Social Conservatives and Corporatists.

[Dot Com]

Please don't assign meaning to my OP. The goal of the Corporatist in the long run is the elimination of Capitalism and the formation of Monopolies.

That's hardly free trade.

So we're supposed to believe that you're a supporter of capitalism?

You're serious?

Are you serious?

Capitalism without competition is no longer Capitalism.

Did you know that?

Economics 101.

He's drunk on the Americans for Prosperity kool aid
Americans for Prosperity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dblack]

Be specific. I am not saying your wrong. I just want details.

Well, specifically, I was hopeful when Obama was elected. I didn't vote for him, because I gave up on the two majors a long time ago - but after eight years of Bush and the neocons, I was partially susceptible to the two-party bullshit. I thought we needed a change and I thought that maybe an Obama presidency would be something different. But it wasn't. At all. About the only thing Obama has changed that I'm glad of is the don't-ask-don't-tell policy. And while that's nice for my gay friends, it's trivial crap in the larger scheme of things. Obama is an even bigger corporatist than Bush and gets away with even more because nominally he's 'liberal'. Whatever. It's all authoritarian shit to keep us under control, and spinning the hamster wheel for the people who run things.

Sorry to be nasty about it, but I think that anyone who refuses to see this, who thinks there's a dime's worth of difference between the Democrats and Republicans is a fucking idiot and directly responsible for sending our nation down the shithole. It won't stop until we quit giving them our compliant support.

 

[Ringel05]

If your asking me to say "My ideology is perfect", well, guess what, it's not. I'm open criticism..and I will make adjustments if your point is valid. It's called "compromise".

That's not what I am seeing from conservatives.

Not at all.

And from their point of view they not seeing it from your side. Interesting, isn't it.
(I guess I'm trying to help Liberals understand how conservatives view them........ yeah right.........)

I never had a problem with reasoned conservative viewpoints..heck..I welcome them. I followed William Buckley all the time..and I agreed with him more times then I didn't. I thought Goldwater was an interesting person..and one of my favorite Presidents was Eisenhower. Heck..I thought George HW Bush..and Gerald Ford were, on the whole, fairly good Presidents.

But what we have now is nuts. That's gotta change.

And the ones you rail against view you and other liberals in the exact same light. What's so hard to understand that your view is just as biased as theirs? What's so hard to understand that your OP was just as biased and full of partisan bull shit as American Cowboy's?
Oh, I know, because you actually believe you view and the views of those who agree with you are the only true valid ones and you're participating in simple justification. Carry on.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Take a gander at the Constitution.

Ok.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Yes..and?

Do you know what that means?

And do you know the entire context of it?

Did you also read the part about Constitutional supremacy?

Or Insurrection?

Or the limits on States?

How about the Powers of Congress? You up on those? They are pretty damn powerful.

Did you know that SCOTUS just handed down a unanimous decision that says that states rights sometimes trump federalism?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This doesn’t mean what many understand it to mean.

That the Constitution does, in spirit and in text, limit the federal government and protect the independence of the states. The history of the development of the document bears this out as well.

Supreme Court case law does not, however.

Don't you ever get tired of posting something that can be proven wrong so easily? SCOTUS just ruled that, not only do states have fights under the 10th Amendment, but that individuals have standing to challenge federal statutes without states actually being a party to the challenges.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That the Constitution does, in spirit and in text, limit the federal government and protect the independence of the states. The history of the development of the document bears this out as well.

But hey, I'm really not interested in trying to convince you. Mostly in comes down to reading comprehension. If you're one of those who reads a modifying clause on the power to tax as 'broad implied power' to do whatever the state decrees to be in the interests of our 'welfare', then there's really not much point in getting into it.

No it doesn't. Not in the way you think. And your dismissive tone basically means your "conviction" in this area is all that strong.

What the Constitution DOES do is limit the power of the government over the INDIVIDUAL. That's something that at almost every term the conservatives are trying to destroy. From the implicit right to privacy to the explicit right to be safe from torture..conservatives weaken and tug out those rights.

It's really something to behold.

It protects the rights of the individual by limiting the power of the federal government. It also, despite the arguments of many, protects the states from excessive federal control. Even SCOTUS recognizes that, which is why Congress started tying strings around the money they give to states. Unfortunately SCOTUS ruled that this was permissible.

This led to the way the world works now. Congress does not have the power to impose a national speed limit, but it can tell states that if they do not agree to said speed limit they will not get as much money.

 

[Political Junky]

Sadly, the social conservatives (many of them- middle to lower classes) follow the corporatist drum-beat to their economic peril. Why? I know why.

Do tell ... I've been trying to figure that out for years.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can you explain the difference between corporarism and unionism?

Sure.

Unions want a fair and equitable relationship between labor and management.

Corporatists want to kill people in Unions.

