AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@parados,

parados wrote:

So you decide to pull your bull **** out again? Okie, when are you going to grow up and become an American? Do the people that hang out with you know that they are birds of a feather and they hate America like you do?

Knock off the insults, okay. I am a law abiding citizen, husband, father, and grandfather, and have always paid my taxes and provided for my family, and a military vet. My friends are all very patriotic and are the same as my family, law abiding and thankful to live in this country. They find the rants of somebody like Jeremiah Wright to be repulsive and obnoxious, and frankly unacceptable. And members of the weathermen, no, none of us would ever be friends with that ilk, unless they changed their attitudes and ways and had appropriate remorse, but apparently Ayers only wished he had done more. When are you going to realize these people are not typical Americans, parados?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Thanks for posting part of his response to me dated 30 August 2010. I find his style, his ego, his poor grammar and abysmal syntax difficult to wade through, so I generally give up after the first line.

I was amused by his description of "our founders," "the vast of majority . . ." of which were . . . a list of every Protestant sect then extant followed. Really? So, there were so many founders that they represent the full religious spectrum of the time.

okie thinks Deist is a dirty word but Deism marks a sort of religious and intellectual sophistication.

I did a quick search on Jefferson (http://www.adherents.com/people/pj/Thomas_Jefferson.html) and learned that although he was raised in the Anglican church, as an adult, he had no formal religious affiliation.

He also wrote that he thought the US would become Unitarian. As a Quaker (who was raised a Roman Catholic) who attended the Unitarian Church with my ex-husband (who couldn't tolerate mu Quaker friends because they did not drink) and children (to provide them with a framework from which to form their own ideas), I can think of nothing further from the so-called religiosity of the Fundamentalists or even of the manipulators like beck and palin than Unitarianism!

Jefferson was never a Unitarian although there is a Unitarian church named in his honor.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Jeez, george, did you think I was serious or did you miss the fact that I was pulling okie's chain? Yeah, it is evil, but, when faced with such stubborn sameness, such locked in place intolerance complete with stupid symbols and self-produced acronyms, how is one to answer? Either by holding up a mirror (ooh! you clever boy, you!) or by ignoring him completely. The Daily Show is on hiatus this week. I'm amusing myself.

I don't agree. I do believe you are often (not always) every bit as categorical in your expressed judgements as you accuse okie to be. Whether your expression was ironical or motivated by frustration is neither knowable by others nor relevant. It was not at all unusual for your posts.

There is a good deal of truth in okie's expressed views here. However, he too is excessively categorical in his denunciations of leftist and socialists. Moreover, his illogical and largely semantical confusion of social democrats with totalitarianism (or perhaps merely refusal to make a distinction between Sweden and the Soviet Union) corrupts much of his analysis and excites nearly all of the opposition he gets here - opposition on which he sometimes appears to thrive. In such conditions there isn't much point in continued dialogue.

Why put yourself in that position?

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Thanks for posting part of his response to me dated 30 August 2010. I find his style, his ego, his poor grammar and abysmal syntax difficult to wade through, so I generally give up after the first line.

I was amused by his description of "our founders," "the vast of majority . . ." of which were . . . a list of every Protestant sect then extant followed. Really? So, there were so many founders that they represent the full religious spectrum of the time.

Are you referring to my post wherein I corrected you when you claimed most founders were Diests? I provided a list of the founders with their religious affiliations, proving the vast majority of them were not Deists, but were members of various Christian denominations.

Quote:

okie thinks Deist is a dirty word but Deism marks a sort of religious and intellectual sophistication.

Again, wrong, pom. I never said Deist was a dirty word. I merely corrected your claim about the founders mostly being Deists.

Quote:

I did a quick search on Jefferson (http://www.adherents.com/people/pj/Thomas_Jefferson.html) and learned that although he was raised in the Anglican church, as an adult, he had no formal religious affiliation.

He also wrote that he thought the US would become Unitarian. As a Quaker (who was raised a Roman Catholic) who attended the Unitarian Church with my ex-husband (who couldn't tolerate mu Quaker friends because they did not drink) and children (to provide them with a framework from which to form their own ideas), I can think of nothing further from the so-called religiosity of the Fundamentalists or even of the manipulators like beck and palin than Unitarianism!

Jefferson was never a Unitarian although there is a Unitarian church named in his honor.

