20
   

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 10:44 am
@Setanta,
That's the same meme being used by many conservatives who claims that the Obama health plan will have death panels and how they'll tell grandma how they will die.

It was a republican congressman who introduced the idea of an end of life consultation with the doctor to be included in the plan that had nothing to do with telling the patient how they will die.

What ever happened to rational thinking?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 11:06 am
Neither Setanta or cicerone imposter have made their case. Rather than limit their posts to arguments against those arguments with which they disagree, they add arguments against those people with whom they disagree. That of course is a common trait among leftists.

I perceive their behavior to be at least equivalent to their own great insecurity regarding the validity of their own arguments. In some cases, such behavior appears to be equivalent to conceeding their arguments are invalid.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 11:37 am
@ican711nm,
oh, the irony of that post ican...

You attack others for what you are doing in your post.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 11:42 am
@ican711nm,
What case are you talking about, ican? Palin's "death panel" that's been supported by many conservatives including congressmen and tv talking heads?
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 01:19 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Neither Setanta or cicerone imposter have made their case. Rather than limit their posts to arguments against those arguments with which they disagree, they add arguments against those people with whom they disagree. That of course is a common trait among leftists.

I perceive their behavior to be at least equivalent to their own great insecurity regarding the validity of their own arguments. In some cases, such behavior appears to be equivalent to conceeding their arguments are invalid.


How can their arguments be invalid? If they follow your lead, then they may simply take all the words in the dictionary that they like and place them in the "leftist" column and take all the words they dislike and place them in the "rightest" column. Based on this flawless distribution of words, they may claim that "right is bad" and "left is good." Nothing you say can possibly counter the argument, because their argument is absolutely correct based on their distribution of dictionary words.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 02:01 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
You attack others for what you are doing in your post.

I'm attacking the postss of others for the containment in their posts of attacks on me.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 02:10 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:
How can their arguments be invalid? If they follow your lead, then they may simply take all the words in the dictionary that they like and place them in the "leftist" column and take all the words they dislike and place them in the "rightest" column. Based on this flawless distribution of words, they may claim that "right is bad" and "left is good." Nothing you say can possibly counter the argument, because their argument is absolutely correct based on their distribution of dictionary words.

Their case is not that. Their case is that my definitions of leftists and rightists are wrong, because their definitions of the same are true because they are based on historical fact. Trouble is they have not as yet made their case for their definitions, because they have not yet provided their definitions.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 02:11 pm
@ican711nm,
whining doesn't serve you well, you look like foxfyre . Keep your nose up.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 02:53 pm
@ican711nm,
ican, There is no clear definition for right or left, and it depends on what period in our history, and which country we are talking about.

Attempting to apply past right and left dichotomy to current US politics is a waste of time as it tends to confuse more than clarify. Even current contemporaries of US politics isn't staight-forward, and where one sits on the political spectrum is a combination of liberal, moderate, and conservative although we still see extremists in both major parties.

The silliest part of all these discussions is the attempt by Foxie to tie down the definition of MACs as if it has any real meaning.
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 03:05 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:

How can their arguments be invalid? If they follow your lead, then they may simply take all the words in the dictionary that they like and place them in the "leftist" column and take all the words they dislike and place them in the "rightest" column. Based on this flawless distribution of words, they may claim that "right is bad" and "left is good." Nothing you say can possibly counter the argument, because their argument is absolutely correct based on their distribution of dictionary words.


At last, Debra and I agree on something.

I and several others here have attempted to introduce the rather elementary idea that Left & Right; Liberal & Conservative; etc are labels whose implications vary over time and even place. More to the point, such binary categorizations have never been adequate to correctly describe the essential character of the various social/political/economic systems that have coexisted in the modern world. At least two, perhaps more, dimensions are required to accurately categorize them and meaningfully contrast their differences.

