Why Conservatives Are Really The Same As Communists

[Si modo]

Well, you're going to have to expand on how your saying, "Mine is that - everything being equal - there are not enough well paying jobs around and realise this fact, therefore the above is impossible. That is my starting point..... " means that we are NOT born into a system where we have an equal opportunity and we are NOT equal in the eyes of the law.

If you want to change the goal post to something else - something other than your strawman in tha OP - then specify what that is.

Why do I have to expand on it? It is self explanatory. In order for me to expand on my saying you have to take the first part into account too.

Of course we are not born into a system where we have equal opportunity and are equal in the eyes of the law. That is very apparent.

....

What 'first part'? And, perhaps it's that way in your country, but not here.

.... I'm not changing the goal posts. You calling something a strawman doesn't mean it's a strawman, it's just your opinion.

....

Well, I'll try to go slowly for you. I'm a political conservative. My ideology has nothing to do with what you said conservatives' ideology is. Soooooooo, what you said is a strawman.

.... That aside, I'll say this: Most conservatives on this board - and it seems generally when reading pundits blogs - some how believe that people who use government programmes are lesser people for doing so; are lazy; are bleeding the 'system' dry; are parasites; haven't day a day's work in their life - the list goes on. My contention - and in NO WAY is it a strawman argument - is that if we all did truly reach our potential, there are those that would still need some sort of govt assistance. My anecdotal evidence - and there are even a couple of posts in this very thread - is that if this were to happen, conservatives would still have nothing but derision for those who fall at the very bottom of that Bell Curve. IOW, they expect the impossible....

....

OK. We have a new goal post. Thank you.

.... As for explanations, I would love to see you explain this little doozie: If the government stays out of the way, we all can be equal in achieving our highest potential on that curve according to our abilities.

As I prefer clear communication over pettiness and I can atriculate my points clearly, yes, I will explain something that is self-explanatory. In an ideal system, those who are on the lowest end of that curve - the ones with the least abilities - will be the ones who have the lowest position in society (jobless, getting assistance perhaps, beggars, etc.). Those who are on the highest end of that curve - with the highest abilities - will have the best positions in society. And, those who are the majority - near the middle of that curve - will be the middle class. A large middle class makes for a strong nation. It's quite simple.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Yep. I do support civil rights, women's suffrage, child labor laws, and the 8/40 work schedule.


I'm also a republican, a neo-federalist, a liberal, a (fiscal) conservative, a socialist and damned near a minarchist.


What's your point?

You don't fit nicely into his little box??..

...or he thinks you do?

I don't think he knows what he's trying to say, to be honest with you.

I was pretty clear.

Id say something has scrambled your egg.

 

[Dr Grump]

What 'first part'? And, perhaps it's that way in your country, but not here.

You only quoted how I see things, not how it appears some of your fellow conservatives see things....And no, it is the same with your system. I guess you are talking what is down on paper. I'm talking reality. Two different things...On paper, Bob Smith born in Compton could become the head of an oil company. I'm betting somebody with the surname Getty or Rockefeller would have a better chance. Tom Davies born in the South Chicago projects could get into Harvard, I'm betting somebody with the surname Bush or Kennedy would find it a tad easier. Crack Whore Tonika Jackson will stand more chance of getting put away for 25 years in the slammer fo r trying to sell 10 pounds of meth with a public defender at her side, whereas a former American Footballer who slashes his wife's throat with a $1000 an hour lawyer by his side might just get off. Is that the equal system you are talking about that people in the US are born into?

OK. We have a new goal post. Thank you.

Not really. If you look into it, it was what I'm trying to communicate. Something most posters who first put up on this board got from the get-go (shrug)..

As I prefer clear communication over pettiness and I can atriculate my points clearly, yes, I will explain something that is self-explanatory.

It appears you prefer people to post to an exact style that suits you - all the t's crossed and i's dotted. This is a messageboard, not Grammar 101. (I rarely pick on typos, but you must admit it is funny - atriculate?? ). If you do not like pettiness, then lose the arrogant attitude - that is the epitome of pettiness IMO...

