AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I have offered it, you simply have denied it. This is unsurprising, b/c these are troubling things for your party to admit out loud, that an entertainer/drug addict holds sway over a lot of your party's direction.

Cycloptichorn

Offered what, that he forced somebody to apologize? Thats no evidence. And just how do you force somebody to apologize? I would like to hear how you do that. And I offered real evidence to counter your claim. Limbaugh vigorously opposed McCain, and drummed on it for weeks or months, yet McCain won the party's nomination, which proves what, cyclops? I will answer it for you. It proves he had no power, none, over the party. He supported Thompson, and he didn't get to first base.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

Let's conduct an intellectually honest comparison of what Sowell said versus what Okie said.

Okie authored a thread entitled "What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS."

Okie identified Hitler as a ruthless dictator.

Okie submitted a theory: "It is my firm belief that the extreme leftist mindset presents by far the most dangerous fertile ground to produce another ruthless dictator."

Okie made an unsupported statement: "Clearly, Obama is a liberal, he is left, probably the most leftwing president we have ever had."

Okie made another unsupported statement alleging that Obama's policies are similar to Ruthless Dictator Hitler's policies.

After making this unsupported statement, Okie concluded, "I am comparing these things to provide evidence for my assertion that Hitler was a leftist, just as Obama is clearly a leftist."

Based on the entire context of the discussion, Okie is suggesting, because of Obama's allegedly extreme leftist mindset, the most fertile ground to produce another ruthless dictator like Hitler now exists in the United States. What other suggestion could he be making given the thesis of his thread?

Debra, you have some things right, yes, I started the thread "What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS." I also asserted Hitler was a ruthless dictator. I also believe the extreme leftist mindset presents by far the most dangerous fertile ground to produce another ruthless dictator." You have all of that right so far.

Then you claim that I made an unsupported statement when I said: "Clearly, Obama is a liberal, he is left, probably the most leftwing president we have ever had." I don't remember if I discussed the evidence at that point, but clearly this is probably the case, at least many political observers agree on this. One solid piece of evidence is that as a senator, Obama had the most liberal voting record in the entire Senate. Or very close to it. For a party that has grown more liberal through the years, this is a pretty solid piece of evidence about Obama's politics. This should be almost a no-brainer in terms of agreement on this point.

I did make the statement that some of the things observed with Obama are troubling, there are in fact parallels with tactics used by other left wingers and eventual dictators that have risen to power in other countries. I have however always tempered this observation with my belief that the American political system will thwart such an attempt to gain total power by anyone, including Obama if he should take the notion to try it.

But your last statement wherein you claim that I think the most fertile ground for another dictator is the United States, that statement is totally and absolutely false. Which is not unusual for you, Debra, you make a habit of twisting people's posts. Fact is, I think other countries are more likely for dictators, and I have said as much, if you would read my posts.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

But your last statement wherein you claim that I think the most fertile ground for another dictator is the United States, that statement is totally and absolutely false. Which is not unusual for you, Debra, you make a habit of twisting people's posts. Fact is, I think other countries are more likely for dictators, and I have said as much, if you would read my posts.

To clarify, I never said the United States was the most fertile ground for another dictator. I perhaps never discussed where I thought the next dictator would emerge, but I said more than once that I thought the political system here would prevent it. Also, it is obvious there are leftists in numerous places around the world, and so the most likely place for another dictator is probably many other places besides here. That should be common sense.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

okie wrote:
But your last statement wherein you claim that I think the most fertile ground for another dictator is the United States, that statement is totally and absolutely false. Which is not unusual for you, Debra, you make a habit of twisting people's posts. Fact is, I think other countries are more likely for dictators, and I have said as much, if you would read my posts.

To clarify, I never said the United States was the most fertile ground for another dictator. I perhaps never discussed where I thought the next dictator would emerge, but I said more than once that I thought the political system here would prevent it. Also, it is obvious there are leftists in numerous places around the world, and so the most likely place for another dictator is probably many other places besides here. That should be common sense.

President Obama is the president of the United States. Are you telling us that your theories, i.e. what produces a ruthless dictator, do not apply to the president of the United States? Are you now modifying your thesis and declaring that all your comparisons of Obama to Hitler were absolutely pointless?

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

So its ok to make the comaprison if one dislikes a policy, but its not ok to make the comparison when you like the politician?

Is that what you are saying?