I know a guy that I went to school with that is a Unitarian minister, or at least has been one. I get the impression that Unitarianism is pretty non-commital on many things and so inclusive as to accept almost any belief or behavior, plus accepting to the point that their religion is almost non-Christian. Just an opinion, don't get all up in arms about it, pom.
By the way, if you want to talk about Glenn Beck, I learned some time ago that he was a Mormon, which surprised me somewhat. Mormons are people that libs love to hate, but I think Mormons are by and large good people that are patriotic and good Americans. I am no Mormon and I find their beliefs not for me at all, but in a country with freedom of religion, I bear no animosity toward them at all, they are entitled to their beliefs. I would like to see Mitt Romney get someplace in running for president, but if nominated by his party, I look for the Democrats to try to rip the man to shreds. That from a party that regularly defends Islam and claims to be so non-bigoted, ha ha.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

There is a good deal of truth in okie's expressed views here. However, he too is excessively categorical in his denunciations of leftist and socialists. Moreover, his illogical and largely semantical confusion of social democrats with totalitarianism (or perhaps merely refusal to make a distinction between Sweden and the Soviet Union) corrupts much of his analysis and excites nearly all of the opposition he gets here - opposition on which he sometimes appears to thrive. In such conditions there isn't much point in continued dialogue.

Good grief George, no wonder you are confused about my opinions! I have no clue where you got the idea that I equated Sweden to the Soviet Union? I certainly have never said that, I don't know where you got that, do you? Please provide a quote or something, I am not going to let you make claims here without backing them up. I know I would not have said something like that, because I post what I believe, and I have never believed that Sweden's style of Democratic Socialism was anything close to the communist system in the Soviet Union. George, you have greatly diminished your credibility in my eyes by saying such a thing, because I would never have said any such thing. If you can find a quote, be my guest, but I doubt seriously you can find anything even resembling it.

Again, I am frankly offended by your inference that I can be compared to pom as a polar opposite but nearly as radical. It is frankly not supportable for you to make that claim. You have used the Sweden - Soviet Union example that you claim I would have claimed were similar, when in fact I never did, I do not think so, George. You are no different than anyone else on this forum, you are going to have to produce evidence if you make claims about what somebody has said.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

Interesting also, Soros acknowledges a commonality between communism and Nazism, that each claimed to have the ultimate truth and therefore justified the use of dictatorships to enforce their beliefs upon everyone for the common good, at the expense of individual freedom and responsibility. So it seems that Soros was inadvertantly equating both communism and Nazism to a leftist direction even though at one point he claimed Nazism was extreme right, but he cited no evidence for it. Does the term "social justice" here become pertinent, cyclops? And even though Soros admits to the virtues of free market capitalism, he seems to push the idea that nobody has the ultimate truth and so mankind must continue to stumble along in search of it. So, I interpret his article to be saying that the ultimate truth is somewhere beyond communism, fascism, and capitalism as well, maybe a combination of them? That is not a comforting thought, because it gets us back to some leftist dogma of borrowing the good points from communism and capitalism to come up with some form of his ultimate truth. Interestingly, this is what you, cyclops, say that you favor, which is also not a very comforting thought. If I were you, I would be trying to re-examine my beliefs for something solid to stand on, something right and true and based upon common sense.

By claiming there is something 'right, and true, and based on common sense,' and that other ideas are without merit, you are showing the same tendencies as the Totalitarians. The entire concept of the 'open society' is that what you are doing here is wrong.

Yes, I will admit that my philosophies fall very close to this, and indeed, you correctly pointed out that I say similar things all the time. I do so because the American experience itself has taught me that we CAN learn from other cultures, peoples and types of governance. The USA is not the end-all be-all throughout all time when it comes to the shining example of how to run a nation, or how to run an economic system. Capitalism is not god-given, any more so than Communism is.

I get why you're against it, though - it's really tough to hold such a position and still be a strong Nationalist like you are.

I asked you the question, because your initial post on the topic made it clear that you didn't understand the fact that the 'open society' is the polar opposite of a totalitarian one. You were accusing Soros of exactly the wrong thing.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
There is a good deal of truth in okie's expressed views here. However, he too is excessively categorical in his denunciations of leftist and socialists. Moreover, his illogical and largely semantical confusion of social democrats with totalitarianism (or perhaps merely refusal to make a distinction between Sweden and the Soviet Union) corrupts much of his analysis and excites nearly all of the opposition he gets here - opposition on which he sometimes appears to thrive. In such conditions there isn't much point in continued dialogue.

