Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on December 24, 2001, 06:17:00 PM
-
I assume tthat we all feel the extremists at both ends of the political spectrum are wackos. My question is:
Who is more dangerous, right wing wackos, or left wing wackos?
-
Yes?
-
Whichever is closer to achieving their goals at the given time.
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
Whichever is closer to achieving their goals at the given time.
ooOOOoo, good one!
-
Wit of the week right there dude: great answer Karnak.
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
Wit of the week right there dude: great answer Karnak.
Didn't realize the sleigh came with a laptop.
:D
-
There can be No Left with out a Right... eh?
Its America's internal check and balance. God help us when if we lose one or the other.
xBAT
-
the left as a matter of history has visited far more terror on the world then the right.
Also the National Socialist German Workers Party was hardly "rightwing" in modern political terms. It simply replaced "class struggle" with "racial struggle".
But I assume you all knew that.......
Nice Christmas Eve troll.........
-
Originally posted by Wotan:
Also the National Socialist German Workers Party was hardly "rightwing" in modern political terms. It simply replaced "class struggle" with "racial struggle".
But I assume you all knew that.......
Actually, from a modern political science point of view. Both the Nazi and Fascist parties would be considered far right wing.
That's part of the reason Hitler had such a hate on for the Russians. He considered them to be left wing.
That's okay though, because this brings us to a lefty dictator that slaughtered millions, Stalin.
But it's not terribly relevent. The left/right polical scale is problably better discribe as a horseshoe shape, as opposed to a straight line. With the extemist starting to meet at the top. Once you get extreme enough, left and right don't apply. Words like sociopath an psychopath do.
[ 12-24-2001: Message edited by: Thrawn ]
-
Thrawn ya dont what talkin about.
Hitler didnt like russians because they were slavs. He didn't like communisn/bolshevism. because he viewed it as Jewish in origan.
Facism defined is a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
Hardly rightwing.
The doctrines of the National Socialist German Workers' Party in the Third German Reich included the totalitarian principle of government, state control of all industry, Aryan racial superiority.
Hardly "right-wing"
Modern right-wing politics have to do with a de-centralized government.
Too long to post.
Go read Mein Kempf and read about the founders of the NSDAP. Socialism isn't just a catch phrase thrown in to confuse ya.
National Socialism put race above the class struggle but never-the-less was stilled routed in left-wing socialist ideology.
You really oughta know what your talking about before you make ignorant statements.
The modern left equates Hitler and Nazism with modern right-wing politics to demonize them.
Communisn and National socialism are in conflict over the communist belief in equalitarianism where as National Socialism claims Aryan Superiority.
You watch too much network news.
also you might want read about economic policy in german and italy during NSDAP and the fascists reign.
again hardly rightwing.
[ 12-24-2001: Message edited by: Wotan ]
-
Hitler was a fascist.He was extreem right wing.Stalin was a Communist.He was extreem left wing.Come on Wotan,this is grade 7 history discussion.
-
Nazism and Communism are the same, 100% the same except the public face and propaganda, from the start the ONLY goal was to seize power and control over people. They were both evil.
In the USA the left wing extremists are far more dangerous since they are embraced by many people and currently have a stranglehold on college campuses. Right wing extremists, like white-supremacists are shunned and ridiculed by the masses, while left wing extremists like Jesse Jackson and his ever eager lapdog twit Al Sharpton are lauded as public heroes. Yes JJ is an extremist who practices racial politics, which BTW is whar "racism" is. JJ is a racist no less so than David Duke or whoever right winf neo-nazi you see on TV.
The left wing whackos are very dangerous because they still have legitimacy, the pontentially truly dangerous right wing whackos dont have it now.
And yes, our exhaulted PCites, I admit to being the racist antichirst demon encarnate because I said bad things about that two bit extortionist scam artist Jesse Jackson.
Sometimes I almost cry because they took a real man, Martin Luther King Jr., away from us and left us with his nitwit asskisser lackey Jesse.
Karnak has the right idead here, and it very much applies now.
[ 12-25-2001: Message edited by: GRUNHERZ ]
-
And thats exactly tre problem Sir Loin, grade 7 history in schools. Im 21 years old and I attended one of the best High Schools in California, half the students could barely identify around which decade WW2 occured.
