AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@okie,

Well, maybe, you're beginning the grasp a little bit of logic. +

okie wrote:

Quote:

God is not a political system, ci.

You're still missing the major point; right communist and left communist doesn't exist - it's either communism or capitalism.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

JM, You are really confused; Walter's understanding of politics in Europe and the US is more realistic than most Americans understanding of politics on these two continents. Most often, it is Americans who fail to understand European politics, and are confused with their use of the words conservative, socialist, democrat, liberal, and republican. Most Americans fail to understand American politics; that's been proven by many on these boards. They have no understanding of socialism, capitalism, democrats, liberals, independents, or republicans, and even fail to understand US history.

The proof is all over on a2k.

Well yes, I am confused and myself and Okie are trying to learn from Walter here (this should not be taken that Okie is confused however). The fact that Walter's "understanding of politics in Europe and the US is more realistic than most Americans understanding of politics on these two continents" is implicit (at least the Europe part) in our efforts to have him clarify the subject. Your last two sentences are a general indictment of the American people on a wide range of subjects and, given any individual citizen and any one subject, might be true. But American voters are concerned and well informed on a select few subjects they feel are important to themselves and the nation that in the upcoming elections will be uppermost in their minds. Some politicians, at this point, are recognizing this fact and others are not.

However, your claim that Walter's understanding of American politics is, somehow, "more realistic" has yet to be realized to my satisfaction. However Okie and I are still hopeful he may clear some things up for us regarding that of Europe's. Of course, none of this precludes you from trying to help. After all, recognizing someone's confusion requires those so doing to have the requisite knowledge to dispel that confusion. Care to jump in and explain the Right-Left Scale of European politics?

JM

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

2. - contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites

Two out of three sound like the beliefs trumpeted by the Tea Totalitarians.

0 Replies

@okie,

I would think as a Christian you would know Bonhoeffer. You might start with his Ethics.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

That seems pretty cowardly and why would you leave when you have finally been given the chance to educate me as well as others about what I should have known all along about some of these terms, such as left Fascists and right Fascists?

It is not cowardice that caused Walter to leave but your refusal to study independently and to learn what the rest of the world thinks and knows.

Your rehashing of your opinions -- let me repeat, YOUR OPINIONS -- which are just that, thoughts from your own head that do not relate to the world at large, the real world that can be seen, touched, defined, experienced and studied - - is tiresome.

Your tone toward others is disrespectful although you present no reason why we should respect you.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Well, maybe, you're beginning the grasp a little bit of logic. +
okie wrote:
Quote:
God is not a political system, ci.

You're still missing the major point; right communist and left communist doesn't exist - it's either communism or capitalism.

Amazing, but I agree with you, ci, in fact that is what I have always thought. Further, I also believe contrary to what Walter apparently believes, that Fascism is inherently either more to the left or to the right, and I have presented more than enough evidence in my opinion to prove that Fascism was definitely a form of leftist dogma and politics. As I have argued numerous times, I don't think it is as far left as communism, but it is still predominantly leftist. I think it has more common denominators with leftist idealogy than it does denominators on the right. In fact, I think ican's spectrum as he has presented it here has nailed it pretty good.

One clarification, ci, when you say it is either communism or capitalism, I would qualify that by saying it is either communism or free market capitalism. Fascism or Nazism did not subscribe to free market capitalism, and although not totally communist or ultra socialist - they incorporated numerous socialistic ideas and policies that were anti-capitalist.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Quote:
That seems pretty cowardly and why would you leave when you have finally been given the chance to educate me as well as others about what I should have known all along about some of these terms, such as left Fascists and right Fascists?

It is not cowardice that caused Walter to leave but your refusal to study independently and to learn what the rest of the world thinks and knows.

I think it might be cowardice, because I think he might be realizing that his position on this issue of left vs right is leading to a situation of being boxed in and unable to win the debate. I think he might be realizing that his opinions are losing out to the reality of the facts, especially when he realized how dumb his statement about there being left and right facsists really was, and he doesn't want to have to defend his own statements.

Quote:

Your rehashing of your opinions -- let me repeat, YOUR OPINIONS -- which are just that, thoughts from your own head that do not relate to the world at large, the real world that can be seen, touched, defined, experienced and studied - - is tiresome.

Your tone toward others is disrespectful although you present no reason why we should respect you.

pom, I get the impression that when anyone disagrees with you, you interpret it as disrespect. I am sorry that you interpret disagreement that way. This is an opinion forum, not a liberal club where we all pat you on the back and tell you how brilliant you are.

You liberals also need to realize that you also present your opinions, nothing more. Your opinions do not represent the gospel truth, they are only opinions, and you do not have a monopoly on history or political science. After all, it is not rocket science, and the very foundation of America is the fact that ordinary people can understand common sense and express our opinion. That is why America exists today, we broke away from the elites that claimed they were the only ones that deserved to make decisions or had any validity.

