The Republican Party....

[Tech_Esq]

No.....scratch the 2 party system, and just let the whole mess of 'em keep running until either (a) they're outta cash, or (b) election day.

Lots more people on the ballot, lots more competition, and probably a fair way of doing it. If the way I said is in the Constitution, then what in the hell happened over the past 200 years?

The election of 1796 resulted in John Adams (Pres) and Thomas Jefferson (VP). They were mortal enemies. The result was Adams sent Jefferson to be ambassador to Montecello (Jefferson's home in Virginia). So, they decided, maybe this wasn't the best plan.

 

[Navy1960]

While I cannot speak for everyone else, I will add to this conversation by saying why I became a member of the Republican party. I have always believed in the basic fundamental values all my life of self reliance, personal responsiblity and responsibility for one's family and loved ones, and a deep belief that a person owe's a debt of service to their country no matter what that may be to pay for the Freedom's we all enjoy. The Republican party that I joined shared my belief that the goverment should conduct itself in an ethical fashion and adhere to those principles and uphold the long traditions of respect for the constitution and to always respect people they were elected to represent first and formost. Further, the Republican party I joined shared my belief that the government was not only to conduct itself in fiscally responsible manner but also to defend this nation from any enemy foreign or domestic that would harm it. In addition to those, the Republican party that I became a part of shared my belief that the wealth of this nation was built upon the hard work of it's own citizens and was not the result of the Government I elected and it was their job to provide and environment that promoted this ideal. On social issues the Republican party that I identified with was one that believed that it was the measure of a society on how much passion it showed to it's elderly, disabled, and those that fought so galently for it. That is the Republican Party I became a member of and the ideals I share and believe in. It would seem these ideals have been lost in time and lost due to greed and self promotion, however it is never to late, it is only too late when people give up and stop wanting this country to be a better place.

Those who elected Mr. Lincoln expect him . . . to secure to free labor its just right to the Territories of the United States; to protect . . . by wise revenue laws, the labor of our people; to secure the public lands to actual settlers . . . ; to develop the internal resources of the country by opening new means of communication between the Atlantic and Pacific."

 

[Tech_Esq]

No, the Republicans have been adrift ever since their leader was drunk at the wheel in the form of Curious George Bush Jr. Finding a touchstone politician? Good luck, almost all of them think the same way now.

Sorry I missed the stuff in my quote.

Palin did not "redistribute wealth" in Alaska. I'll explain this again, since you must not have seen it on the other thread. Alaska is an oil producing state. As such, the state earns more money on its oil sales than it takes to run the state. Pretty much every year since the Alaska pipeline was finished, the citizens of Alaska have received a check for their "equal share" of the excess profits from oil contracts.

The key is each person is equal. They ALL get the same share because they are all citizens of the state.

I agree on McCain. That was kind of the point of naming him.

 

[sealybobo]

By the way, this is how big the GOP should be. Since it only represents 30% of us, that's how many politicians they should have in Washington.

They should never be trusted with power again.

Bill Press even wrote a book about it called Trainwreck. Here are snipets.

Synopsis
Ten things trainwreck reveals that REPUBLICANS HOPE YOU NEVER FIND OUT






• Why the conservative movement that spawned Reagan, Gingrich, and Bush is now dead.


• How many core conservative principles the Republicans have betrayed.


• How Republicans have made us less safe, not more.


• How Republicans became the biggest spenders of all time.


• How much bigger the federal government has grown under conservative rule.


• How many Republicans got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.


• How Republicans went from protecting the environment to plundering it.


• How the party of peacekeepers became the party of perpetual war.


• How Reagan was worse than Nixon—and Bush worse than both.


• Why conservatives can never again be trusted with power.




In Bill Press's funniest and most astute book yet, he drives the final nail into the coffin containing the ideas of the so-called party of ideas. And it's a coffin many Republican presidential candidates have been using as a campaign bus.

Conventional conservative wisdom holds that somehow, during the first seven years of the twenty-first century, the Republican Party lost its way and abandoned core conservative principles while maintaining absolute control of all three branches of government. Is this true? Or are unnecessary wars, ballooning deficits, rampant corruption, incompetent governance, inadequate public services, crumbling infrastructure, and repeated attempts to deceive the public the inevitable consequence of any government based onconservative political philosophy?

In Trainwreck, one of America's best-known progressive commentators reveals that, far from betraying conservative ideals, the administration of George W. Bush has behaved exactly as anyone would expect of a group that believes government is evil and always doomed to failure. Why, asks syndicated radio host and newspaper columnist Bill Press, would people whose primary message is that government doesn't work want to prove otherwise?