Communism and Nazism very much same except for the propaganda angle. Both bad. Both kill millions both defeated globally. Though one still survives on USA colleges and Berkely and a few other places, go figure huh?
-
right wing
n.
The conservative or reactionary faction of a group.
con·ser·va·tive (kn-sūrv-tv)
adj.
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
left wing also Left Wing
n.
The liberal or radical faction of a group.
lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Which sounds more like Hitler?
-
Oh brother.
This is such a handsomehunk stupid discussion that it wonders me why someone would take it seriously.
-
The "traditional" Western view on "communism" is a result of political conflict that started in late-40s, and an exact adoption of nazi propaganda methods and slogans.
95% of Westerners I had pleasure to talk to didn't have a slightest idea of what "communism" is.
Again: I am not a communist, and will never vote for commies.
-
Originally posted by Tah Gut:
I assume tthat we all feel the extremists at both ends of the political spectrum are wackos. My question is:
Who is more dangerous, right wing wackos, or left wing wackos?
The political spectrum is a circle, Fascists and Communists are similar in their methods.
In the USA, terrorism is more often committed by right wing wackos then left wing wackos. Right wing wackos are more often heavily armed and likely to feel their violent actions are justified by God, like the Taliban.
-
Hmmm left wing whackos commint way more terrorism than people ever hear about. You see the left biased media isnt all that keen on reporting when some left wing environment nazis blow things up or kill people, and belive you me they've got some "religious" type whacko justifications too, just like the Taliban.
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
95% of Westerners I had pleasure to talk to didn't have a slightest idea of what "communism" is.
Well, that may be the case, but you did not talk to me :). And believe me, I do know what it is and how bad it stinks.
But, hey, don't trust me, ask the Combodians, the victorious Vietnamese, happy Chinese, extatic Cubans etc. BTW, what do the Russians say?
On the other hand, maybe I should be greatful, after all, the commies chased me out of my home, and I wound up in the USA. Could not imagine a better "happy ending".
God Bless The USA.
[ 12-25-2001: Message edited by: mietla ]
-
Thrawn,
Give me a hand here... I was out late at a party and my scotch-fogged mind can't categorize very well yet.
Does the classification of any non-Aryan as a "lower class" of human being fall under "Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change" or does it fit better under "Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas"?<EDITED to correct bolding>
And if you then decide to ruthlessly exterminate non-Aryans by mass murder... men, women, children, grandmothers and all... would that be "favoring traditional values" or "not limiting yourself to established traditional views or dogmas"?
Sorry, just in a bit of a haze here.
[ 12-25-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
hehehe Right on Toad. Again we are into a "fact" vs liberally educated "opinion" argument ... unwinable (is that a word?) by either side.
Back to the original question, the most dangerous faction is the one that will not sit down with their opponents, and listen to them while attempting to work out a compromise.
I think it was a true statement "that a fair compromise is one that leaves both sides unhappy"
-
Sirloin, thrawn ya dont what your talking about I can fill a 10,000 post with direct quotes from Adolf Hitler and the founding Nazis.
read CHAPTER XII: THE FIRST STAGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GERMAN NATIONAL SOCIALIST LABOUR PARTY of Mein Kempf.
The NSDAP was originally called the German Labor/Workers (german word Arbeiter) Party. All the early Nazis were socialists and had great contempt for the "rightwing". Look at the economic policies during that time frame.
You are simply regurgitating the same leftwing crap you've been spoon fed from leftwing educators and hollywood.
Socialism is a staple of the leftwing.
plain and simple.
Hitler ended up recieving support from rightwing conservatives and industrialists in Germany because at that time is was a choice between communists and Nazis and at that time Nazism was preferable to communism.
Anton Drexler ever here of him?
Karl Harrer or him? (journalist btw)
Gottfried Feder or him?
Your right boroda all of us westerners bought into nazi propaganda communism was really good for your country. :rolleyes:
This is a post that will soon degenerate into a flame war so I have to step away from it.
