Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 10:31:05 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
It's quite fashionable on this site for it's members to blame every conceivable social problem on democrats/liberals.
View Quote
No.
Some blame GW Bush.
Some blame Libertarians.
Some blame the NRA.
Some blame RINOs.

You shouldn't generalize so much.



Quoted:
However behind all of this slander nobody ever brings any info to the table that justifies there position.
View Quote
Again, you generalize too much.    

With all the generalizing you do, you sound a lot like a liberal [:D]

See?



Quoted:
Putting my political opinions aside, I ask each one of you to give me THREE REASONS- along with facts to prove your point- why you don't like Democrats.
View Quote
I'll only give you one because that's all that's needed. The rest are simply the specific manifestations of this main reason.

In the traditional view of people and government, there is a dichotomy of thought where the two ends are [b]"[blue]individualism[/blue]"[/b] and [b]"[red]collectivism[/red]"[/b].

Democrats/liberals focus too heavily upon the "collectivist" view of the relationship between people and government. That individual rights and responsibilities are generally more dissipated among the collective than Republican/conservative philosophy holds.

In a nutshell, that's it.

[b]Liberals lean towards the collectivist view of rights and responsibilities while conservatives lean towards the individualistic view.[/b]

It's a deep philosophical difference underpinning each of these two diametrically opposed sociopolitical perspectives.

Everything else is just details.



And BTW, [b]raven[/b] you're doing a great job of sticking to reason and facts - even if [b]buffalo-soldier[/b] not-so-surprisingly doesn't. [:D]

Link Posted: 5/30/2003 10:38:51 PM EDT
[#2]
To Raven:

It burns me up too.  Liberals and liberalism are both normal, healthy, and pro-American.

Leftism, Socialism and Communism are not.  And it is in the best interests of the Leftists to lie about which is which because they know the American people will never knowingly accept their ideas.  They must confuse the voters to get what they want.

But you should NEVER user the term "progressive" to describe Leftism.  Moving to the Left is NOT progress.  It is part of the Leftist strategy to lie and to confuse voters.

David Horowitz has recently written several articles at www.frontpagemag.com on the linguistic judo that the Left uses everyday.  He has coined a new term to describe the Left which I hope you and many others will begin to use--the are now officially neo-coms, as in New Communists.

Neo-coms--spread the word, please.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 10:46:29 PM EDT
[#3]
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 11:42:07 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
To Raven:
But you should NEVER user the term "progressive" to describe Leftism.  Moving to the Left is NOT progress.  It is part of the Leftist strategy to lie and to confuse voters.
View Quote


For reasons I stated in my #2 point in my first post on this thread, i personally prefer that leftists describe themselves as "progressive" rather than "Liberal".  My personal belief is that we have all the knowledge we need for a good political system and society, it's a matter of just tearing away the stuff that inhibits it.

To me, Progressives/liberals want to modify society by adding to it, adding laws to modify the society, the economy the way it "should" be. They view this as being "Progressive".  Moving forward.  Evolving.

To me, this is just kidding ourselves.  We have plenty of knowledge about how human beings are. We know how the economy works, why personal incentives and private property lead to more efficient use of resources than if they're held in common.  We know it's how things are, having the government mandate otherwise would be like trying to repeal the law of gravity. That's why I am a "conservative".  I realize how people are.  I want to conserve the things that work.  I want to honor and maintain the institutions that we have worked with.

I like the word "liberal" because the root word is "liber"; freedom.  Modern American liberalism, to me, has NOTHING to do with being free. It seems like a codeword for foolishness to me, frankly.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 4:07:08 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Hey, guys.  Take it easy. It's only the internet. You all most likely have [b]far[/b] more in common than your diferences. Relax, and don't take it so personally if someone disagrees.
View Quote


Words of wisdom.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 6:19:27 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Excerpt from The Principles of Communism by Fredrick Engels, 1847.  He is explaining how the revolution of the proletarians(working class) will take place and force the rise of communism.
View Quote


[b]- 18 -
What will be the course of this revolution?
Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat. Direct in England, where the proletarians are already a majority of the people. Indirect in France and Germany, where the majority of the people consists not only of proletarians, but also of small peasants and petty bourgeois who are in the process of falling into the proletariat, who are more and more dependent in all their political interests on the proletariat, and who must, therefore, soon adapt to the demands of the proletariat. Perhaps this will cost a second struggle, but the outcome can only be the victory of the proletariat.

Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:

(i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.

(ii) Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of bonds.

(iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people.

(iv) Organization of labor or employment of proletarians on publicly owned land, in factories and workshops, with competition among the workers being abolished and with the factory owners, in so far as they still exist, being obliged to pay the same high wages as those paid by the state.

(v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

(vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.

(vii) Education of the number of national factories, workshops, railroads, ships; bringing new lands into cultivation and improvement of land already under cultivation -- all in proportion to the growth of the capital and labor force at the disposal of the nation.

(viii) Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mother's care, in national establishments at national cost. Education and production together.

(ix) Construction, on public lands, of great palaces as communal dwellings for associated groups of citizens engaged in both industry and agriculture and combining in their way of life the advantages of urban and rural conditions while avoiding the one-sidedness and drawbacks of each.

(x) Destruction of all unhealthy and jerry-built dwellings in urban districts.

(xi) Equal inheritance rights for children born in and out of wedlock.

(xii) Concentration of all means of transportation in the hands of the nation.

It is impossible, of course, to carry out all these measures at once. But one will always bring others in its wake. Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade. All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing their centralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat, through its labor, multiplies the country's productive forces.

Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.[/b]
View Quote


Do any of those look familiar?  Kind of like the Democratic platform, labor unions, redistribution of wealth, gov't controlled education, high taxes.  I don't think all dems are socialist, but they do support a lot of these issues which are clearly socialist and a precursor to communism.
View Quote


[B]BINGO![/B]

Anyone who does not believe that the modern crop of liberal Democrat politicians are NOT deep in their souls, true blooded communists need only compare the above to the manifesto posted here:  [url]http://bernie.house.gov/pc/[/url].  Surf around a bit.  Take a look at who they are.  Read what they believe in.  Compare that to what is written above.  Scary.

In truth, our "progressives" are merly unreconstructed socialists, bent on imposing their system of society and government on all of us.  These "fellow travelers" actually believe that despite a long series of dismal failures of commnunism and socialism and the horrible deaths of hundreds of millions of innocent people killed in the vain attempts to complete the framework of their preferred utopean society, that it will STILL work here...if only given a chance!

The desire for freedom can't be suppressed.  The desire for capitalism (run your own little truck farm, your own store, your own business) can't be suppressed.  The desire to worship your personal God can't be suppressed, yet the commies tried it and right now our home grown socialist want to try it again.

For example...how many of you have read over on the DU that they want to throttle Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and all other media outlets that don't agree with them?  First Amendment anyone?

The communists have been trying since November 1917 and haven't got it right yet.  With the exeption of a couple of countries in the world, a few of our progressive pols, lots of American college campi and New York and San Francisco bookstores, communism is really dead in the world.

Liberal American politicians refuse to fess up to the fact that they are really socialists because the cold war hasn't been over that long and socialism still has a certain perjorative ring to it.  So...they insist on being tagged with the "progressive"...or..."liberal" label.  BS...a communist is a socialist is a progressive is a liberal.  Again...if you doubt, do a bit of research.  Re-read the Communist Manifesto, read some of V. I. Lenin's writings, study some of the stuff over at the DU and on our own '30s and '40s commies in America, read some of David Horowitz's stuff and then...read what the lefties in the Democratic Party want to do with your country.

BTW Buffalo-soldier, it isn't "slander" when it is true.  [:D]
Hillary Clinton would do her utmost to re-light that flame of socialism if we let her.

Link Posted: 5/31/2003 8:34:59 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:

It's quite fashionable on this site for it's members to blame every conceivable social problem on democrats/liberals. However behind all of this slander nobody ever brings any info to the table that justifies there position. Putting my political opinions aside, I ask each one of you to give me THREE REASONS- along with facts to prove your point- why you don't like Democrats.

View Quote


They desire a larger government than is needed.

They have NEVER seen a tax increase they didn't like.

By in large they support gun confiscation.

