20
   

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

 
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 02:39 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Ican, for Christ's sake, is using dictionary definitions to support his case. It may be news to you, but Merriam-Webster is not a source for accurate or detailed historical information.

It may be news to you that "detailed historic information" does not constitute a definition unless it actually includes a definition or definitions. Your opinions about whether or not all dictatorships are leftist do not constitute a collection of valid definitions. Merriam-Webster does constitute a collection of valid definitions.

Whether dictatorship governments allege their goal consists of limiting individually earned wealth, or any other individually endowed liberty, they are leftist governments. Rightist governments oppose such individual limits and are devoted to securing the individual rights of those individuals that do not violate the individual rights of others.

Modern American Conservatives seek to rescue and secure the Constitutional Republic of the USA in order to rescue and secure their individual rights. If you think you know of a better way to rescue and secure individual rights, describe it.

RIGHTISTS
CONSTITUTIONALISM
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=constitutionalism&x=30&y=9
Main Entry: con•sti•tu•tion•al•ism
...
1 : the doctrine or system of government in which the governing power is limited by enforceable rules of law and concentration of power is prevented by various checks and balances so that the basic rights of individuals and groups are protected
2 : adherence to the principles of constitutionalism

CONSERVATISM
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=conservatism&x=23&y=8
Main Entry: con•serv•a•tism
...
1 a : the disposition in politics to preserve what is established <twentieth century politics of New Jersey has continued to be dominated ... by the natural conservatism of the industrial and business interests -- American Guide Series: New Jersey>
b : a political philosophy based on a strong sense of tradition and social stability, stressing the importance of established institutions (as religion, property, the family, and class structure), and preferring gradual development with preservation of the best elements of the past to abrupt change <political conservatism in the United States ... has become identified with the business interests -- Francis Biddle>
2 usually capitalized a : the principles and policies of the Conservative party in the United Kingdom <the fundamental and distinct tenets of Conservatism -- R.A.Butler> b : the Conservative party or its members <whether Conservatism enjoys a long tenure of office -- L.D.Epstein>
3 a : the tendency to accept an existing fact, order, situation, or phenomenon and to be cautious toward or suspicious of change : extreme wariness and caution in outlook <acquired conservatism which normally increases with increasing age and sagacity -- H.G.Armstrong> <conservatism in banking practices> <conservatism in interpreting data> b : strong resistance to innovation : relative freedom from change <the conservatism of the area ... has helped to preserve the evidences of its past -- R.W.Southern>; specifically : the tendency of certain plants or animal groups (as the brachiopods) to remain narrowly adapted to a particular environment and undergo minimal evolutionary change or differentiation
4 : CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM

REPUBLICANISM
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=republicanism&x=28&y=10
Main Entry: re•pub•li•can•ism
...
1 : adherence to or sympathy for a republican form of government : republican practices or spirit : attachment to republican principles or institutions <republicanism, driven underground by the era of reaction, was kept alive -- Times Literary Supplement> <popular democratic sentiment came forth as republicanism -- Alfredo Mendizábal Villalbo>
2 : a republican form of government : the principles or theory of republican government <maintenance of republicanism in Latin America -- Alexander Marchant> <republicanism in the seventeenth century was ... an aristocratic doctrine -- G.H.Sabine>
3 usually capitalized a : the principles, policy, or practices of the Republican party of the U.S. <the leading theorist of modern Republicanism -- Stewart Alsop> b : the Republican party or its members <a rousing battle between midwest Republicanism and Democratic liberalism -- New York Times>