Press traces the history of the modern conservative movement from the rise of Robert Taft in the 1940s, through the glory days of Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich, to the long and agonizing fall of George W. Bush. He examines the movement's intellectual underpinnings in the writings of Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley Jr. and its national political birth with the nomination of Barry Goldwater for president in 1964.

This in-depth analysis reveals three very salient facts: hatred of government has been a core value of the conservative movement from its inception; the behavior of the George W. Bush administration has mirrored that of the Reagan administration in every important way; and, until Hurricane Katrina revealed in 2005 that the emperor had no clothes, movement conservatives were the president's strongest supporters and closest allies.

Press demonstrates that, while constantly changing and evolving, conservative positions have remained consistently wrong, and that, from its inception, the movement was dedicated to tearing things down, not building them up.

Trainwreck will convince you, once and for all, that the conservative movement has remained on track for decades—and that, from the beginning, those tracks were headed for disaster.

 

[KGB]

By the way, this is how big the GOP should be. Since it only represents 30% of us, that's how many politicians they should have in Washington.

They should never be trusted with power again.

Bill Press even wrote a book about it called Trainwreck. Here are snipets.

Synopsis
Ten things trainwreck reveals that REPUBLICANS HOPE YOU NEVER FIND OUT






• Why the conservative movement that spawned Reagan, Gingrich, and Bush is now dead.


• How many core conservative principles the Republicans have betrayed.


• How Republicans have made us less safe, not more.


• How Republicans became the biggest spenders of all time.


• How much bigger the federal government has grown under conservative rule.


• How many Republicans got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.


• How Republicans went from protecting the environment to plundering it.


• How the party of peacekeepers became the party of perpetual war.


• How Reagan was worse than Nixon—and Bush worse than both.


• Why conservatives can never again be trusted with power.




In Bill Press's funniest and most astute book yet, he drives the final nail into the coffin containing the ideas of the so-called party of ideas. And it's a coffin many Republican presidential candidates have been using as a campaign bus.

Conventional conservative wisdom holds that somehow, during the first seven years of the twenty-first century, the Republican Party lost its way and abandoned core conservative principles while maintaining absolute control of all three branches of government. Is this true? Or are unnecessary wars, ballooning deficits, rampant corruption, incompetent governance, inadequate public services, crumbling infrastructure, and repeated attempts to deceive the public the inevitable consequence of any government based onconservative political philosophy?

In Trainwreck, one of America's best-known progressive commentators reveals that, far from betraying conservative ideals, the administration of George W. Bush has behaved exactly as anyone would expect of a group that believes government is evil and always doomed to failure. Why, asks syndicated radio host and newspaper columnist Bill Press, would people whose primary message is that government doesn't work want to prove otherwise?

Press traces the history of the modern conservative movement from the rise of Robert Taft in the 1940s, through the glory days of Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich, to the long and agonizing fall of George W. Bush. He examines the movement's intellectual underpinnings in the writings of Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley Jr. and its national political birth with the nomination of Barry Goldwater for president in 1964.

This in-depth analysis reveals three very salient facts: hatred of government has been a core value of the conservative movement from its inception; the behavior of the George W. Bush administration has mirrored that of the Reagan administration in every important way; and, until Hurricane Katrina revealed in 2005 that the emperor had no clothes, movement conservatives were the president's strongest supporters and closest allies.

Press demonstrates that, while constantly changing and evolving, conservative positions have remained consistently wrong, and that, from its inception, the movement was dedicated to tearing things down, not building them up.

Trainwreck will convince you, once and for all, that the conservative movement has remained on track for decades—and that, from the beginning, those tracks were headed for disaster.

the voice of "reason" from the left cackles again....

 

[sealybobo]

the voice of "reason" from the left cackles again....

As if you are smarter than him or I.

Dispute any of his facts and provide your own proof conservtard.

God, I feel so much better with a dem in power and control of both houses. And not just Lieberman as the deciding vote. And without Chaney being the tie breaker.

Can you tell I'm less angry?

You seem angry all of the sudden.

 

[GigiBowman]

As if you are smarter than him or I.

Dispute any of his facts and provide your own proof conservtard.

God, I feel so much better with a dem in power and control of both houses. And not just Lieberman as the deciding vote. And without Chaney being the tie breaker.

Can you tell I'm less angry?

You seem angry all of the sudden.

