Liberal Contempt for the Constitution

[westwall]

There is a fundamental problem with the term liberal and conservative. A conservative is a person who believes in an individualistic centered government. In other words the government has very little power over the individual while the individual has great power over the government. And appropriately the individual is responsible for his or her welfare. They are beholden to none.

Liberalism is the antithesis of that philosophy. instead the government has vast powers to control the individual and the individual is at the mercy of that government. It is a collectivist mentality. Fascism, communisim, and socialism are all examples of a collectivist government. Fabian Socialists try to hide that fact by calling communists "leftists" and fascsists "rightwingers" but when you compare their relationships with their subjects they are basically the same. No rights and no responsibilities..unless you are member of the ruling class.

One other fundamental difference between a collectivist society and an individualist society is how the soldiers are viewed. In a collectivist society you are expected to die for the country which is why Russia suffered 25 million casualties during WWII, people were cheaper than equipment so they were used up to preserve the equipment wherever possible. The steppes saw some of the worst examples of that where the NKVD would round up villages and have them charge across the open field to make the German machineguns run out of bullets.

For comparison Germany suffered approximately 3 million dead, Italy around 400,000 (and they surrendered in 1943), Japan over 2 million as they did not keep track of civilian deaths in any meaningful way. But the western allies suffered much less. The UK lost around 400,000, the US lost 360,000, France lost around 200,000. So if I was in a war I know which side I would want to be on.

In an individualistic society however if a soldier dies for his or her country we are grateful for their sacrafice and try to limit that sacrafice wherever possible as is clearly demonstrated by the casualty figures.

One other thing that most no one knows is that after the Russian POWs were freed from the German camps they were immediatly sent to the gulags because they had been "tainted by the west" according to Stalin. And lets not forget the 80 MILLION that he killed in the gulags before WWII had even started. And then of cousre there is China where demographers estimate that Mao had 150 MILLION killed during the Culteral Revolution. Yep give me a good collectivist government any time..

 

[JakeStarkey]

We have clearly defined the differences between the center and the far right.

If you would define me as "far right," then perhaps we have. However, my political ideology doesn't determine how I look at the facts, the facts determine my political ideology.

Then you misunderstand the facts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Westwall, go back to traditional terminology for liberal and centrist and conservative, please, and leave off with the nonsense.

 

[editec]

Most liberals have accepted some ‘modern’ or populist view of the correct direction of society, without addressing either the provenance, or the prognosis if this path is followed.

1. Where do our laws begin? The answer is not open to conjecture: it is written in the Constitution itself.

“THIS CONSTITUTION, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
“THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, SHALL BE BOUND BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, TO SUPPORT THIS CONSTITUTION; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Article VI.

2. Cal Thomas wrote in the March 8, 2000, Washington Times, “In the final Democratic debate before the Super Tuesday election, Vice President Al Gore responded to a question about the type of Supreme Court justices he as president would select: ‘I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly EVOLVING EXPERIENCE of the American people.’ …
“Mr. Gore’s view of the Constitution, shared by most political liberals, IS ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS PHILOSOPHIES OF OUR TIME. It establishes a class of philosopher-kings who determine the rights of the people and shreds the CONSTITUTION AS A DOCUMENT THAT CONFORMS PEOPLE TO UNCHANGING PRINCIPLES that promote their own and the general welfare.

3. Liberal scholars today don’t believe the Constitution was “ROOTED IN OBJECTIVE AND UNCHANGING TRUTH”—that is, they don’t believe our founders established the rule of law. But that’s just what the founders did. And now most lawyers and judges reject their foundational work. “A well-known Harvard law professor,” Robert Bork wrote, “turned to me with some exasperation and said, ‘Your notion that the Constitution is in some sense law must rest upon an obscure philosophic principle with which I am unfamiliar.’”

4. Law schools routinely teach about being “legal realists.” Like former Vice President Al Gore, they want an “evolving Constitution.” But this reasoning gives the judges despotic powers. It also takes us away from the foundational law established by our forefathers. RADICAL LIBERAL CULTURE OFTEN HAS CONTEMPT OF HISTORY AND OUR FOUNDING FATHERS. Its followers foolishly rely on their own reasoning, which is not grounded in foundational law.
The War Against the U.S. Constitution | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God

5. Speaking directly to this point, the Tea Party folks have created a ‘Contract For America,’ the first item of which is the following, agreed to by over 82%:
"(1) Protect the Constitution: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03 percent). Tea Party Activists Unveil 'Contract From America' - ABC News

I cannot speak for other so called liberals.

But I must admit that I believe that our Constiution is FATALLY flawed and that we DO need a Constitutional convention to drastically change some elements of it.