One could imagine a two-coordinate system with a vertical axis denoting gradiations in governance from (say) authoritarian to democratic; and an horizontal axis denoting gradiations from socialist to capitalist - just as a start. Even this rather elementary addition would enormously clarify the discussion and instantly sweep away most of what is being argued about here.

Unfortunately okie has been impervious to such obvious suggestions. He starts with a defensible thesis - namely that in modern times many left wing socialist movements have degenerated into authoritarian tyrannies - and launches into sweeping generalizations, that defy the obvious examples of extant highly socialist systems that have indeed preserved their democratic values and individual freedom. When confronted with these examples, he merely replies with some version of "yes, but..... " and then returns to his harrangue.

This is not a discussion. Okie is just jerking off.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 03:22 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, There is no clear definition for right or left, and it depends on what period in our history, and which country we are talking about.


Well, I can't resist, and have to agree here.

The terms 'left' and 'right' come, as we know from school, from the seating arrangements in the parliament of the French July Monarchy.

Here, in Germany, we adopted this system in our first 'democratic' parliament in the Paulskirche in Frankfurt, in 1848/9.

And since those days, it is done the same way in any German (and the Austrian, the Swis plus some couple more) parliament, until today. (Sometimes not without -longer or shorter- by some parties.)

So, from 1919 onwards until 1933 the parties in the Reichstag were from left to right:
<left>
KPD-(Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands - Comunist Party of Germany)
USPD (Unabhängige Sozial-Demokratische Partei Deutschlands -Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany) until 1930
SPD (Socialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands
DDP (DSP) (Deutsche Demokratische Partei - German Democratic Party [since 1930 named Deutsch Staats Partei - German State's Party]

<centre>
Zentrum and BVP (Centre [party] and Bavarian Peoples Party)

<right>
DVP (Deutsche Volkspartei - German Peoples Party)
DNVP (Deutsch-Nationale Volks Partei - German National Peoples Party)
NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Partei Deutschlands - National-Socialistic Party of Germany) [in the Reichstag from 1928 onwards]

Until 1933, my maternal grandfather was a member of DVP (a centre-right national-libertarian party), paternal grandfather was a member of the Zentrum ( a centrist Catholic party).
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 03:26 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

At last, Debra and I agree on something.
[...]
This is not a discussion. Okie is just jerking off.



Quoting the first sentence for the record ( Wink and the second, because it can't be said often enough.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 04:16 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican, There is no clear definition for right or left, and it depends on what period in our history, and which country we are talking about.

Attempting to apply past right and left dichotomy to current US politics is a waste of time as it tends to confuse more than clarify. Even current contemporaries of US politics isn't staight-forward, and where one sits on the political spectrum is a combination of liberal, moderate, and conservative although we still see extremists in both major parties.

The silliest part of all these discussions is the attempt by Foxie to tie down the definition of MACs as if it has any real meaning.


I have provided what I perceive to be clear contemporary definitions of LEFTISTS and RIGHTISTS. You might prefer another pair of distinguishing labels. That would be ok with me, say COLLECTIVISTS and INDIVIDUALISTS, or Xs and Ys. But they need to be defined clearly so that the voters can vote intelligently.

The fact is there is currently an intense dispute among Americans about how America should be governed. This dispute can be described in numerous valid ways. However, it is described, it ends up being a dispute between two candidates for each federal elected office. Each candidate generally describes their and their opponent's side of this dispute according to their perceptions of the principles of their political parties. There are also such disputes within each political party.

Foxfyre's definitions of the labels MALs and MACs is a responsible sensible attempt to introduce rational discussion into contemporary political debates.

Personally, I prefer the labels COLLECTIVISM and INDIVIDUALISM, because these are labels of political idea spectrums that are recognizeable to be the essence of the current political dispute among Americans. The extreme COLLECTIVIST favors an absolute dictatorship. The extreme INDIVIDUALIST favors absolute anarchy. Presumably, somewhere in between is the best choice for Americans. That choice and its attributes, and which candidates are choosing one or the other, are what we here should be debating instead of debating the personal characteristics of each of us debators.

