The Left and One Party Rule

[Rune]

What the hell is a ”conservative” and what is the ”conservative voice?”

I know a bunch of Yokels that try to shove their religious beliefs down other folks throats who call themselves conservatives. I know other Yokels that think the undeclared, unnecessary, unconstitutional wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were a great idea and they claim to be conservatives. I know folks that are totally supportive of the unconstitutional Drug War and the Patriot Act that call themselves conservatives. I know people who vote for Republicans and think Republicans are actually in favor of cutting back the federal government and creating a limited federal government but when the federal government is controlled by Republicans it and our debt always grows just like when the Democrats are in control of the federal government and those voters call themselves conservatives and most of the so-called conservatives I know are advocates of all of the above. That means they’re anti-Constitution, anti-Bill Of Rights, pro-authoritarian, pro-BIG government, militarist lying crony capitalistic hypocrites & religious fanatics.

If that’s what conservatism is, who in hell wants to be a conservative or even listen to the so-called conservative voice?

Good post, thanks.

 

[apple0154]

Originally Posted by Sinn Fein Man, why are people so threatened by Libertarians?

Because they never have rational, reasonable or honest answers or opposition to the truth of the libertarian argument, because the libertarian message is fundamentally the founding principles it’s classical liberalism and classical conservatism. Libertarians can back their positions and beliefs with the Constitution, Democrats & Republicans have to resort to lies, phony rhetoric and absurdities.

Rational? Reasonable? One doesn't have to look any further than the Preamble to see the irrationality and unreasonableness of Libertarian answers, ideas and general philosophy. What part of "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" emits the faintest hint, let alone can be interpreted as or assumed to mean, "to hell with everyone else"? The exact opposite is evident. People working together. People helping each other, "In Order to form a more perfect Union." That, right there, puts the brakes on Libertarian philosophy. That eight word phrase immediately discounts any validity to the idea the Founding Fathers were Libertarians or believed in anything resembling Libertarian philosophy. A union is not individualism.

The fact is, "we", not "I" or "you", is the first word of a sentence that "states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve." The Founding Fathers knew the value of cooperation, of union, of working together and looking out for each other. Some people twist that to mean it refers to the States and not people but what makes a State? It's the people. The Founding Fathers were not drafting a document for the benefit of the mountains and lakes and trees. They were drafting a document to benefit the people.

From the time the Pilgrims set sail on the Mayflower it was all about cooperation and working together and looking out for each other and that continued with building the settlements and colonies. As they grew and expanded cooperation was just as important. The founding Fathers realized the importance of cooperation.

Cooperation: 1. an act or instance of working or acting together for a common purpose or benefit; joint action.
2. more or less active assistance from a person (Dic.com)

Active assistance. The very thing Libertarians oppose. The very thing that gives a country strength is what the Libertarians want to eliminate. That's why people are threatened by Libertarians and rightly so.

 

[Paul Siraisi]

My view on it is this: Society moves as a pendulum, with periods of accelerate development and stagnation. Every time the former occurs, there is a force to counter it. And what we've entered within the past several decades is a boom in technology and steady cultural reform - the cultural aspect has been coming out of the woodwork since the days of the Beats. Revolutionaries used to be overthrowing towns, now they're staging attacks and protests through the net. Wars used to be fought in trenches, now they're fought by robots. Homosexuals used to be shunned, now they've become the new civil rights movement. We've seen women and African-Americans occupying the position of power the likes of which previously existed in a fantasy. We're now working with a socialist power to provide oil for the poor. And just as the czarists opposed the revolution in Russia, social conservatives are opposing the revolution in the states - though the current one may be a tad slower paced.

That was really verbose, but I'm sure you get the point.

You might be forgetting what happened to the revolution in Russia.

Not that I'm much of a social conservative. But I'm a fan of Western Civilization and I'll oppose people who appear to want to tear that down. It needs to be passed on to a new generation is what needs to happen.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

From the time the Pilgrims set sail on the Mayflower it was all about cooperation and working together and looking out for each other and that continued with building the settlements and colonies. As they grew and expanded cooperation was just as important. The founding Fathers realized the importance of cooperation.

Cooperation: 1. an act or instance of working or acting together for a common purpose or benefit; joint action.
2. more or less active assistance from a person (Dic.com)

Active assistance. The very thing Libertarians oppose. The very thing that gives a country strength is what the Libertarians want to eliminate. That's why people are threatened by Libertarians and rightly so.

