, and the powerlessness of the popular media in challenging popular misconceptions.
serious analysis of the social effects of the administrative state is not an ideological matter, but retarded people quaking because of "Socialism" makes me think that the serious look at the situation is wasted here.
i see lots of people are equating liberty with the lack of visible government activity, but this identity is not replicated among political philosophers to nearly the same extent. the most relevant and clarifying argument for this situation can be found in g.a. cohen's line of thought, in 'if you are an egalitarian, how come you are so rich.' etc.
one little note on the media then
So why aren't you arguing that the gay rights are pushing their moderates toward the right since they took the stance further from the center. because that would be morally disgusting, at least to people with sensible humane educations. the media happens to be from the background. the journalist ideal does have a moral compass, albeit a socially restrained one. it happens that gay rights is becoming one of these implicit moral high grounds like race. to dissent from this is not seen as merely having a different take, but a moral transgression and/or being a freak. you know this too, this is why arguing against gay rights etc are preferably done in cabals of likeminded people.
|
On April 15 2009 16:57 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2009 16:36 InToTheWannaB wrote:
At some point the republicain party has to change. They are playing to their base way to much. All these crazy fucking religulous nuts are NEVER going to vote democratic anyway. All they did with all this gay marriage/ stem cell research/abortion crap is push people in the center towards the democratic party because they look slightly less insane. There really is no place in both partys for fiscal conservatives anymore. People who want smaller goverment and low taxes are pretty much assed out. They wont split with the republican party because then you just have two smaller weaker partys. However they clearly have to retake control of the party and the neo cons have to go on the back burner for a while. Actually at least on gay marriage, the Republican stance is the mainstream American stance (that is Americans generally oppose gay marriage). So why aren't you arguing that the gay rights are pushing their moderates toward the right since they took the stance further from the center. Also, being pro-life is hardly fringe: As for stem cells, I agree that the GOP should drop that (except it should still be illegal to sell fetuses or stem cells just like it is illegal to sell organs). There is nothing inherently wrong with stem cells. People just hear the word and think that for some reason they don't quite understand, they are supposed to oppose it. As for neocons (I take that to be those who want aggressive foreign policy), I also hope that they diminish and lose power. EDIT: Also, note that neoconservative (although not a fixed definition) primarily refers to foreign policy and NOT domestic religious/traditional views. Traditional conservatives are fiscally conservative, pro-traditional family values, and otherwise socially conservative. Neocons are not defined by that. "Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States. It espouses an interventionist approach to defend national interests. Unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state; and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes." "Believing that America should "export democracy", that is, spread its ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to reject U.S. reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish these objectives. Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives take a more idealist stance on foreign policy; adhere less to social conservatism; have a weaker dedication to the policy of minimal government; and in the past, have been more supportive of the welfare state."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative Yeah i guess i did not think that threw . I guess that would push the center to the right lol. See I always thought of neo cons more as the christian coalition part of the republican party. The people that get their religion and politics mixed up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr050512iii.gif)