3 Replies

@okie,

okie, Walter isn't "boxed in." It's your problem with comprehension that frustrates most people on a2k. You ask dumb questions that are not answerable.

okie, Is there a left god and a right god?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You ask dumb questions that are not answerable.

I thought it was a brilliant question that illustrated how illogical his previous statement had been.

The point is we will find out if Walter is intellectually honest enough to explain his statements and position here, or is he out of the discussion as he said he was?

1 Reply

@okie,

Turn that "illogical" upon yourself. Everybody else sees it, but you never will.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

So you apparently agree with Walter and you think it is logical that there are right fascists and left fascists, that Fascism may be either left in nature or right in nature? This is what Walter said. Do you agree with him?

1 Reply

While some dismiss boehner as a simpleton, I suggest the man is evil incarnate. From the care2 site:

It seems as if 2010 has quickly gone from being touted as the year of the woman, to now having the potential to be the worst setbacks women have seen in decades. It's already being predicted that by the end of the election, we will actually have less women in Congress, rather than more. And, depending how things shake out, we might end up with a new powerful, anti-female party running the show.

These are the concerns behind EMILY's List's newest campaign, Boehner's America. According to EMILY's List President Stephanie Shriock:

"The GOP has made it clear that the interests of women and families don't matter to them. If they win on November 2, Speaker Boehner and the Republican majority would start right away at gutting our progress and protections: They would repeal health care reform. Abandon Social Security. Protect big corporations. And chip away at our reproductive rights at every turn.

Need more alarm bells? Take a look at Senator Jim DeMint, a powerful kingmaker among the very right wing, who would return us to a seemingly bygone era. He says unmarried women should not be allowed to be teachers if they are sexually active. He said that just this past weekend -- 2010. Can you imagine anyone saying that about a man?

In Boehner and DeMint's America, all the ground we have gained to make health care affordable and accessible would be rolled back. Forget about the right to make our own decisions about our reproductive choices in private -- government would legislate that. Women could be forced to bear their rapists' child; doctors would be criminalized. Corporations -- like the ones funding the big money attacks on our elected women -- would call the shots."

Sound extreme? Not so much, once you consider that at least 78 Republican candidates believe that abortion should be illegal even in the case of rape or incest, or that DeMint was willing to block building a Women's History Museum because "women already have one for quilting."

Women need to get out in droves and make their voices heard this election. That is, unless they truly feel comfortable being the second class citizens they would once again be in Boehner's America.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie, I don't have to agree with anybody.

Quote:

Fascism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the Italian political movement so named, see Italian Fascism.
This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles and using this article for a summary of the key points of the subject. (July 2010)

Fascism (pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2][3][4] Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.[5][6] Fascism was originally founded by Italian national syndicalists in World War I who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but it gravitated to the political right in the early 1920s.[7][8] Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum.[

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

While some dismiss boehner as a simpleton, I suggest the man is evil incarnate.

His wife must like him, as they have been married 37 years.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

I think it might be cowardice, because I think he might be realizing that his position on this issue of left vs right is leading to a situation of being boxed in and unable to win the debate

You just don't get it, do you? You have no idea how you appear to people.

Walter has more education than you do. He earned a degree in his native country, studying in his native language, then another in England, studying in your language. In case you missed the tone of his remark, he expressed disdain to you that you would question him in the manner you did. (It seems you were never taught to show respect toward people who are more educated than you are.)

Had you honestly sought knowledge from Walter, his response would have been different.

You missed my tone which was a wake up, meant to help you to stop writing your poison pen remarks.

okie, for a man your age, you have no social awareness. You miss cue and cue after cue. You are a danger to yourself.

Quote:

pom, I get the impression that when anyone disagrees with you, you interpret it as disrespect

Oh, gosh! Is my name Walter?? I always thought that was a man's name, not a woman's!

See what I mean? I was speaking of Walter . . . not me! You can not interpret a straightforward English sentence. Nothing I wrote was about me. okie, I told you that were you to attempt to attend college today, you would be put in remedial classes. Now, mysteryman was opining on remedial classes. There wasn't such a thing when you were in school, but, you would definitely be a SPED student.

Quote:

You liberals also need to realize that you also present your opinions, nothing more. Your opinions do not represent the gospel truth, they are only opinions, and you do not have a monopoly on history or political science. After all, it is not rocket science, and the very foundation of America is the fact that ordinary people can understand common sense and express our opinion

I just told you that. I also told you that you know nothing about political science. I was not alone in stating that . . . poster after poster tells you that.

Your statement that it is not rocket science shows your disdain for matters you don't understand. You disdain everything and everybody. The only person you like is yourself.

