55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 10:11 am
@Foxfyre,
Quote:

No, I don't want the government to send the checks. I want YOU to send them. I want YOU to have the pleasure of knowing that you are fulfilling your obligation to be responsible for me. It's fine if the government requires you to do that I suppose if we are going to go with your theory that we are all responsible for each other. I would be happy to be responsible for you if I liked to work better, but right now I just don't feel like working all that much so without any income coming in, I'm afraid you'll have to wait until I feel more motivated to hold up my end.


As a taxpayer, I am sending them. I am contracting the US Government to print the checks, which I fund with my taxes. And we will take care of you, Fox - don't worry, the gov't will send you your check! Just don't be surprised when there are less zeroes than you might wish.

My guess is that will provide you the 'motivation' you are looking for.

Quote:

Oh nobody has been kidnapped or are being beaten or malnourished or killed by their captors anywhere in the free world these days. (You really ARE behind on your history aren't you.) That sort of thing was outlawed 147 years ago.


In America, it was; slavery still exists around the world in many places, however.

Quote:
So let's not veer off topic here and let's not focus on something that is not being discussed.

Let's focus on the pure, simple definition of slavery.
1) You have no right to your own property.
2) You are forced to work not for your own benefit, but for the benefit of somebody else.

How is this definition of slavery incorrect?

Or if you prefer the MSN Encarta definition:


Sorry, but your attempt to compare your voluntary payment of taxes to slavery is grossly incorrect. The fact that the US outlawed slavery 150 years ago or so is immaterial to the fact that you are still using an incorrect term.

Your definitions - even the MS Encarta ones - don't match your actual situation, b/c you aren't being forced to do anything. You could go to some other country if you liked, change your situation if you like, become a minister, stop working, anything - you can do many things to reduce or get rid of your tax burden. You have options.

Slaves have zero options. They are FORCED to work for no or tiny wages. They can't just leave to change their situation. So, no; your definition doesn't match our modern taxation, not at all, and as I said earlier, your use of the term 'slavery' is inappropriate.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 10:16 am
@Debra Law,
Question for you Ms. Debra, since you apparently also like Alinsky, answer a straight question for us all here, would you?

Do you favor Marxist or communist philosophy. Yes or no?

After all, honesty is fairly important, you should be proud of what you believe, if you believe it to be good, honorable, and something to try to promote. Be honest, okay. What exactly is your political philosophy? Do not dodge and weave, spell it out.

Cyclops, you are also welcome to answer, as you seem to also admire Alinsky.

We might as well cut to the chase here and figure out why there is so little agreement among Americans participating in this forum. I for one am kind of tired of dodging and weaving without true honesty by some here.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 10:17 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre, you posted this several days ago.

Foxfyre wrote:
... My fear is that the GOP has not learned its lesson and, like Obama, is currently talking a good game that would not be implemented if they are restored to power.

That's why a third truly conservative party is looking better to me all the time.

What's your opinion about whether any of these three political parties is a "truly conservative party":

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php
Constitution Party National Platform

http://www.lp.org/platform
National Platform of the Libertarian Party

http://www.conservativepartyusa.org/
Conservative Party of the United States of America
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 10:24 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Question for you Ms. Debra, since you apparently also like Alinsky, answer a straight question for us all here, would you?

Do you favor Marxist or communist philosophy. Yes or no?

After all, honesty is fairly important, you should be proud of what you believe, if you believe it to be good, honorable, and something to try to promote. Be honest, okay. What exactly is your political philosophy? Do not dodge and weave, spell it out.

Cyclops, you are also welcome to answer, as you seem to also admire Alinsky.

We might as well cut to the chase here and figure out why there is so little agreement among Americans participating in this forum.


I don't see Alinsky as being much different from many organizers on both the Left and Right. Never knew much about him until the election, then I read his book, it wasn't particularly shocking in any way - it is a basic text on how individuals can go about effecting change on large organizations, over which they initially feel they have very little control.