Actually you seem like a very angry bitter pill and I was enjoying this thread before you came in it. You got your way...so why are you so damned angry?

 

[Tech_Esq]

By the way, this is how big the GOP should be. Since it only represents 30% of us, that's how many politicians they should have in Washington.

They should never be trusted with power again.

Bill Press even wrote a book about it called Trainwreck. Here are snipets.

Synopsis
Ten things trainwreck reveals that REPUBLICANS HOPE YOU NEVER FIND OUT






• Why the conservative movement that spawned Reagan, Gingrich, and Bush is now dead.


• How many core conservative principles the Republicans have betrayed.


• How Republicans have made us less safe, not more.


• How Republicans became the biggest spenders of all time.


• How much bigger the federal government has grown under conservative rule.


• How many Republicans got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.


• How Republicans went from protecting the environment to plundering it.


• How the party of peacekeepers became the party of perpetual war.


• How Reagan was worse than Nixon—and Bush worse than both.


• Why conservatives can never again be trusted with power.




In Bill Press's funniest and most astute book yet, he drives the final nail into the coffin containing the ideas of the so-called party of ideas. And it's a coffin many Republican presidential candidates have been using as a campaign bus.

Conventional conservative wisdom holds that somehow, during the first seven years of the twenty-first century, the Republican Party lost its way and abandoned core conservative principles while maintaining absolute control of all three branches of government. Is this true? Or are unnecessary wars, ballooning deficits, rampant corruption, incompetent governance, inadequate public services, crumbling infrastructure, and repeated attempts to deceive the public the inevitable consequence of any government based onconservative political philosophy?

In Trainwreck, one of America's best-known progressive commentators reveals that, far from betraying conservative ideals, the administration of George W. Bush has behaved exactly as anyone would expect of a group that believes government is evil and always doomed to failure. Why, asks syndicated radio host and newspaper columnist Bill Press, would people whose primary message is that government doesn't work want to prove otherwise?

Press traces the history of the modern conservative movement from the rise of Robert Taft in the 1940s, through the glory days of Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich, to the long and agonizing fall of George W. Bush. He examines the movement's intellectual underpinnings in the writings of Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley Jr. and its national political birth with the nomination of Barry Goldwater for president in 1964.

This in-depth analysis reveals three very salient facts: hatred of government has been a core value of the conservative movement from its inception; the behavior of the George W. Bush administration has mirrored that of the Reagan administration in every important way; and, until Hurricane Katrina revealed in 2005 that the emperor had no clothes, movement conservatives were the president's strongest supporters and closest allies.

Press demonstrates that, while constantly changing and evolving, conservative positions have remained consistently wrong, and that, from its inception, the movement was dedicated to tearing things down, not building them up.

Trainwreck will convince you, once and for all, that the conservative movement has remained on track for decades—and that, from the beginning, those tracks were headed for disaster.

Neither Bush was a conservative despite what they liked to call themselves. Press has an agenda and we all know what it is.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Neither Bush was a conservative despite what they liked to call themselves. Press has an agenda and we all know what it is.

That's very true... GW is not a conservative. He's the pure embodiment of a Centrist. That these idiots consider him a 'right winger' simply illustrates hwo radically left they really are.

Now I voted for GW four times and each time it was due to a lack of a conservative choice... and FTR: I don't recall ever voting for him in the primary, in the primaries I've voted for Keyes...

This last time I voted for Guilinai in the primary... again... not a conservative, but a hard core anti-terrorist and someone with substantial executive experience, with conservative results.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

While I cannot speak for everyone else, I will add to this conversation by saying why I became a member of the Republican party. I have always believed in the basic fundamental values all my life of self reliance, personal responsiblity and responsibility for one's family and loved ones, and a deep belief that a person owe's a debt of service to their country no matter what that may be to pay for the Freedom's we all enjoy. The Republican party that I joined shared my belief that the goverment should conduct itself in an ethical fashion and adhere to those principles and uphold the long traditions of respect for the constitution and to always respect people they were elected to represent first and formost. Further, the Republican party I joined shared my belief that the government was not only to conduct itself in fiscally responsible manner but also to defend this nation from any enemy foreign or domestic that would harm it. In addition to those, the Republican party that I became a part of shared my belief that the wealth of this nation was built upon the hard work of it's own citizens and was not the result of the Government I elected and it was their job to provide and environment that promoted this ideal. On social issues the Republican party that I identified with was one that believed that it was the measure of a society on how much passion it showed to it's elderly, disabled, and those that fought so galently for it. That is the Republican Party I became a member of and the ideals I share and believe in. It would seem these ideals have been lost in time and lost due to greed and self promotion, however it is never to late, it is only too late when people give up and stop wanting this country to be a better place.