Is there a difference between cooperation and forced servitude?

 

[apple0154]

Is there a difference between cooperation and forced servitude?

Absolutely. Cooperation either results in mutual benefit or benefit for a group to which one belongs and even if one is not benefiting at a specific moment they will be able to benefit when necessary.

 

[Paul Siraisi]

Rational? Reasonable? One doesn't have to look any further than the Preamble to see the irrationality and unreasonableness of Libertarian answers, ideas and general philosophy. What part of "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and

secure the Blessings of Liberty

That part. Are you blind?

to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" emits the faintest hint, let alone can be interpreted as or assumed to mean, "to hell with everyone else"?

Not "to hell with everyone else". "Suck it up and struggle, just like everyone else."

<snip borg blather>

Here's a quote for you--maybe a good reminder for all of us:


"
...What I want to do is, in the first place, to discuss the spirit in which we faced our trials and also our constitution and the way of life which has made us great....

Let me say that our system of government does not copy the institutions of our neighbors. It is more the case of our being a model to others.... Our constitution is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the whole people. When it is a question of settling private disputes, everyone is equal before the law; when it is a question of putting one person before another in positions of public responsibility, what counts is not membership of a particular class, but the actual ability which the man possesses. No one, so long as he has it in him to be of service to the state, is kept in political obscurity because of poverty.

And, just as our political life is free and open, so is our day-to-day life in our relations with each other. We do not get into a state with our next door neighbor if he enjoys himself in his own way, nor do we give him the kind of black looks, which though they do no real harm, still do hurt people's feelings.

We are free and tolerant in our private lives; but in public affairs we keep to the law. This is because it commands our deep respect. We give our obedience to those whom we put in positions of authority, and we obey the laws themselves, especially those which are for the protection of the oppressed, and those unwritten laws which it is an acknowledged shame to break....

There is a difference, too, in our educational systems. The Spartans, from their earliest boyhood, are submitted to the most laborious training in courage; we pass our lives without all these restrictions, and yet are just as ready to face the same dangers as they are.... There are certain advantages, I think, in our way of meeting danger voluntarily, with an easy mind, instead of with a laborious training, with natural rather than with state-induced courage.... This is one point in which, I think, our city deserves to be admired. There are also others:

Our love of what is beautiful does not lead to extravagance; our love of the things of the mind does not make us soft. We regard wealth as something to be properly used, rather than as something to boast about. As for poverty, no one need be ashamed to admit it: the real shame is in not taking practical measures to escape from it.

Here each individual is interested not only in his own affairs but in the affairs of the state as well: even those who are mostly occupied with their own business are extremely well-informed on general politics - this is a peculiarity of ours: we do not say that man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business; we say that he has no business here at all.

We Athenians, in our own person, take our decisions on policy or submit them to proper discussions: for we do not think that there is an incompatibility between words and deeds; the worst thing is to rush into action before the consequences have been properly debated.... Others are brave out of ignorance; and, when they stop to think, they begin to fear. But the man who can most truly be accounted brave is he who best knows the meaning of what is sweet in life and of what is terrible, and then goes out undeterred to meet what is to come.

In generosity we are equally singular, acquiring our friends by conferring, not by receiving, favors.... And it is only the Athenians, who, fearless of consequences, confer their benefits not from calculations of expediency, but in the confidence of liberality.

Taking every thing together then, I declare that our city is an education to Greece, and I declare that in my opinion each single one of our citizens, in all the manifold aspects of life, is able to show himself the rightful lord and owner of his own person, and do this, moreover, with exceptional grace and exceptional versatility.

And to show that this is no empty boasting for the present occasion, but real tangible fact, you have only to consider the power which our city possesses and which has been won by those very qualities which I have mentioned.... Future ages will wonder at us, as the present age wonders at us now.... For our adventurous spirit has forced an entry into every sea and into every land; and everywhere we have left behind us everlasting memorials of good done to our friends or suffering inflicted on our enemies.

This, then, is the kind of city for which these men, who could not bear the thought of losing her, nobly fought and nobly died.... I could tell you a long story (and you know it as well as I do) about what is to be gained by beating the enemy back. What I would prefer is that you should fix your eyes every day on the greatness of Athens as she really is, and should fall in love with her. When you realize her greatness, then reflect that what made her great was men with a spirit of adventure, men who knew their duty, men who were ashamed to fall below a certain standard.... Make up your minds that happiness depends on being free, and freedom depends on being courageous....