The National (which means racial nation) Socialist German (means state) Arbeiter (worker/laboror) Party.
pretty left wing incomparison to modern rightwing politics.
edit
Montezuma
dont label extremism or fanaticism as rightwing or leftwing it simply doesn't apply. Nuts are nuts. sorry Nuttz or scruu :)
[ 12-25-2001: Message edited by: Wotan ]
-
Please excuse the edit.
Instead of resorting to sarcasm, I've decide to reiterate what I posted earilier. As, I believe it is something most of us here are agreeing to.
It's not terribly relevent. The left/right polical scale is problably better discribed as a horseshoe shape, as opposed to a straight line. With the extemist starting to meet at the top. Once you get extreme enough, left and right don't apply. Words like sociopath an psychopath do.
[ 12-25-2001: Message edited by: Thrawn ]
-
Yer right.
Ya shoulda quit right there.
:D
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Yer right.
Ya shoulda quit right there.
:D
:D
-
Here Here Thrawn..Well said.!!!Grun also makes a good point..will have to research...Hmm,Chapters has banned the sales of Mein Kempf in Canada.I'm glad they are looking out for me as I might read and form my own opinion.Censorship sux!!! :mad:
-
Originally posted by Tah Gut:
I assume tthat we all feel the extremists at both ends of the political spectrum are wackos. My question is:
Who is more dangerous, right wing wackos, or left wing wackos?
both are "extremes"
but the most "dangerous" group are the ones in the middle sitting around with their thumbs up their arse doing and standing for nothing.
-
but the most "dangerous" group are the ones in the middle sitting around with their thumbs up their arse doing and standing for nothing.
That is the most enlightened comment in the thread.
Well said eagler.
I find it very interesting that this became a debate on which end of the spectrum the wackos of history should be categorized. Those of you I tend to lable conservative mainly argued that Hitler was left of center, while the liberals insisted he was a right winger. Both seem to agree that Stalin falls to the left.
I also have always understood the Fascists to be righties and the Communists leftie. This designation comes not from propaganda established by Hitler, but from coverage of the Spanish Civil War if I remember correctly.
Grunherz had a good point when he said the Lefties may be more dangerous because the Righties have lost legitimacy.
My next question is why? I know why the right wing wackos have lost power and legitimacy, their beliefs are hateful to certain segments of our population and obviously bad. Why hasn't this same thing occurred to the Left? Or has it? Can the media really sell us on something that is obviously wrong? Who on the left is as dangerous or crazy as reactionary groups like the KKK, American NAZI party etc.?
Al Sharpton-Certifiable Wacko, but dangerous?
Jesse Jackson - Once stood for something, now stands for the best publicity opportunity, but dangerous?
Jewish Defense League - Might have one there, these guys have been known to be violent.
Any more?
-
Originally posted by Tah Gut:
That is the most enlightened comment in the thread.
Well said eagler.
I find it very interesting that this became a debate on which end of the spectrum the wackos of history should be categorized. Those of you I tend to lable conservative mainly argued that Hitler was left of center, while the liberals insisted he was a right winger. Both seem to agree that Stalin falls to the left.
I also have always understood the Fascists to be righties and the Communists leftie. This designation comes not from propaganda established by Hitler, but from coverage of the Spanish Civil War if I remember correctly.
Grunherz had a good point when he said the Lefties may be more dangerous because the Righties have lost legitimacy.
My next question is why? I know why the right wing wackos have lost power and legitimacy, their beliefs are hateful to certain segments of our population and obviously bad. Why hasn't this same thing occurred to the Left? Or has it? Can the media really sell us on something that is obviously wrong? Who on the left is as dangerous or crazy as reactionary groups like the KKK, American NAZI party etc.?
Al Sharpton-Certifiable Wacko, but dangerous?
Jesse Jackson - Once stood for something, now stands for the best publicity opportunity, but dangerous?
Jewish Defense League - Might have one there, these guys have been known to be violent.
Any more?