So you ARE right, in the sense that I do not WORSHIP the constitution.

It's pretty good but it was written in such a way that the Supreme Court could interpret it in ways that I think work against having a truly democractic Republic.

Additionally I'd like to see the second amendment written in plain language rather than fouled up with all that blather about state militias.

That made sense 234 years ago, but it makes ZERO sense today.

If we want to grant CITIZENS the absolute right (or even modified right) to own arms, then we ough to say that DIRECTLY.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Most liberals have accepted some ‘modern’ or populist view of the correct direction of society, without addressing either the provenance, or the prognosis if this path is followed.

1. Where do our laws begin? The answer is not open to conjecture: it is written in the Constitution itself.

“THIS CONSTITUTION, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
“THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, SHALL BE BOUND BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, TO SUPPORT THIS CONSTITUTION; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Article VI.

2. Cal Thomas wrote in the March 8, 2000, Washington Times, “In the final Democratic debate before the Super Tuesday election, Vice President Al Gore responded to a question about the type of Supreme Court justices he as president would select: ‘I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly EVOLVING EXPERIENCE of the American people.’ …
“Mr. Gore’s view of the Constitution, shared by most political liberals, IS ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS PHILOSOPHIES OF OUR TIME. It establishes a class of philosopher-kings who determine the rights of the people and shreds the CONSTITUTION AS A DOCUMENT THAT CONFORMS PEOPLE TO UNCHANGING PRINCIPLES that promote their own and the general welfare.

3. Liberal scholars today don’t believe the Constitution was “ROOTED IN OBJECTIVE AND UNCHANGING TRUTH”—that is, they don’t believe our founders established the rule of law. But that’s just what the founders did. And now most lawyers and judges reject their foundational work. “A well-known Harvard law professor,” Robert Bork wrote, “turned to me with some exasperation and said, ‘Your notion that the Constitution is in some sense law must rest upon an obscure philosophic principle with which I am unfamiliar.’”

4. Law schools routinely teach about being “legal realists.” Like former Vice President Al Gore, they want an “evolving Constitution.” But this reasoning gives the judges despotic powers. It also takes us away from the foundational law established by our forefathers. RADICAL LIBERAL CULTURE OFTEN HAS CONTEMPT OF HISTORY AND OUR FOUNDING FATHERS. Its followers foolishly rely on their own reasoning, which is not grounded in foundational law.
The War Against the U.S. Constitution | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God

5. Speaking directly to this point, the Tea Party folks have created a ‘Contract For America,’ the first item of which is the following, agreed to by over 82%:
"(1) Protect the Constitution: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03 percent). Tea Party Activists Unveil 'Contract From America' - ABC News

I cannot speak for other so called liberals.

But I must admit that I believe that our Constiution is FATALLY flawed and that we DO need a Constitutional convention to drastically change some elements of it.

So you ARE right, in the sense that I do not WORSHIP the constitution.

It's pretty good but it was written in such a way that the Supreme Court could interpret it in ways that I think work against having a truly democractic Republic.

Additionally I'd like to see the second amendment written in plain language rather than fouled up with all that blather about state militias.

That made sense 234 years ago, but it makes ZERO sense today.

If we want to grant CITIZENS the absolute right (or even modified right) to own arms, then we ough to say that DIRECTLY.

Always good to read a thought, agree or not, that is well written.

If fact, I don't mind entertaining the peripheral idea that you suggest: the 2nd amendment.

It is clear in import, and I hope it to be incorporated soon. Further:

a. “…well regulated militia…” Consider the sentence “Being a fisherman, Joe needs a boat.” Does this mean that Joe should only buy a boat if he fishes for a living? The reference to a militia is a reason why the people have a right to arms, but it is not the only reason.
“When the words of the enacting clause are clear and positive, recourse must not be had to the preamble.” James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, 1858 (Legal scholar and law professor at Columbia College)

In the Constitution, Congress is given the power “to promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts” by enacting copyright and patent laws (Article 1, Section 8). Would you argue that every copyright work or patented invention must promote scientific progress and useful arts?

George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights:"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)

The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed. (See enumerated powers in Article 1,Section 8.)
The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) “…militia system…implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.
Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 andmembers of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)

b. “…well-regulated…” Regulated does not refer to government regulations. Contemporary meaning from definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Regulated" has an Obsolete definition (b) "Of troops: Properly disciplined" and then "discipline" has a definition (3b) applying to the military, "Training in the practice of arms and military evolutions; drill. Formerly, more widely: Training or skill in military affairs generally; military skill and experience; the art of war." (The pesky meaning of "Well Regulated" - Democratic Underground)

One more aside? Your suggestion that you are a liberal makes me ask whether this is the classical liberal, honoring the individual, or the modern liberal (progressive) worhipping the state...