LIBERALISM
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=liberalism&x=21&y=9
Main Entry: lib•er•al•ism
...
1 : the quality or state of being liberal : as a : lack of strictness or rigor <treats his children with a certain liberalism>
b : BROAD-MINDEDNESS, OPEN-MINDEDNESS <an outlook marked by liberalism and tolerance>
2 : principles, theories, or actions that are liberal : as a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity <nineteenth century Liberalism ... introduced historical method in the interpretation of the gospels -- C.H.Moehlman> -- compare FUNDAMENTALISM, MODERNISM
b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint especially by government regulation in all economic activity and usually based upon free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard <the decline of mercantilism produced a period characterized notably by the ideas and policy of liberalism> -- called also economic liberalism; compare CAPITALISM, COLLECTIVISM, FREE ENTERPRISE, INDIVIDUALISM, LAISSEZ-FAIRE, MERCANTILISM, SOCIALISM
c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for tolerance and freedom for the individual from arbitrary authority in all spheres of life especially by the protection of political and civil liberties and for government under law with the consent of the governed <the touchstone that enables us to recognize liberalism is the question of toleration -- M.R.Cohen> <the classic liberalism ... derived from French rationalism and Benthamite utilitarianism -- C.H.Driver> <liberalism had always claimed to stand for the greatest social good -- G.H.Sabine> -- compare CATHOLICISM 4, COMMUNISM 2, CONSERVATISM 1b, FASCISM 2a, INDIVIDUALISM, SOCIALISM d usually capitalized : the principles or policies of a Liberal party <the individualism of British Liberalism -- L.D.Epstein> <nonconformist religion ... was traditionally associated with political Liberalism -- G.D.H.Cole> e : an attitude or philosophy favoring individual freedom for self-development and self-expression <a positive and noble impulse ... of intellectual liberalism was its immanent zeal for truth -- F.C.Sell>

LEFTISTS
STATISM
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=statism&x=20&y=5
Main Entry: statism
Pronunciation Guide
...
: concentration of all economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government <abandoned her former reliance on statism in favor of private enterprise -- World> -- compare GOVERNMENTALISM 1

SOCIALISM
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

COMMUNISM
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=communism&x=26&y=8
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

FASCISM
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
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

okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 07:02 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Missed to respond to this:
- yes, read it. In English (and German),
- yes, I read about Saul allinsky
- yes, I read about Wright and the Black Liberation Tjeologie.
- yes, I even know what Obama is about.


I doubt it, not if you think he is a right winger. His religious and political mentors and teachers are Marxists, Jew haters, haters of capitalism, and so forth. If you think Obama is something else, you are mighty naive in my opinion.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 07:04 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Ican, for Christ's sake, is using dictionary definitions to support his case. It may be news to you, but Merriam-Webster is not a source for accurate or detailed historical information.


Perish the thought that the meaning of a word or term might be found in a dictionary! I guess it hasn't dawned on Setanta yet that the purpose of dictionaries is to define terms and words?
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 07:07 pm
@okie,
I guess it hasn't dawned on Okie yet that historical accounts and documents provide more reliable information about history than dictionaries do.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 07:12 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
Merriam-Webster does constitute a collection of valid definitions.


In the first place, Merriam-Webster is not the sole, nor the most authoritative source for definition. But leaving that aside, someone who studies history or political science at a university doesn't spend from four to eight years reading dictionary definitions. Quite apart from that, you have a quaint and whimsical penchant for warping the definitions you do come up with to support the case you decided in advance to prove. For example, including fascism and nazism under the rubric "Leftism" above, without having established that these are leftist systems. Including statism uner your "leftism" rubric without having established that statism is exclusively a leftist phenomenon. Including constitutionalism under your rubric "rightism" without having established that right-wing governments, and only right-wing governments, are ever constitutionalists.

With neither you nor Okie is it a case of having carefully and exhaustively studied history and political science, from which you derive a conclusion which you are then prepared to defend. It is a case of coming up with some goofy idea thanks to the distorted world view your partisan obsessions give you, and then setting out to bend the evidence (what little evidence you actually produce) to suit the conclusion you have decided in advance to arrive at.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 07:19 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
It is a case of coming up with some goofy idea thanks to the distorted world view your partisan obsessions give you, ...

