Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

clark · 2005-06-22 11:16:57

But hey, if you want to keep believing that Nazism is conservative I can't stop you. Here's the water, the rest is up to you.

I didn’t say I believed that Nazism is conservative. It blatantly is not.

I think you’re missing the forest for the trees here.

The general conception proffered by those who compare the rise of Bush’s geo-politcal whatever it is to that of Nazism is not to compare actual policy, but to highlight the similarities of how a small political viewpoint, becoming elected, uses their platform to make wide sweeping changes over the majority and minority and claim these changes are the will of the people as expressed by their mandate in electing the small political viewpoint.

The comparison can be made with any political persepective that engages in the same behavior, be it communism, conservatism, or liberalism. Your comparison of the Nazism to communism to whatever it is you were trying misses the point completely. You effectively are spinning your wheels and not saying anything at all.

I’ll drink, just lead. Dam it.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-22 11:41:42

The general conception proffered by those who compare the rise of Bush’s geo-politcal whatever it is to that of Nazism is not to compare actual policy, but to highlight the similarities of how a small political viewpoint, becoming elected, uses their platform to make wide sweeping changes over the majority and minority and claim these changes are the will of the people as expressed by their mandate in electing the small political viewpoint.

That's part of it in this case, but I'm not referring only to the Bush Administration. What I'm addressing is the longstanding tactic among leftists to brand conservatives as Nazis. It's indicative of a dangerous self-delusion. Almost Nazi-like, one could say. :;):

Your comparison of the Nazism to communism to whatever it is you were trying misses the point completely. You effectively are spinning your wheels and not saying anything at all.

What I'm saying is this: Communism is seen by the modern Left as progressive despite it's evils. It's viewed as a flawed but forward-looking idea based on factors of social justice. They view Nazism as a reactionary, right-wing ultra-conservative movement, a polar opposite of their own beliefs.

Only upon examination, Nazism and communism are damn close. Much of the Nazi leadership came from the Left. Domestic policies were very similar.

I'm simply stating that the heritage of modern conservatism goes back well before Nazism or Communism existed. Modern liberalism as well as neo-conservatism on the other hand are descended from the same radical thought that spawned communism and Nazism. So when Libs get into a frothing rage over neo-con policies it makes soooo much more sense when one realises it's essentially the same thing as Catholic vs. Protestant in Ireland or Shia vs. Sunni across the MidEast. The greatest hate is saved for the opponent most like you.

Libs and neo-cons are more like each other than anything else and both are more like Nazism than conservatism.

Grypd · 2005-06-22 11:48:06

The simularity between Nazism and Communism are very striking, Im with CC on this they are very close except on certain key points.

And Nazism was an extreme version of fascism in the first place. Actually it can be said that Nazism is closer to Communism as was expoused by Stalin than to Fascism from Mussolinis view point.

The only difference I see is that Communism was to spread and promote its ideal everywhere and Fascism/Nazism was to just keep it dedicated to the country it came from.

So where Nazism/Fascism promoted its country Communism tended to denigrate its country.

Palomar · 2005-06-22 11:50:24

*Another thing I'd like to say.

I'm tired of the individual American taxpayer being guilt-induced into feeling everything our politicians do is entirely our fault somehow.

The election process is largely a joke anyway. "It's not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes." How many of the people "voted into" office really were?

When I went to the polling booth in 2000 (voted for Al Gore), I voted my conscience. He didn't win. I've certainly voted on the State (and local) levels as well. How am I supposed to know what these people WILL do once they are in office? I'm not psychic...neither are most people, I'm sure.

Yeah, it's important to speak up/out and let the powers that be know our opinions. And then they'll toss it into File 13.

We're essentially powerless, if not outright powerless. I've faced that. I don't like it, but that's reality as it currently stands.

Once people get into power, they'll do what they want. They don't care if we don't like it.

So speak up...then put up. That seems to be the drill.

It seems the Talking Heads (who contradict one another endlessly...who knows what's really going on half the time?) want to make "the little person" feel ultimately responsible and accountable. No, it's the people in power who are to blame.

Go to vote, the election process is screwed up quite a bit, someone gets elected (wrongly or based on fraud), they screw up, blame the voter.

Sorry: Not currently accepting guilt induction.