You can, of course, keep that info to yourself.

 

[editec]

Most liberals have accepted some ‘modern’ or populist view of the correct direction of society, without addressing either the provenance, or the prognosis if this path is followed.

1. Where do our laws begin? The answer is not open to conjecture: it is written in the Constitution itself.

“THIS CONSTITUTION, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
“THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, SHALL BE BOUND BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, TO SUPPORT THIS CONSTITUTION; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Article VI.

2. Cal Thomas wrote in the March 8, 2000, Washington Times, “In the final Democratic debate before the Super Tuesday election, Vice President Al Gore responded to a question about the type of Supreme Court justices he as president would select: ‘I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly EVOLVING EXPERIENCE of the American people.’ …
“Mr. Gore’s view of the Constitution, shared by most political liberals, IS ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS PHILOSOPHIES OF OUR TIME. It establishes a class of philosopher-kings who determine the rights of the people and shreds the CONSTITUTION AS A DOCUMENT THAT CONFORMS PEOPLE TO UNCHANGING PRINCIPLES that promote their own and the general welfare.

3. Liberal scholars today don’t believe the Constitution was “ROOTED IN OBJECTIVE AND UNCHANGING TRUTH”—that is, they don’t believe our founders established the rule of law. But that’s just what the founders did. And now most lawyers and judges reject their foundational work. “A well-known Harvard law professor,” Robert Bork wrote, “turned to me with some exasperation and said, ‘Your notion that the Constitution is in some sense law must rest upon an obscure philosophic principle with which I am unfamiliar.’”

4. Law schools routinely teach about being “legal realists.” Like former Vice President Al Gore, they want an “evolving Constitution.” But this reasoning gives the judges despotic powers. It also takes us away from the foundational law established by our forefathers. RADICAL LIBERAL CULTURE OFTEN HAS CONTEMPT OF HISTORY AND OUR FOUNDING FATHERS. Its followers foolishly rely on their own reasoning, which is not grounded in foundational law.
The War Against the U.S. Constitution | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God

5. Speaking directly to this point, the Tea Party folks have created a ‘Contract For America,’ the first item of which is the following, agreed to by over 82%:
"(1) Protect the Constitution: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03 percent). Tea Party Activists Unveil 'Contract From America' - ABC News

I cannot speak for other so called liberals.

But I must admit that I believe that our Constiution is FATALLY flawed and that we DO need a Constitutional convention to drastically change some elements of it.

So you ARE right, in the sense that I do not WORSHIP the constitution.

It's pretty good but it was written in such a way that the Supreme Court could interpret it in ways that I think work against having a truly democractic Republic.

Additionally I'd like to see the second amendment written in plain language rather than fouled up with all that blather about state militias.

That made sense 234 years ago, but it makes ZERO sense today.

If we want to grant CITIZENS the absolute right (or even modified right) to own arms, then we ough to say that DIRECTLY.

Always good to read a thought, agree or not, that is well written.

If fact, I don't mind entertaining the peripheral idea that you suggest: the 2nd amendment.

It is clear in import, and I hope it to be incorporated soon. Further:

a. “…well regulated militia…” Consider the sentence “Being a fisherman, Joe needs a boat.” Does this mean that Joe should only buy a boat if he fishes for a living? The reference to a militia is a reason why the people have a right to arms, but it is not the only reason.
“When the words of the enacting clause are clear and positive, recourse must not be had to the preamble.” James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, 1858 (Legal scholar and law professor at Columbia College)

In the Constitution, Congress is given the power “to promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts” by enacting copyright and patent laws (Article 1, Section 8). Would you argue that every copyright work or patented invention must promote scientific progress and useful arts?

George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights:"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)

The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed. (See enumerated powers in Article 1,Section 8.)
The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) “…militia system…implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.
Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 andmembers of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)

b. “…well-regulated…” Regulated does not refer to government regulations. Contemporary meaning from definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Regulated" has an Obsolete definition (b) "Of troops: Properly disciplined" and then "discipline" has a definition (3b) applying to the military, "Training in the practice of arms and military evolutions; drill. Formerly, more widely: Training or skill in military affairs generally; military skill and experience; the art of war." (The pesky meaning of "Well Regulated" - Democratic Underground)

One more aside? Your suggestion that you are a liberal makes me ask whether this is the classical liberal, honoring the individual, or the modern liberal (progressive) worhipping the state...

You can, of course, keep that info to yourself.

I really don't know.

I don't fit into anybody's definition of a liberal.

