20
   

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 10:02 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I voted for Obama, but I'm not waiting for anyone to give me anything. Do you honestly believe that's what Obama voters are doing?

Cycloptichorn

Obama's entire belief system is that we all must pitch in to give other people something, pay their way. It is clear he is pushing us backward toward some kind of European model of socialism or fascism, wherein the government dictates everything and will try to spread the wealth around and bring about social justice or equality of outcome.

Surely you know this, cyclops? Either you favor that, or you are an unknowing dupe? I think you are too smart to be unknowing, but I can't be sure.


Fascism? Not a single thing Obama has done or proposes doing has anything to do with the idea of Fascism, period. It's amazing to me that you could write that with a straight face, I dunno, maybe you're laughing on your end at the ridiculousness of it.

You state -

Quote:

Obama's entire belief system is that we all must pitch in to give other people something, pay their way.


To help those who need it, and receive help when we need it in turn. Yes. This is the belief of many of us, who understand that life means something larger than ourselves and our families. What you are describing (in a prejudiced fashion) is the viewpoint of people who are emotionally mature, and your viewpoint, I believe, is that of one who never truly reached emotional maturity; a viewpoint which is inherently self-centered.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 10:04 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
It is clear he is pushing us backward toward some kind of European model of socialism or fascism


I would think it is clear he is pushing us back toward some kind of middle eastern form of caring promoted by a Jew 2000 years ago before the Romans got wise to it and killed him.

Huh? If I read between the lines, if I understand your drift, I think you are very naive, parados, about what Jesus beliefs were, you are totally adrift in your conclusions about it. First of all, he was not a political person, his work was individual souls, not natural prosperity. And besides, anyone that attempts to twist our arms with religion to endorse their agenda, such as health care as Obama has hinted at, that is more than pathetic, it also shows a total lack of understanding. In fact, if you would know this, one of the reasons Judas betrayed Jesus is because he thought the ointment was a waste and should have been used to help the poor. He was rebuked and he was wrong, he also had no understanding about what was going on.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 10:10 am
@okie,
I'm glad that I don't live under okie's rule but in a country that clearly state's in it's constitution:
Quote:
Article 20 (1) The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 10:18 am
@okie,
okie wrote:


It is clear he is pushing us backward toward some kind of European model of socialism or fascism


Huh? If I read between the lines, if I understand your drift, I think you are very naive, okie, about what socialists and fascist beliefs were, you are totally adrift in your conclusions about it. And besides, anyone that attempts to twist our arms with changing meanings of words to endorse their agenda, such as opposition to health care as Obama has hinted at, that is more than pathetic, it also shows a total lack of understanding.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 10:25 am
@parados,
The problem with okie is his fundamental ignorance of what "socialism" means. He calls Europe "socialistic," but they are in fact democracies and capitalistic countries. The governments in Europe do not own commerce, nor are they headed by "communists."

I believe okie has the Eastern European countries that were once under Russian rule to conclude all of Europe is socialist today.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 11:18 am
With her permission, I am posting Foxfyre's post from her thread titled: "AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND," which generally agrees with my argument here, and emphasizes the differences between conservatism now vs what might have been considered so in history in other places:

Foxfyre wrote:

okie wrote:

Foxfyre, sorry to interrupt the conversation here for this note, and you may have read it, but on the Dicatator thread, I posted what I believe it is to be American and to be conservative, and just wonder what your comments would be? It is in response to the question of whether truly conservative philosophy could ever become totalitarian, and I make the case that the two are virtually incompatible, by virtue of the inherent beliefs of each:

http://able2know.org/topic/66117-78#post-3756376


Okie, I noticed on another thread that you didn't know what a MAC was. Well, MAC is an acronyn of Modern (meaning current definition) American Conservative which I had hoped to discuss on this thread. Our--'our' being those who agree with the definition and have helped develop it--defnition was adapted from Wiki's description of Classical Liberalism. But we have been using MAC because so few have a clue what classical liberalism is.

The extreme leftists and numbnuts can't seem to grasp the idea that MAC is simply a convenient way to write "modern American conservative' instead of having to type out the whole thing every time it is referenced. One of them even suggested it and I liked the idea.

