55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
plainoldme
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 09:04 pm
@georgeob1,
Sayeth he who misquotes others and categorizes verifiable statements with suppositions.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 12:26 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:


I suspect this reveals the essence of this endless argument. okie chooses to define facism as "leftist". ... ... ...



I agree here, with your post again
And I do think that exactly that makes (and made) it impossible to have a discussion.


Thanks again for your post, George.
plainoldme
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 10:05 am
Our resident creator of his own facts and metrics, okie, likes to claim that conservatives are more apt to major in science and math than liberals. That does not mesh with my experience with people I have known.

This is from the Pew Research Center for People and the Press:

Politics may play some role in the positive way the scientists surveyed judge the times. More than half of the scientists surveyed (55%) say they are Democrats, compared with 35% of the public. Fully 52% of the scientists call themselves liberals; among the public, just 20% describe themselves as liberals. Many of the scientists surveyed mentioned in their open-ended comments that they were optimistic about the Obama administration’s likely impact on science.
-------

Please note that the Pew Center says that only 20% of the public self-identifies as liberal. I have said that true liberals are rare and that liberalism is more ethical, intellectual and demanding than the herd mentality that is AMerican conservatism.

------------

I should add that scientists are more critical of business than the general public is; feel that schools are not doing a good job in the field of science, and that the press does not distinguish between good science and bad. I have always agreed with those complaints.

Here is a link to a digest of the report, which originated from the American Association for the Advancement of Science: http://people-press.org/report/528/


If you don't want to read the entire article, perhaps, you might be interested in taking their on-line quiz to determine your level of knowledge about science:

http://pewresearch.org/sciencequiz/
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 10:13 am
@plainoldme,
I took that quiz, its an interesting one.
I scored in the top 10%, having gotten all of the questions correct.

http://pewresearch.org/sciencequiz/quiz/index.php
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 10:18 am
http://pewresearch.org/sciencequiz/quiz/12.png

Pfff, people don't know this stuff? Wtf?

Cycloptichorn
MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 10:20 am
fist-bumps all around, MM and cyc, me too.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 10:22 am
@Cycloptichorn,
At the risk of sounding stupid, how did you do that?
I tried to copy and paste my results, but couldnt figure out how to do it.

Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 10:27 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

At the risk of sounding stupid, how did you do that?
I tried to copy and paste my results, but couldnt figure out how to do it.



I'm using the browser firefox -

Right click on a picture and a little menu pops up
Select 'copy image location'
Then paste the link it gives you inside the 'Img' tags that A2K offers ya.

Cheers
Cycloptichorn
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 10:40 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Thanks
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 10:58 am
@mysteryman,
Actually that's something you really (should) know in the 10th of high school, if not earlier.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 11:10 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
You don't like my question because it may support my debate points here, cyclops. I would also like to point out that George admitted that the Nazis richly rewarded their "henchmen," which basically says capitalism was fine as long as they walked the party line, as directed by the State and for the State, to further their nationalistic form of socialism. There was little or no real freedom for individuals to act for their own self interest. That is Fascism to a "T", and that is why I think it can be defined as leftist in nature.
What? I mean, I can't even begin to follow the logic of your response.
I'm not joking in the slightest, Okie. What you just wrote is nonsensical.
Cycloptichorn
It is not at all nonsensical. Perhaps I could have been more clear to say that not only did Hitler and the Nazis have leftwing policies and beliefs, but so did Fascists, so both of them are leftist in my opinion. I do not judge Hitler as leftist by virtue of the fact that he had a brand of Fascism, and since Fascism is leftist in my opinion, therefore Hitler was as well. My reasoning is more detailed than that. Hitler was leftist by virtue of his beliefs and policies, in my opinion, and so is Fascism in my opinion. Just because some people regard Fascism as an extreme right wing political system, that does not render it to be when you actually examine its beliefs and policies. Nor am I the only one to come to this conclusion. An analogy here, anyone can call a Mallard an eagle, even so-called intellectuals, but when you examine the traits and physical characteristics of the Mallard, one must honestly call it a type of duck.
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 11:24 am
@okie,
okie wrote:
Just because some people regard Fascism as an extreme right wing political system, that does not render it to be when you actually examine its beliefs and policies. Nor am I the only one to come to this conclusion. An analogy here, anyone can call a Mallard an eagle, even so-called intellectuals, but when you examine the traits and physical characteristics of the Mallard, one must honestly call it a type of duck.


Could you name some of the well-reputated biologists/zoologists who think that a mallard is an eagle?

I think, it just works the other way around: it's you, according to your 'analogy' here, who's calling a mallard an eagle.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 11:33 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:
Just because some people regard Fascism as an extreme right wing political system, that does not render it to be when you actually examine its beliefs and policies. Nor am I the only one to come to this conclusion. An analogy here, anyone can call a Mallard an eagle, even so-called intellectuals, but when you examine the traits and physical characteristics of the Mallard, one must honestly call it a type of duck.


Could you name some of the well-reputated biologists/zoologists who think that a mallard is an eagle?

I think, it just works the other way around: it's you, according to your 'analogy' here, who's calling a mallard an eagle.


Absolutely and 100% correct.