Good grief George, no wonder you are confused about my opinions! I have no clue where you got the idea that I equated Sweden to the Soviet Union? I certainly have never said that, I don't know where you got that, do you? Please provide a quote or something, I am not going to let you make claims here without backing them up. I know I would not have said something like that, because I post what I believe, and I have never believed that Sweden's style of Democratic Socialism was anything close to the communist system in the Soviet Union. George, you have greatly diminished your credibility in my eyes by saying such a thing, because I would never have said any such thing. If you can find a quote, be my guest, but I doubt seriously you can find anything even resembling it.

Again, I am frankly offended by your inference that I can be compared to pom as a polar opposite but nearly as radical. It is frankly not supportable for you to make that claim. You have used the Sweden - Soviet Union example that you claim I would have claimed were similar, when in fact I never did, I do not think so, George. You are no different than anyone else on this forum, you are going to have to produce evidence if you make claims about what somebody has said.

If you don't think Sweden's system is bad, or equal to Communism in any way, surely you'd be willing to examine ways in which we can emulate their successes by introducing more Socialist elements into our society. Right?

George's point is that you are so reflexively anti-Socialism and communism, and so rigid in your belief that anyone who has anything to do with it is some sort of communist devil who hates America, that any hope of nuanced argument or discussion is lost. Let us take Obama for example. Many of the ideas that he's had or things that he's said are well to the Right of how they do things in Sweden; yet you label him an 'extreme socialist' all the time and claim that he's anti-American with his views. This is what Soros was talking about in the Open Society article: a worldview so intolerant of others as to preclude discussion of them at all.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclops, interesting subject. I find the inability or unwillingness to believe in a few principles as disturbing, cyclops. The inability or unwillingness to even plainly state ones beliefs is also disturbing. I agree other cultures and ways of thinking can teach us things, but there is no reason to become confused by stuff that conflict with what should be obvious and right. After all, we do have what I would call tried and true principles, and one of those is what the Declaration of Independence declares, as follows:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

I happen to think that is a pretty basic principle that all of us should believe, cyclops. Do you not believe it? If you do not, perhaps that would explain why you believe much of what you apparently do, or do not believe what other Americans do.

What really bothers me about Soros is that he seems to favor throwing out everything that we have learned from history and starting over, which will most assuredly result in repeating many of the same mistakes over again. And Soros has some screwy idea that capitalism is by nature evil, which is not a supportable belief. In fact, he offers no compelling evidence for that belief.

A major point here, I believe free market capitalism is part and parcel of individual freedom and liberty. Do you not believe that? It is evident that Soros does not. Now, to clarify what I believe, that does not give license to break laws and cheat other people, I have never claimed that appropriate capitalism includes corrupt capitalism. Capitalism is not by definition corrupt. That is the reason we have laws to govern society. We need to keep people from cheating and injuring their neighbors, that is entirely logical, in fact that is what our entire legal system is about. In fact, I find it highly disturbing that some of the corrupt capitalism that the government is directly responsible for, namely Fannie and Freddie, the government has either refused or ignored its responsibility to prosecute criminal behavior. There is a tendency instead for liberals to indict the system rather than the guilty parties engaged in criminal behavior. This failure of our government to do its job in this regard is highly repugnant and should be rejected and corrected, and that is one huge reason why I believe we need a total change in parties in Washington, to hopefully try to correct some of this.

The above reminds me of what McCain said about campaign donations, that the system had corrupted the political system. No, absolutely not, it is corrupt politicians that have corrupted Washington and the political system. That is a very important point. Likewise, it is not capitalism that is corrupt, it is corrupt people that have practiced corrupt capitalism. We already have laws governing corruption, and if there are crimes being committed, they need to be enforced. An example is Terry McAuliffe and Global Crossing, doing very likely insider trading to profit tens or hundreds of millions, but he was never prosecuted. Perhaps not enough evidence, but I suspect he just had too many lawyers and too many high up friends, but the point is that there are laws that should be enforced. If we need to tighten up enforcement or refine the laws, fine, lets do it, but it is wrong to indict the entire system for what only a few are doing.

As I have already posted, I wonder if Soros has some kind of guilt complex over the fortune he has amassed, maybe some of it was gained by corruption? If you search the net, there are references to that possibility or even liklihood.