It's action versus theory MM. Bush's millitary actions versus Obama or Sotomeyer's theoretical position to somehow make us into a dictatorship. I don't think that we lived under a dictatorship with Bush, but if we are going to make comparisons, the Bush years are far closer and more relevant to even make a comparisson.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

You're delusional. You object to the transfer of wealth only in so far as Federal revenues are used to support programs of which you don't approve. You're mute on the subject of, for example, the defense contractor free-for-all which Ronnie Ray-gun benignly oversaw. Once again, it is the Congress which allocates money, and specifically, all money bills originate in the House of Representatives. Presidents can veto spending bills, but if they do so, they just start a big fight because ultimately, the money comes from Congress. If you object to welfare (but not corporate welfare, apparently), allow me to remind you that Congress has allocated some kind of aid to families with dependent children since the 1950s--every Congress, without regard to which party dominated the Congress. But you're only pissing in your pants over Mr. Obama.

Any business which goes into bankruptcy and is liquidated has its assets distributed by a judge, not by Mr. Obama.

Mr. Obama did not directly determine the policy by which the Treasury Department determined when it would receive loan repayments. The process is neither new nor unfamiliar. Although i suspect the Mr. Obama approves of the policies of his Treasurer, there is absolutely nothing criminal in his actions in that regard.

Mr. Obama is not personally responsible for decisions contingent upon the reorganization of Chrysler, nor any other company being reorganized in accordance with the terms of loans, loan guarantees or direct cash bailouts passed by Congress.

You're loony on this, as on most topics. You have provided absolutely no examples of criminal behavior on the part of Mr. Obama. There is no basis for a bill of impeachment, and the members of the House know it whether or not you do. There is not the least basis in fact or in logic for your rant.

I eventually got tired of telling the people on the left that Mr. Bush was not going to be impeached. I've reached that point with you now in regard to Mr. Obama. It's ain'ta gonna happen, and all your ranting won't change that.

Rave on.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Well spoken, C.I. No harm done, as far as i am concerned.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Excuse me for getting his name wrong. However, he, like the DNC Chairperson, have much influence and are appointed or elected to their position by party members. Therefore, I do not know how you can say he is not "respected" in his position.

As far as the radio personality, for anyone to think that his position gives him any influence over anything other than his audiences, is naive at best.

I have no "skin" in the game of political parties so I will not pretend take side in whatever debate you are trying to have. Yet it appears to me, you seem to be a "card carrying" member of the Democratic Party and I find it unsettling that you appear to have no objectivity when discussing differing points of view.

You act like so many of the so called "extreme right/left" partisans who trust their "parties" policies exclusively with no room for negotiation.

That is why these "political chat rooms" really are useless forums if it is one desire to engage in meaningful debate and exchange of ideas.

Maybe as you gain more life experiences, you and others might become enlightened to the realities of both political parties and become more objective in your views and opinions and how to really engage in the exchange of ideas.

You probably suffer from what I call Youthful Ignorance. I expect, like many others, you will grow out of it at some point.

2 Replies

@Yankee,

Yankee wrote:

As far as the radio personality, for anyone to think that his position gives him any influence over anything other than his audiences, is naive at best.

Is Dick Cheney naive? When asked on "CBS Face the Nation" about Rush Limbaugh's criticism of Colin Powell, Cheney said: "If I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I'd go with Rush Limbaugh. My take on it was Colin had already left the party. I didn't know he was still a Republican."

3 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

President Obama is the president of the United States. Are you telling us that your theories, i.e. what produces a ruthless dictator, do not apply to the president of the United States? Are you now modifying your thesis and declaring that all your comparisons of Obama to Hitler were absolutely pointless?

I think okie's point is that Obama has all the makings of a dictator, but he won't become one because he is constrained by the American political system. In other words, okie contends that Obama won't be another Hitler, but that he'd like to be another Hitler.

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

I have to agree with Cheney on this one. Rush leaves no ambiguity where he stands on anything. Nor does Cheney for that matter. Maybe that's why the Left, which seems to so rarely stick its neck out to clearly outline their its stance on anything, hates both of them so much? Clearly stated policy with a rationale behind it, principle, clearness of concept seem more and more foreign to our American Left while their response to such is to attack the messenger more and more.

So far you all have even passed up a great chance to make a liar out of me by ignoring JamesMorrison's challenge to actually state a position on a few things.