Let's start now!

COLLECTIVISM
Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=collectivism&x=22&y=5
Main Entry: col·lec·tiv·ism
...
1 a : a politico-economic system characterized by collective control especially over production and distribution of goods and services in contrast to free enterprise
...
b : extreme control of the economic, political, and social life of its subjects by an authoritarian state (as under communism or fascism)
c : a doctrine or system that makes the group or the state actively responsible for the social and economic welfare of its members
2 : a social theory or doctrine that emphasizes the importance of the collective (as the society or state) in contrast to the individual and that tends to analyze society in terms of collective behavior.
...


INDIVIDUALISM
Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=individualism&x=17&y=5
Main Entry: in·di·vid·u·al·ism
...
1 a (1) : the ethical doctrine or principle that the interests of the individual himself are or ought to be paramount in determination of conduct : ethical egoism; also : conduct guided by the principle (2) : the conception that all values, rights, and duties originate in individuals and that the community or social whole has no value or ethical significance not derived from its constituent individuals
b (1) : the doctrine which holds that the chief end of society is the promotion of individual welfare and the chief end of moral law is the development of individual character; also : conduct or practice guided by such a doctrine (2) : a theory or policy having primary regard for individual rights and especially maintaining the political and economic independence of the individual or maintaining the independence of individual initiative, action, and interests
...

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 04:18 pm
@ican711nm,
ican, You still "don't get it!" It's not about "definitions;" it's about application to the real world.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 06:00 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I believe the definitions I proposed are valid for characterizing the real world. What is it about those definitions I proposed that you think are NOT valid for describing the real world?

Words are used to describe the real world. Words have meaning. The meanings that words have are defined in dictionaries.

So if you don't like the words I chose to use, select your own and use either your own definitions or dictionary definitions. In particular, please explain what you think are my and your political views, and your evaluations of those views.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 06:55 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
The terms 'left' and 'right' come, as we know from school, from the seating arrangements in the parliament of the French July Monarchy.


This deserves to be expanded upon. In October, 1789, the market women in Paris marched to Versailles in what was obviously a spontaneous demonstration. Things got ugly a few times, and the Queen and her children were chased through the rooms, while one of the guards was attacked, murdered and the corpse mutilated. To calm the situation, La Fayette, who was then the commander of the National Guard, and Bailly, the mayor of Paris convinced them that they must come back to Paris.

Once there, they were installed in the Tuileries Palace. In the grounds was Le Manege, the old, indoor riding school. This was converted for the use of the National Assembly. There was already seating there, from the days when the riding instructors and the grooms would put on equestrian shows--we would call them "bleachers." The ground of the riding ring was paved over, and a floor put down, and then a raised dais was erected at the far end from the bleacher seats, and a table was placed there for the use of the President of the Assembly.

When anyone addressed the Assembly, he would go to stand next to the President's table. As he faced the Assembly, Mirabeau and the constitutional monarchists were on his right--they favored retaining the institution of the monarchy, around which would be erected a constitutional government. To his left were the republicans, usually referred to as the "Gironde" because their most brilliant speakers came from the southwest of France. In fact, from 1791 to 1793, the Girondists formed the government.

But most significant of all was La Montagne, the Mountain. The most radical, the most revolutionary (as we would say today, the far "left) were seated above and behind the constitutional monarchists and the republicans in the bleacher seats, and they were called "the Mountain," and the members there were known as Montagnards. This included people such as Maximilien Robespierre and Jean-Paul Marat. Robespierre was eventually to accomplish the destruction of the Girondists and their nascent republic, ordering the execution of their leaders. It was the Mountain, the most radical and revolutionary faction, lead by Robespierre, who created the Committee for Public Safety and carried out the mass executions which became known as the terror.

So from the first days of the use of the term, right meant conservative, and the left were moderates, centrists--they were not the wild-eyed revolutionaries with a blood lust in their hearts.