In an ideal system, those who are on the lowest end of that curve - the ones with the least abilities - will be the ones who have the lowest position in society (jobless, getting assistance perhaps, beggars, etc.). Those who are on the highest end of that curve - with the highest abilities - will have the best positions in society. And, those who are the majority - near the middle of that curve - will be the middle class. A large middle class makes for a strong nation. It's quite simple.

And I believe that is an absolutely reasonable position to have. And if that is your position, it is a good one. Pity most conservatives on this board don't believe that....well, not that I've seen anyway...

 

[namvet]

awww poor Dr Gump unhappy with his astroturf gov

 

[midcan5]

Mudwhistle in post 14 gave an answer that fits closely with 'American' conservatism. (I think when we deal with ideological stances national psyche matters.)

Conservatives start from their position in life and assume everyone has had the opportunity they have had. They miss the reality of the real world. Most seem upper middle class and are accorded numerous perks in life but still seem unappreciative. (Please no sad tales.)

Since conservatism is basically reactionary it is hard to even define it. Anti UHC, anti Gay marriage, anti woman's freedom, anti regulation, anti government, anti welfare and really anti progress - even though progress is inevitable. Harvard University Press: The Rhetoric of Reaction : Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy by Albert O. Hirschman

But conservatism is also importantly hierarchical, and they use nature as the justification even though it has to be evident to all except them, that class matters - money matters. Sadly we can't pick our parents, our intelligence, or the various opportunities that go with class and money. In other words, for those who have a hard time reading, we all run the range regardless of class birth but there is no level playing field.

And I am not saying that is why anyone (or everyone) at the bottom of the ladder is there because of class, consider only our last president, born into a poor family could he have even aspired to MacDonald's cashier. Nah.

And someone mentioned the Red Hen, here's the real story: The Little Red Hen: A Closer look at a Conservative Fable | Conceptual Guerilla


Joe Bageant: Ideology discussions have been demonized

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Ideology-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/019280281X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Ideology: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (9780192802811): Michael Freeden: Books[/ame]

 

[whaleboat]

We all do have an equal oppurtunity to succeed in this country . And there would be a heck of a lot more oppurtunity to go around if it weren't for the true commies , like Slumboma , putting their full strength into keeping the country down . According to the Congressional Western Caucus ' website the slum lord in chief is eye-balling another 13 million acres of western federal land to create 17 new national monuments . If it weren't for commies like him locking up our natural resources at every turn there would be so much oppurtunity in this country we'd have to import people to take advantage of it .

 

[Si modo]

What 'first part'? And, perhaps it's that way in your country, but not here.

You only quoted how I see things, not how it appears some of your fellow conservatives see things....And no, it is the same with your system. I guess you are talking what is down on paper. I'm talking reality. Two different things...On paper, Bob Smith born in Compton could become the head of an oil company. I'm betting somebody with the surname Getty or Rockefeller would have a better chance. Tom Davies born in the South Chicago projects could get into Harvard, I'm betting somebody with the surname Bush or Kennedy would find it a tad easier. Crack Whore Tonika Jackson will stand more chance of getting put away for 25 years in the slammer fo r trying to sell 10 pounds of meth with a public defender at her side, whereas a former American Footballer who slashes his wife's throat with a $1000 an hour lawyer by his side might just get off. Is that the equal system you are talking about that people in the US are born into?

OK. We have a new goal post. Thank you.

Not really. If you look into it, it was what I'm trying to communicate. Something most posters who first put up on this board got from the get-go (shrug)..

As I prefer clear communication over pettiness and I can atriculate my points clearly, yes, I will explain something that is self-explanatory.

It appears you prefer people to post to an exact style that suits you - all the t's crossed and i's dotted. This is a messageboard, not Grammar 101. (I rarely pick on typos, but you must admit it is funny - atriculate?? ). If you do not like pettiness, then lose the arrogant attitude - that is the epitome of pettiness IMO...

In an ideal system, those who are on the lowest end of that curve - the ones with the least abilities - will be the ones who have the lowest position in society (jobless, getting assistance perhaps, beggars, etc.). Those who are on the highest end of that curve - with the highest abilities - will have the best positions in society. And, those who are the majority - near the middle of that curve - will be the middle class. A large middle class makes for a strong nation. It's quite simple.