~~The Mouse

clark · 2005-06-22 11:53:16

That's part of it in this case, but I'm not referring only to the Bush Administration. What I'm addressing is the longstanding tactic among leftists to brand conservatives as Nazis. It's indicative of a dangerous self-delusion. Almost Nazi-like, one could say.

Much like he Conservatives branding liberals pinko-yeller-belli-commies. In that sense, they are both similar. :laugh:

What I'm saying is this: Communism is seen by the modern Left as progressive despite it's evils.

Nuts to that. Maybe your take on it, but most of the liberals I know are for free speech, free love, and freedom of religion. Liberalism, as I know it, is about progressive change that seeks to expand freedoms and equality among all peoples. It seeks to undo outmoded laws that inhibit personal freedom.

Conservatism on the other hand is about maintaining the status quo, plain and simple. It is about entrenching the idealized values of a dead past that are largely irrelevant.

So of course there is conflict between the two camps as one dreams of yesterday and how good we had it, while the other dreams of tomorrow and how much better we can make it.

Liberalism looks to improve the freedom and opportunity and choice of individuals within society, using social constructs to help enable that mobility for individual progress and improvement. Conservatism is all about you doing it on your own, and don’t bother me with you crap.

I'm simply stating that the heritage of modern conservatism goes back well before Nazism or Communism existed.

Liberalism has always existed- it is forward progress. It isn’t tied to any one ideology. Conservatism has always existed- it is maintaining a static world view. It isn’t tied to any one ideology.

I get what you’re trying to say, but I still think you have it all backwards.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-22 11:53:43

And Nazism was an extreme version of fascism in the first place. Actually it can be said that Nazism is closer to Communism as was expoused by Stalin than to Fascism from Mussolinis view point.

Exactly right. One could even go so far as to label Stalin's policies as less Marxist/Leninist and more National Socialist.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-22 12:05:44

Liberalism looks to improve the freedom and opportunity and choice of individuals within society, using social constructs to help enable that mobility for individual progress and improvement.

Now you're getting it. Modern American liberalism may espouse free speech and removing restraints on personal freedom, yet they're the first to condemn anyone who offends their sensibilities. No argument, no defeating the idea, just attacking and demanding they be silenced. Our present PC speech codes, a Leftist product. Personal freedom except when it's against the social good as we define it is the fine print. Who runs around banning smoking, demanding ever-increasing safety regulation for the "common good", and constantly interfering with the health and lifestyle of other people? Predominantly, it's the Left. Social constructs to enable individual progress, that's another good one. Individual progress stemming from a "social construct", a state apparatus is a sham and incidentally, a characteristic common to both communism and nazism.

The Modern Left, like their bastard cousins, talk a good game to their intended audience but the underlying ideas about achieving those ends just don't work and spread a great deal of misery in the process of failing.

Liberalism has always existed- it is forward progress. It isn’t tied to any one ideology. Conservatism has always existed- it is maintaining a static world view. It isn’t tied to any one ideology.

Just for clarity, I refer to "liberalism" and "conservatism" as they exist today, a specific set of principles with a traceable lineage.

clark · 2005-06-22 12:20:11

:laugh:

No argument, no defeating the idea, just attacking and demanding they be silenced. Our present PC speech codes, a Leftist product. Personal freedom except when it's against the social good as we define it is the fine print.

And Conservatism is any different? Personal freedom except when it goes against the social good as defined by them, all int he fine print!

Who runs around banning smoking, demanding ever-increasing safety regulation for the "common good", and constantly interfering with the health and lifestyle of other people? Predominantly, it's the Left.

Abortion? Gay Marriage? Crimilization of drugs? Mandatory jail terms? It ain't the Left my friend. Face it, both beasts are two sides of the same coin. One says we wants it the ways it waz cause its waz better. The other says we wants it better because the way it waz sucked.

Both use a social construct, and the various ideologies are merely a mixture of the two competing forces of status quo and progression. That's why your comparisons are backwards, you can't make that kind of comparison because liberalism and conservatism are the fundamental bedrock of all ideologies.

The Modern Left, like their bastard cousins, talk a good game to their intended audience but the underlying ideas about achieving those ends just don't work and spread a great deal of misery in the process of failing.

And the Modern Right is just as full of it. We've been down that road. Read about life prior and during the great depression. The Rural American experience no longer applies. Most American's are strangers to one another, and strangers need greater oversight to enforce accountability.