There is nothing goofy about seeing the distinctions between left and right, and the inherent tendencies of leftists to believe in big government to solve all the rights and wrongs, while rightists or conservatives as defined in America believe in individual liberty and responsibility, and the free market is a big part of that. If you can't see that, then I think you are the goofy one, and you have never come to understand why America became a great and free country so that peoples from all over the world died to come here.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 07:29 pm
@okie,
It is a matter of indifference to me whether or not you think i'm goofy. But you have substituted partisan prejudice for intellectual rigor in your attempt to define everything to the right as good, and everything to the left as bad. Since you and Ican seem to be so impressed with Merriam-Webster as an oracle and the final word on definitions, allow me to point out a part of the definition of liberalism which i have taken directly from Ican's post, above:

a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint especially by government regulation in all economic activity and usually based upon free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard <the decline of mercantilism produced a period characterized notably by the ideas and policy of liberalism>

Now, either your silly attempt to categorize political theory based on your narrow, and very, very poorly-informed world view is incorrect, or the liberals of America are actually conservative by the definition you have just provided--unless, of course, you either intend to repudiate the definition you have just given, or you are unwilling to accept that Merriam-Webster is the authoritative source you have claimed.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 07:38 pm
@Setanta,
If the dictionary is to be the source for what words mean. .then this from the freedictionary.


Quote:
This traditional political spectrum has come to be defined along an axis with socialism and communism, ("the Left") on one end, and nationalism and Fascism ("the Right") on the other.


http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/political+spectrum
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 07:42 pm
@Setanta,
I think you know that the term, "liberalism" can be defined differently in different parts of the world and at different times. Foxfyre has dealt with this extensively on her thread about conservatism. That is why I have repeatedly pointed out that the left vs right discussion is framed by our current understanding of left vs right or liberal vs conservative, currently in America. Apparently, you continue to ignore that fact. You and Walter both claimed that Obama was to the right according to another context that you chose for your own biased purposes, and as I pointed out, it pretty much canceled out everything you had argued for the first 40 some pages of this thread, we might as well forget what you said because it wasn't pertinent to the ground rules of the thread.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 07:49 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

If the dictionary is to be the source for what words mean. .then this from the freedictionary.


Quote:
This traditional political spectrum has come to be defined along an axis with socialism and communism, ("the Left") on one end, and nationalism and Fascism ("the Right") on the other.


http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/political+spectrum

Problem, fascism is a form of socialism in my opinion, it is perhaps a form of right wing socialism, and if your spectrum only includes various forms of socialism or communism, then yes you may have a point, but your point is totally wrong when you apply the current left vs right spectrum as understood currently in America and by Americans. Also, nationalism can occur on both the right and left in my opinion, so dictionaries can be helpful, but not the last word. You need to know the context of the definition, as words can change in meaning over time. I admit I defended ican in his use of the dictionary, but I think his chosen dictionary definitions were helpful and worthy of consideration.

This is another tangent that I have mentioned at times, but I think worth mentioning again, nationalism can also be expressed as a form of worldism, and I think that is where the left tends to gravitate now. We hear all the time we should be citizens of the world, and many leftists believe in some kind of a world government in the making, that they will control of course, and this is their particular form of nationalism expressed as a worldism philosophy. The term "worldism," is my term, but I think it is very descriptive and useful to describe their mindset, which is every bit as filled with religious fervor as nationalists can be. So I believe to ascribe nationalism as a right wing trait is or can be way off the mark.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 07:53 pm
@okie,
Quote:

Problem, fascism is a form of socialism in my opinion

We know what your opinion is okie.
We also know that your opinion is at odds with the normal and accepted definitions.

Quote:
You need to know the context of the definition, as words can change in meaning over time.
Now THAT is funny okie after telling Walter that you were basing your opinion on current American understanding instead of 1920's German definitions. If current American understanding is that fascism is right on the political spectrum then you are NOT using anything other than some thing that was made up to support your bogus theory.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 08:08 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:

Problem, fascism is a form of socialism in my opinion

We know what your opinion is okie.
We also know that your opinion is at odds with the normal and accepted definitions.

Quote:
You need to know the context of the definition, as words can change in meaning over time.
Now THAT is funny okie after telling Walter that you were basing your opinion on current American understanding instead of 1920's German definitions. If current American understanding is that fascism is right on the political spectrum then you are NOT using anything other than some thing that was made up to support your bogus theory.
I am far from alone in my opinion on this, Parados. I think Jonah Goldberg lays it out pretty good, and interesting I became aware of his book on this after I started this thread and layed out alot of the same things that I found out later he believes as well. Goldberg is but one example.