Modern American Conservatism (MAC) is very close to Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1], laissez-faire liberalism[2], and market liberalism[3] or, outside the United States and Britain, sometimes simply liberalism.

Quote:
It is a doctrine stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others.

As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries. The "normative core" of MAC/classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society, though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited. The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish the term from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism .

MACs promote strong national defense and necessary regulation to prevent the citiziens/states from doing violence to each other, but are otherwise suspicious of all but the most minimal federal government necessary to perform its Constitutional mandates and object to most of a federal welfare state.


Now if you define 'conservative' as the old-style authoritarian conservatism that refused to reform or relinquish power of old totalitarian style governments, then yes, 'conservativism' can indeed produce a totalitarian state. If you define modern conservatism as quoted above--most especially the parts I have highlighted--then no, there is no way such conservatism would produce a totalitarian state.

For that reason I think it is important to distinguish the modern conservatism being promoted by modern conservatives from the old, narrow, tightly controlled conservatism of the past.

Some, like Walter for instance, and I have gone around and around on this as he cannot easily adjust to modern American conservatism being different from European conservatism or that modern American liberalism is something different from European liberalism.

And the naysayers and numbnuts on the thread won't even consider the modern definition and continue to ridicule it however accurate it might be. But many if not most liberals seem to be like that if their behavior on this thread is any guage of modern liberal thought. Smile

You may transfer this to your other thread if you wish.


Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 11:21 am
@okie,
just to be clear, this is Post-Bush conservatism, yes?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 11:25 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

Obama's entire belief system is that we all must pitch in to give other people something, pay their way.


To help those who need it, and receive help when we need it in turn. Yes. This is the belief of many of us, who understand that life means something larger than ourselves and our families. What you are describing (in a prejudiced fashion) is the viewpoint of people who are emotionally mature, and your viewpoint, I believe, is that of one who never truly reached emotional maturity; a viewpoint which is inherently self-centered.

Cycloptichorn

It is exactly the opposite. Grow up, cyclops, as every liberal needs to, and accept the responsibility, the freedom, the entire ideal of citizenship in a free state, where you respect the property and work of other people, and therefore do not demand that they pay for you. Charity is wonderful on a personal level, I endorse that, where it is done willingly out of charity, but forced charity leads to a totalitarian state and the loss of individual liberty and responsibility. I think you just do not understand the principles of liberty, or you simply don't accept them.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 11:30 am
@okie,
"I think you just do not understand the principles of liberty, or you simply don't accept them."

these principles are much different from the rules of fair play, are they not, Okie?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 11:38 am
@okie,
Quote:
I think you just do not understand the principles of liberty, or you simply don't accept them.


I do understand the principles of liberty; I suspect that you do not, or that you have changed the definition in your mind to something that supports your own personal greed and self-centered behavior.

Why do you keep saying:

Quote:
the entire ideal of citizenship in a free state, where you respect the property and work of other people, and therefore do not demand that they pay for you.


I'm not demanding that anyone pay for me, for anything. I don't need help. Yet, I am still a Liberal and I still support a system and a society in which we look out for each other, help when help is needed, and consider our country to be something a lot more than a collection of individuals who happen to live in the same place.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 12:50 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Yet, I am still a Liberal and I still support a system and a society in which we look out for each other, help when help is needed, and consider our country to be something a lot more than a collection of individuals who happen to live in the same place.

Cycloptichorn

I guess that doesn't include the poor baby that happened to survive the abortion, it is okay with you if he or she is killed and trashed. Thats what Obama voted for, and by virtue of your support of Obama, the guy that claims he cares about everyone, what a farce, cyclops. Liberalism is not about caring about other people, it is totally about power of the state, the state that you want to run, plain and simple. You know what, your lectures about caring about growing up and caring about other people, it rings very very hollow. Just as they do from every dictator that loves to talk about social justice. Its a farce, all in the name of power.
Walter Hinteler
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 12:59 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
Just as they do from every dictator that loves to talk about social justice. Its a farce, all in the name of power.