I think the word no longer really means anything.

Given the fact that I'd like to roll back the clock on a lot of things, I'd suggest that I'm at least as much a conservative as a liberal.

I blame asshats like Rush for making the words liberal and conservative essentially meaningless, BTW.

But when a society is going wrong, the FIRST casualty is the LANGUAGE itself.

By making it impossible to speak clearly, by changing the meanings of words, by outright lying about what they mean over and over again, until most people don't have a clue what they mean, one can frame every argument to turn it into a pissing match suited only for complete fucking morons.

And that is the political environment I find here and everywhere where the avwerage citizen posts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I cannot speak for other so called liberals.

But I must admit that I believe that our Constiution is FATALLY flawed and that we DO need a Constitutional convention to drastically change some elements of it.

So you ARE right, in the sense that I do not WORSHIP the constitution.

It's pretty good but it was written in such a way that the Supreme Court could interpret it in ways that I think work against having a truly democractic Republic.

Additionally I'd like to see the second amendment written in plain language rather than fouled up with all that blather about state militias.

That made sense 234 years ago, but it makes ZERO sense today.

If we want to grant CITIZENS the absolute right (or even modified right) to own arms, then we ough to say that DIRECTLY.

Always good to read a thought, agree or not, that is well written.

If fact, I don't mind entertaining the peripheral idea that you suggest: the 2nd amendment.

It is clear in import, and I hope it to be incorporated soon. Further:

a. “…well regulated militia…” Consider the sentence “Being a fisherman, Joe needs a boat.” Does this mean that Joe should only buy a boat if he fishes for a living? The reference to a militia is a reason why the people have a right to arms, but it is not the only reason.
“When the words of the enacting clause are clear and positive, recourse must not be had to the preamble.” James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, 1858 (Legal scholar and law professor at Columbia College)

In the Constitution, Congress is given the power “to promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts” by enacting copyright and patent laws (Article 1, Section 8). Would you argue that every copyright work or patented invention must promote scientific progress and useful arts?

George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights:"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)

The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed. (See enumerated powers in Article 1,Section 8.)
The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) “…militia system…implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.
Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 andmembers of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)

b. “…well-regulated…” Regulated does not refer to government regulations. Contemporary meaning from definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Regulated" has an Obsolete definition (b) "Of troops: Properly disciplined" and then "discipline" has a definition (3b) applying to the military, "Training in the practice of arms and military evolutions; drill. Formerly, more widely: Training or skill in military affairs generally; military skill and experience; the art of war." (The pesky meaning of "Well Regulated" - Democratic Underground)

One more aside? Your suggestion that you are a liberal makes me ask whether this is the classical liberal, honoring the individual, or the modern liberal (progressive) worhipping the state...

You can, of course, keep that info to yourself.

I really don't know.

I don't fit into anybody's definition of a liberal.

I think the word no longer really means anything.

Given the fact that I'd like to roll back the clock on a lot of things, I'd suggest that I'm at least as much a conservative as a liberal.

I blame asshats like Rush for making the words liberal and conservative essentially meaningless, BTW.

But when a society is going wrong, the FIRST casualty is the LANGUAGE itself.

By making it impossible to speak clearly, by changing the meanings of words, by outright lying about what they mean over and over again, until most people don't have a clue what they mean, one can frame every argument to turn it into a pissing match suited only for complete fucking morons.

And that is the political environment I find here and everywhere where the avwerage citizen posts.

"I don't fit into anybody's definition of a liberal."

Well, then, how the heck am I going to fight with you????

Of course, you are correct that the start of any debate should be a definition of terms.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Of course, you are correct that the start of any debate should be a definition of terms."

If only you would do that based on what words truly mean.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, once again, we are not living on January 1, 1801. The terms of "separation of powers," "checks and balance", "separation of church and state," "federalism", "limited government" are all terms we use to describe important constitutional principles.

Every time you resort to attacks on personality rather than the points under discussion, any reader can simple dismiss your remarks with a high level of assurance s/he is correct in doing so.

Stay focused, please.

Focus is not a problem for me. And I don't mind providing information for those of you who are research-challenged, but don't try to convince me to provide it without some sort of 'payment,' in this case the spanking that some of you fellows require.

It's your job to back up your points, you are not due anything for doing so.

I believe that that determination will be left up to me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. Woodrow Wilson is the posterboy for Progressivism.

How often are you going to keep claiming this without backing it up?

My exegesis has been clearly documented.

While I can have sympathy for your lack of comprehension, I cannot be responsible for its remediation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Of course, you are correct that the start of any debate should be a definition of terms."

If only you would do that based on what words truly mean.

