What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

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.
....

No wonder you are hopelessly lost on this thread. You need to forget what happened in 1848, it doesn't matter now. You need to come up with a current and applicable definition that can be applied now.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

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.

ican, it now appears to me that the liberals on this forum are incapable of coming up with any pertinent contemporary definition of left vs right, as can be applied. This pretty much explains their confusion about political systems and philosophies in general. I never thought they would have this tough of a time doing this, it is surprising. They just can not apparently cut to the chase and figure out political philosophies in simple terms, they apparently see an impossible maze of countless factors that don't seem to add up to anything in their minds, so they resort to complicated and confusing definitions pulled from somebody's perception in another country at a different time.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

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.

No wonder you are so confused about politics. You can't figure out what you are, or what other people are.

I do think more than 25% of the people think Bush was a Republican, maybe you don't, but good luck is all I can tell you ci.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

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.

I am beginning to wonder if part of the problem here is liberals have a very tough time viewing things in black and white, they see the world in shades of gray, and thus politics to them is a thousand shades of gray, they see not enough distinctions between left and right, it all looks hopelessly confusing to them, so they fall back on some professor's definition of it at one particular time in one particular country, and it all changes with time and place, so the definitions become impossible for them to identify. Perhaps that is why so many liberals view themselves as moderates, they can then pick and choose depending upon whatever issue pleases them. They have no foundational principles on which to base their policies. It is all formulated by good intentions, which change with whatever wind is blowing out there. Stick your finger in the air and see which way the wind is blowing, and that pretty much determines their mindset that particular day.

ican, am I onto something here? It really befuddles me that these people cannot be pinned down with anything, and perhaps this explains it, not only for this thread, but all threads.

What I am onto here may explain a few other things we see now. For example, Reagan was Reagan, you knew who he was, what he stood for, and the principles he used. Obama is an opposite, most people don't know who he is, what he is, what he stands for, or what principles he uses to make decisions, or if he even has any. Perhaps he has some, but he is never open or honest about them. Not a great situation we are in. We are in a pickle, thats for sure.

3 Replies

@okie,

okie, It's not a matter of viewing the world in black and white; it's about viewing the world in reality, and you don't have that ability.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

No wonder you are hopelessly lost on this thread. You need to forget what happened in 1848, it doesn't matter now. You need to come up with a current and applicable definition that can be applied now.

Well, okie, if there weren't you to explain me the basics of Political Sciences and History, I really coulnd't get on.

But you obviously missed again my points - no wonder ...

0 Replies

@okie,

okie and ican, the jerkoffs.

0 Replies

@okie,

Okie, as a consequence of this past week's exchanges between those I call collectivists or leftists (e.g., Setanta, cicerone imposter, and Cycloptichorn) and those I call individualists or rightists (e.g., okie, Foxfyre, and ican), I have reluctantly come to the following conclusions:
(1) These collectivists' arguments are irrational;
(2) These collectivists know their arguments are irrational;
(3) These collectivists are pursuing some objective(s) other than truth.

While I can speculate what their objective is, I do not know what their objective is--other than it is definitely not the pursuit of truth. I base this conclusion on these collectivist's folderols about the definition of their underlying principles. I think they are too intelligent to believe their own folderols.

I think collectivism in general is multidimensional:
(1) statists;
(2) socialists;
(3) communists;
(4) nazists.

I think individualism in general is single dimensional, ranging from those who want to secure what they lawfully have, to those who want to secure their opportunity to lawfully get what they want, to those who want to secure what everyone lawfully has, to those who want to secure everyone's opportunity to lawfully get what they want.

I want to secure everyone's opportunity to lawfully get what they want.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, It's not a matter of viewing the world in black and white; it's about viewing the world in reality, and you don't have that ability.

Complexities do have simple underlying principles causing them.

Quote from Reagan:

"....
The basis of those ideals and principles is a commitment to freedom and personal liberty that, itself, is grounded in the much deeper realization that freedom prospers only where the blessings of God are avidly sought and humbly accepted.

The American experiment in democracy rests on this insight. Its discovery was the great triumph of our Founding Fathers, voiced by William Penn when he said: "If we will not be governed by God, we must be governed by tyrants." Explaining the inalienable rights of men, Jefferson said, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time." And it was George Washington who said that "of all the disposition and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supporters."

1 Reply

@okie,

It depends on what "complexities" you are talking about. Some are more complex than others, and you don't even realize that!