My uncle is a logger in Louisiana, 2nd largest logging company in the state. He can tell you about how dangerous the leftist tree rights groups are. He almost died one day when his chainsaw hit a spike put there by some environMENTAL group. The saw kicked back, took off the tip of his nose and burried itself into his left arm all the way to the bone. He was in the hostpital for months, he almost died the day it happened, and then he lost his business because of the long hostpital stay. (this was about 15 yrs ago) Worst thing about the whole thing is that he was cutting trees that my great uncle had planted about 25 to 30 yrs before when his (my uncle's uncle) logging company cut the same field. Oh wait, the property was owned by my family too! The really bad part is that they still find spikes to this day.
Basicly I think that any group that turns to "non-political" or violent means when they don't get "their way" is dangerous. I also think that most of these groups tend to be left leaning. Look back over the past 30 years in America and tell me where most of the violence has come from. I can think of 2 instance of violence by our government against "left wing" groups, kent state university and the '68 democratic convention in Chicago. I can think of 2 instances of violence by our governement against "right wing" groups, Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Now we had all these skin head/ neo-nazi groups back in the 80's but there violence tended to be against individual community leaders and to be honest I don't remember hearing too much about them being violent, just a really loud bark, though I'm sure I'll be corrected on this point :) We had so many leftist/marxist groups back from the 60's and 70's that I can't name them all. Black Panthers, SLF(patty hearst's gropu) and such. These groups all used bombs to get their points accross. They killed alot of cops, these news stories I do remember from my childhood. They robbed banks to fund thier groups and basicly were at war with our country. Where are they now? Most of them are either in jail, still on the run or if smart they learned that violence wasn't the answer and they entered the political arena. Some (a former black panther I believe) have even been elected to congress.
I think/hope that most of these groups tend to marginalize or criminalize themselves in the eyes of the public once they turn to violence. But to me the more dangerous fringe groups are on the left. How often do you hear about right wing malitia's having violent protest at WTO events? When was the last time you heard about any kind of right wing militia violence or right wing abortion clinic bombings? Not saying it's not there, but it is at least on the downturn. But at the same time, I would consider Al Queda to be "right wing" terrorists. But their like a gazillion lightyears more right than any right wing group we have here in America.
I've always looked at it like this...
Communism--------America--------Fascism
Left--------middle--------right
I like it here in the middle, though I think we lean too far to the left with our socialistic programs. To me socialism is the worst of all. It's like combining communism and fascism. In theory it looks and sounds good, but it's yet to be implemented correctly anywhere that I've seen. At least here it tends to turn into taking money from the middle class and giving it directly to the poor. (rich dudes can afford good accountants that know all the tricks) I wouldn't have a problem with that either if it went to the people that really need it instead of all the crooks that get it... I once heard a democrat say that giving a tax cut to the rich is taking money from the poor. How does somebody take money from somebody who doens't have any money? :rolleyes:
Back to topic :) Left=bad right=good :P
[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: Udie ]
-
To me communism and nzism dont fit in the left/center/right of conventional USA type politics. They are so much different from normal civilized plitics that its pointless to define them in that category. However there is a certain trend for left/center/right people to have some attachment to these systems. For example some very conservative scared racists have an admiration to Hitler. Some liberal social justice types have an admiration of Marx and communism.
But they only do this because they are misinformed and dont know anything about the systems. Why on earth would somebody who supports human rights have a liking of communism. Or why would some conservaite USA gun-toting backwoods racist (nasty but accepted streotype heh?) support oppressive anti personal freedom gun confiscating nazis.
Man I could explain this so much easier in conversation, but I hope you guys get my point here, and as always if anything is unclear ask specifics.
-
I agree gruen.
In that american left and right are the 2 arms of the same ameritocracy body politic.
This has little to do with facism/nazism or communism.
My point was with the exception of religious persecution the left has been responsible for more terror world wide historically then the right.
National Socialism has far more in common with communism then it has with liberal democracy.
I dont necessarily believe that ideas are the problem but the fanatical actions that individuals may take in pursuit of an ideal. Especially when they percieve the ideal to be more important then real folks.
This goes for religious or political ideals.
