55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 05:40 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

And just where is that "vast" body of literature that proves all of that, cyclops? In what was East Germany? Or Berkeley? I think your vast body of literature is nothing more than a vast body of baloney. Anybody with an ounce of honesty and common sense can read history and know better.


Other than your carefully selected John Jay Ray source, what literature do you draw your conclusions from? Or do you not believe that reviewing a wide variety of sources (including primary sources) is important?

I know that you studied certain things in college, Okie, and consider yourself to have some knowledge in those areas. Understand that I studied History, so when I tell you that these things are important, I do so because of my experience in this field.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 05:45 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclops, this issue is not complicated. All you have to do is review the policies of Hitler and the Nazi Party, I would think the 25 points are sufficient, and see if they are right leaning or left leaning policies, in context with how conservative and liberal are judged in America today, and it is an open shut case, no question whatsoever, Hitler was a socialist, a nationalistic type of one, a leftist Statist, and there is absolutely no question about this whatsoever to anyone with honesty. If you wish to continue to live in denial, I can't help you.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 06:03 pm
@okie,
So, your answer is that you do not believe that reviewing many sources is important for getting a correct picture of what took place in history.

I just want you to understand that this level of analysis - declaring that things are 'clear' when they are anything but - would have gotten you flunked right out of school, Okie, were you to attempt to do this with any sort of seriousness. And your lack of analysis, and disdain for it, is why you are not taken seriously on historical issues by either Liberals or Conservatives here on A2K.

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 06:05 pm
Cyclotroll is A2K's #1 Liberal Supremacist.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 06:27 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Okie is right, Cycloptichorn, and you are wrong.
Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=naziism&x=27&y=9
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

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=socialism&x=27&y=9
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

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=communism&x=31&y=10
Main Entry: com·mu·nism
...
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private ownership of property or capital
b : a system or condition real or imagined in which goods are owned commonly rather than privately and are available as needed to each one in a unified group sometimes limited, sometimes inclusive, and often composed of members living and working together : a similar system preventing amassing of privately owned goods and assuring equalitarian returns to those working <Plato's aristocratic communism> <the communism of the early church groups> <the communism obtaining among the early colonists>
2 often capitalized [Russian & German; Russian kommunizm, from German kommunismus, from French communisme]
a : a social and political doctrine or movement based upon revolutionary Marxian socialism that interprets history as a relentless class war eventually to result everywhere in the victory of the proletariat and the social ownership of the means of production with relative social and economic equality for all and ultimately to lead to a classless society
b : BOLSHEVISM c : a totalitarian system of government in which the state as owner of the major industries and acting through the medium of a single authoritarian party controls in large measure the economic, social, and cultural life of the society
3 often capitalized : strong left-wing activity or inclination that is subversive or revolutionary
4 biology : COMMENSALISM
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 07:09 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Okie is right, Cycloptichorn, and you are wrong.


Nothing new there.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 08:10 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

So, your answer is that you do not believe that reviewing many sources is important for getting a correct picture of what took place in history.

I just want you to understand that this level of analysis - declaring that things are 'clear' when they are anything but - would have gotten you flunked right out of school, Okie, were you to attempt to do this with any sort of seriousness. And your lack of analysis, and disdain for it, is why you are not taken seriously on historical issues by either Liberals or Conservatives here on A2K.

Cycloptichorn

Actually if you could just read and comprehend one principle of the Nazi 25 points, it would be enough to prove it is a leftist, socialist political movement. It is similar to a Marxist or communist belief, and reads as follows:
"COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD"

There is far more than the above phrase to support and prove my point, cyclops, in fact the remainder of the points are in accord with the above primary principle, but the above is hopefully simple enough for you to comprehend and understand, maybe?
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 09:39 pm
@ican711nm,
Didn't your middle school English teacher and your middle school social studies teacher tell you that opinion is neither true nor false? News stories can be true or false and opinions can be based on faulty information but an opinion can not be judged as true or false.
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 09:41 pm
@okie,
No! Consider what the conservatives in Texas have done and are doing to American history texts and to science texts.

Besides, who are you to judge when you think Hitler was on the left. Since when is racism and ethnic hatred on the left?
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 09:42 pm
@okie,
Opinions can not be true or false.

0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 09:47 pm
@okie,
1.) If my posts are a waste of your time, perhaps, you should put me on ignore.

2.) The truth really bothers you.

3.) I could read on the college level when I was in the 6th grade.

4.) Your rendered your posting of the Eisenhower piece difficult to read by using varying type faces. I think you may have used red ink as well. Who wants to wade through that stuff?
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 09:49 pm
@okie,
Most history books. There are a few screwy ones from the right but most history books are sound.

I guess your post is an announcement that you lack "an ounce of honesty and common sense" as you think Hitler was a leftist. Remember, that Hitler was a racist, just like members of the KKK.

0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 10:10 pm
@okie,
This is a run-on sentence:

All you have to do is review the policies of Hitler and the Nazi Party, I would think the 25 points are sufficient, and see if they are right leaning or left leaning policies, in context with how conservative and liberal are judged in America today, and it is an open shut case, no question whatsoever, Hitler was a socialist, a nationalistic type of one, a leftist Statist, and there is absolutely no question about this whatsoever to anyone with honesty.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 10:14 pm
Very few conservatives seem to understand, let alone know about, the writings of Leo Strauss and his influence on the American right.