And I believe that is an absolutely reasonable position to have. And if that is your position, it is a good one. Pity most conservatives on this board don't believe that....well, not that I've seen anyway...

Putting aside your annoyance with my asking you to clarify your position, maybe Tonika should make a decision to give up crack, or better yet, she should have made the decision never to start. If she has no control over that, then she is on the low end of the curve.

As I said, it's simple.

And, there is no escaping the Bell curve, regardless of how much a government wants to go against natural law.

And, you bring up some good points about our legal system's inequities. I am not blind to the fact that the rich and/or established will have an easier time avoiding prison than a poor person. This is a big problem, IMO too. Unfortunately, the trial attorney lobby is quitte a powerful one and reform in that area is difficult.

 

[editec]

Conservatives and/or liberals are not the villains in this tragedy

The Villains are the villains.

In order to know who they are you have to start payung attention, and that means NOT listening to a load of propaganda from TV and radios talking heads.

Start reading and don't come to any conclusions about who to lynch until you understand the TRUE nature of the crimes, and those responsible for them.

Follow the money, honey!

Blaming the VICTIMS of their villainy is doing exactly what these bastards WANT you to do.

Divide and conquer is the means though which the villains stay in power.

 

[MaggieMae]

Just like it is happening today by trying to cramp your programs down people throats.

Such as?

And by being ignorant .
We know the final destination of your progressive nightmare.
Forced labor and gas chambers .
No thanks.

I support forced labour and gas chambers only as punishment for murderers and other persons guilty of horrible crimes.

My vision would be more like extending the FEC into a union (a compromise between federation and confederation, much like the FF envisioned) of independent townships and cites, working together for mutual defense, coordinating the development of infrastructure, working together to ensure the peace (eg: extraditing criminals), and encouraging fair trade. It would be governed in a federalist manner, with each level of cooperation being weaker than those behind it in all areas save coordination of military forces and specific legislative and other functions (eg: the universal ban on unjustifiable homicide- murder and manslaughter- cannot be overruled by any town or state). The system would be supported through taxation- that is an income tax would help support the functions of the central government while local taxes would fund city/county/state functions and projects (as this Union was meant to be).
That's basically the way it works now.

Sound familiar? It's what the Founding Fathers envisioned and set forth in the Constitution of the united States. The primary difference is that in my 'Red Republic' (if you need something to call it), corporate charters would not be recognized and there would be very strong Constitutional language limiting the actions of the central government (the Fed, under the current system) and coops would be encouraged while companies would not be able to sell their products in the country unless their factories met our environmental and workers' rights laws, regardless of where the factories were located. This prevents the child labour and environmental devastation characteristic of the current system.
Again, our trade contracts with foreign countries are supposed to include restrictions such as not engaging with them if they are known offenders of human rights and if they do not strictly abide by our own environmental protections. The fact that most don't simply justifies a concerted effort toward a second look at some of those trade contracts and make sure they are enforced.

All states/cities would be required to provide emergency medical care and routine physicals for all citizens. The means of doing so (local clinics, public insurance, or whatever) would be left to the member States and the jurisdiction beneath them, although public clinics would be encouraged over publicly owned insurance companies.
Again, except for routine physicals for all citizens, states and localities already provide emergency medical care.

That is my vision. That is what you fear: a nation, not to unlike that promised by the FF, built on human rights.

I will say, however, that coordinating the communications infrastructure among local/state first responders and Homeland Security has yet to be satisfactory--even approaching nine years after the attacks of 911.

 

[MaggieMae]

I want to freedom to work, create, succeed, or fail without the help or hinderence of government. If that's communist, then you are smoking some powerful weed.

I think most people want that....

Then why on earth so many argue to empower government to control every aspect of our lives? It's designed not to specifically so we can remain free.

I find myself asking this question over and over: What "freedoms" have you lost? Are you not still "free" to come and go as you please? Are you not "free" to be educated or educate your children wherever you wish? Are you not "free" to own your own property (including any mineral rights)? Are you not "free" to own a gun as long as you register it? Are you not "free" to speak your mind, even including profanity, just about anywhere there is a forum? Are you not "free" to even not pay your personal debts if you choose? (There is no debtor's prison anymore).