It's probably why you want to go to Mars.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-22 12:45:03

And Conservatism is any different? Personal freedom except when it goes against the social good as defined by them, all int he fine print!

Two points though. First, a true conservative doesn't much care what someone does on their own. They may not approve of it, they may even speak out against it (that free speech thing) but they don't legislate it. Sure, some religious nuts banned drugs and alcohol in the early 20th century. Legislating to save souls is not conservative in the American tradition.

You call my approach backwards because you can cite exceptions based on your perception. I maintain that your approach is backwards because you don't classify thouroughly. Conservatism is this because that's what I hear. Liberalism is this becasue that's what I believe. Either way, it's no loss to me.

Abortion? Gay Marriage? Crimilization of drugs? Mandatory jail terms?

Abortion was not banned by anyone. It had always been taboo and prohibited until judges overstepped their bounds. Gay Marriage? It has never existed. Conservatives oppose creating it out of respect for traditional relations and their place in society along with concerns for the social effects. Convince people it should be otherwise, but to accuse people of some act when you're the one trying to change things is a little screwy. Drugs I already mentioned. Everyone seems to agree that criminals should go to jail, disputes over how to sentence are a sideshow really and cross too many political lines to track.

Both use a social construct, and the various ideologies are merely a mixture of the two competing forces of status quo and progression.

Progress as defined by whom? Change occurs under any political system. Progress is merely a result of the passage of time. However the Left has taken to refer to any change they support as progress while any they don't is moving backward and the work of "conservatives".

Incidentally, I'm not nor have I claimed to be a conservative. You can step back the offensive, I have no vested interest here. Just a taxonomic exercise.

And the Modern Right is just as full of it. We've been down that road.

Which is part of my point. The modern Right, at least the variety currently in the spotlight, is a close relative of the modern American Left. That's why Pat Buchanan is out there bashing Bush almost as much as Howard Dean is.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1119465927

clark · 2005-06-22 14:35:29

I remain unconvinced. :laugh:

Palomar · 2005-06-22 14:40:29

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050622/us_ … orce_dc]Oh sure

*Unfortunate, unwanted experience tells me otherwise.

A team from Yale Divinity School said in April it found evangelical Christian proselytizing commonplace at the academy, which has about 4,400 students, and cited "stridently evangelical themes" by staff. The team described a campus chaplain telling cadets they would "burn in the fires of hell" if they were not born-again Christians.

Reminds me of a bumpersticker I've seen: It's your Hell; YOU burn in it!

The watchdog group Americans United for Separation of Church and State released an April report detailing allegations that academy instructors proselytized in classrooms and that senior cadets harassed non-Christian junior cadets over religious beliefs.

No. Not them.

And there's yet another matter they need to deal with.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-23 10:35:00

Word of http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm … 73080]this was just relayed to me.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court upheld a ruling that New London, Connecticut, can seize the homes and businesses owned by seven families for a development project that will complement a nearby research facility by the Pfizer Inc. drug company.

WTF?

The residents opposed the plans to raze their homes and businesses to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. They argued that it amounted to an unconstitutional taking of their property.
(Supreme Court Justice) Stevens said the proposal by the families that the court adopt a bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic.

Previous statements against armed uprising may have been premature.

:angry:

BWhite · 2005-06-23 10:42:25

Word of http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm … 73080]this was just relayed to me.
By a 5-4 vote, the high court upheld a ruling that New London, Connecticut, can seize the homes and businesses owned by seven families for a development project that will complement a nearby research facility by the Pfizer Inc. drug company.
WTF?
The residents opposed the plans to raze their homes and businesses to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. They argued that it amounted to an unconstitutional taking of their property.
(Supreme Court Justice) Stevens said the proposal by the families that the court adopt a bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic.
Previous statements against armed uprising may have been premature.
:angry:

I have been aware of this issue for a few years.

I admit gets damn annoying when someone owning 1/10th of an acre smack in the middle of a prime 100 acre parcel refuses to sell.

But, as a question of political philosophy I would favor a "bright line" rule that opportunity for economic development is NOT sufficient by itself to justify taking by eminent domain.