"-Pericles at the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, 431 BC, as recounted by Thudycides

 

[apple0154]

secure the Blessings of Liberty

That part. Are you blind?

Not "to hell with everyone else". "Suck it up and struggle, just like everyone else."

But everyone doesn't struggle and if those who aren't struggling help those who are what can possibly be wrong with that? Struggle for the sake of struggling? Suffering is good for the soul? Is that your position?

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

But everyone doesn't struggle and if those who aren't struggling help those who are what can possibly be wrong with that? Struggle for the sake of struggling? Suffering is good for the soul? Is that your position?

The way you say it makes it sound very nice. But that is not the reality of it.

If those who don't struggle (not sure who these people are) help the people who do struggle, then you have some wonderful volunteers.

But if you use armed force to secure the means for helping those who struggle, then what you have is not cooperation or volunteerism. If those who do not struggle (again, not sure who this is) do not offer or even agree to help, but are forced to do so, it is not cooperation it is servitude.

 

[Robo]

Rational? Reasonable? One doesn't have to look any further than the Preamble to see the irrationality and unreasonableness of Libertarian answers, ideas and general philosophy. What part of "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" emits the faintest hint, let alone can be interpreted as or assumed to mean, "to hell with everyone else"? The exact opposite is evident. People working together. People helping each other, "In Order to form a more perfect Union." That, right there, puts the brakes on Libertarian philosophy. That eight word phrase immediately discounts any validity to the idea the Founding Fathers were Libertarians or believed in anything resembling Libertarian philosophy. A union is not individualism.

The problem with your rant Mc is that the libertarian principles are more like voluntary collectivism like private charity and community volunteering as opposed to your criminal philosophy of government extortion of the most successful among us to use the proceeds thereof to bribe the vote of the lesser successful among us.

Libertarianism promotes TRUE capitalism as opposed to the right/left criminal system of CRONY CAPITALIST BRIBERY

Fact is Mc you can’t show anywhere where libertarianism promotes a philosophy of “to hell with everybody else.” On the contrary libertarianism promotes VOLUNTARY social intercourse, free and agreeable adult contracts with one another and pro-choice on everything including marriages and what the adult individual chooses for himself/herself to put into his/her OWN & SELF-OWNED body, unlike the authoritarian right/left dictatorship promotes.

Fact is libertarians promote LIBERTY. Does that sound like “to hell with everyone else?????”

The fact is, "we", not "I" or "you", is the first word of a sentence that "states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve." The Founding Fathers knew the value of cooperation, of union, of working together and looking out for each other. Some people twist that to mean it refers to the States and not people but what makes a State? It's the people. The Founding Fathers were not drafting a document for the benefit of the mountains and lakes and trees. They were drafting a document to benefit the people.

”WE” as in free and agreeable as opposed to “WE” as extorted by BIG government and the redistribution of the fruits of our labors. Where in the Constitution can we find the authority for the federal social and corporate welfare NANNY State?

“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.” (Amendment 10, United States Constitution)

From the time the Pilgrims set sail on the Mayflower it was all about cooperation and working together and looking out for each other and that continued with building the settlements and colonies. As they grew and expanded cooperation was just as important. The founding Fathers realized the importance of cooperation.

Cooperation: 1. an act or instance of working or acting together for a common purpose or benefit; joint action.
2. more or less active assistance from a person (Dic.com)

Extortion: criminal law the crime of obtaining something such as money or information from somebody by using force, threats, or other unacceptable methods.

Voluntary: arising, acting, or resulting from somebody's own choice or decision rather than because of external pressure or force.

Active assistance. The very thing Libertarians oppose. The very thing that gives a country strength is what the Libertarians want to eliminate. That's why people are threatened by Libertarians and rightly so.

No Mc, the right and left are threatened by libertarians because libertarians oppose undeclared unconstitutional foreign wars, the Drug War, BIG government redistribution socialism and crony capitalism everything the right/left duopoly thrives on.

 

[apple0154]

The way you say it makes it sound very nice. But that is not the reality of it.

If those who don't struggle (not sure who these people are) help the people who do struggle, then you have some wonderful volunteers.

But if you use armed force to secure the means for helping those who struggle, then what you have is not cooperation or volunteerism. If those who do not struggle (again, not sure who this is) do not offer or even agree to help, but are forced to do so, it is not cooperation it is servitude.