I always do...but would be glad to entertain any question you have as to definition.

 

[JakeStarkey]

6. Woodrow Wilson is the posterboy for Progressivism.

How often are you going to keep claiming this without backing it up?

My exegesis has been clearly documented.

While I can have sympathy for your lack of comprehension, I cannot be responsible for its remediation.

Your critical interpretation, based often on a misdefinition of terms and events, usually does not accurately reflect the facts.

Post as you wish, of course, but those who are critical thinkers here realize that you are for hugs and chuckles, not serious discussion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How often are you going to keep claiming this without backing it up?

My exegesis has been clearly documented.

While I can have sympathy for your lack of comprehension, I cannot be responsible for its remediation.

Your critical interpretation, based often on a misdefinition of terms and events, usually does not accurately reflect the facts.

Post as you wish, of course, but those who are critical thinkers here realize that you are for hugs and chuckles, not serious discussion.

It is, of course, telling that you were unable to document your post with specific examples of "misdefinition of terms and events."

 

[JakeStarkey]

This has been pointed out to you repeatedly in the past months by several posters.

You now attempt the "give me the evidence" ploy. The answer is "no, that has been done."

Make sure the terminology is critically objective and accounted for bias, and then possibly the creditability of argumentation may improve.

You can do this by beginning with clear, objective definitions of "liberalism", "classic liberalism", "conservatism", "radical", and "reactionary".

 

[rdean]

There is a fundamental problem with the term liberal and conservative. A conservative is a person who believes in an individualistic centered government. In other words the government has very little power over the individual while the individual has great power over the government. And appropriately the individual is responsible for his or her welfare. They are beholden to none.

Liberalism is the antithesis of that philosophy. instead the government has vast powers to control the individual and the individual is at the mercy of that government. It is a collectivist mentality. Fascism, communisim, and socialism are all examples of a collectivist government. Fabian Socialists try to hide that fact by calling communists "leftists" and fascsists "rightwingers" but when you compare their relationships with their subjects they are basically the same. No rights and no responsibilities..unless you are member of the ruling class.

One other fundamental difference between a collectivist society and an individualist society is how the soldiers are viewed. In a collectivist society you are expected to die for the country which is why Russia suffered 25 million casualties during WWII, people were cheaper than equipment so they were used up to preserve the equipment wherever possible. The steppes saw some of the worst examples of that where the NKVD would round up villages and have them charge across the open field to make the German machineguns run out of bullets.

For comparison Germany suffered approximately 3 million dead, Italy around 400,000 (and they surrendered in 1943), Japan over 2 million as they did not keep track of civilian deaths in any meaningful way. But the western allies suffered much less. The UK lost around 400,000, the US lost 360,000, France lost around 200,000. So if I was in a war I know which side I would want to be on.

In an individualistic society however if a soldier dies for his or her country we are grateful for their sacrafice and try to limit that sacrafice wherever possible as is clearly demonstrated by the casualty figures.

One other thing that most no one knows is that after the Russian POWs were freed from the German camps they were immediatly sent to the gulags because they had been "tainted by the west" according to Stalin. And lets not forget the 80 MILLION that he killed in the gulags before WWII had even started. And then of cousre there is China where demographers estimate that Mao had 150 MILLION killed during the Culteral Revolution. Yep give me a good collectivist government any time..

You can always tell a "right wing extremist". Because their views of "liberals" is so bizarre and unfounded in even the smallest of facts.

For some off reason, the right always wants to equate Mao and Stalin with liberals.

First, who does the right consider "liberals" in this country? That's an easy one:

College professors
Doctors
scientists
engineers
writers
artists

Basically, those that are creative or considered "thinkers".

Who are the first people Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Hitler and others of that ilk "removed" when they began their great "purges"?

College professors
Doctors
scientists
engineers
writers
artists

Does the list look familiar?

That group of people make up a very small percentage of any population.

The bulk of the population is always made up of workers. In this country, that would be the Right Wing Base and the Left Wing Base.

The difference between the two bases, is that the liberals want their children to become:

College professors
Doctors
scientists
engineers
writers
artists

 

[PoliticalChic]

This has been pointed out to you repeatedly in the past months by several posters.

You now attempt the "give me the evidence" ploy. The answer is "no, that has been done."

Make sure the terminology is critically objective and accounted for bias, and then possibly the creditability of argumentation may improve.

You can do this by beginning with clear, objective definitions of "liberalism", "classic liberalism", "conservatism", "radical", and "reactionary".

So you are unable to document your post with the specifics?