You can call your opinion normal and accepted, but where and when, parados? And how many people would laugh at you when you suggest Obama is a right winger? About 3/4 of the people in this country think he is liberal and about half think he is very liberal, which means left, parados, so I think the vast majority of people in this country would agree with my assessment of Obama's left or right status. By logical extension, this also supports my general assertions about left vs right on this thread, how it is defined, in my opinion. I do not think a German context from the 1920s or 30s should be the final word on this, because I have sought to classify a number of dictators from various places according to our current understanding of left vs right, not some outdated description of it based upon Germany or Europe a long long time ago. I think we have learned alot since that time about political spectrums here in America and around the world, we don't need to stay stuck on something from 80 years ago.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 08:24 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
In the first place, Merriam-Webster is not the sole, nor the most authoritative source for definition.

What is your preferred source for the definitions of these terms that I posted?

CONSTITUTIONALISM
CONSERVATISM
REPUBLICANISM
LIBERALISM
STATISM
SOCIALISM
COMMUNISM
FASCISM
NAZISM

What are the definitions your preferred source provides?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 08:46 pm
@okie,
Quote:
You can call your opinion normal and accepted, but where and when, parados?
Since it is the standard taught in political science courses.

Quote:
And how many people would laugh at you when you suggest Obama is a right winger?
Why would I suggest such a thing?
Quote:
About 3/4 of the people in this country think he is liberal and about half think he is very liberal, which means left, parados, so I think the vast majority of people in this country would agree with my assessment of Obama's left or right status.
Quote:
Yes.. and...
Quote:
By logical extension, this also supports my general assertions about left vs right on this thread, how it is defined, in my opinion.
I'ms sorry but because you got one thing right on the scale doesn't lead to the conclusion that you got all things right. Just because I think Obama is a liberal doesn't prove that Fascism is right on the scale any more than your thinking Obama is a liberal proves that fascism is left.
Quote:
I do not think a German context from the 1920s or 30s is useful, because I have sought to classify a number of dictators from various places according to our current understanding of left vs right, not some outdated description of it based upon Germany or Europe a long long time ago. I think we have learned alot since that time about political spectrums here in
America and around the world, we don't need to stay stuck on something from 80 years ago.
Except you aren't even using the modern version of right/left okie. You are using a made up version of it promoted by people that pick certain facts to prove their theories while ignoring everything that disputes them.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 11:51 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

I doubt it, not if you think he is a right winger. His religious and political mentors and teachers are Marxists, Jew haters, haters of capitalism, and so forth. If you think Obama is something else, you are mighty naive in my opinion.


My dear okie. I suppose, even some affirmation in lieu of an oath of persons who saw me doing it wouldn't convince you.

So, have your doubts and think that I'm naïve.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2009 07:33 am
The truth knocks on the door an Okie says, "Go away I am looking for truth," and it goes away, puzzling."
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2009 08:16 am
@ican711nm,
I notice that you completely ignore the undeniable fact that no dictionary can be considered the authoritative source for history or political science. I further notice that you have failed to address the criticism that you are organizing these terms to support your case--the example i used was that you include statism under the rubric "Leftist," even though it has nowhere been established that all leftists are statists, or that no statists are right-wing; or that you have included constitutionalism under the rubric "Rightist" without having established that all right-wingers are constitutionalists, and that no leftists are constitutionalists. It's not simply the definitions, it's the warped uses to which you attempt to put them.

My preferred source for historical matters is reliable secondary sources by reputable historians using and citing primary sources--that's a far better and more reliable means of understanding Hitler and the NSDAP, for example. My preferred source for political science is the analytic and policy studies of reputable political scientists.

It certainly is a pack of reactionary loons at an online forum who make the **** up as they go along.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2009 08:32 am
@okie,
As usual, you miss the point altogether. The point is that using your definition of what constitutes a conservative, and Ican's dictionary definition of liberalism, it is possible to claim that the practice of economic liberalism makes the practitioner a conservative. Don't even bring that idiot Foxfyre up to me in any discussion which pretends to be based on intelligent discussion.

The point is that going to the dictionary for definitions and using your own made-up definitions is completely useless in a discussion of this type. As Parados has just pointed out in his use of a definition, you are contradicted by contemporary American thinking on where fascims and national socialism lie on the political spectrum.