It's no different really than the methods and politics used by, say, the Religious Right, when they attempt to work their way into our government. Never once do I see you decrying them, or calling them 'radical,' however.

As for your question,

Quote:

Do you favor Marxist or communist philosophy. Yes or no?


I favor some elements of communist philosophy, but no more so than I favor elements of Capitalist philosophy. I have consistently maintained that the strongest system will include elements of both cooperation and competition. Reflexively denying ideas b.c they come from one camp is stupid.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 10:29 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Do you favor Marxist or communist philosophy. Yes or no?


I favor some elements of communist philosophy, but no more so than I favor elements of Capitalist philosophy. I have consistently maintained that the strongest system will include elements of both cooperation and competition. Reflexively denying ideas b.c they come from one camp is stupid.

Cycloptichorn

Fascinating, cyclops. I wonder if you realize that capitalism and communism do not coexist very well? And when somebody tried it, it was called fascism. Thanks for the honesty, cyclops, but that really puts you on very shaky ground, especially with your opinion also that animals have as much rights as human beings. That pretty much puts you in kook status in my opinion. I will be here to try to convince you to change your opinions, I think you are very wrong, but probably a result of your experiences and education, as we all are. I think if the chips were down, you would come through as a good citizen, but your opinions are really far out.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 10:29 am
@ican711nm,
Conservative Party Platform

The Conservative Party mission is to promote and protect individual rights and freedoms as set forth in the United States Constitution, and to limit the scope of government to the authority set forth therein.

To accomplish this mission, we intend to re-establish the limits and boundaries of Government as framed by the Founding Fathers of the United States of America. The exercise of the mission will be to move political discussion to the state and local level, except for those areas enumerated by the Constitution to the federal government, national defense is one example.


0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 10:35 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Do you favor Marxist or communist philosophy. Yes or no?


I favor some elements of communist philosophy, but no more so than I favor elements of Capitalist philosophy. I have consistently maintained that the strongest system will include elements of both cooperation and competition. Reflexively denying ideas b.c they come from one camp is stupid.

Cycloptichorn

Fascinating, cyclops. I wonder if you realize that capitalism and communism do not coexist very well? And when somebody tried it, it was called fascism.


Oh, come on, Okie,

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m172/Spathiphyllum/Shut%20Up/AwJeezNotThisShitAgain.jpg

Hasn't the 'ruthless dictators' thread, in which both Conservatives and Liberals have united in proving that you don't know what the **** you are talking about when it comes to Fascism, taught you not to make statements such as this?

Quote:
Thanks for the honesty, cyclops, but that really puts you on very shaky ground, especially with your opinion also that animals have as much rights as human beings.


I don't believe animals have the same rights as human beings and I have never claimed they do, or even should. I have merely stated that the concept that Human life is intrinsically more valuable than other forms of life is a self-centered one, and not an absolute truth, as some of you seem to believe.

If you can't remember my position, ask; instead of making dumb statements.

Quote:
That pretty much puts you in kook status in my opinion. I will be here to try to convince you to change your opinions, I think you are very wrong, but probably a result of your experiences and education, as we all are. I think if the chips were down, you would come through as a good citizen, but your opinions are really far out.


Mmm hmm. What specifically is incompatible, between some elements of Socialism and Capitalism? I would remind you that many European countries operate in this fashion, and yet, somehow are not fascist countries Rolling Eyes

Cycloptichorn
maporsche
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 10:35 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

We are fortunate that the blue dogs are holding the party in check.


I agree, and as a blue dog myself, I couldn't be more happy.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 10:36 am
@ican711nm,
Constitution Party National Platform

We declare the platform of the Constitution Party to be predicated on the principles of
The Declaration of Independence,
The Constitution of the United States and
The Bill of Rights

According to the original intent of the Founding Fathers, these founding documents are the foundation of our Liberty and the Supreme Law of the Land.

The sole purpose of government, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, is to secure our unalienable rights given us by our Creator. When Government grows beyond this scope, it is usurpation, and liberty is compromised.