Those who elected Mr. Lincoln expect him . . . to secure to free labor its just right to the Territories of the United States; to protect . . . by wise revenue laws, the labor of our people; to secure the public lands to actual settlers . . . ; to develop the internal resources of the country by opening new means of communication between the Atlantic and Pacific."

BINGO!

I'm not prepared to abandon the party... I intend to spend the next four years doing my level best to chase the independent, moderate, centrist, progressives the HELL OUT OF THIS PARTY!

 

[WillowTree]

Actually you seem like a very angry bitter pill and I was enjoying this thread before you came in it. You got your way...so why are you so damned angry?

now ain't that the truth? for people that won the race they surely do stay in a snit don't they? I think they just like being in a state of "pissed off" I'm guessing that's better than pissed on don't you?

 

[ABikerSailor]

That's very true... GW is not a conservative. He's the pure embodiment of a Centrist. That these idiots consider him a 'right winger' simply illustrates hwo radically left they really are.

Now I voted for GW four times and each time it was due to a lack of a conservative choice... and FTR: I don't recall ever voting for him in the primary, in the primaries I've voted for Keyes...

This last time I voted for Guilinai in the primary... again... not a conservative, but a hard core anti-terrorist and someone with substantial executive experience, with conservative results.

Well, InfinitePuberty, Republicans are right wing, Bush is the leader of the right wing party, so that would say (in the general scheme of things) that Bush Jr. is a right winger.

 

[Turboswede]

Palin did not "redistribute wealth" in Alaska. I'll explain this again, since you must not have seen it on the other thread. Alaska is an oil producing state. As such, the state earns more money on its oil sales than it takes to run the state. Pretty much every year since the Alaska pipeline was finished, the citizens of Alaska have received a check for their "equal share" of the excess profits from oil contracts.

Alaska charges other states for oil? Why does the State have oil to begin with? Are there state oil riggs?

 

[Turboswede]

That's very true... GW is not a conservative. He's the pure embodiment of a Centrist. That these idiots consider him a 'right winger' simply illustrates hwo radically left they really are.

With that said, who in history would be a "reactionary". Bush is a Centrist? Hold on...the world stopped spinning for a second. I would say that W would be a little right of center on Nationalism, and other cultural issues.

Centrist…I just can’t deal with that, what would you consider “Right Wing” de Gaulle, Mustafa Kemal, Juan Peron, Mussolini, Hitler?

Now I see why you keep calling Obama a Marxist, you don’t know anything about political theory.

If you think Obama is “extreme left” where would you put FDR, Olaf Palme, Deng Xiaoping, Castro, Mao, Lenin?

I would think, like anything in US politics, W was mildly right and Obama is mildly left, either are about as spicy as Mexican food at Taco Bell.​

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well, InfinitePuberty, Republicans are right wing, Bush is the leader of the right wing party, so that would say (in the general scheme of things) that Bush Jr. is a right winger.

Well do tell...

So Olivia Snow is a Right Winger? Really? Now could ya list the "Right Wing traits which Olivia Snow exemplifies? No doubt then that Chris Shea is a right winger? And no doubt you'll list for the consideration of the board, those right wing traits that Chris Shea exemplifies...

GW Bush sponsored AND SIGNED INTO LAW the largest social entitlement since the New Deal and CERTAINLY by ANY rationalization, since "The Great Society"... there is absolutely NOTHING American about that; GW Bush gave Ted Kennedy the right of way to write the bill through which the Federal government would stomp out the very notion of Federalism; at least as far as public education is concerned... what's right wing about that?

Now take your time squid... as there's a strong westerly wind a blowin' and she's about to kick the rhetorical shit out of your leaky intellectual vessel.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

With that said, who in history would be a "reactionary".

You would be a fine example of a reactionary... given your latest example drawn above wherein you're demonstrating the function of "Re-action."

With that said, who in history would be a "reactionary". Bush is a Centrist? Hold on...the world stopped spinning for a second. I would say that W would be a little right of center on Nationalism, and other cultural issues.

Oh... I see, so you feel more comfortable with describing GW as a fascist?