Okie, George has your number, completely. His last post on this topic was devastating to your case. Please re-read it and try and internalize what he politely pointing out.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 11:44 am
@Cycloptichorn,
That's what I thought. I had all 12 correct. Easy test.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 11:45 am
@okie,
Ah, your tone just becomes snootier and more defensive with each post.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 12:33 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
okie wrote:

... There was little or no real freedom for individuals to act for their own self interest. That is Fascism to a "T", and that is why I think it can be defined as leftist in nature.
I suspect this reveals the essence of this endless argument. okie chooses to define facism as "leftist". That is certainly his right and he can believe that as long as he wishes. The problem is the remainder of the English speaking world defines facism differently, and if okie wishes to converse with anyone else in the language he will have to find some new words with which to communicate his ideas.
You have identified the problem, george, but as I have pointed out, nobody needs to swallow so-called "conventional wisdom" put out there by liberal professors and authors if simple common sense says otherwise. As I used an analogy in a previous post, perhaps in Germany in the 20's and 30's, a pear might have looked to be the opposite of an apple. However, with the context of a few more decades and examples of fruit, it would be more logical to now see much more similarity of a pear to an apple than it is to an orange. I am comparing an apple to communism, an orange to conservatism, and the pear to Nazis and Fascists.
Quote:
He also employs a unique definition of "leftist", equating that with authoritarianism in any form. Again it is OK for him, but it renders him a verbal cripple in any attempt to converse with anyone else. I believe most folks would have a hard time considering Diocletian, Tamerlane, Ivan the Terrible, Napoleon, or Elizabeth I to be left wing or "leftists" , but that is a problem okie will have to deal with in his communications with others.
That statement is a huge point, george. As you now accuse me of equating authoritarianism to leftists, I would point out that leftists have also attempted to do the same thing by equating authoritarianism to extreme right wing, which is one of the measuring sticks they apply to Hitler. They not only use authoritarian, but the nationalistic nature of his regime, as indicating an extreme right wing system. I would submit to you that neither of these are valid reasons to judge the guy conservative or right wing, and in fact you have acknowledged that leftist regimes tend to be more authoritarian. The ploy of using nationalism to equal right wing does not work either, because I can cite numerous examples of nationalistic regimes that are leftists, one right now being North Korea.
Quote:
There is some consistency in okie's lexicon, however it also has some misleading and positively deceptive implications. Prominent among these is the fact that most European governments have political spectra and social welfare policies well to the left (in the conventional sense) of those in the United States. By okie's rhetoric they should all be caught in an irreversable descent into tyrannical authoritarianism. Unfortunately the observable facts tell us otherwise. While their financial situations are certainly in some serious duress, their democratic institutions appear quite healthy and sound. Unfortunately these distinctions are impossible in okie's language - he merely defines them away.
I agree with you about European socialism and the fact that even America has incorporated socialistic programs. None of that changes the fact that those European forms of Democratic Socialism are to the left, just not hard left. To correct you, I have never argued that those systems will inevitably fall under authoritarian rule. However, I would submit to you that those governments might in fact be in more danger of that than a more conservative country, a Democratic Republic, such as the United States, would be. In fact, did we not see that happen in Nazi Germany? Would Nazi Germany have been to the left of what we currently have here in the U.S. now, before the Nazis gained power? In other words, perhaps they went from soft left to hard left, rather than from soft left to hard right?
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 12:50 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
Quote:
There is some consistency in okie's lexicon, however it also has some misleading and positively deceptive implications. Prominent among these is the fact that most European governments have political spectra and social welfare policies well to the left (in the conventional sense) of those in the United States. By okie's rhetoric they should all be caught in an irreversable descent into tyrannical authoritarianism. Unfortunately the observable facts tell us otherwise. While their financial situations are certainly in some serious duress, their democratic institutions appear quite healthy and sound. Unfortunately these distinctions are impossible in okie's language - he merely defines them away.
I agree with you about European socialism and the fact that even America has incorporated socialistic programs. None of that changes the fact that those European forms of Democratic Socialism are to the left, just not hard left. To correct you, I have never argued that those systems will inevitably fall under authoritarian rule. However, I would submit to you that those governments might in fact be in more danger of that than a more conservative country, a Democratic Republic, such as the United States, would be. In fact, did we not see that happen in Nazi Germany? Would Nazi Germany have been to the left of what we currently have here in the U.S. now, before the Nazis gained power? In other words, perhaps they went from soft left to hard left, rather than from soft left to hard right?


Do you know anything about the German history you writing so much about, okie?

The main problem of the Weimar republic certainly was not only the party system but ... the population: from one day to the other they got a democracy without being used to it at all.

To pose a specific question: which one of the numerous governments during the Weimar Republic do you call "soft left" and why so?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 12:55 pm
@georgeob1,
okie wrote:
I agree with you about European socialism and the fact that even America has incorporated socialistic programs.


Are you referring to ...

georgeob1 wrote:

Prominent among these is the fact that most European governments have political spectra and social welfare policies well to the left (in the conventional sense) of those in the United States.


???

I'm sure that George knows who's governing in most European countries - and that most of those governments aren't Socialistic or influenced by Socialism.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 12:57 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:

I'm sure that George knows who's governing in most European countries - and that most of those governments aren't Socialistic or influenced by Socialism.


Haha, given his rhetoric on the issue of Europe, My guess is that George may not in fact know that.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 12:58 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:
I agree with you about European socialism and the fact that even America has incorporated socialistic programs.
Are you referring to ...
georgeob1 wrote:

Prominent among these is the fact that most European governments have political spectra and social welfare policies well to the left (in the conventional sense) of those in the United States.
???
I'm sure that George knows who's governing in most European countries - and that most of those governments aren't Socialistic or influenced by Socialism.
I perhaps should address again what george wrote, but first, are you claiming that most European countries are not Socialistic or influenced by Socialism?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 03/18/2025 at 08:19:25