| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
micky 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
|
 Posted: December 20 2007 at 07:28 |
|
and one note... since I won't be around to answer the replies which will come from our right wingers here.. on this particular point...
it isn't as if the left does not fear .. or should not fear those out there that have.. and would again strike this country. Protecting this country as any politician.. and any PERSON would want to do ..is not a partisan issue. What the right has done is make it one.. and use disagreement with the way THEY want to make us safe. and make it an issue of patriotism and use that as a wedge issue and thus make it a policy of fear. In fact this administration has made it the ONLY issue. It is fear that strikes people.. gets their attention... that is why the right has done so well in recent years in elections. Brilliant strategy.. but still.. to call a spade a spade. It is using the politics of fear and divivsion. The right has no vision for American.. what it can be..but only peddles fear of what it might become. That is why it is bankrupt. Thus.. as I explained above... they are racist in nature. For to fear.. you have to fear something.. it isn't some obscure or nebulous idea or vision they want us to fear.. but particular groups of people. Gays.. and foreigners specifically.
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
 |
Novalis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 15 2007
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 338
|
Posted: December 20 2007 at 07:36 |
I was thinking the other day about left vs. right.
Isn't the primary difference between the left and the right their view on inherent human nature?
I mean, the right seems to think that humans are inherently "bad", that is to say laws are needed to restrict human nature from acting out on it's "baser" instincts.
Whereas the left seems to think that if left to our own devices, it'll all work out (with a whole lot of social tampering first of course).
Now this is not entirely correct, because it is not necessarily a question of right vs. wrong (i.e. morality), but of what works and what doesn't. Can a society survive without basic family structure, regulated borders and some sort of underlying universal moral foundation?
History would suggest no, although it remains to be seen whether modern Western culture will survive.
Perhaps conservatives are just pessimists, but then again maybe they are realists.
Irving Kristol describes change in political leaning as being a "liberal mugged by reality".
"The path to hell is paved with good intentions".
Edited by Novalis - December 22 2007 at 01:59
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
|
Posted: December 20 2007 at 07:46 |
 Novalis wrote:
Can a society survive without basic family structure, regulated borders and some sort of underlying universal moral foundation?
|
great post... and only touching upon this quickly because I'm about to get going with my day.. ^ it has to...for those things. CAN NOT be legislated. The right though... TRIES to do that. That is a difference again between left and right. Letties do understand the things change.. morals.. society.. the world around us. On the right.. they want us to go back the goddamn 1950's. Where the hispanics were.... Dezi Arnez... and blacks were ....in their place. Don't believe me... look again at Trent Lott's comments...that he lost his job over. He did not come out and directly say it. He didn't have to... that doesn't mean that everyone is... but it means that the POLICIES.. the people in power.. DO think that way. The policies SHOW it.
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: December 20 2007 at 09:09 |
micky wrote:
hahaha.. Pat...
it isn't that right wingers are racist.... it is the polices favoured by the right... could be.. and ARE seen as racist by a good many people... like what.. half the country. They have made a living tossing ridiculous labels at us on the left.. according to some on the right... anyone on the left is an unpatriotic, terrorist loving, aethestic piece of sh*t. Anyhow... look closely at the policies of the right... it is .. and the recent campaigns have proved it... is based on division and fear. To have division and fear... you have to have something to fear. Be it gays, foreigners.... your own people who don't agree with you. Imagine if Dick Cheny... who took like 7 deferments from Vietnam for various reasons had been a democrat.. don't you think it would be a LOT more bandied about than it has been... remembering that the press.. who drive such things... are left leaning. Face it .. the policies of the right are bankrupt... first it was communism that was to fear... then the left... then immigrants.. legal and illegal somehow making America.. less than what always has been.. .a place for the downtrodden and blaa blaa blaa.. of course we are to fear foreigners wanting to murder us all when firearms murder more a month that all of September 11th combined. Fear drives the right.. and to have fear ... you have to have a target.. So yes... the policies of the right are racist.. some know it.. and some are just blissfully aware.