 

[MaggieMae]

Just like it is happening today by trying to cramp your programs down people throats.

Such as?

And by being ignorant .
We know the final destination of your progressive nightmare.
Forced labor and gas chambers .
No thanks.

I support forced labour and gas chambers only as punishment for murderers and other persons guilty of horrible crimes.

My vision would be more like extending the FEC into a union (a compromise between federation and confederation, much like the FF envisioned) of independent townships and cites, working together for mutual defense, coordinating the development of infrastructure, working together to ensure the peace (eg: extraditing criminals), and encouraging fair trade. It would be governed in a federalist manner, with each level of cooperation being weaker than those behind it in all areas save coordination of military forces and specific legislative and other functions (eg: the universal ban on unjustifiable homicide- murder and manslaughter- cannot be overruled by any town or state). The system would be supported through taxation- that is an income tax would help support the functions of the central government while local taxes would fund city/county/state functions and projects (as this Union was meant to be).

Sound familiar? It's what the Founding Fathers envisioned and set forth in the Constitution of the united States. The primary difference is that in my 'Red Republic' (if you need something to call it), corporate charters would not be recognized and there would be very strong Constitutional language limiting the actions of the central government (the Fed, under the current system) and coops would be encouraged while companies would not be able to sell their products in the country unless their factories met our environmental and workers' rights laws, regardless of where the factories were located. This prevents the child labour and environmental devastation characteristic of the current system. All states/cities would be required to provide emergency medical care and routine physicals for all citizens. The means of doing so (local clinics, public insurance, or whatever) would be left to the member States and the jurisdiction beneath them, although public clinics would be encouraged over publicly owned insurance companies.

That is my vision. That is what you fear: a nation, not to unlike that promised by the FF, built on human rights.

Interesting vision.

First question, when did the Founders support Income tax? If that's the way they wanted the Federal Government to be run, why did we have to pass an amendment 150 years later to allow it?

Second, how do you justify forcing anyone to work?

Article I of the Constitution allowed for a "direct tax" levied as a uniform rate apportioned among the states, which became a complicated process and impossible to administer (along with being unfair because the "direct tax" was taken primarily from property owners).

 

[MaggieMae]

You make a good point....to a degree.

At the end of the day, corporations can't be trusted....If corporations were a lot more realistic and moral - and the bottom line wasn't all about money - then I think there would be an excellent case for less govt involvement in a whole slew of things. Unfortunately, at every turn - in my experience - corporations will get away with what they can...

Corporations are just groups of people joint together on a business venture. They don't think. They can't be good or evil. They are just a vehicle for the people who run them. They cant be moral. And considering you can't make money without some basis in reality, I dont see how the people running them can be unrealistic.
That's interesting, especially in light of the fact that the USSC just recently gave "corporations" the same classification as "persons."

Sounds like your problem is wth people. So what do you think should be done with these people that you can't trust?

Oh, and since Corporations are a product of the states, why on earth does that justify Federal action into areas not authorized by the Constitution?

There are literally thousands of actions not specifically authorized by the Constitution. Whenever the conversation turns to the contents of the Constitution, it strikes me as incredible that people don't seem to understand that the document designed the basic tenets, or guidelines, for the country. The framers were not stupid. They fully realized that as the nation grew in population, it would also grow in all those areas that would need to support a growing population. That's why much of its language is ambiguous; that's why we have a Supreme Court to interpret the INTENT of the Constitution.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Communist doctrine demands that all people are created equal, but as Orwell pointed out, 'some are more equal than others'. IOW, the reality is a whole lot different.

With conservatives (on this board anyway), they want everybody to be equal. ie: if you work hard, are not a lazy arse, then you will get the rewards you deserve just like everybody else.

Now, the thing is, if we all managed to fulfil the Conservative Doctrine - ie, full employment, work hard, and enjoy the fruits of our labour, then isn't that communism? We'll all be the same? We all would have the same working conditions etc?

The title of your post should have read "Why citizens of other country's don't know jack shit about America other than what they've been indoctrinated on."

First of all you don't have a clue what a conservative is....
Second of all you don't have the slightest idea what an American is...
Third...you have no idea what Communisn is...facetous or not.