In the words of Claude Raines as Captain Renault, 'I'm shocked.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is a fundamental problem with the term liberal and conservative. A conservative is a person who believes in an individualistic centered government. In other words the government has very little power over the individual while the individual has great power over the government. And appropriately the individual is responsible for his or her welfare. They are beholden to none.

Liberalism is the antithesis of that philosophy. instead the government has vast powers to control the individual and the individual is at the mercy of that government. It is a collectivist mentality. Fascism, communisim, and socialism are all examples of a collectivist government. Fabian Socialists try to hide that fact by calling communists "leftists" and fascsists "rightwingers" but when you compare their relationships with their subjects they are basically the same. No rights and no responsibilities..unless you are member of the ruling class.

One other fundamental difference between a collectivist society and an individualist society is how the soldiers are viewed. In a collectivist society you are expected to die for the country which is why Russia suffered 25 million casualties during WWII, people were cheaper than equipment so they were used up to preserve the equipment wherever possible. The steppes saw some of the worst examples of that where the NKVD would round up villages and have them charge across the open field to make the German machineguns run out of bullets.

For comparison Germany suffered approximately 3 million dead, Italy around 400,000 (and they surrendered in 1943), Japan over 2 million as they did not keep track of civilian deaths in any meaningful way. But the western allies suffered much less. The UK lost around 400,000, the US lost 360,000, France lost around 200,000. So if I was in a war I know which side I would want to be on.

In an individualistic society however if a soldier dies for his or her country we are grateful for their sacrafice and try to limit that sacrafice wherever possible as is clearly demonstrated by the casualty figures.

One other thing that most no one knows is that after the Russian POWs were freed from the German camps they were immediatly sent to the gulags because they had been "tainted by the west" according to Stalin. And lets not forget the 80 MILLION that he killed in the gulags before WWII had even started. And then of cousre there is China where demographers estimate that Mao had 150 MILLION killed during the Culteral Revolution. Yep give me a good collectivist government any time..

You can always tell a "right wing extremist". Because their views of "liberals" is so bizarre and unfounded in even the smallest of facts.

For some off reason, the right always wants to equate Mao and Stalin with liberals.

First, who does the right consider "liberals" in this country? That's an easy one:

College professors
Doctors
scientists
engineers
writers
artists

Basically, those that are creative or considered "thinkers".

Who are the first people Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Hitler and others of that ilk "removed" when they began their great "purges"?

College professors
Doctors
scientists
engineers
writers
artists

Does the list look familiar?

That group of people make up a very small percentage of any population.

The bulk of the population is always made up of workers. In this country, that would be the Right Wing Base and the Left Wing Base.

The difference between the two bases, is that the liberals want their children to become:

College professors
Doctors
scientists
engineers
writers
artists

Dear Colleague Westwall,

First, welcome to the board.

I write to you in the hopes that reading the above post does not cause you to forswear the USMB.

Please be assured that, whether left or right- and we have many of both persuasions, none are as lacking in common sense as the above poster.
This intellectual bezoar represents, as I am certain you will quickly ascertain, the proverbial 'bottom of the barrel' in terms of knowledge, perspective, and the inability to conceive of any original thought, and, in fact, any thought at all.

He will repeat ad infinitum, the talking points that he is fed by the kindergarten-left.

So, in closing, I would hope that you can get past this rude introduction to the board and hope that we will see more of your work in the future.

sincerely, etc....

 

[rdean]

There is a fundamental problem with the term liberal and conservative. A conservative is a person who believes in an individualistic centered government. In other words the government has very little power over the individual while the individual has great power over the government. And appropriately the individual is responsible for his or her welfare. They are beholden to none.

Liberalism is the antithesis of that philosophy. instead the government has vast powers to control the individual and the individual is at the mercy of that government. It is a collectivist mentality. Fascism, communisim, and socialism are all examples of a collectivist government. Fabian Socialists try to hide that fact by calling communists "leftists" and fascsists "rightwingers" but when you compare their relationships with their subjects they are basically the same. No rights and no responsibilities..unless you are member of the ruling class.

One other fundamental difference between a collectivist society and an individualist society is how the soldiers are viewed. In a collectivist society you are expected to die for the country which is why Russia suffered 25 million casualties during WWII, people were cheaper than equipment so they were used up to preserve the equipment wherever possible. The steppes saw some of the worst examples of that where the NKVD would round up villages and have them charge across the open field to make the German machineguns run out of bullets.

For comparison Germany suffered approximately 3 million dead, Italy around 400,000 (and they surrendered in 1943), Japan over 2 million as they did not keep track of civilian deaths in any meaningful way. But the western allies suffered much less. The UK lost around 400,000, the US lost 360,000, France lost around 200,000. So if I was in a war I know which side I would want to be on.