Fine... Sadly there's nothing right wing about Fascism... except it's marginally right of Socialism; but not such that it's worthy of consideration or even discernable from the perspective of free men. But GW is now and has always been a hard-core believer that leftists are entitled to set policy based upon their existence and decidedly without regard for the catastrophe which leftist policy has historically and must inevitably bring, based upon the mathematical certainties inherent in the base calculations... leftism is wholly devoid of valid moral principle... thus it must bring nothing else but catastrophe, calamity and chaos; and this has always been his weak suit...

Centrist…I just can’t deal with that, what would you consider “Right Wing” de Gaulle, Mustafa Kemal, Juan Peron, Mussolini, Hitler?

None of them, if by Right-Wing you are referring to those who believed Individual Liberty... in God given individual rights, inherent and unalienable to each individual human being; rights which possess sacred responsibilities bearing down on each free sovereign to defend to the extent of his physical, intellectual and spiritual means. Merely opposing leftist power does not an American make... One is either a proponent of unfettered individual liberty or one is not and leftists are decidedly NOT...

As you've conclusively proven time and time again sir... you advocate for the usurpation of individual liberty through the confiscation of the product of the labor of one individual for the subsistence of another... yet you have repeatedly proven that you have ABSOLUTELY NO MEANS TO SHOW ANY VALID MORAL RIGHT ON WHICH ONE WILL REST SUCH IMMORALITY AND DIRECT AFRONT TO INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ution-of-wealth-not-pursued-5.html#post877753

Now I see why you keep calling Obama a Marxist, you don’t know anything about political theory.

If you think Obama is “extreme left” where would you put FDR, Olaf Palme, Deng Xiaoping, Castro, Mao, Lenin?

There is no 'extreme Left;' just as there is no 'extreme pregnancy'... one is either capable of reason or one is not... where one is not, one is a intellectually and spiritually lost, thus one is a leftist and the least of those are those who lack the courage to commit to their ideas and we call those 'independent, moderate, centrist, progressives...'

In demonstrating your intellectual limitations, thus your leftist tendencies, you're trying to use as a means of obfuscation, the power which a given leftist is able to obtain...

Where a leftist is outside of power and influence, they are hapless little 'feelers' out there projecting the facade that they're 'just trying to help the po''... Where they find popular majorities, they create massive socio-economic failure and massive cultural discontent; this by tearing away cultural standards, encouraging invalid lifestyles, promoting hedonism, etc... Where they find absolute power, they bring genocide and catastrophe on a massive, unthinkable scale; most of which challenges the worst of Nature itself.

In the last 70 years alone, in PEACE TIME... this completely setting aside the dozens of regional wars and two world wars caused by the ideological left... but in just the last 70 years, the ideological left has INTENTIONALLY MURDERED 150 million innocent people, whose only crime was they opposed the ideological left.

Hussein Obama is a person who espouses the fundamental ideas which bread the absolute greatest horror the human species has ever known... these ideas are logically invalid and morally bankrupt; these ideas have absolutely NO POTENTIAL to bring anything but complete failure and human tragedy beyond the scale of human imagination... and he has relentlessly pursued this power on the backs of those murderers and thieves... He has stated he intends to implement those unviable, morally bankrupt fundamental ideas and to do so at the expense of the freedom of individuals who have worked and sacrificed for everything they have... Hussein Obama is the enemy of freedom; freedom here in America and freedom as a concept exemplified through individual liberty.

Thus Hussein Obama is the enemy of those who treasure freedom; and those who advocate on behalf of Hussein Obama are no less an enemy and they will be held to no lessor degree of accountability on that great gettin' up mornin'... which none of us will avoid, despite our best efforts and the depths of our individual rationalizations and they will be judged by he that stands above all others... including little Marxist tyrants... with big floppy ears.

 

[9 Volt]

BINGO!

I'm not prepared to abandon the party... I intend to spend the next four years doing my level best to chase the independent, moderate, centrist, progressives the HELL OUT OF THIS PARTY!

It's the corporatists you should be chasing out. Shultz, Rummy, Cheney, Baker, Jackson etc. These guys have run the party into the ground since the eighties. I'll be interested to see if they disappear with their hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars or if it's true that you can never satiate the aristocracy.

 

[Turboswede]

PubliusInfinitu, I think we differ on the usage of the term “Right Wing”, I think you are connecting the term with classical liberalism which is a more modern use of the term where I use “Right Wing” in the classical sense, from the French Idea of an extreme nationalist, i.e. on the right wing of the Emperor (Napoleon at the time). Both usages of the term are correct depending on use in the economic or political context.

You would be a fine example of a reactionary... given your latest example drawn above wherein you're demonstrating the function of "Re-action."