We believe the major issues we face today are best solved by a renewed allegiance to the original intent of these founding documents.

Preamble
Sanctity of Life
Bring Government Back Home
Character and Moral Conduct
Congressional Reform
Conscription
Constitutional Convention
Copyrights and Patents
Cost of Big Government
Crime
Defense
Domestic Federal Aid
Drug Abuse
Education
Election Reform
Electoral College
Energy
Environment
Executive Orders
Family Foreign Policy
Gambling
Government/ Private Partnership
Gun Control
Health Care and Government
Immigration
The Judiciary
Money and Banking
Personal and Private Property Security
Pornography
Religious Freedom
Social Security
Statehood
State Sovereignty
Tariffs and Trade
Taxes
Terrorism and Personal Liberty
Veterans
Wage and Price Control
Welfare

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preamble
The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

The Constitution of these United States provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are Constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.

We affirm the principles of inherent individual rights upon which these United States of America were founded:

That each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness;
That the freedom to own, use, exchange, control, protect, and freely dispose of property is a natural, necessary and inseparable extension of the individual's unalienable rights;
That the legitimate function of government is to secure these rights through the preservation of domestic tranquility, the maintenance of a strong national defense, and the promotion of equal justice for all;
That history makes clear that left unchecked, it is the nature of government to usurp the liberty of its citizens and eventually become a major violator of the people's rights; and
That, therefore, it is essential to bind government with the chains of the Constitution and carefully divide and jealously limit government powers to those assigned by the consent of the governed.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 10:39 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

We are fortunate that the blue dogs are holding the party in check.


I agree, and as a blue dog myself, I couldn't be more happy.


What exactly is it, that you think your faction is accomplishing? Are you looking to see health care reform completely fail?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 10:39 am
@ican711nm,
National Platform of the Libertarian Party
Adopted in Convention, May 2008, Denver, Colorado

Preamble
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

Statement of Principles
We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

1.1 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

1.2 Personal Privacy

We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

1.6 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights " life, liberty, and justly acquired property " against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

2.0 Economic Liberty

A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.


2.1 Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade " for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

2.2 Environment

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

2.3 Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

2.5 Money and Financial Markets

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies, the repeal of legal tender laws and compulsory governmental units of account.


2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.

2.7 Labor Markets

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

2.8 Education

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.


2.9 Health Care

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.


2.10 Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. We favor replacing the current government-sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system. The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.

3.0 Securing Liberty

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.


3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.


3.5 Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.

3.6 Representative Government

We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.


3.7 Self-Determination

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

4.0 Omissions

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.

0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 10:41 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I don't believe animals have the same rights as human beings and I have never claimed they do, or even should. I have merely stated that the concept that Human life is intrinsically more valuable than other forms of life is a self-centered one, and not an absolute truth, as some of you seem to believe.Cycloptichorn

You are a formidable debator, cyclops, I give you that, but I choose the above statement to prove your lack of logic. You draw a conclusion that is not consistent with the premise that you lay out. This is but one example of many of your reasonings, leaps of logic, or whatever. Actually, I don't wish to muddy up this thread all day, but suffice it to say the above I think is very illustrative of the lack of logic. And this basic one point may also help expain your political views, why you are so liberal. For example, I do not believe that the founders or the writers of the constitution would ever begin to think what you have said, in fact human life is sacred, that is what they believed and what I believe.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 10:44 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I don't believe animals have the same rights as human beings and I have never claimed they do, or even should. I have merely stated that the concept that Human life is intrinsically more valuable than other forms of life is a self-centered one, and not an absolute truth, as some of you seem to believe.Cycloptichorn

You are a formidable debator, cyclops, I give you that, but I choose the above statement to prove your lack of logic. You draw a conclusion that is not consistent with the premise that you lay out.


In which way is my conclusion not specific with my premise? Be specific, I don't want to hear any hedging on your part. If you are going to complain about 'lack of logic,' you ought to be able to show your own.