In an individualistic society however if a soldier dies for his or her country we are grateful for their sacrafice and try to limit that sacrafice wherever possible as is clearly demonstrated by the casualty figures.

One other thing that most no one knows is that after the Russian POWs were freed from the German camps they were immediatly sent to the gulags because they had been "tainted by the west" according to Stalin. And lets not forget the 80 MILLION that he killed in the gulags before WWII had even started. And then of cousre there is China where demographers estimate that Mao had 150 MILLION killed during the Culteral Revolution. Yep give me a good collectivist government any time..

You can always tell a "right wing extremist". Because their views of "liberals" is so bizarre and unfounded in even the smallest of facts.

For some off reason, the right always wants to equate Mao and Stalin with liberals.

First, who does the right consider "liberals" in this country? That's an easy one:

College professors
Doctors
scientists
engineers
writers
artists

Basically, those that are creative or considered "thinkers".

Who are the first people Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Hitler and others of that ilk "removed" when they began their great "purges"?

College professors
Doctors
scientists
engineers
writers
artists

Does the list look familiar?

That group of people make up a very small percentage of any population.

The bulk of the population is always made up of workers. In this country, that would be the Right Wing Base and the Left Wing Base.

The difference between the two bases, is that the liberals want their children to become:

College professors
Doctors
scientists
engineers
writers
artists

Dear Colleague Westwall,

First, welcome to the board.

I write to you in the hopes that reading the above post does not cause you to forswear the USMB.

Please be assured that, whether left or right- and we have many of both persuasions, none are as lacking in common sense as the above poster.
This intellectual bezoar represents, as I am certain you will quickly ascertain, the proverbial 'bottom of the barrel' in terms of knowledge, perspective, and the inability to conceive of any original thought, and, in fact, any thought at all.

He will repeat ad infinitum, the talking points that he is fed by the kindergarten-left.

So, in closing, I would hope that you can get past this rude introduction to the board and hope that we will see more of your work in the future.

sincerely, etc....

If you click on the Name "above left", you can also read "all posts" written by that person.

So, if you want endless hours if hilarious imaginative writing without a single fact to back any of it up, click on "PoliticalChic" and read until your hearts content. You will laugh until you barf.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You can always tell a "right wing extremist". Because their views of "liberals" is so bizarre and unfounded in even the smallest of facts.

For some off reason, the right always wants to equate Mao and Stalin with liberals.

First, who does the right consider "liberals" in this country? That's an easy one:

College professors
Doctors
scientists
engineers
writers
artists

Basically, those that are creative or considered "thinkers".

Who are the first people Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Hitler and others of that ilk "removed" when they began their great "purges"?

College professors
Doctors
scientists
engineers
writers
artists

Does the list look familiar?

That group of people make up a very small percentage of any population.

The bulk of the population is always made up of workers. In this country, that would be the Right Wing Base and the Left Wing Base.

The difference between the two bases, is that the liberals want their children to become:

College professors
Doctors
scientists
engineers
writers
artists

Dear Colleague Westwall,

First, welcome to the board.

I write to you in the hopes that reading the above post does not cause you to forswear the USMB.

Please be assured that, whether left or right- and we have many of both persuasions, none are as lacking in common sense as the above poster.
This intellectual bezoar represents, as I am certain you will quickly ascertain, the proverbial 'bottom of the barrel' in terms of knowledge, perspective, and the inability to conceive of any original thought, and, in fact, any thought at all.

He will repeat ad infinitum, the talking points that he is fed by the kindergarten-left.

So, in closing, I would hope that you can get past this rude introduction to the board and hope that we will see more of your work in the future.

sincerely, etc....

If you click on the Name "above left", you can also read "all posts" written by that person.

So, if you want endless hours if hilarious imaginative writing without a single fact to back any of it up, click on "PoliticalChic" and read until your hearts content. You will laugh until you barf.

Why, thank you, weanie, for taking on my advertising!

I recommend your suggestion to many who would like to improve their writing. Sadly, said remedial work has not yet taken effect in your case...but judging by what one has to begin with, it is eminently understandable.

But, weanie, the 'You will laugh until you barf.' not only has that grade-school sound for which you are famous, but defies any experience most normal people have experienced.

And fibbing, as in "...without a single fact to back any of it up..." certainly doesn't help your case, as any reader of my work will quickly verify.

And always remember, deanie-weanie, I’m here to help you fulfill your comic potential!

 

[westwall]

If you would care to look my point was the problem is the terminology. I think all the terms should be reduced down to collectivist and individualist. Liberal is misused all the time. Right wing extremist is misused all the time. They are misused so often as to be irrelevant now.