Oh, I forgot to address the "open society" subject more, but we can still do that if you wish. An "open society" is not a bad idea on its face. In fact, that seems to be what we are here since our inception. In the final analysis, it seems to me that a society will pretty much get what it wants eventually, and if it desires to be taken care of, bondage it will be, because freedom does require work and responsibility by everyone, that is really true. Freedom and liberty is difficult to maintain over a very long period of time.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

I happen to think that is a pretty basic principle that all of us should believe, cyclops. Do you not believe it? If you do not, perhaps that would explain why you believe much of what you apparently do, or do not believe what other Americans do.

Of course I believe it, but like I said in the other thread re: everyone thinking they mirror the thoughts of the Founders, it's vague. You interpret it to mean that Capitalism is a key part of any society which would uphold those standards. I don't interpret it that way, but I still agree with it every bit as much as you do.

And once again, this is Soros' point: when you say that the only way to have a free society is through unfettered Capitalism, you are acting in the same fashion as the Totalitarians: claiming that you have special knowledge of what is fundamentally true, and all others are wrong. It isn't a good way to run a country or society. An 'open society' accepts other ideas as valid as well, and tries to learn if anything useful can be taken from them.

Quote:

Capitalism is not by definition corrupt. That is the reason we have laws to govern society.

Once again, you have it exactly backwards: Capitalism IS inherently corrupt, which is why it's NECESSARY to have so many laws limiting and regulating it.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Capitalism is not by definition corrupt. That is the reason we have laws to govern society.

Once again, you have it exactly backwards: Capitalism IS inherently corrupt, which is why it's NECESSARY to have so many laws limiting and regulating it.

Cycloptichorn

Boy are we worlds apart on this. I grew up with farmers when a handshake meant something. There were men that were perfectly honest and would not dream of cheating another man out of anything. My dad was one of those men. I know especially lately after he has been deceased, I constantly meet people that knew him and testify to that fact. He was highly regarded and perfectly honest in every way. We had many neighbors the same way. Capitalism is not corrupt. It is the people that practice it in corrupt ways that are corrupt, just as they would corrupt any other issue they become involved in.

If Obama believes as Soros and you do, no wonder we have the total mess we now have in Washington. I reject that mindset totally, cyclops, and I am hoping the voters resoundingly agree in November. Oh for a Reaganesque leader again, that believed in America, the American people, and its traditions and principles.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Capitalism is not by definition corrupt. That is the reason we have laws to govern society.

Once again, you have it exactly backwards: Capitalism IS inherently corrupt, which is why it's NECESSARY to have so many laws limiting and regulating it.

Cycloptichorn

Boy are we worlds apart on this. I grew up with farmers when a handshake meant something. There were men that were perfectly honest and would not dream of cheating another man out of anything. My dad was one of those men. I know especially lately after he has been deceased, I constantly meet people that knew him and testify to that fact. He was highly regarded and perfectly honest in every way. We had many neighbors the same way. Capitalism is no more corrupt than lots of other things in and of themselves.

Yes!!! Now you're getting it! No more corrupt - and no less so. Because what we are talking about are individuals here, who we all know will act differently in different situations.

You realize, I'm sure, that the reason your dad was special - and highly regarded - is because he DID keep his word and was honest. Many are not, and that's why we have laws to keep them from being thieves and crooks and screwing others over. We have to have those, because that's what Capitalism encourages - the accumulation of wealth. It is blind as to the method.

Quote:

If Obama believes as Soros and you do, no wonder we have the total mess we now have in Washington. I reject that mindset totally, cyclops, and I am hoping the voters resoundingly agree in November. Oh for a Reaganesque leader again, that believed in America, the American people, and its traditions and principles.

You're close to understanding, but not quite there. You still see everything as black-and-white, when the truth is anything but that.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclops, I think it is you that almost gets it. It is human nature that is the pivot point. Humans have the capability of evil or good, depending upon our choices. Our involvement into capitalism, politics, whatever, it is us the corrupts those things, not the other way around. For example, in the old Soviet Union without pure free market capitalism, there was still plenty of corruption, probably more than in any capitalistic environment because of a lack of check and balance. The party bosses and all of that, it was very corrupt because it was said that power corrupts, but it was the people that brought corruption to the seats of power, and when you have a government that is the God rather than a real God, it gendered more corruption in my opinion.

Yes, I see many things in black and white, not everything, but there are certain principles that need to be honored and followed. I think holding certain principles high and dear is crucial to living a decent life.