-
My uncle is a logger in Louisiana, 2nd largest logging company in the state. He can tell you about how dangerous the leftist tree rights groups are. He almost died one day when his chainsaw hit a spike put there by some environMENTAL group. The saw kicked back, took off the tip of his nose and burried itself into his left arm all the way to the bone. He was in the hostpital for months, he almost died the day it happened, and then he lost his business because of the long hostpital stay. (this was about 15 yrs ago) Worst thing about the whole thing is that he was cutting trees that my great uncle had planted about 25 to 30 yrs before when his (my uncle's uncle) logging company cut the same field. Oh wait, the property was owned by my family too! The really bad part is that they still find spikes to this day.
First of all I am very sorry for the pain and suffering your uncle had to endure. Anyone who would do such a thing as spiking a tree is just stupid and criminal.
Now a loaded question - Why do "tree huggers" or even environmentalists fall into the "leftist" group? Aren't they the most "reactionary" of all? Who wants to maintain an existing situation more than an evironmentalist. I'm thinking very long term here. For example an existing situation may be an old growth forest as opposed to a (relatively) new situation such as logging.
reactionary = right
radical = left
Note: A conservative is a reactionary with brains, a liberal is a radical with 2 kids and a mortgage. ;)
ameritocracy - Wotan please? what do you mean by this word? American ruling class?
[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: Tah Gut ]
-
Originally posted by Tah Gut:
First of all I am very sorry for the pain and suffering your uncle had to endure. Anyone who would do such a thing as spiking a tree is just stupid and criminal.
Now a loaded question - Why do "tree huggers" or even environmentalists fall into the "leftist" group? Aren't they the most "reactionary" of all? Who wants to maintain an existing situation more than an evironmentalist. I'm thinking very long term here. For example an existing situation may be an old growth forest as opposed to a (relatively) new situation such as logging.
reactionary = right
radical = left
Note: A conservative is a reactionary with brains, a liberal is a radical with 2 kids and a mortgage. ;)
ameritocracy - Wotan please? what do you mean by this word? American ruling class?
[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: Tah Gut ]
Well my uncle got some revenge a few years later. He actually caught 3 hippy dudes on his land spiking his trees, trees that weren't to be cut I might add. Well let's just say they were lucky that he only beat them up real good. They are double lucky he didn't have his "gator gun" with him too ;) My unlce beat 3 dudes up at the same time :D that makes me feel strong.
I'll have to comment on the rest of the post after work, but you've hit on a HUGE issue of reverse definition that I think has occured over the past 30 or 50 yrs...
I'll be back :)
[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: Udie ]
-
no ameritocracy is the uniquely american form of "democracy". Do I need to explain the 2 party system and the electoral college to ya?
a reactionary is any one who doesn't lead but reacts to a given situation.
There are reactionaries on the left and right.
example 400 accidents caused by drunk driving
reaction ban alcohol.
Radicals cant see anything beyond the extreme.
Spotted owls are threatened
Solution stop loggers by any means possible.
you can be a radical reactionary.
Catch phrases and "media" jargon provide little understanding to such complicated things.
Hit the books buddy that sunday newspaper has got you confused..... :)
doh your from california ....that explains all ....... :rolleyes:
[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: Wotan ]
-
Originally posted by Wotan:
My point was with the exception of religious persecution the left has been responsible for more terror world wide historically then the right.
Can you please quantify this. ;)
[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: Thrawn ]
-
no ameritocracy is the uniquely american form of "democracy". Do I need to explain the 2 party system and the electoral college to ya?
No thank you. I honestly had never heard of the word, but I did attempt to look it up in three seperate printed dictionaries and one online dictionary. None of them show the word. Do I need to explain common courtesy to you?
a reactionary is any one who doesn't lead but reacts to a given situation.
Reactionary - noun - A person who favors a return to a previous, usually more conservative state of affairs, especially in politics; extreme conservative. (that is from the World Book Dictionary) sorry
There are reactionaries on the left and right.
see above definition, and show me where the leftist extreme conservatives are hiding
example 400 accidents caused by drunk driving
reaction ban alcohol.
Radicals cant see anything beyond the extreme.
Spotted owls are threatened
Solution stop loggers by any means possible.
This is a perfect example of a falacious argument. Set a premise that may not exist and tout it as fact. Only radicals would want to ban alcohol or stop logging by any means possible. This has nothing to do with your point, try again.
you can be a radical reactionary.