As I thought, you have no idea what corporatism actually means. This is probably the closest to what you think it means.

he organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction

Corporatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

If you actually read that with an open mind you will admit that unions actually exist as political representation and that they exercise control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction. Corporatists do not want to kill unions, they support unions because unions are part of the power structure.

corporatism (ideology) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Whatever you think is happening in the world, the word you are using is not the right one to describe it. That makes you just as bad as the idiots who call public schools socialism, or Obama a communist. None of you actually understand the real meanings of the words you use, or you would not use them the way you do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Be specific. I am not saying your wrong. I just want details.

Well, specifically, I was hopeful when Obama was elected. I didn't vote for him, because I gave up on the two majors a long time ago - but after eight years of Bush and the neocons, I was partially susceptible to the two-party bullshit. I thought we needed a change and I thought that maybe an Obama presidency would be something different. But it wasn't. At all. About the only thing Obama has changed that I'm glad of is the don't-ask-don't-tell policy. And while that's nice for my gay friends, it's trivial crap in the larger scheme of things. Obama is an even bigger corporatist than Bush and gets away with even more because nominally he's 'liberal'. Whatever. It's all authoritarian shit to keep us under control, and spinning the hamster wheel for the people who run things.

Sorry to be nasty about it, but I think that anyone who refuses to see this, who thinks there's a dime's worth of difference between the Democrats and Republicans is a fucking idiot and directly responsible for sending our nation down the shithole. It won't stop until we quit giving them our compliant support.

I hate to burst you tiny little bubble, but the only thing that changed about DADT is that the media have stopped talking about it.

Airman fired under 'don't ask, don't tell': News24: World: News

 

[Political Junky]

Can you explain the difference between corporarism and unionism?

Sure.

Unions want a fair and equitable relationship between labor and management.

Corporatists want to kill people in Unions.

As I thought, you have no idea what corporatism actually means. This is probably the closest to what you think it means.

he organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction

Corporatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

If you actually read that with an open mind you will admit that unions actually exist as political representation and that they exercise control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction. Corporatists do not want to kill unions, they support unions because unions are part of the power structure.

corporatism (ideology) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Whatever you think is happening in the world, the word you are using is not the right one to describe it. That makes you just as bad as the idiots who call public schools socialism, or Obama a communist. None of you actually understand the real meanings of the words you use, or you would not use them the way you do.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
Benito Mussolini

This from a very well known Fascist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sure.

Unions want a fair and equitable relationship between labor and management.

Corporatists want to kill people in Unions.

As I thought, you have no idea what corporatism actually means. This is probably the closest to what you think it means.

he organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction

Corporatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

If you actually read that with an open mind you will admit that unions actually exist as political representation and that they exercise control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction. Corporatists do not want to kill unions, they support unions because unions are part of the power structure.

corporatism (ideology) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Whatever you think is happening in the world, the word you are using is not the right one to describe it. That makes you just as bad as the idiots who call public schools socialism, or Obama a communist. None of you actually understand the real meanings of the words you use, or you would not use them the way you do.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
Benito Mussolini

This from a very well known Fascist.

Bingo.

Fascism is a form of corporatism. Sallow is worried about corporations having power, which is the last thing he should be worried about, because the government will never give up its power. The best corporations can hope for is that the government will not tax them into extinction.

 

[Political Junky]

Fascism was founded by Italian national syndicalists during World War I who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but it gravitated to the right in the early 1920s.[16][17] The majority of scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right,[18][19][20][21] while others claim it is the extreme form of a centrist ideology.[22]
Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sallow]

Be specific. I am not saying your wrong. I just want details.

Well, specifically, I was hopeful when Obama was elected. I didn't vote for him, because I gave up on the two majors a long time ago - but after eight years of Bush and the neocons, I was partially susceptible to the two-party bullshit. I thought we needed a change and I thought that maybe an Obama presidency would be something different. But it wasn't. At all. About the only thing Obama has changed that I'm glad of is the don't-ask-don't-tell policy. And while that's nice for my gay friends, it's trivial crap in the larger scheme of things. Obama is an even bigger corporatist than Bush and gets away with even more because nominally he's 'liberal'. Whatever. It's all authoritarian shit to keep us under control, and spinning the hamster wheel for the people who run things.

Sorry to be nasty about it, but I think that anyone who refuses to see this, who thinks there's a dime's worth of difference between the Democrats and Republicans is a fucking idiot and directly responsible for sending our nation down the shithole. It won't stop until we quit giving them our compliant support.

Well if you thought there was going to be a top down 180 degree shift in every policy I can see why you would be disappointed.

There wasn't. Why? Because President Obama is a Center, slightly left, process oriented pragmatist. On the whole, I like that.

But some of it is infuriating.

But you aren't going to turn the huge tanker..we like to call the United States..on a dime.

It just isn't possible...given the type of governance we have.

 

[Sallow]

As I thought, you have no idea what corporatism actually means. This is probably the closest to what you think it means.

Corporatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

If you actually read that with an open mind you will admit that unions actually exist as political representation and that they exercise control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction. Corporatists do not want to kill unions, they support unions because unions are part of the power structure.

corporatism (ideology) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Whatever you think is happening in the world, the word you are using is not the right one to describe it. That makes you just as bad as the idiots who call public schools socialism, or Obama a communist. None of you actually understand the real meanings of the words you use, or you would not use them the way you do.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
Benito Mussolini

This from a very well known Fascist.