Quote:
This is but one example of many of your reasonings, leaps of logic, or whatever. Actually, I don't wish to muddy up this thread all day, but suffice it to say the above I think is very illustrative of the lack of logic.


I don't think it is illustrative at all; perhaps you could explain.

Before criticizing my debate skills, you might want to look to yourself, Okie. Arguing through assertion and serially mis-representing the positions of others doesn't exactly put you ahead of the pack in this respect.

Quote:
And this basic one point may also help expain your political views, why you are so liberal. For example, I do not believe that the founders or the writers of the constitution would ever begin to think what you have said, in fact human life is sacred, that is what they believed and what I believe.


Well, your beliefs about the Founders' beliefs are not determinative of much of anything at all, really, other than the fact that you want to believe that your beliefs are the same as the beliefs of people who you believe Americans should admire.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 10:46 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Good post. I've been saying this for years. There is basically ZERO competition in the health insurance market.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 11:20 am
@Cycloptichorn,
cycloptichorn wrote:
What specifically is incompatible, between some elements of Socialism and Capitalism? I would remind you that many European countries operate in this fashion, and yet, somehow are not fascist countries

What is incompatible between Socialism and Capitalism is that under Socialism the state owns all property and there is no free market, while under Capitalism the state owns some property and there is a free market. Also, Socialist countries tend to get corrupted into Fascist governments or Nazist governments when led by people corruptible by their lust for power.

SOCIALISM
Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=socialism&x=26&y=8
Main Entry: so•cial•ism
...
1 : any of various theories or social and political movements advocating or aiming at collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and control of the distribution of goods: as a : FOURIERISM b : GUILD SOCIALISM c : MARXISM d : OWENISM
2 a : a system or condition of society or group living in which there is no private property <trace the remains of pure socialism that marked the first phase of the Christian community -- W.E.H.Lecky> -- compare INDIVIDUALISM
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state -- compare CAPITALISM, LIBERALISM c : a stage of society that in Marxist theory is transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and payments to individuals according to their work


CAPITALISM
Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=capitalism&x=20&y=5
Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
...
: an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market -- compare INDUSTRIALISM, LIBERALISM, SOCIALISM


FASCISM
Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=fascism&x=29&y=8
Main Entry: fas•cism
...
1 often capitalized : the principles of the Fascisti; also : the movement or governmental regime embodying their principles
2 a : any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition
b : any tendency toward or actual exercise of severe autocratic or dictatorial control (as over others within an organization) <the nascent fascism of a detective who is not content merely to do his duty -- George Nobbe> <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J.W.Aldridge> <a kind of personal fascism, a dictatorship of the ego over the more generous elements of the soul -- Edmond Taylor>


NAZISM
Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=nazism&x=16&y=5
Main Entry: na•zism
...
1 : the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the National Socialist German Workers' party in the Third German Reich including the totalitarian principle of government, state control of all industry, predominance of groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the führer : German fascism
2 : a Nazi movement or regime

0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 11:25 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

First of all, I didn't say that they 'cannot' be racist, but that it's a farcical idea; that is to say, people generally are not racist towards their own groups, b/c it's a self-defeating concept.


Racist or racism is a belief that a race is superior or another race is inferior. It's not always a self-defeating concept.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 11:29 am
@maporsche,
There are many examples in this world where even within one country or culture, they feel superior to other groups, tribes, religion, class, and region.

It is a self-defeating concept, but those engaged in it can't see their own bigotry.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 11:31 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
I've been saying this for years. There is basically ZERO competition in the health insurance market.

FALSE!
Competing health insurance companies are nagging me almost every day with their phone calls to buy their insurance. I'm continuing with my current health insurance, because it is more competitive.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 11:32 am
@ican711nm,
Every day? WOW!
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 11:35 am
@cicerone imposter,
I feel superior to those who steal or advocate stealing from people. Those with the following skin colors are particularly guilty:
white;
tan;
brown;
black;
red; and,
yellow.
0 Replies
 
 

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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
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 01/13/2025 at 12:40:41