As far as your defence of the "intelligencia" I challenge you to read up on the English intelligencia's views on Stalin during the collectivisation of the farms where roughly 3 million people were murdered. The UK intelligencia were all in favor of Stalins methods because " a strong hand was needed to bring the populace under control". Sir Oswald Mosely was a leading light in the progressive movement and was imprisoned for his Nazi support. I can go on and on if you like but the history of genocides is paved with the viewpoints of idealogues who believe they know better how people should live than the people being killed. And most often those idealogues come from the intelligencia. Stalin was never meant to run the country (Trotskey was supposed to take over after Lenin, both of whom were from the intelligencia). He just figured out that he was going to be dealt with by the others and figured he would do it to them before they did it to him. This happens very frequently.

And finally the reason why the new rulers allways kill the intelligencia is because they don't want competition. They came from the same class and know what will happen if they fail to do so. This is simple history and I suggest you read a whole lot more of it because right now I think you need to.

I allways laugh at the left calling right wingers violent radicals when 90% of all the domestic terrorism in the US is from the left. The left is who produced the movie about killing Bush. The media pretty much ignored that. Could you imagine the outrage if a "rightwing" group did the same with Obama?

You would probably be shocked by my viewpoints on life in general. I am a constitutional fundamentalist. I believe that most laws dealing with the control of morals are wrong. People should be allowed to do what they want to do in their own homes without fear of government interference so long as they are harming no one. I don't care what drugs they take, I don't who they sleep with, I don't care what they read,
I don't care what kind of guns they have, in other words I don't care. The constitution says you have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I believe that. The constitution says nothing about regulating all that other stuff...(well except for the guns where it says the government explicitly can't). "Progressives" on the other hand want to regulate almost every aspect of peoples lives. Regulation costs money and robs people of their lives. The only people who should be in prison are the violent people who harm others. "Progressives" on the other hand seek to keep the violent offenders on the street in the insane belief that they can be rehabilitated. But they at the same time want to disarm the population so that they can't defend themselves..do you see a problem with that?

There is a fundamental problem with the term liberal and conservative. A conservative is a person who believes in an individualistic centered government. In other words the government has very little power over the individual while the individual has great power over the government. And appropriately the individual is responsible for his or her welfare. They are beholden to none.

Liberalism is the antithesis of that philosophy. instead the government has vast powers to control the individual and the individual is at the mercy of that government. It is a collectivist mentality. Fascism, communisim, and socialism are all examples of a collectivist government. Fabian Socialists try to hide that fact by calling communists "leftists" and fascsists "rightwingers" but when you compare their relationships with their subjects they are basically the same. No rights and no responsibilities..unless you are member of the ruling class.

One other fundamental difference between a collectivist society and an individualist society is how the soldiers are viewed. In a collectivist society you are expected to die for the country which is why Russia suffered 25 million casualties during WWII, people were cheaper than equipment so they were used up to preserve the equipment wherever possible. The steppes saw some of the worst examples of that where the NKVD would round up villages and have them charge across the open field to make the German machineguns run out of bullets.

For comparison Germany suffered approximately 3 million dead, Italy around 400,000 (and they surrendered in 1943), Japan over 2 million as they did not keep track of civilian deaths in any meaningful way. But the western allies suffered much less. The UK lost around 400,000, the US lost 360,000, France lost around 200,000. So if I was in a war I know which side I would want to be on.

In an individualistic society however if a soldier dies for his or her country we are grateful for their sacrafice and try to limit that sacrafice wherever possible as is clearly demonstrated by the casualty figures.

One other thing that most no one knows is that after the Russian POWs were freed from the German camps they were immediatly sent to the gulags because they had been "tainted by the west" according to Stalin. And lets not forget the 80 MILLION that he killed in the gulags before WWII had even started. And then of cousre there is China where demographers estimate that Mao had 150 MILLION killed during the Culteral Revolution. Yep give me a good collectivist government any time..

You can always tell a "right wing extremist". Because their views of "liberals" is so bizarre and unfounded in even the smallest of facts.

For some off reason, the right always wants to equate Mao and Stalin with liberals.

First, who does the right consider "liberals" in this country? That's an easy one:

College professors
Doctors
scientists
engineers
writers
artists

Basically, those that are creative or considered "thinkers".

Who are the first people Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Hitler and others of that ilk "removed" when they began their great "purges"?

College professors
Doctors
scientists
engineers
writers
artists

Does the list look familiar?

That group of people make up a very small percentage of any population.

The bulk of the population is always made up of workers. In this country, that would be the Right Wing Base and the Left Wing Base.

The difference between the two bases, is that the liberals want their children to become:

College professors
Doctors
scientists
engineers
writers
artists