I will say this, for a man close to my age who alleges to hold a college degree, you don't know a great many things most people with degrees who are my age are fully conversant with.

Bonhoeffer influenced men like Martin Luther King, Jr., and Desmond Tutu. He has a following in America about which you know nothing. Yet, you have the unmitigated gall to lecture me and to call Walter a coward.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Perhaps, "everybody" ought to stop responding to okie.

0 Replies

From Salon:

Sharron Angle said another stupid thing. This time, though, it wasn't just incoherent and incorrect -- it was also a blatantly bigoted if inept attempt at fear-mongering about American Muslims. Angle seemed to say that the sharia law had already taken hold in two American cities.

Asked by a voter whether or not Muslims were trying to take over the United States, Angle thought this was a reasonable response:

We're talking about a militant terrorist situation, which I believe isn't a widespread thing. But it is enough that we need to address, and we have been addressing it. My thoughts are these. First of all, Dearborn, Michigan, and Frankford, Texas, are on American soil, and under Constitutional law. Not sharia law. And I don't know how that happened in the United States.

It seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation in our United States.

So, terrorism isn't that widespread, but the Muslims have installed their foreign laws in two American cities.

Dearborn has a large Muslim community -- the Muslim community there dates back more than a hundred years, so they really took their time installing sharia -- but, as the AP amusingly puts it, it "was not immediately clear why Angle singled out Frankford, Texas, a former town that was annexed into Dallas around 1975."

It's hard to argue against a jumble of half-remembered anti-Islam talking points and conspiracy theories, but, for the record, Muslims are not going to take over America and install sharia law.

0 Replies

From the Care2 site:

Tea Party activists in Missouri are fighting against a bill to outlaw the most cruel practices of the puppy mill industry.

Puppy mills are commercial breeding enterprises that take the same approach to breeding companion animals that factory farms take to raising animals for food: cramming them into cages, breeding them constantly with no rest, and neglecting their nutrition and veterinary needs.

Puppy mills are so heinous, and their victims so universally loved that even the most militant anti-animal rights, meat-loving conservatives will still rail against them. Even Dean Koontz - a writer who has spoken out loudly against animal rights initiatives - feels activism is important when puppy mills are concerned.

So when a ballot initiative is introduced in the "puppy mill capital of the country" (according to the Better Business Bureau) that attempts to establish minimal standards for the treatment of dogs by breeders, Tea Party leaders in Missouri spoke out against the measure.

Did they speak out because the bill didn't go far enough? Did they speak out because they want puppy mills shut down entirely and not just reformed? No, leaders associated with the Tea Party, the newest and most frightening right-wing political phenomenon, are digging in their heels in a fight against what they call "radical" animal rights legislation.

They believe the ballot measure, Proposition B, is a covert attempt to eliminate pets altogether and also attack animal agriculture.

The Alliance for Truth, the primary group fighting Prop B, says that HSUS's goal is "only to raise the cost of breeding dogs, making it ever-more difficult for middle-class American families to be dog-owners".

Well, what exactly are the "radical" requirements that the Tea Party thinks will be the end of pet ownership? Well, to quote from the text of the bill:

"Sufficient food and clean water.
Necessary veterinary care.
Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements.
Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs.
Regular exercise.
Adequate rest between breeding cycles."

The reforms are far from "radical". In fact, I'd call this a watered-down initiative. Instead of addressing the problems of supporting commercial breeders, Prop B simply presses for very modest reforms.

According to HSUS' numbers, up to four million pets are euthanized every year in America. Why are there any commercial breeders when so many animals are dying in shelters every year? Why aren't we advocating for an end to puppy mills altogether?

As long as commercial breeding enterprises exist, the people who operate them will provide the bare minimum of care for their animals. The solution is to end puppy mills altogether, not regulate them into a negligibly higher standard of care.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I think it might be cowardice, because I think he might be realizing that his position on this issue of left vs right is leading to a situation of being boxed in and unable to win the debate. I think he might be realizing that his opinions are losing out to the reality of the facts, especially when he realized how dumb his statement about there being left and right facsists really was, and he doesn't want to have to defend his own statements.

Either, okie, you are really stupid or you can't read.

Just do try, please, to find some books and have a look ... not at them, but read them.

You'll then notice that there are a few who have written about left-Fascism, like Habermas, Horowitz, Wollin, Arendt and perhaps a few more.
(If you could read German, not the English translations only, you'll find some interesting definitions by a couple of German communists and Social-Democrats as well.)

To call someone coward to just follows an academic, worldwide way of interpreting fixed political and historical terms - that's hurtful.
But perhaps, it's just another sign of .... whatever is wrong with you.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Quite funny:
I wasn't really focusing on okie's "theories" but had in mind what generally is written about this topic, namely that some refuse the fact that Fascism is to be found on the left side as well. Very Happy

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know