Thanks for playing.

 

[whaleboat]

I am not free to cut firewood in Southern Oregon , I am not free to mine for gold in Northern California , I am not free to fish commercially off the Texas coast . All of which I invested alot of time and money into before these industries were regulated to death .

 

[Si modo]

You make a good point....to a degree.

At the end of the day, corporations can't be trusted....If corporations were a lot more realistic and moral - and the bottom line wasn't all about money - then I think there would be an excellent case for less govt involvement in a whole slew of things. Unfortunately, at every turn - in my experience - corporations will get away with what they can...

Corporations are just groups of people joint together on a business venture. They don't think. They can't be good or evil. They are just a vehicle for the people who run them. They cant be moral. And considering you can't make money without some basis in reality, I dont see how the people running them can be unrealistic.
That's interesting, especially in light of the fact that the USSC just recently gave "corporations" the same classification as "persons."

Sounds like your problem is wth people. So what do you think should be done with these people that you can't trust?

Oh, and since Corporations are a product of the states, why on earth does that justify Federal action into areas not authorized by the Constitution?

There are literally thousands of actions not specifically authorized by the Constitution. Whenever the conversation turns to the contents of the Constitution, it strikes me as incredible that people don't seem to understand that the document designed the basic tenets, or guidelines, for the country. The framers were not stupid. They fully realized that as the nation grew in population, it would also grow in all those areas that would need to support a growing population. That's why much of its language is ambiguous; that's why we have a Supreme Court to interpret the INTENT of the Constitution.

The Big C LIMITS the power of the federal government. Try to wrap your head around that.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Now, the thing is, if we all managed to fulfil the Conservative Doctrine - ie, full employment, work hard, and enjoy the fruits of our labour, then isn't that communism? We'll all be the same? We all would have the same working conditions etc?

Not in the least.
This is why enjoy the fruits of our labour
Communists don't let people do that.
Neither do socialists.
The Democratic Party is the party of ever increasing socialism.
So anyone who wants to enjoy the fruits of our labour is unlikely to want more democrats in control.

 

[MaggieMae]

Then why on earth so many argue to empower government to control every aspect of our lives? It's designed not to specifically so we can remain free.

You make a good point....to a degree.

At the end of the day, corporations can't be trusted....If corporations were a lot more realistic and moral - and the bottom line wasn't all about money - then I think there would be an excellent case for less govt involvement in a whole slew of things. Unfortunately, at every turn - in my experience - corporations will get away with what they can...

Well gee...You don't think that might possibly have something to do with the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, do ya?

Y'know....Conflicting interests and all that?

A GAO report:
Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes | Reuters

 

[MaggieMae]

Who said anything about a 'final solution'?


I told you the end goal.

There must have been a rerun of Glenn Beck's FEMA death camps last night.

 

[MaggieMae]

A lot of liberals have no clue what a Bell curve is. Useful idiots - don't even grasp standard distributions.

It would be helpful if you pointed to which part (or comments) in this thread to which the bell curve should apply. Calling "liberals" useful idiots would seem to put you way at the bottom of the curve since the theory deals in relative fact, not stupid opinions.

 

[beowolfe]

Equal before the law and equality of opportunity =/= Equality of outcome

Just sayin'.

Totally agree. But if we were to all take advantage of the opportunity, would we all get the benefits? No. Not enough to go around, so therefore is the Conservative Doctrine of demanding this from EVERYONE, a realistic outcome?

Who has the more realistic thought? The conservative who demands what I said in the OP, or the liberals, who do want people to succeed but realise that there are those that never will, and want to put programmes/agencies in place that deal with people who are at the bottom of the cliff?

The Conservative Doctrine does not involve the working and middle classes being bled out by the government to pay of their Mega Corporate Cronies. If we let the Too Big Actually Fail, we wouldn't need to keep bleeding out working and middle class to bail them out.

The best rising tide is a growing economy which creates real jobs. History has proven that low tax rates with limited government foster the best climate. The alternative is we are all wards or serfs of the government, to varying degrees.

You sure about that? Based on what happened from 2000-2008, I'm not nearly as confident as you.