|
_popupControl();
You’re at the opposite extreme. You use the same tactics – fear the fearmongers. The extreme left is as extreme as the extreme right. Their views are completely irrational and unsound quite often, and when they succeed in implementing them and the system fails because of that, they don’t even acknowledge their mistakes most of the time. High taxation, huge inefficient government, bloated welfare rolls, manipulating the economy – what about those great achievements? And why do you blame the right for the illegal aliens issue when the liberal media is all over the place campaigning against them? What about foreigners and immigrants? What does it have to do with racism? The immigration policies were quite liberal some 20 years ago. If you’re referring to your personal immigration problems, family reunification used to be treated quite liberally while Reagan and Bush were in office. When did it change? under Clinton?
PS. why do you pepper your posts with weird punctuation? It’s difficult to read. You would do us all a favor and save your own time with less key strokes
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: December 20 2007 at 09:21 |
jimmy_row wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
jimmy_row wrote:
I'm no expert, but I get the feeling that we don't really have free trade...but even if it was put in place now, the third world is so far behind that it wouldn't be able to catch up, so free trade would only protect the status quo.
|
I don’t really understand what you mean by status quo. |
I think that the system we use (some think that it's "fair trade"   ) has the objective of keeping things the way they are and preserving the hegemony. If we keep government intervention to a minimum, our beloved MNCs can thrive to the detriment of the developing world and cheap labor. |
_popupControl();
Trade can never be fair. You buy low (produce cheap) and sell high to make a profit – how is it fair?
The government intervention regarding multi-nationals and free enterprise in general is minimal. It’s the most advanced part of our free trade model. The developing countries should develop on their own, the way Japan, Taiwan and S. Korea did. No one have to subsidize them. Cheap (or cheaper) labor is what capital always seeks. It’s a law of nature. To interfere with it would be detrimental to the economy.
_popupControl();
Edited by IVNORD - December 20 2007 at 09:28
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
|
Posted: December 20 2007 at 09:42 |
IVNORD wrote:
micky wrote:
hahaha.. Pat...
it isn't that right wingers are racist.... it is the polices favoured by the right... could be.. and ARE seen as racist by a good many people... like what.. half the country. They have made a living tossing ridiculous labels at us on the left.. according to some on the right... anyone on the left is an unpatriotic, terrorist loving, aethestic piece of sh*t. Anyhow... look closely at the policies of the right... it is .. and the recent campaigns have proved it... is based on division and fear. To have division and fear... you have to have something to fear. Be it gays, foreigners.... your own people who don't agree with you. Imagine if Dick Cheny... who took like 7 deferments from Vietnam for various reasons had been a democrat.. don't you think it would be a LOT more bandied about than it has been... remembering that the press.. who drive such things... are left leaning. Face it .. the policies of the right are bankrupt... first it was communism that was to fear... then the left... then immigrants.. legal and illegal somehow making America.. less than what always has been.. .a place for the downtrodden and blaa blaa blaa.. of course we are to fear foreigners wanting to murder us all when firearms murder more a month that all of September 11th combined. Fear drives the right.. and to have fear ... you have to have a target.. So yes... the policies of the right are racist.. some know it.. and some are just blissfully aware.
|
_popupControl();
You’re at the opposite extreme. You use the same tactics – fear the fearmongers. The extreme left is as extreme as the extreme right. Their views are completely irrational and unsound quite often, and when they succeed in implementing them and the system fails because of that, they don’t even acknowledge their mistakes most of the time. High taxation, huge inefficient government, bloated welfare rolls, manipulating the economy – what about those great achievements? And why do you blame the right for the illegal aliens issue when the liberal media is all over the place campaigning against them? What about foreigners and immigrants? What does it have to do with racism? The immigration policies were quite liberal some 20 years ago. If you’re referring to your personal immigration problems, family reunification used to be treated quite liberally while Reagan and Bush were in office. When did it change? under Clinton?