= = =

Edit to add: <snark> These municipal powers are mostly favored by wealthy land developers - - not lib'rals. :;):

Edited By BWhite on 1119545046

reddragon · 2005-06-23 10:45:46

Cobra Commander, you're comparing true Conservatism with actual Liberalism. You should compare either both in their "true" forms or both in their actual forms. True conservatism, I would say, is about keeping things as they are, especially where they work fine, and being skeptical of hasty change. True liberalism is about advancing and beleiving that we can always make things better than they are now. Both have good points, and either philosophy taken alone fails utterly. You need a balance of each, although in my view a bit more of liberalism. This way you move forward, but you're careful not to really screw things up in the process. Groups in modern politics that call themselves "liberal" or "conservatives" both make some good points and have some good people but are represented by disproportionate numbers of nutcases. I'm sure most of the individuals are more or less normal, decent people, the crazy ones make the biggest stories and they're always the ones that the other side points to. Also it should be noted that while political philosophies can have liberal and conservative elements, basic Liberalism or Conservatism are not political philosophies like Nazism, Communism, Fascism, or for that matter Democrat or Republican.

reddragon · 2005-06-23 10:55:01

Word of this was just relayed to me.
Quote
By a 5-4 vote, the high court upheld a ruling that New London, Connecticut, can seize the homes and businesses owned by seven families for a development project that will complement a nearby research facility by the Pfizer Inc. drug company.

WTF?
Quote
The residents opposed the plans to raze their homes and businesses to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. They argued that it amounted to an unconstitutional taking of their property.
(Supreme Court Justice) Stevens said the proposal by the families that the court adopt a bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic.

Previous statements against armed uprising may have been premature.
:angry:

Use of land by a private company has never seemed to me the intention of eminent domain. I would even consider that we should pass an amendment clarifying that land may only be taken for public use. Taking land from one private owner and giving it to another should not be the right of the government. It is also a violation of capitalist principles since the gov. is favoring one company rather than letting them compete freely. This is especially true when land is taken from one company and given to another with the lame excuse that the new one will create more jobs.

Locke wrote "life, liberty, and property;" but Jefferson changed it to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I like the pursuit of happiness, but the omission of property is coming back to bite us.

clark · 2005-06-23 11:03:13

So if a group of people buy all of Mars (just go with me on this), they should not be required nor compelled to sell their property, even if doing so results in more people gaining access and developing it into something more useful for a greater number of people?

Palomar · 2005-06-23 11:09:21

*Thank you, Justice O'Connor:

O'Connor, who has often been a key swing vote at the court, issued a stinging dissent, arguing that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

The Yahoo! article says she "assailed" the ruling. :up:

We really are going full-circle: Serfs (taxpayers) to the nobles (wealthy/corporations).

--Cindy

reddragon · 2005-06-23 11:16:47

Buying all of Mars would be like buying all of Earth, or at least all the public property. Theoretically possible, as long as people are willing to sell, but ridiculously impossible. No one can buy any land on Mars until there are governments set up to control it. Someone could plant a flag and say my gov controls Mars and I own it all. But for that gov to be legitimate it must actually exert control over all of Mars, govern the people there, be accepted by them, and address local problems all over the planet. Otherwise people will just settle. Realistically you'll have to deal with multiple governments, and with each individual property owner in each settlement, who may or may not want to sell.

Or think of it this way. If you buy all of Mars, you have to send people there to keep out tresspassers. And they need land to live on.

I think a claim system should be established for Mars limiting how much land an individual or a settlement can control. Each settlement increases the amount of the land that is controlled by regular private property laws. All the rest is noone's until someone starts living there.

BWhite · 2005-06-23 11:28:20

So if a group of people buy all of Mars (just go with me on this), they should not be required nor compelled to sell their property, even if doing so results in more people gaining access and developing it into something more useful for a greater number of people?

If there government is illegitimate the deeds are void and we can do what we want. Anyone think property conveyed by Saddam remains recognized in Iraq?

= = =

Clarify: As a matter of public policy, land condemnation (eminent domain) based "solely" on economic development grounds should not be legal in my opinion.

Edited By BWhite on 1119547801

Grypd · 2005-06-23 11:33:27

A Corporate Democracy..... :hm:

Power by vote of shares.

Still Lockes life, liberty and property was an attempt to create a society seperate from the Feudal property and legal systems that where then current.

How would an authority be created that would have by the definition the power to grant ownership plots of land on Mars etc. Historically it has always been by a goverment that has the capability to defend that land that has given this power.

If there is no such authority so created then it comes down to the semi legal "I own it" therefore I can sell it that these companies offering plots as gimmicks do. In that case better start buying as they are the legal authority.