Well, as quoted: I live in a country which was founded on the idea of social justice, and thus has it in its constitution:
Quote:
Article 20 [Basic institutional principles; defense of the constitutional order]

(1) The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state.


So you think, okie, that such is a farce.
Can I interpret you above that according to your definitions and ideas I live in a dictatorship?

For eternity that would be:

Quote:
Article 79 [Amendment of the Basic Law]

(3) Amendments to this Basic Law affecting the division of the Federation into Länder, their participation on principle in the legislative process, or the principles laid down in Articles 1 and 20 shall be inadmissible.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 12:59 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Yet, I am still a Liberal and I still support a system and a society in which we look out for each other, help when help is needed, and consider our country to be something a lot more than a collection of individuals who happen to live in the same place.

Cycloptichorn

I guess that doesn't include the poor baby that happened to survive the abortion, it is okay with you if he or she is killed and trashed. Thats what Obama voted for, and by virtue of your support of Obama, the guy that claims he cares about everyone, what a farce, cyclops. Liberalism is not about caring about other people, it is totally about power of the state, the state that you want to run, plain and simple. You know what, your lectures about caring about growing up and caring about other people, it rings very very hollow. Just as they do from every dictator that loves to talk about social justice. Its a farce, all in the name of power.


Don't change the subject to a different hobby-horse of yours, Okie, just because you find yourself on indefensible ground. It's a poor debate tactic.

It's quite obvious that your prime motivating phrase could be summed up as:

Quote:
I don't give a **** for anyone besides me and my immediate family, the rest can sink or swim for all I care. Oh yeah, Capitalism rules, plus, we should be aggressive against other nations, and let's keep cutting taxes until everything collapses.


Don't bring up the plight of unborn babies as if it some sort of moral defense for your greed, Okie. You don't give two shits for that baby. I mean that. You don't care if they live or die. You might complain about abortion, but you then fight tooth and nail against anything which could help that person for the rest of their life, if it costs you a single cent. Your rhetoric is so contradictory on this issue, it's not even funny.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:02 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
They are full of contradictions and bull ****. They try to bring in morals, but when it comes to caring for others, they see that as socialism. There's no cure for stupid!
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 02:57 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Get lost. If you actually knew what I personally know by experience about adoption and babies surviving when they were born at less than 6 months, not only my family but friends, you would hang your head in shame. This is an issue close to me, and I do not take it lightly. Life is sacred, and don't forget it.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 03:05 pm
@okie,
you lie.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 03:25 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Get lost. If you actually knew what I personally know by experience about adoption and babies surviving when they were born at less than 6 months, not only my family but friends, you would hang your head in shame. This is an issue close to me, and I do not take it lightly. Life is sacred, and don't forget it.


Well, just now our neighbour is here - the head physican of one of our states largest children hospitals.

He thinks, you perhaps don't know why a pregnancy lasts nine months.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 03:27 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Okay wise one, tell us why it lasts 9 months? And if born before 9 months, what then?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 03:28 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Get lost. If you actually knew what I personally know by experience about adoption and babies surviving when they were born at less than 6 months, not only my family but friends, you would hang your head in shame. This is an issue close to me, and I do not take it lightly. Life is sacred, and don't forget it.


So, when is that magical moment when you stop giving a ****? When you decide that no more money of yours should go to helping that person, period, because that's not the 'American way?'

Your rhetoric has contradictions in it. Why is the life of a baby worth protecting, but the life of an adult is not?

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 03:35 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I care, but it also means that people should care for themselves. Even birds kick the birds out of the nest to fly, but only after they nurtured the eggs and fed the babies before they were on their own. I am not opposed to helping people, in fact quite familiar with it, in fact Americans are very charitable, especially Republicans, but I think it is not the responsibility of government to rob one person to give it to another, to the extreme. That is not what freedom and liberty is about. Millions gave their lives for freedom, and I have not given up on it, maybe you have?

P. S. I am okay with government helping in the most dire of cases, along with private charities pitching in, as well as families helping families, but that is far far different than seeking to level the playing field, to make people equal.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 07:43:25