A “reactionary” is used to describe an individual who longs for an earlier time, a “conservative” resists change while a “reactionary” actively works to reverse social progress, reintroducing segregation or eliminating the right for women to vote (for example) would be “reactionary” policies.

Oh... I see, so you feel more comfortable with describing GW as a fascist?

No he is not a fascist, but I would say he is right of center (politically) as he typically appeals to supporters on an emotional rather than rational level, promotes a highly nationalistic foreign policy and has an interest in taxing active rather than passive income.

Fine... Sadly there's nothing right wing about Fascism... except it's marginally right of Socialism; but not such that it's worthy of consideration or even discernable from the perspective of free men. But GW is now and has always been a hard-core believer that leftists are entitled to set policy based upon their existence and decidedly without regard for the catastrophe which leftist policy has historically and must inevitably bring, based upon the mathematical certainties inherent in the base calculations... leftism is wholly devoid of valid moral principle... thus it must bring nothing else but catastrophe, calamity and chaos; and this has always been his weak suit...

There are 2 aspects of fascism that are associated with the “Right” first is extreme nationalism and the belief that the land and blood of the nation is sacred. You can’t have fascism without extreme nationalism and nationalism is a right wing, not left wing trait. Socialism rejects Nationalism in the interest of fostering globalism and the idea that nations are just arbitrary distinctions between people. A Fascist would cringe at being called a socialist due to the belief in the nation rather than the global community.

Second, you need to have private ownership with Fascism, while a fascist state controls industry, industry is held and operated privately. Socialism rejects private ownership of industry and embraces state ownership of the means of production. As fascism embraces private ownership, it cannot be a “leftist” philosophy.

None of them, if by Right-Wing you are referring to those who believed Individual Liberty... in God given individual rights, inherent and unalienable to each individual human being; rights which possess sacred responsibilities bearing down on each free sovereign to defend to the extent of his physical, intellectual and spiritual means. Merely opposing leftist power does not an American make... One is either a proponent of unfettered individual liberty or one is not and leftists are decidedly NOT...

What I mean by right wing is opposed to any expression of liberty which is not in the interest of the nation, it is a “right wing” idea that speech should be suppressed if it opposes the nation (not necessarily the government). So, a “right wing” individual may have no issues regarding slandering an individual member of the government but would see burning a US flag (a symbol of the Nation) as an unacceptable expression of liberty. I think you are more of a “classical liberal” if you are a proponent of unbridled individual liberty, for example, most libertarians are pure centrists as they believe that the role of the state is to fade into the background. A libertarian would view any form of taxation negatively and especially those in excess of the minimum to fund protection of individual property.

As you've conclusively proven time and time again sir... you advocate for the usurpation of individual liberty through the confiscation of the product of the labor of one individual for the subsistence of another... yet you have repeatedly proven that you have ABSOLUTELY NO MEANS TO SHOW ANY VALID MORAL RIGHT ON WHICH ONE WILL REST SUCH IMMORALITY AND DIRECT AFRONT TO INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

“The good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one”

Well, I don’t think its confiscation to ask people to pay for the services they are provided, even the most radical libertarian would say that some taxes are needed in order to protect individual property. We as a society decide on what services we would like and then (as a democratic republic) everyone is on the hook for covering the basic packet of services we have contracted for. A democracy would not function if individuals could pick and chose what their specific social contribution would go for. I am sure both you and I have issues with how the government spends our contribution and we have the right to complain about it, and try and change it within the democratic framework.

There is no 'extreme Left;' just as there is no 'extreme pregnancy'... one is either capable of reason or one is not... where one is not, one is a intellectually and spiritually lost, thus one is a leftist and the least of those are those who lack the courage to commit to their ideas and we call those 'independent, moderate, centrist, progressives...'

Of course there is an “extreme left” the extreme left would want the dissolution of national boundaries and the elimination or private property, no American politician that I can recall has ever run a campaign on those promises, but a number of European politicians have. I think you would have a hard time convincing even yourself that Obama wants to dissolve the United States and collectivize the entire world’s industry under the Aegis of “the people”. It’s loony, just like any political ideology taken to the extreme.

What I am trying to point out is that there is a continuum with the “left” on one end and the “Right” on the other, here is a visual representation:

Left--------------------------------------------------------------Right
Globalism------------------------------------------------------Nationalism
Collective ownership-----------------------------------------Private Property

In demonstrating your intellectual limitations, thus your leftist tendencies, you're trying to use as a means of obfuscation, the power which a given leftist is able to obtain...