PS. why do you pepper your posts with weird punctuation? It’s difficult to read. You would do us all a favor and save your own time with less key strokes |
simply answered.... I rather be on the extreme of fearing the fearmonger... than being the fearmonger. Face it brother... it goes far beyond how this affects me personally... I've never once voted for these charlatans in 20 years... I've know Raff 18 months. Again... I forgive the 'liberals' for the excesses.. their problems.. for they are by NO means perfect. Because.. as an astute political beat writer here in D.C. wrote... and I damn sure believe it. The true difference between a liberal and a conservative.. is that while both seek power and will anything to get it... the liberal seeks their power for the sake of others... the conservative.. seeks it for themselve and those of their ilk. don't agree?... find me ONE policy in the last 8 years that empowered the masses.. not the very wealthy. Those that might... have been horribly bungled like 'No child like behind' Sort of hard when you head is half a world away fighting a pointless war..and trying to think of the latest way to justify it.
Edited by micky - December 20 2007 at 09:44
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: December 20 2007 at 10:09 |
micky wrote:
the liberal seeks their power for the sake of others...
|
I believe the liberal seeks their power to dictate what they believe is good for others - whether or not these things are actually effective is besides the point. I think that's a significant difference. I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool Republican or conservative, and I believe this current crop of Republicans have killed fiscal conservatism and given conservatives a bad name, but I'm certainly no liberal either. I suppose a (small-ell) libertarian is the best descriptor for me, but I don't agree with everything in that philosophy, either.
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
|
Posted: December 20 2007 at 10:27 |
NaturalScience wrote:
micky wrote:
the liberal seeks their power for the sake of others...
|
I believe the liberal seeks their power to dictate what they believe is good for others - whether or not these things are actually effective is besides the point. I think that's a significant difference.
I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool Republican or conservative, and I believe this current crop of Republicans have killed fiscal conservatism and given conservatives a bad name, but I'm certainly no liberal either. I suppose a (small-ell) libertarian is the best descriptor for me, but I don't agree with everything in that philosophy, either.
|
Hey Pat.. first off... want to wish you and your family a merry Xmas. Raff leaves London in less than an hour and I'll be leaving the house here shortly and will be away from the forum for awhile. The purpose of government has ALWAYS been built on the premise that the people we elect.. will decide what IS best for us. It stands to reason that they actually try to act on that.. rather than.. well... it is what should happen.  Wise observation... and a real important point in modern politics today. The dems have seized that issue. The day the G.O.P walked away from fiscal conservatism and staked everything on social conservatism is the day the lost the chance to drive the last 'short term' nail in the coffin of the Democratic party. They could have ...like the Dems from the 30's through the 70's.. really been THE political party. Sure may not win every presidential election. But Congress.. and the public were behind THEM and their policies. That day has passed.. and I think their brief flirtation with 'popular' power. Have a very merry Xmas Pat. Soon to leave...
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: December 20 2007 at 10:32 |
The season for putting political differences aside...  Hope you catch this before you take off, mick...a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and Raff - enjoy every second of having your wife at your side - and by that I mean we better not see your ass here on progarchives 
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: December 20 2007 at 10:40 |
_popupControl();
By spreading fear against the fearmongers you’r turning into one in your own way. And if you don’t want to vote for charlatans you have to stop voting altogether.
Unfortunately forgiving is the only available remedy, but their problems become our problems. Seeking power for the sake of others doesn’t sit well with the creating of a bubble economy for the purpose of being re-elected as Clinton did. How about the cattle futures trading and hiding evidence in the Whitewater case?
The pointless war hasn’t been that pointless in the beginning. It deteriorated into a pointless war due to the ways this inept administration conducts it. The benefit ot it though is the fact that you don’t think of terrorist attacks to much as opposed to sitting home on Thanksgiving day 2001. Now it’s your turn to name ONE policy in the previous 8 years that truly empowered the masses…
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: December 20 2007 at 14:25 |
Politics is useless for the things that REALLY matter....
I should just take things into my own hands and start a miliant socialist group.
We shall steal from the rich and give it to the poor!!!
Anyone in?
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: December 20 2007 at 14:34 |
JJLehto wrote:
Politics is useless for the things that REALLY matter....
I should just take things into my own hands and start a miliant socialist group.