I think the basic mistake that Soros and you make is that you blame the shortcomings of economical and political systems on the systems, not on the failings of the human nature of people where the responsibility truly lies. Soros and perhaps you apparently think there is some ultimate utopia out there if mankind continues to discover and probe for the ultimate best path to it. Such is extremely foolhardy in my opinion, cyclops, and will only lead to further suffering. Many despots thought the same thing in history and we need only look at their examples to see how foolhardy it is to hope for it. We need to simply face reality and realize we each deserve freedom and liberty, of which free market capitalism is part and parcel, but enforce laws to protect us from each other. That is what America is founded upon and the way it should remain. Some principles are too valuable and tried and true to throw into the scrapheap of history so that we can find new ways to suffer only more. Why not learn from the mistakes of history and avoid repeating the same ones over and over?

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

I grew up with farmers when a handshake meant something

You have to consider scale. In a small, rural town, like the one in which I live now, rumors fly thick and fast. Were one of your father's associates to lie or cheat, the entire community would know about it. Look how long it took Enron, or Bernie Madoff, to be revealed as frauds. That would not happen in a small community of 200 or 4,000 or even 25,000 people.

I would like to add that yesterday you admitted to not knowing what an open society is and yet you condemned George Soros for believing in an open society. Do you think you should condemn something you neither know nor understand? Is that ethical/moral/gentlemanly?

You just wrote that you reject the Soros mindset. I suspect because you either refuse to learn or feel you can never admit to being wrong or to having changed your mind.

BTW, I travel in liberal circles. I was on the local council of Moveon.org. Guess what? No one ever talks about George Soros. Is it possible that he is more important in your mind than he is in real life?

1 Reply

ONE MORE TIME: WHAT IS THE REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEFTIST LIBERALS AND RIGHTIST CONSERVATIVES?
Leftist Liberals seek more government control over people's lives.
Rightist Conservatives seek more individual control over their own lives.

Leftist Liberals seek more equal distribution of wealth.
Rightist Conservatives seek more merit distribution of wealth.

Leftist Liberals seek more dependence by the needy on government charity.
Rightist Conservatives seek more dependence by the needy on private charity.

Leftist Liberals seek less dependence by the needy on private charity.
Rightist Conservatives seek less dependence by the needy on government charity.

Leftist Liberals rarely specify what Leftist Liberals think.
Rightist Conservatives regularly specify what Rightist Conservatives think.

Leftist Liberals regularly incorrectly claim what Rightist Conservatives think.
Rightist Conservatives regularly correctly claim what Leftist Liberals think.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

I provided a list of the founders with their religious affiliations, proving the vast majority of them were not Deists, but were members of various Christian denominations.

A list? Are you implying that you named the FFs you had under consideration? You absolutely did not so it is up to you supply the conclusion . . .

You listed several religions. Period. You did not attribute them to anyone individual.

You also do not understand that being a Deist does not preclude religious affiliation. Nor is religious affiliation superior to holding Deist beliefs, which you imply through your misplaced hero worship. As I illustrated with a quote from a biography of Jefferson, he did not practice the faith in which he was raised.

Now, I will provide the conclusion: the post to which I am responding is a lie told by you. You purposefully misrepresented what you wrote which is there for all of us to scroll back to.

As for correcting my conclusion -- BTW, how much work in American history and political science have you done -- that most of the FFs were Deists, well, that is the conclusion of many American historians.

BTW, I posted yesterday that beck only became a Mormon after marrying his second wife and after recovering from drug and alcohol addiction. He was raised a Roman Catholic.

I lived close to Willard "Mitt" Romney. People liked it when the Romney kids threw parties because there would be no alcohol. So some liberals likesome Mormons.

1 Reply

@okie,

I should point out to you that our Founding Fathers believed that there was a better system, and a better way of doing things; and the British and many others told them that they were foolhardy, extremely foolhardy, and that their proposed system could never work.

That's the same thing you are saying here. Do you get that? People who claim to have "ultimate truths" are never correct - ever.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

okie quoted this which was in turn quoted by cyclop:

Quote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

The problem is that many Americans during the 17th, 18th, 19th and into the 20th Century denied these unalienable rights to slaves and their descendants through slavery then through the Jim Crow laws.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

By 1970--40 years ago--segragation in America was eliminated by Americans.

In 2010, segragation in Africa and Asia has not yet been eliminated.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

People who claim to have "ultimate truths" are never correct - ever.

That of course includes you!

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
People who claim to have "ultimate truths" are never correct - ever.

That of course includes you!

True

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know