What both you and Ican always refuse to discuss is how this idiocy came about. You have this simple-minded formula which goes left=bad, right=good. While ruminating on this thoroughly witless, but to you, charming thesis, you suddenly had an inspiration, and decided that, therefore, all ruthless dictators must be leftists; but further, that no ruthless dictators have ever been right-wing. Then you set out to prove it.

In science, and in rigorous academic disciplines such as history and political science, the only acceptable method is to study the evidence, and then draw a conclusion. You have turned this on it's head, and come to a conclusion, after which you begin casting about for ways to justify it. In addition to being an unreliable methodology, it is intellectually dishonest. What is most pathetic, though, is the extent to which both you and Ican display your ignorance of history and political science.

Being ignorant is common. Everyone is ignorant of far more things than those about which they are knowledgeable. The problem with ignorance is invincible ignorance, which cannot, will not be educated, will not be informed. And that is what you are indulging in. You are so eaten up by your partisan obsession, that you are looking for ways to portray those with whom you disagree politically as purely evil, in league with Satan. And so you came up with his hilariously idiotic thesis, and have lamely attempted to defend it ever since.

Now watch that mealy-mouthed hypocrite Foxfyre, who says the most scurrilous things about people she claims are on the left, all the while whining about "ad homs" come along to claim that i have attacked you personally rather than addressing the subject. That is total crap. I have attacked the product of your ignorance, and the political obsession which will not allow you to remedy your ignorance.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2009 08:35 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
It certainly is a pack of reactionary loons at an online forum who make the **** up as they go along.


That should have read, of course "It certainly is not . . ." Although, organized a little differently, it would have been a charming bit of sarcasm.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2009 09:21 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
.... you suddenly had an inspiration, and decided that, therefore, all ruthless dictators must be leftists; but further, that no ruthless dictators have ever been right-wing. Then you set out to prove it.

I will use this as typical of your mis-representations and inaccuracies. I do not think I have ever claimed that all ruthless dictators are leftists, or that no right winger can become a ruthless dicatator. If you can provide a quote, feel free. What I have consistently argued is that leftist idealogies provide more fertile ground to produce dictators and ruthless dictators, after all, they believe in big government as their virtual god, and they believe government is the ultimate arbitor of fairness and social justice. COMMON GOOD is the battle cry for all of the leftists, whether it be Marxists /communists, socialists, or Nazis / fascists.

What I have noticed about debating liberals here is that you guys always attack conservatives by attacking our intelligence. You always claim to be intellectually superior in brain power and education. I admit to a measure of sarcasm for you guys as well, but I have tried to approach this subject from a perspective of common sense and reason. You respond not with reason, but instead ridicule, plus you mis-represent what we say, per the example I have given in the above.

I will go back to the illustration that both you and Walter have claimed that Obama is a right winger according to your analysis, which aligns with the intellectual definition given you by academia, perhaps greatly influenced by a European view of things, but which flies in the face of what most of us know to be true about Obama and his political instincts and leanings, as he is clearly a liberal leftist. Obama's political views gravitate to the "Common Good" end of the spectrum, which emphasizes more government power and central planning, away from individual liberty, responsibility, and free markets, which I think are the hallmarks of right wing or conservative policies, which by definition emphasize individual power instead of government power or central planning to execute.

You guys can continue to denigrate my intelligence, I care not, I am very comfortable with the ground I have placed my faith upon. I may not be a political science major at a university, but I do have a degree in science, minored in math with good marks in calculus and other subjects, which does require some intelligence. Further, I happen to think that common sense trumps a college degree much of the time. During my career, I have worked with many so-called best and brightest, but many lacked common sense.
Also, politics or political science is a subject dominated by opinion, not scientific fact, and it does lend itself especially to common sense reasoning, which I think I am using here, very definitely. And so you guys do not have a monopoly on all of the political opinions about left vs right. You have your opinions, but yours are not the only ones, so get over it. I think you just resent somebody named "okie" that punctures your age old myths about politics by using common sense reasoning. This is not a subject owned by you or your university liberal cronies.

The opinions about this pretty much falls within party lines here, other conservatives see it the way I see it, while liberals see it your way. And since most university political science professors are probably liberal or left, they will probably continue to teach the myths you believe. Its because what I post here gores their ox, and they do not like that.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/08/2023 at 02:26:09