I don’t understand why you need to call me stupid, I have the self esteem to know that I am not stupid.

Where a leftist is outside of power and influence, they are hapless little 'feelers' out there projecting the facade that they're 'just trying to help the po''... Where they find popular majorities, they create massive socio-economic failure and massive cultural discontent; this by tearing away cultural standards, encouraging invalid lifestyles, promoting hedonism, etc... Where they find absolute power, they bring genocide and catastrophe on a massive, unthinkable scale; most of which challenges the worst of Nature itself.

This just confuses me as any group with absolute power tends to bring genocide and catastrophe on a massive scale whether they are on the left or the right. Nature appreciates compromise and a balance, that’s the basis of America’s Pluralism which was Hamilton’s idea of democracy. American Pluralism allows interest to compete on the public stage, those that are “good” (i.e. have the most support) are accepted while those that are “bad” (less support) are rejected.

In the last 70 years alone, in PEACE TIME... this completely setting aside the dozens of regional wars and two world wars caused by the ideological left... but in just the last 70 years, the ideological left has INTENTIONALLY MURDERED 150 million innocent people, whose only crime was they opposed the ideological left.

If I were going to use this to support my argument I would have gone with 90 years and thrown in the Russian revolution. The Left has not been responsible for 150 million deaths (where did you get that number?) but extremist Ideology has been responsible for death and destruction on a massive scale whether from the left (again, globalism & collectivism) or the right (again nationalism & private ownership).

I also find your 150 million number hard to account for, I would figure 32 million through Stalin’s forced collectivization of agriculture and another 8 million in Cambodia. As for the mass murders in the Balkans, Germany, Rwanda and Latin America (to name a few) were carried out by extreme right regimes (Nationalism/race and all supported by private industry).

Hussein Obama is a person who espouses the fundamental ideas which bread the absolute greatest horror the human species has ever known... these ideas are logically invalid and morally bankrupt; these ideas have absolutely NO POTENTIAL to bring anything but complete failure and human tragedy beyond the scale of human imagination... and he has relentlessly pursued this power on the backs of those murderers and thieves... He has stated he intends to implement those unviable, morally bankrupt fundamental ideas and to do so at the expense of the freedom of individuals who have worked and sacrificed for everything they have... Hussein Obama is the enemy of freedom; freedom here in America and freedom as a concept exemplified through individual liberty.

From this I do not understand how you define the term “logical”. The morally bankrupt statement I just disagree with.

How would paying off the national debt and providing some more efficient from of healthcare “bring anything but complete failure and human tragedy beyond the scale of human imagination...” That seems just a little overdramatic.

Thus Hussein Obama is the enemy of those who treasure freedom; and those who advocate on behalf of Hussein Obama are no less an enemy and they will be held to no lesser degree of accountability on that great gettin' up mornin'... which none of us will avoid, despite our best efforts and the depths of our individual rationalizations and they will be judged by he that stands above all others... including little Marxist tyrants... with big floppy ears.

Even if that is your argument, the extreme right do not treasure freedom but rather the power of the nation. Oh, and nice ad hominem, Obama’s ears…very classy.

 

[Zoom-boing]

PubliusInfinitu, I think we differ on the usage of the term “Right Wing”, I think you are connecting the term with classical liberalism which is a more modern use of the term where I use “Right Wing” in the classical sense, from the French Idea of an extreme nationalist, i.e. on the right wing of the Emperor (Napoleon at the time). Both usages of the term are correct depending on use in the economic or political context.




A “reactionary” is used to describe an individual who longs for an earlier time, a “conservative” resists change while a “reactionary” actively works to reverse social progress, reintroducing segregation or eliminating the right for women to vote (for example) would be “reactionary” policies.



No he is not a fascist, but I would say he is right of center (politically) as he typically appeals to supporters on an emotional rather than rational level, promotes a highly nationalistic foreign policy and has an interest in taxing active rather than passive income.



There are 2 aspects of fascism that are associated with the “Right” first is extreme nationalism and the belief that the land and blood of the nation is sacred. You can’t have fascism without extreme nationalism and nationalism is a right wing, not left wing trait. Socialism rejects Nationalism in the interest of fostering globalism and the idea that nations are just arbitrary distinctions between people. A Fascist would cringe at being called a socialist due to the belief in the nation rather than the global community.

Second, you need to have private ownership with Fascism, while a fascist state controls industry, industry is held and operated privately. Socialism rejects private ownership of industry and embraces state ownership of the means of production. As fascism embraces private ownership, it cannot be a “leftist” philosophy.