0 Replies

Once again, Fox, the great whiner about personal attacks (as she claims they are) takes more sideswipes at those with whom she disagrees. We expect no less.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

Dick Cheney is not a radio personality. He was a guest on a TV Talk show and provided his personal opinion to a question posed by the commentator. As far as I know, Dick Cheney is a private individual today, so his opinion is just that, his opinion. How Cheney's opinion elevates a radio personality to the position of Head of Party is not clear to me.

Also, what purpose does the "party" have anyway in today's political environment? How does being "Republican" translate to whether someone holds conservative or liberal views on policy?

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

Is Dick Cheney naive?

No.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Once again, Fox, the great whiner about personal attacks (as she claims they are) takes more sideswipes at those with whom she disagrees. We expect no less.

With so many stupid assed posts like this one, who can blame her?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Debra Law wrote:
President Obama is the president of the United States. Are you telling us that your theories, i.e. what produces a ruthless dictator, do not apply to the president of the United States? Are you now modifying your thesis and declaring that all your comparisons of Obama to Hitler were absolutely pointless?

I think okie's point is that Obama has all the makings of a dictator, but he won't become one because he is constrained by the American political system. In other words, okie contends that Obama won't be another Hitler, but that he'd like to be another Hitler.

I don't think that was Okie's point at all. I think his point is that there are certain observable parallels between the mindset, tactics, and methods of most ruthless dictators, and, whether or not Obama would like to be a ruthless dictator, reasonable people should be willing to observe and acknowledge those same parallels in our own political arena. Actually that would be a smart thing to do no matter who is in the White House and no matter what political or governing parallels are drawn.

I also think so far it has been obvious that some would rather focus on on the one raising an uncomfortable issue and have focused on the messenger in unkind ways to avoid discussion of an uncomfortable subject. At least some of those were most willing to make all sorts of unflattering comparisons to ruthless dictators and unacceptable political policy re the former occupant of the White House however, but ran for the tall grass when shown how their accusations didn't hold up. You would think reasonable people would show how presumed parallels in Obama's style of governance don't hold up with those of ruthless dictators when such a case can be made.

I think Okie's argument is flawed here and there as I think some of the parallels he suggests don't hold up as demonstrated in some illustrations I provided, but given a chance I am guessing he would be willing to discuss those points.

There is an excellent opportunity to do so on the thread re that topic.

3 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

I don't think that we lived under a dictatorship with Bush, but if we are going to make comparisons, the Bush years are far closer and more relevant to even make a comparisson.

I would disagree.
Lets look at what FDR did.
He rounded up everybody that he thought MIGHT, and I stress MIGHT, have been a threat, only because of the color of their skin.
He put them into glorified prison camps with no evidence of any wrongdoing on their parts.
He did not give them trials, he confiscated all of their property, and he denied them any of the rights afforded American citizens (which most of them were).
Why didnt he do that to the German or Italian residents of the east coast?

Would you say that those were the actions of a man closer to a dictator then Bush?

Or Lincoln, lets look at some of his actions.
He suspended habeus corpus laws, he shut down newspapers, he ordered federal troops into NYC to stop local protests, and he did all of that under the pretext of fighting the civil war.

So for you to say that Bush was the closest we have ever come to a dictatorship is laughable.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Once again, Fox, the great whiner about personal attacks (as she claims they are) takes more sideswipes at those with whom she disagrees. We expect no less.

With so many stupid assed posts like this one, who can blame her?

Especially when the constant focus (by many on the Left) continutes to be on the messenger instead of the topic being discussed.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't think that was Okie's point at all. I think his point is that there are certain observable parallels between the mindset, tactics, and methods of most ruthless dictators, and, whether or not Obama would like to be a ruthless dictator, reasonable people should be willing to observe and acknowledge those same parallels in our own political arena. Actually that would be a smart thing to do no matter who is in the White House and no matter what political or governing parallels are drawn.

So okie was drawing parallels between Obama and Hitler but he wasn't making comparisons between the two? How do you explain the distinction?

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I don't think that was Okie's point at all. I think his point is that there are certain observable parallels between the mindset, tactics, and methods of most ruthless dictators, and, whether or not Obama would like to be a ruthless dictator, reasonable people should be willing to observe and acknowledge those same parallels in our own political arena. Actually that would be a smart thing to do no matter who is in the White House and no matter what political or governing parallels are drawn.

So okie was drawing parallels between Obama and Hitler but he wasn't making comparisons between the two? How do you explain the distinction?

http://scattershooting.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/change-hitler-obama-lenin.jpg

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know