Not that we can expect people like Okie and Ican with their partisan hysteria and massive self-delusion to understand distinctions such as that.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 07:19 pm
@ican711nm,
It's because political identification through two or three identifiers are not realistic. They are not fixed for any individual except for the very extreme who would not change their political ID no matter what happens to their party politics. That's the reason why although Bush was never really a conservative by most definitions based on his actions during his eight years in office, there are still about 25% of the American population who still believes Bush was a republican. If you studied Bill Clinton side-by-side with Bush, you'll get the general idea what I'm talking about.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 07:26 pm
@cicerone imposter,
From the Cato Institute.
Quote:
"Conservative" Bush Spends More than "Liberal" Presidents Clinton, Carter

by Veronique de Rugy and Tad DeHaven

Veronique de Rugy is a fiscal policy analyst and Tad DeHaven a policy researcher at the Cato Institute.

Added to cato.org on July 31, 2003

The Bush administration's newly released budget projections reveal an anticipated budget deficit of $450 billion for the current fiscal year, up another $151 billion since February. Supporters and critics of the administration are tripping over themselves to blame the deficit on tax cuts, the war, and a slow economy. But the fact is we have mounting deficits because George W. Bush is the most gratuitous big spender to occupy the White House since Jimmy Carter. One could say that he has become the "Mother of All Big Spenders."
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 08:52 pm
@Setanta,
Baloney, Setanta, I am beginning to not only question your honesty, but your reasoning power. No way did I say what you are trying to construe it into. Can you read. Also, I left out part of your post because it added nothing and proved nothing, and it was wrong, you are drawing conclusions that are simply not there. I am wasting my time even replying to your twisted reasonings.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 09:14 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

One could imagine a two-coordinate system with a vertical axis denoting gradiations in governance from (say) authoritarian to democratic; and an horizontal axis denoting gradiations from socialist to capitalist - just as a start. Even this rather elementary addition would enormously clarify the discussion and instantly sweep away most of what is being argued about here.

George, I think you could add something to the discussion by contributing your defintions of left vs right. Please do not go wandering off into some historical context of what it was in 1750 in some other country, what I am interested in is your assessment of it today, as perceived by you. This is very useful because we can then look at historical examples and assess them according to one generally viewed scale. I have been clear about doing this, and ican has done this as well. It makes not sense, and I think it is useless to go back to what various people perceived things to be at some point in time in history, in various countries. We have evolved past that now, and we have the luxury of applying a more up to date assessment to politics. We have hopefully learned a few things from all of the political experiences and situations observed up to this time.

Also, I think you are a bit off base to separate authoritarian or democratic from socialist or capitalistic, because I believe socialism requires more authority at the top to manage the system. I do not believe the variations occur in a vacuum, unrelated to each other, and I think this should be obvious. Obviously communism requires a great deal of authoritarianism to manage, it is after all central planning.

Quote:
Unfortunately okie has been impervious to such obvious suggestions. He starts with a defensible thesis - namely that in modern times many left wing socialist movements have degenerated into authoritarian tyrannies - and launches into sweeping generalizations, that defy the obvious examples of extant highly socialist systems that have indeed preserved their democratic values and individual freedom. When confronted with these examples, he merely replies with some version of "yes, but..... " and then returns to his harrangue.

This is not a discussion. Okie is just jerking off.

You could do without the last comment, that lowers your character in my opinion, below what I previously perceived you to be, which was an intelligent individual, not a jerk. But in regard to what I have been impervious to, you will need to elaborate on that, but I do generalize some because I do believe certain things happen more often, they are more typical of certain political philosophies. Not only is this logical, I think trends and tendencies do occur, and can be documented, just as I have noted in the cases that have been discussed here.

Again, submit your description of left vs right, I think it might be a good one. Surely you should have one, after all, almost any informed voter in America could give a description of it I think.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 02:20:36