What I mean by right wing is opposed to any expression of liberty which is not in the interest of the nation, it is a “right wing” idea that speech should be suppressed if it opposes the nation (not necessarily the government). So, a “right wing” individual may have no issues regarding slandering an individual member of the government but would see burning a US flag (a symbol of the Nation) as an unacceptable expression of liberty. I think you are more of a “classical liberal” if you are a proponent of unbridled individual liberty, for example, most libertarians are pure centrists as they believe that the role of the state is to fade into the background. A libertarian would view any form of taxation negatively and especially those in excess of the minimum to fund protection of individual property.



“The good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one”

Well, I don’t think its confiscation to ask people to pay for the services they are provided, even the most radical libertarian would say that some taxes are needed in order to protect individual property. We as a society decide on what services we would like and then (as a democratic republic) everyone is on the hook for covering the basic packet of services we have contracted for. A democracy would not function if individuals could pick and chose what their specific social contribution would go for. I am sure both you and I have issues with how the government spends our contribution and we have the right to complain about it, and try and change it within the democratic framework.



Of course there is an “extreme left” the extreme left would want the dissolution of national boundaries and the elimination or private property, no American politician that I can recall has ever run a campaign on those promises, but a number of European politicians have. I think you would have a hard time convincing even yourself that Obama wants to dissolve the United States and collectivize the entire world’s industry under the Aegis of “the people”. It’s loony, just like any political ideology taken to the extreme.

What I am trying to point out is that there is a continuum with the “left” on one end and the “Right” on the other, here is a visual representation:

Left--------------------------------------------------------------Right
Globalism------------------------------------------------------Nationalism
Collective ownership-----------------------------------------Private Property




I don’t understand why you need to call me stupid, I have the self esteem to know that I am not stupid.



This just confuses me as any group with absolute power tends to bring genocide and catastrophe on a massive scale whether they are on the left or the right. Nature appreciates compromise and a balance, that’s the basis of America’s Pluralism which was Hamilton’s idea of democracy. American Pluralism allows interest to compete on the public stage, those that are “good” (i.e. have the most support) are accepted while those that are “bad” (less support) are rejected.



If I were going to use this to support my argument I would have gone with 90 years and thrown in the Russian revolution. The Left has not been responsible for 150 million deaths (where did you get that number?) but extremist Ideology has been responsible for death and destruction on a massive scale whether from the left (again, globalism & collectivism) or the right (again nationalism & private ownership).

I also find your 150 million number hard to account for, I would figure 32 million through Stalin’s forced collectivization of agriculture and another 8 million in Cambodia. As for the mass murders in the Balkans, Germany, Rwanda and Latin America (to name a few) were carried out by extreme right regimes (Nationalism/race and all supported by private industry).



From this I do not understand how you define the term “logical”. The morally bankrupt statement I just disagree with.

How would paying off the national debt and providing some more efficient from of healthcare “bring anything but complete failure and human tragedy beyond the scale of human imagination...” That seems just a little overdramatic.



Even if that is your argument, the extreme right do not treasure freedom but rather the power of the nation. Oh, and nice ad hominem, Obama’s ears…very classy.

Thank you for posting this. Very well worded and informative for those of us who's interest in politics is newly peaked.

 

[Zoom-boing]

While I cannot speak for everyone else, I will add to this conversation by saying why I became a member of the Republican party. I have always believed in the basic fundamental values all my life of self reliance, personal responsiblity and responsibility for one's family and loved ones, and a deep belief that a person owe's a debt of service to their country no matter what that may be to pay for the Freedom's we all enjoy. The Republican party that I joined shared my belief that the goverment should conduct itself in an ethical fashion and adhere to those principles and uphold the long traditions of respect for the constitution and to always respect people they were elected to represent first and formost. Further, the Republican party I joined shared my belief that the government was not only to conduct itself in fiscally responsible manner but also to defend this nation from any enemy foreign or domestic that would harm it. In addition to those, the Republican party that I became a part of shared my belief that the wealth of this nation was built upon the hard work of it's own citizens and was not the result of the Government I elected and it was their job to provide and environment that promoted this ideal. On social issues the Republican party that I identified with was one that believed that it was the measure of a society on how much passion it showed to it's elderly, disabled, and those that fought so galently for it. That is the Republican Party I became a member of and the ideals I share and believe in. It would seem these ideals have been lost in time and lost due to greed and self promotion, however it is never to late, it is only too late when people give up and stop wanting this country to be a better place.