You don't even understand that research is a necessary ingredient to compete successfully in the world marketplace. That's not complex; that's simple Economics 101.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Good post, ican. I think "collectivism" is a foundational principle of leftism, which by definition relies upon central planning of the collective, after all somebody has to administer the collective.

And as you point out, fascism clearly falls within that realm. Ronald Reagan once made the observation: "Fascism was really the basis of the New Deal." So it appears we are in good company, ican, in our interpretations. What Obama is doing right now is to enlarge, strengthen, and expand New Deal policies. We see the push to own and dictate companies and even entire industries. These are fascist type policies. Everyone knows these are leftist liberal policies, or should know it.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Good post, ican. I think "collectivism" is a foundational principle of leftism, which by definition relies upon central planning of the collective, after all somebody has to administer the collective. .

What you call "collectivism," every other sane person calls "government." Even you, the proponent of "rightism," ought to know that people live together in a society and the government, through our elected representatives, is reponsible for our social welfare.

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Don't you just love these love-birds of similar feather? LOL

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

okie wrote:

Good post, ican. I think "collectivism" is a foundational principle of leftism, which by definition relies upon central planning of the collective, after all somebody has to administer the collective. .

What you call "collectivism," every other sane person calls "government." Even you, the proponent of "rightism," ought to know that people live together in a society and the government, through our elected representatives, is reponsible for our social welfare.

Correct, but there is a vast difference in how much leftists and rightest believe that government should be involved in. Our constitution seeks to limit government to only certain things, and further it limits the federal government from functions of the state and local governments.

Reagan said something along the lines that government should protect us from each other, but should not try to protect us from ourselves.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Quote:

Correct, but there is a vast difference in how much leftists and rightest believe that government should be involved in.

Come on, okie, you can't be that dumb! Bush got all of us involved in the Iraq war that we're still paying for. Rightists get involved in issues that should be left to individuals such as "marriage," and "abortion." You want our government to restrict these equal rights for gays and lesbians, and to control women's bodies to force them to have births, but don't want our government to support those births or care after they are born.

Republican administrations have created greater deficits than democratic ones, and "all" Americans benefited under democratic administrations. There are many sources of evidence that can be found to support this claim by just doing a simple search on Google.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie wrote:
Quote:
Correct, but there is a vast difference in how much leftists and rightest believe that government should be involved in.

Come on, okie, you can't be that dumb! Bush got all of us involved in the Iraq war that we're still paying for.

Its a national security issue, one of the few things the constitutions wants the federal government involved in. You may have forgotten also that Congress approved of the war, the same congress that was sent to Washington by us to represent us, which they did when they voted.

Quote:

Rightists get involved in issues that should be left to individuals such as "marriage," and "abortion."

Marriage has been governed by the government since the inception of the country. Abortion involves the life of a human being, and since life is another thing the constitution clearly tells us to protect, that could explain why there is alot of debate over this, depending upon the issue of when life begins, or where we consider it to begin.

Quote:

You want our government to restrict these equal rights for gays and lesbians, and to control women's bodies to force them to have births, but don't want our government to support those births or care after they are born.

Gays and lesbians have never been defined as marriage, not since the inception of the country, by either Democrats, Republicans, or maritians, so its not as if Republicans are denying something. After all, it has never existed in the first place until liberals want society to place everyones stamp of approval on their behavior.

Quote:

Republican administrations have created greater deficits than democratic ones, and "all" Americans benefited under democratic administrations. There are many sources of evidence that can be found to support this claim by just doing a simple search on Google.

Post the evidence if you have any, but regardless, which party created more programs that have caused the debts? Besides, even if your claim would happen to be somewhat true, Obama will wipe the whole thing out, plus more, in a matter of a year or two. Our deficit will approach 2 trillion in one year, several times more than any annual deficit to date, and that is without any health care plan he might ramrod through that will add to the debt next year and beyond.

1 Reply

Back to a pertinent point for this thread, I think this Reagan quote is interesting:

"Fascism was really the basis of the New Deal."

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Back to a pertinent point for this thread, I think this Reagan quote is interesting:

"Fascism was really the basis of the New Deal."

Indeed:

Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention:

Quote:

Facts are stubborn things. ... Facts are stupid things - stubborn things, I should say.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie, I'm sure you won't be participating in social security and Medicare, because they are fascist programs. Or are you just another hypocrite who loves to jerk off here on a2k?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I'm confident you know Americans have to participate in--pay their tax money to--Social security and Medicare whether they draw any payments from them or not.

1 Reply

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know