Perhaps a definition of struggle would be apt at this point. Struggle to buy a back yard pool or struggle to put dinner on the table? Struggle to save for a yacht or struggle to save for their children's education?

 

[Liberty]

Most social conservatives support fascism or crony capitalism, economically. It is necessary to support the cultural hegemony. So, "fiscally conservative" is sort of ambiguous.

Reason Magazine's "Free Markets Free Minds" is more descriptive.

The social conservatives are a dying breed. They either need to learn to shut up and take the back seat or be purged.

Yes, you can't be a fiscal conservative, if you're a social conservative.

There's never enough prisons for a social conservative.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Perhaps a definition of struggle would be apt at this point. Struggle to buy a back yard pool or struggle to put dinner on the table? Struggle to save for a yacht or struggle to save for their children's education?

In your world; those who have struggled to get ahead, should now continue to stuggle for those who were unable to achieve the same success.
Then what is the incentive to struggle; if all it is, is a continual struggle for someone else?

 

[007]

But everyone doesn't struggle and if those who aren't struggling help those who are what can possibly be wrong with that? Struggle for the sake of struggling? Suffering is good for the soul? Is that your position?

So, in your utopia, who struggles?
I lived and worked in a socialist totalitarian country for 33 years.

I saw people claiming benefits who did no work living a life of luxuary but still complaining about injustice.

I saw others working 40 hours a week to pay 65% or more of their income in tax being unable to afford the luxuary of those who didnt work.
That is your utopia, punish the worker and reward the dosser.

Massachusetts liberal policy defined!!
Soon to be US policy!!

 

[007]

You might be forgetting what happened to the revolution in Russia.

Not that I'm much of a social conservative. But I'm a fan of Western Civilization and I'll oppose people who appear to want to tear that down. It needs to be passed on to a new generation is what needs to happen.

The Russian revolution worked in the early years , it was an effective policy to murder 20% of the population to reduce unemployment then murder another 10% to create an end to small businesses.
After killing off 30% of the population, the unemployment figures dropped!!!

 

[I'm Watermark]

The Russian revolution worked in the early years , it was an effective policy to murder 20% of the population to reduce unemployment then murder another 10% to create an end to small businesses.
After killing off 30% of the population, the unemployment figures dropped!!!

The Russian Revolution was a plan to overthrow a czarist regime and was largely spawned by the lack of political participation in Russia - intelligentsia with an affinity for politics were forced into revolutionary sects. But it was done using a highly centralized party, which became a centralized regime. Perhaps the reason behind this was the threat of czarist infiltration, perhaps their claims that socialism couldn't work in Russia, but we may never know completely.

 

[/MSG/]

But everyone doesn't struggle and if those who aren't struggling help those who are what can possibly be wrong with that?

If those people WANT to help everyone/anyone fine. But they shouldn't be FORCED to do anything. That's called freedom.

 

[apple0154]

In your world; those who have struggled to get ahead, should now continue to stuggle for those who were unable to achieve the same success.
Then what is the incentive to struggle; if all it is, is a continual struggle for someone else?

No one is suggesting an equal division of rewards. Those who struggle and succeed will always have more than those who were not successful and so it should be. The amount of help they would give would not result in them having to struggle.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

No one is suggesting an equal division of rewards. Those who struggle and succeed will always have more than those who were not successful and so it should be. The amount of help they would give would not result in them having to struggle.

Well; at least you're still as full of shit, as usual.
You really need to provide something of substance, to support your last comment.

 

[apple0154]

Well; at least you're still as full of shit, as usual.
You really need to provide something of substance, to support your last comment.

You're the one full of shit. I gave examples of struggling. Struggling to put in a back yard pool or struggling to put dinner on the table? Struggling to save for a yacht or struggling to save for their children's education?

How about you give some examples of people making $300,000 or $500,000 or $1,000,000 struggling? Let's see some substance to your asinine comments/beliefs.

 

[007]

No one is suggesting an equal division of rewards. Those who struggle and succeed will always have more than those who were not successful and so it should be. The amount of help they would give would not result in them having to struggle.

But they are struggling now!
And the dear leader has indicated that those who work will pay more.
Never would he consider cutting the huge payouts to the lazy on welfare.
Never would the dear leader consider investigating fraud in EBT claims!