But im sure one day some country or group will make it to Mars and start heavy settlement and will be taken to court by someone who has claimed the land from Earth.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-23 11:34:50

have been aware of this issue for a few years.

Yeah, it's been an issue for awhile now but thanks to these Supreme asshats we've got precedent now. It just makes me want to beat these people with a rolled up copy of the Constitution. Now that would be good public use.

Cobra Commander, you're comparing true Conservatism with actual Liberalism. You should compare either both in their "true" forms or both in their actual forms.

The problem here is that we have words meaning multiple things. What I'm referring to is Modern American Liberalism (big L, or "MAL") and Modern American Conservatism (big C or "MAC"). MAC is a minority now, with neo-conservatism taking lead of the Republican Party. Neo-con is a bastard cousin of MAL.

MAL, it's an acronym for us and a warning for the unassimilated Mexican immig rants the philosophy is unconcerned with.

The point being that MAL or MAC, despite being labeled simply as Liberal or Conservative are in fact specific ideologies. When an American says they're a liberal it means specific things, not just that they like progress.

Again, I'm not really trying to argue anything so much as classify things according to their actual characteristics rather than an arbitray Left-Right scale based on assumptions and misconceptions. Bush's Neo-Conservatism and the Liberalism of his critics are members of the same Genus, and both are in the same Family as Nazism and Communism. MAC type conservatism is just in the same Phylum.

We really are going full-circle: Serfs (taxpayers) to the nobles (wealthy/corporations).

I have this vague memory of reading where this usually goes before. ???

Grypd · 2005-06-23 11:43:02

have been aware of this issue for a few years.
Yeah, it's been an issue for awhile now but thanks to these Supreme asshats we've got precedent now. It just makes me want to beat these people with a rolled up copy of the Constitution. Now that would be good public use.

Interesting point to add, Just what does the constitution actually protect. It only has as much power and protection as those in charge are willing to let it happen. And how much they can get away with.

Much better to have a basis on a common law. (Vaque plug to own countries system )

Still have to consider locking and replacing this thread.

Palomar · 2005-06-23 11:46:53

*Should I say this?

The corporations call the shots in D.C.

Why didn't I stop to think the corporations might also call the shots with the Supreme Court?

Justice Scalia is a good, close friend of Dubya...fishing trips and the like.

It's certainly scary when rapaciousness becomes this obvious and bold.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-23 11:49:34

Still have to consider locking and replacing this thread.

Soon. . . Soon. <looks around shiftily>

Interesting point to add, Just what does the constitution actually protect. It only has as much power and protection as those in charge are willing to let it happen. And how much they can get away with.

It doesn't really protect anything. It tells the government specifically what things each branch of it is allowed to do and nothing else is within their authority.

Problem is, for a very long time they've been over-reaching their authority and no one much called them on it.

The ol' tree of liberty that Jefferson talked about is gettin' a little thirsty.

Much better to have a basis on a common law. (Vaque plug to own countries system )

Each has its pitfalls. Many of them shared.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1119549100

BWhite · 2005-06-23 12:01:55

Justice Scalia is a good, close friend of Dubya...fishing trips and the like.

And Dick Cheney:

Quack! Quack!

:;):

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#276 2005-06-22 11:16:57

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#277 2005-06-22 11:41:42

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#278 2005-06-22 11:48:06

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#279 2005-06-22 11:50:24

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#280 2005-06-22 11:53:16

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#281 2005-06-22 11:53:43

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#282 2005-06-22 12:05:44

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#283 2005-06-22 12:20:11

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#284 2005-06-22 12:45:03

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#285 2005-06-22 14:35:29

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#286 2005-06-22 14:40:29

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#287 2005-06-23 10:35:00

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#288 2005-06-23 10:42:25

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#289 2005-06-23 10:45:46

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#290 2005-06-23 10:55:01

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#291 2005-06-23 11:03:13

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#292 2005-06-23 11:09:21

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#293 2005-06-23 11:16:47

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#294 2005-06-23 11:28:20

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#295 2005-06-23 11:33:27

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#296 2005-06-23 11:34:50

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#297 2005-06-23 11:43:02

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#298 2005-06-23 11:46:53

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#299 2005-06-23 11:49:34

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#300 2005-06-23 12:01:55

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

Board footer