Bingo.

Fascism is a form of corporatism. Sallow is worried about corporations having power, which is the last thing he should be worried about, because the government will never give up its power. The best corporations can hope for is that the government will not tax them into extinction.

Your kidding right?

Citizens United?

 

[editec]

Yeah I think that about sums up the GOP of today... the unholy alliance of relatively cluelss social reactionaries and crypto-fascist corporatists.

As opposed to the DNC which is the unholy alliance of relatively clueless social radicals and even more deeply crypto crypto-fascists.

Either way, the American Dream is screwed

 

[Sallow]

Yeah I think that about sums up the GOP of today... the unholy alliance of relatively cluelss social reactionaries and crypto-fascist corporatists.

As opposed to the DNC which is the unholy alliance of relatively clueless social radicals and even more deeply crypto crypto-fascists.

Either way, the American Dream is screwed

Well yes and no.

It really depends on the more moderate elements in this country. One of the reasons we are getting the type of people we are getting as politicians..is that a vast number of level headed people have simply given up.

They don't vote. And they think they are making some sort of statement.

 

[dblack]

They don't vote. And they think they are making some sort of statement.

And they are. A far more impactful statement than simply falling in line and pulling the lever for R or D. They'd make an even more powerful statement by voting for a decent third party, but if even they don't (either because they don't like any of the third parties, or because they just don't want to bother) not voting at all is a more intelligent choice that supporting bad political parties.

Significant portions of the population choosing not to play along in what has become a pointless charade is perhaps the most important feedback we can give our leaders. Their mandate to lead is slim, and getting slimmer.

 

[Sallow]

The two main branches of the current Republican Party seem to be made up of 2 camps. The Social Conservatives and the Corporatists.

The Agenda of the Social Conservatives seems to be:
-Have the state force a woman to bring each and every fetus to term regardless of how it was conceived, the risk to the mother's life, or whether there exists financial support to raise the child.
-Include the Christian Church in governance.
-Eliminate or reduce the influence of cultures outside the Anglo-Saxon realm in this country.
-Immediately deport any non-citizen.
-Close off immigration, entirely.
-Impose a singular definition of marriage..and that being a man and women..preferably of the same race.
-Remove any laws regarding the ownership of firearms.
-Hold a foreign policy that essentially recognizes that every other nation should be subservient to the United States. The US should be feared..not respected.
-That the rich are wealthy because divinity made it so. They should rule the nation as well.
-The government in general should only be responsible for keeping and maintaining the military..as well as upholding Christian Anglo Saxon culture.
-That the United States is a Conferacy of States. States hold supremacy over the Federal government.
-Eliminate or curtail the right to vote.
-Eliminate all public education.
-Eliminate Science.
-Eliminate all art that does not glorify Christianity.
-Make each and every crime subject to life imprisonment or execution.
-Promote legislation that squelches any speech that does not fit the agenda of Social Conservativism.
-Taxes are evil and ungodly.

The Agenda of Corporatists seem to be:
-The government exists to protect the interests of corporate entities.
-Revenue should be derived in large part through government contracts, loans, tax breaks and give backs.
-Regulation of any sort is unprofitable and should never be imposed.
-Risk is to be managed by the tax payer. Profit is private.
-Voting is counter productive to the Plutocracy..and should be curtailed.
-Unions should be completely eliminated. No laws regarding employment, employee safety, and wages should be implemented.
-The Federal Bank serves no useful purpose. It should be the Financial and banking industry that controls the value of currency and interest rates.
-Profit should be the sole domain of executives, with some going to shareholders..who can be screwed at any time.
-It should be the realm of corporations to determine whether or not their products are safe. Buyer beware.
-The government exists essentially as an extention of the Corporatists.
-The military-industrial complex is a wonderful source of revenue and wars should be encouraged.

And when you combine the to..or mix and match..it's easy to understand the Conservatives and today's Republican party.

Case in point..

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...ed-our-prisons-into-hotels-2.html#post3762261

I didn't even have to go far.

 

[Sallow]

They don't vote. And they think they are making some sort of statement.

And they are. A far more impactful statement than simply falling in line and pulling the lever for R or D. They'd make an even more powerful statement by voting for a decent third party, but if even they don't (either because they don't like any of the third parties, or because they just don't want to bother) not voting at all is a more intelligent choice that supporting bad political parties.

Significant portions of the population choosing not to play along in what has become a pointless charade is perhaps the most important feedback we can give our leaders. Their mandate to lead is slim, and getting slimmer.

Well..by not voting and participating they insure that idealogues and corporate shills are the only ones that get into power.

Good point..yes sir ree.

 

[dblack]

Well..by not voting and participating they insure that idealogues and corporate shills are the only ones that get into power.

Good point..yes sir ree.

A far better point than you realize. Your entire position is based on the assumption that the Democrats are significantly better than the Republicans. If I believed that, I'd be right there with you swinging away for the Dems. But I think that assumption is deeply deluded, so in my view, voting for either major party is a wasted vote.