And that would make you a what? Radically extreme conservative? Read the definition again.
Catch phrases and "media" jargon provide little understanding to such complicated things.
You are absolutely right. Making up definitions to make a point don't help either.
Hit the books buddy that sunday newspaper has got you confused.....
I did, you didn't. This was not a troll for a personal attack on myself. I Honestly had never heard the word before. I still have yet to see it in print other than in your post. You, on the other hand have shown a serious lack of both character and understanding.
doh your from california ....that explains all .......
Um, er, Florida sure has made all us "Ameritocracy" buffs proud lately.
C'mon Wotan, that last post was beneath your standards.
[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: Tah Gut ]
[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: Tah Gut ]
-
Tahgut environmental terorrists are leftists.
-
OK Grun, my question is why do you say that?
-
Uhmm because they are...
Well seriously the environmental movement has been taken over by anti-trade, anti-capitalist, anti-democracy mobs. They work hand in hand with anarchists, communists and the Seattle (and whateever other city is attacked )WTO terrorists. Look up that post Ripsnort put up about how all the leftist organizations work together and finance each other.
And yes I have the same stance on environmental issues as I do on civil rights, I think its important to press induistry and society in many ways to improve our environment and adapt technologies to be environment friendly, I hate whacko tree hugger terrorist and reactionary types.
Reactionary?
Exxon Valdez led to violent calls by environment whackos demanding ENDING all oil drilling and transport in Alaska forever. I suppose thats not "reactionary" to you.
And heres another thing, conservative DOES not neccesarily have to mean right/republican it means conservative or resistant to change and accepting other new or diffrent viewpoints. People on the left can very very and are very conservative. In fact the "conservative" "establishment" force on college campuses is the left wing position.
-
Reactionary?
Exxon Valdez led to violent calls by environment whackos demanding ENDING all oil drilling and transport in Alaska forever. I suppose thats not "reactionary" to you.
Actually I believe I stated that environmentalists might be considered reactionary in my earlier post.
And heres another thing, conservative DOES not neccesarily have to mean right/republican it means conservative or resistant to change and accepting other new or diffrent viewpoints. People on the left can very very and are very conservative. In fact the "conservative" "establishment" force on college campuses is the left wing position.
That is an excellent point. If "conservative" is resistant to change then you are correct. But what exactly about the establishment on campus is "left wing"? And does it also follow that liberal does not necessarily mean left/democrat?
-
I don't have time to post this but I'll try anyway :)
It is my belief that the definition of "liberal - conservative" has been flip flopped over the past 30 years. I consider myself a liberal person, but not by today's definition of liberal ;) If anything today's liberals are the stonchy old conservative types that people normaly think of as a "republican" I'm talking your Tom Dashal's ,Fritz Hollings, Ted Kenedy's, Barney Franks, Gephard's, David Boniar's (sp?) they are for the same old party line tax and spend, rich = evil, wealth redistribution, cheatfair throw money at any problem crap that has turned me from the democratic party probobly for ever. The Republican party of the early to mid 90's was a "liberal" party to me because they stood for something diferent than the status quoe (sp?)
If you look back through history you see Republicans were the leaders that brought about much of the "liberal change" in our nations history. Teddy Rosevelt brought us national parks and land conservation (probobly to save good hunting ground ;) ) Abe Lincoln freed the slaves. There are more. Another point to be made, there are still left in our congress some of the Democrat Senators who were on the other side of the coin back in the civil rights days. That guy from South Carolina or what ever state it was that had the big Confederate flag debacle last year. He is one of their Senators was the govenor when they put the flag over their state capital. HE was the one that did it back when he was on the wrong side of the racial issue. Well he didn't say a galdarned thing about it last year, nothing of why HE put it up.
Somehow the Democrats were able to blame most of the bad stuff they did on Republicans, and I'm not saying that the Reps are spotless. I think it was because of Mcarthyism, but that's another debate. But I think it does go hand in hand with the flip flop of definitions.
I gotta go for now boss just walked up :) Probobly a good thing though, I think I'm starting to ramble hehe.
to be continued....