Strauss' rather peculiar point of view is behind this thinking that the Nazis were on the left. However, that view is not reached directly but through a great deal of jumping through hoops. This section from wiki explains the origin of this false idea:

Strauss taught that liberalism in its modern form contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards extreme relativism, which in turn led to two types of nihilism[6] The first was a “brutal” nihilism, expressed in Nazi and Marxist regimes. In On Tyranny, he wrote that these ideologies, both descendants of Enlightenment thought, tried to destroy all traditions, history, ethics, and moral standards and replace them by force under which nature and mankind are subjugated and conquered.[7] The second type " the "gentle" nihilism expressed in Western liberal democracies " was a kind of value-free aimlessness and a hedonistic "permissive egalitarianism", which he saw as permeating the fabric of contemporary American society.[8][9] In the belief that 20th century relativism, scientism, historicism, and nihilism were all implicated in the deterioration of modern society and philosophy, Strauss sought to uncover the philosophical pathways that had led to this situation. The resultant study led him to advocate a tentative return to classical political philosophy as a starting point for judging political action.[10]
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 05:54 pm
@plainoldme,
Plainoldme, I attended junior high school 1943 thru 1945 (grades 7 thru 9). All my teachers--including my English teaschers and my social studies teachers repeatedly made a point of telling us that opinions supported with valid logic and facts were probably true until proven otherwise, and opinions rebutted with valid logic and facts were probably false until proven otherwise.

However, I will assume it a fact that you are unable to support or rebut your opinions with valid logic and facts. So I guess your opinions are probably neither true or false. I guess they are probably merely your form of entertainment.

Enjoy!
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 06:01 pm
@ican711nm,
Socialism is a transition to communism, or fascism, or naziism. For none of those outcomes to occur, socialism must be stopped quickly before that transition can occur.

Communists, fascists, and nazis killed millions during the 20th century. The only real distinction between them is not their consequences. Those consequences are the same--mass murder. Their differences are merely in their slogans and what they claim they want to accomplish.

Rightist (e.g., conservatives) want to achieve equal liberty under the law. Leftist (e.g., contemporary liberals) want to achieve equal wealth regardless of the law.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 06:22 pm
A LEFTIST IS CONVICTED
Quote:
Ruling by Judge William Young, US District Court.

Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if he had anything to say His response: After admitting his guilt to the court for the record, Reid {the Shoe Bomber} also admitted his 'allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah,' defiantly stating, 'I think I will not apologize for my actions,' and told the court 'I am at war with your country.'

Judge Young then delivered the statement quoted below:

Judge Young: 'Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you.

On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the custody of the United States Attorney General. On counts 2, 3, 4and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutively. (That's 80 years.)

On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years again, to be served consecutively to the 80 years just imposed. The Court imposes upon you for each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 that's an aggregate fine of $2 million. The Court accepts the government's recommendation with respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines.

The Court imposes upon you an $800 special assessment. The Court imposes upon you five years supervised release simply because the law requires it. But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further.

This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes. It is a fair and just sentence. It is a righteous sentence.

Now, let me explain this to you. We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is too much war talk here and I say that to everyone with the utmost respect. Here in this court, we deal with individuals as individuals and care for individuals as individuals. As human beings, we reach out for justice.

You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature. Whether the officers of government do it or your attorney does it, or if you think you are a soldier, you are not----- you are a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not meet with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

So war talk is way out of line in this court You are a big fellow. But you are not that big. You're no warrior. I've known warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal that is guilty of multiple attempted murders. In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and the TV crews were, and he said: 'You're no big deal.'

You are no big deal.

What your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. What was it that led you here to this courtroom today?

I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty of doing? And, I have an answer for you. It may not satisfy you, but as I search this entire record, it comes as close to understanding as I know.

It seems to me you hate the one thing that to us is most precious. You hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose. Here, in this society, the very wind carries freedom. It carries it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom, so that everyone can see, truly see, that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely. It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf, have filed appeals, will go on in their representation of you before other judges.

We Americans are all about freedom. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties. Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will bear any burden; pay any price, to preserve our freedoms. Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. The day after tomorrow, it will be forgotten, but this, however, will long endure.

Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America , the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done. The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.

See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United States of America . That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag stands for freedom. And it always will.

Mr. Custody Officer. Stand him down.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2010 12:26 pm
ican says
Quote:
A LEFTIST IS CONVICTED

A leftist? Hardly. He's a totalitarian religious fundamentalist. That's as right wing as they come. Nearly as far right as you are, ican.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2010 04:39 pm
@MontereyJack,
Monterey Jack, you keep deceiving yourself about what is a political leftist and what is a political rightest.

At the extreme left there is absolute dictatorship (AD). At the extreme right there is absolute anarchy (AA).

AD<=leftists<=more government<= | =>less government=>rightists=>AA

The following are all left of center because they all limit individual liberty under the law with more government:
Socialism (SOC)has some dictatorship.
Communism (COM) has more dictatorship.
Fascism (FAC) has even more dictatorship.
Naziism (NAZ) has far more dictatorship.

The following are all right of center because they all increase individual liberty under the law with less government:
Representarians (REP) favor a government that limits its actions to those permitted by a majority of those governed.
Conservatives (CON) favor a government that limits its actions to those permitted by the Constitution of the USA.
Libertarians (LIB) favor that government that only protects individual liberty under the law.
Anarchists (ANA) favor eliminating government and replacing it with solely individual voluntary limits.

Here then is the true political spectrum:

AD<=NAZ<=FAC<=COM<=SOC<=leftists<=more government<=
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |~~~~~~~~~~
=>less government=>rightists=>REP=>CON=>LIB=>ANA=>AA

ican711nm
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2010 09:20 am
@ican711nm,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Another valid way to characterize the complete political spectrum:

absolute dictatorship<=leftists<=less individual liberty under the law<=
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
~=>more individual liberty under the law=>rightists=>absolute anarchy


 

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 © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 05/07/2024 at 01:56:51