All my points are self evident in your local morning paper.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 9:10:23 AM EDT
[#8]
All this discussion is "eye of the beholder" and "Whose ox is being gored(no pun intended)."

I once took a Pol-Sci course where the prof explained politics with [b]NO[/b] Right or Left. He explained it in a vertical fashion with (I think) anarchy at the bottom and Communism (Soviet Union/Red China style) at the top. Made more sense (to me) then the Left-Right crap which makes for [b]ENDLESS[/b]  unsettled arguments and little if any agreements on [b]ANYTHING[/b]!
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 10:00:54 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
All this discussion is "eye of the beholder" and "Whose ox is being gored(no pun intended)."

I once took a Pol-Sci course where the prof explained politics with [b]NO[/b] Right or Left. He explained it in a vertical fashion with (I think) anarchy at the bottom and Communism (Soviet Union/Red China style) at the top. Made more sense (to me) then the Left-Right crap which makes for [b]ENDLESS[/b]  unsettled arguments and little if any agreements on [b]ANYTHING[/b]!
View Quote


That is the general idea of the 'right left' thing.  The 'far right' is actually anarchism (individual rule), the 'far left' is totalitarianism/socialism/fascism/etc (group rule).  In other words the 'left' is government control, the 'right' is individual control.

The problem you have with US politics (or really any political system) is that every issue needs to be judged on its own, and then have an average taken.  And the fact that the Republicans and Democrats 'average' out to be in or near the middle (the republicans tend to be a bit more 'right', and the dems a bit more 'left' in the averages).  Generally the Republican are economic anarchists, Democrats are economic totalitarians.  And on social basis the near opposite is true with Republicans being in favor of government controls and democrats in favor ararchy (even though the Democrats are moving more and more towards social totalitarianism).  Granted there are issues where each party deviate from this broad generalization, but it holds true for most cases.

Something also odd in politics is that the Anarchists joined forces with the Socialists, people whose end goals are the direct opposite of each other.  They did this because neither is a strong enough body to even be noticed alone, and they both have to have the overthrow of the status quo in order to succeed.

A way a prof described it to me is think of everything as a ring.  Anarchism (with no governmental control whatsoever) is flanked by communism (people controlling the government controlling the individual) and democracy (individuals controlling the government controlling the people) at the top, with totalitarianism (government controlling the people and the individual) at the bottom.

Link Posted: 5/31/2003 4:58:47 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1) Entitlements reduce personal responsibility and create a cycle of dependency on the system.  I resent anyone who steals the money I earn and gives it to someone who isn't working.

2) Gun control doesn't work.  I resent anyone who has the arrogance to presume they have the right to disarm me.  This falls under the general category of over-regulation; we have way too many laws on the books.

3) Pushing for mainstream acceptance of "alternative", i.e. abnormal, lifestyles is a misguided attempt to make sure nobody gets their feelings hurt.  Two men want to have sex, that's their business.  Just don't go telling me that it's normal; it goes against the obvious natural order of things.  How screwed up is a kid with two moms or two dads going to be?
View Quote


I agree with everything you said. Good points...
View Quote


Cool, I'm glad we have some common ground.  That leads me to ask why you are a Democrat.  (I assume you are; please correct me if I'm wrong.)

My beliefs are not on the Republican party line.  For example, I am pro-choice with regard to abortion.  For some moral background on this, I believe that the biblical punishment for killing an unborn child was much different than that for killing a human being.  I don't have the specific reference at hand, but I'll dig it out.

In general, I am for minimal interference of the government in the people's lives.  For the most part, that puts me on the Republican side.

The gun issue is very important for me, so much so that I have become a single issue voter.  I think the way a person views the RKBA shows how much faith they have in people doing the right thing without being led along by a nanny government.  Anyone who compromises on this issue loses a lot of face in my book.  I will absolutely vote for a Democrat if they have a stronger RKBA record than their opponent.
View Quote


I consider myself a swing voter. Maybe I'm an independant. To me, it all depends on the candidate in an election or the issue being debated. I don't like Bush, but I don't like Gore either- or really any of the Democratic presidential candidates. I just like to examine both sides of the argument/issue and decide for myself. I like to ride the fence and see how things pan out.
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top