-
I think you make some excellent points Udie. In general I agree about the Demos and GOP. The GOP seems to be the innovators regarding financial policy, while the Demos are the liberals in domestic policy. They cross over the line so much it has become a very gray area as to which is liberal and conservative.
My biggest problem with the conservative types is their hypocrosy regarding personal freedoms. Conservatives usually say they are for a decentralized government. They want big brother off the back of the people.
However it seems more like they want big brother off the back of big businesses. The GOP continually fights freedom of choice, and other issues that affect individuals as opposed to businesses.
-
Unbelievable.
Now I am drunk (a little) and I found out what is so disturbing in this thread.
How can you even dare to compare Communism and nazism?!
You guys enjoy your life and all things because twenty millions of "imbecilic communist bastards" have given their lifes for next generations.
Those who still can employ their brain outside of CNN propaganda envelope - go read "Rebellion" by Albert Camus. He has two great chapters about communism and nazism.
-
Originally posted by Tah Gut:
I think you make some excellent points Udie. In general I agree about the Demos and GOP. The GOP seems to be the innovators regarding financial policy, while the Demos are the liberals in domestic policy. They cross over the line so much it has become a very gray area as to which is liberal and conservative.
My biggest problem with the conservative types is their hypocrosy regarding personal freedoms. Conservatives usually say they are for a decentralized government. They want big brother off the back of the people.
However it seems more like they want big brother off the back of big businesses. The GOP continually fights freedom of choice, and other issues that affect individuals as opposed to businesses.
Right :) I have noticed in the last 8 years that Reps and Dems both like big government, they just like it at the oposite ends of the spectrum. This is why I'm starting to call myself a conservative independent. I'd say libitarian, but they're pretty wacko on some stuff to me. The debate on freedom of choice is something I'll always be republican on though, it's a religeous thing ;) .
Biggest problem I see in Washington is power. Both sides will do anything to get it and hold on to it. Now I do have to say that when I came of age politicly I saw the Dems spewing many more lies and "spin" than the other side. Now 10 yrs later I see both sides "spinning" each issue telling me "how it is" Well I can figure that out for myself thank you very much :)
I was hoping that after 9-11 we'd maybe see better service from our government. Bush has pleased me very much, but the Senate let me down in a VERY BIG WAY last week, guess who controls the Senate ;) So for now I'm still parked over here on the right.
gotta go again ....
I'm back :) Ok the Reps "protect" big business and the Dem's "protect" the little guy. That's horse manuer to put it nicely :) There are more rich democrats in office than rich republicans. Too many lawyers on both sides. Ok YES republicans usualy do try and make things easier for big business, but what choice do they have? Big business is the engine of our country but they're also out for the little guy like me in the form of accross the boards tax cuts. That will help me TODAY, not in 6 months or a year or two years, it will help me on my first paycheck after it's signed into law.
Trickle down economics was touted as the worst concept ever to grace the face of man by the democrats when I was a teenager (yes I remember back then) Well from what I've seen in my young life trickle down is exactly how it works. We're seeing it work in reverse right now with the slowing economy. There's also a trickle up effect too, in that if I don't spend money it doesn't make it to the hands of who I'd be giving it to. So they don't have it to send it back down the line to their employees. Taxes are a wrench in the gears of trickle down economics. Taxes stop the money from goign where it should into the economy. So to me the Dems always wanting to raise taxes is them meddling/effecting my life in an immediate way.
Now I do have problems with the right too :) they're answer to alot of our problems is to simply lock people up or better yet execute them. I became Republican because I don't like big government and because at the time I viewed them as honest politicians (wow what an oxymoron) and to that point I will say that when the Republicans took over the congress in '94, they did everything they ran on in the election. Unfortunately once the Dem's "school lunched" them in '95 they lost the wind in their sails and became reactionary. I think this was because they were more used to operating as the minority than in the majority. My main problem with the right is criminal justice, and yes John Ashcroft does scare me, but I trust him 1000% more to do what's right for our nation than say Janet Reno.
I hate getting into good discussions when I'm at work. I gotta go again :( suffice it to say that the world is a big mixed up bag of crap. I just try the best I can to get the crap that doesn't stink as much out of the bag...
[ 12-27-2001: Message edited by: Udie ]