We shall steal from the rich and give it to the poor!!!
Anyone in? |
And the trees were all kept equal By hatchet, axe, and saw...
|
|
jimmy_row
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Hibernation
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
Posted: December 20 2007 at 16:07 |
JJLehto wrote:
Politics is useless for the things that REALLY matter....
I should just take things into my own hands and start a miliant socialist group.
We shall steal from the rich and give it to the poor!!!
Anyone in? |
you can compete with the group I'm starting, to educate them and help them into the job market 
edit: stealing wouldn't be socialism would it? Sounds more like some kind of authoritarianism or quasi-communism...
Edited by jimmy_row - December 20 2007 at 16:09
|
|
Signature Writers Guild on strike
|
|
Novalis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 15 2007
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 338
|
Posted: December 20 2007 at 17:21 |
micky wrote:
Novalis wrote:
Can a society survive without basic family structure, regulated borders and some sort of underlying universal moral foundation?
|
great post... and only touching upon this quickly because I'm about to get going with my day..
^ it has to...for those things. CAN NOT be legislated. The right though... TRIES to do that. That is a difference again between left and right. Letties do understand the things change.. morals.. society.. the world around us. On the right.. they want us to go back the goddamn 1950's. Where the hispanics were.... Dezi Arnez... and blacks were ....in their place. Don't believe me... look again at Trent Lott's comments...that he lost his job over. He did not come out and directly say it. He didn't have to... that doesn't mean that everyone is... but it means that the POLICIES.. the people in power.. DO think that way. The policies SHOW it.
|
I guess that's why they call them conservatives, they want to preserve the "golden era". In a way, I see where they are coming from. Even with all our freedoms it is hard to say we are living in a better world than theirs.
I get what you mean about the inherent racism of conservative idealogy though, after all they are trying to preserve the past which was undoubtably racist.
|
|
1800iareyay
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2492
|
Posted: December 20 2007 at 23:42 |
|
I hate to get off topic, but I've just spent an hour on another forums political thread, and I just want to say how much I appreciate the civility and thought expressed in this thread. People have the incredible ability to ignore facts and simply spout party-loyal rhetoric. Here there is actual defense, and it doesn't get ugly. Thank you again.
To get things moving, what does everyone think about the Lakota's wishes to secede four states from the Union? The last time somebody tried this, we had one hell of a war.
|
|
Forgotten Son
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 13 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1356
|
Posted: December 21 2007 at 04:15 |
Novalis wrote:
I was thinking the other day about reft vs. right.
Isn't the primary difference between the left and the right their view on inherent human nature?
I mean, the right seems to think that humans are inherently "bad", that is to say laws are needed to restrict human nature from acting out on it's "baser" instincts.
Whereas the left seems to think that if left to our own devices, it'll all work out (with a whole lot of social tampering first of course).
Now this is not entirely correct, because it is not necessarily a question of right vs. wrong (i.e. morality), but of what works and what doesn't. Can a society survive without basic family structure, regulated borders and some sort of underlying universal moral foundation?
History would suggest no, although it remains to be seen whether modern Western culture will survive.
Perhaps conservatives are just pessimists, but then again maybe they are realists.
Irving Kristol describes change in political leaning as being a "liberal mugged by reality".
"The path to hell is paved with good intentions". |
The Left - Right spectrum is pretty useless, really. It fails to acknowledge the complexity of political views. Using your difference, capitalist "Libertarians" have a much higher regard for human nature than Lenin or Stalin, who are lumped on the "Left".
Economically, on one hand we have state ownership of the economy (Left) and Free Market Capitalism (Right). But then Anarchists, Council Communists and Democratic Socialists etc don't want the state to control the economy, and they are widely considered extreme left political positions. Similarly the Corporatism of Fascism and Nazism is neither full state ownership nor full free market, so would fall somewhere in the middle, despite being widely considered extreme right political positions.
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: December 21 2007 at 04:23 |
Forgotten Son wrote:
Novalis wrote:
I was thinking the other day about reft vs. right.
Isn't the primary difference between the left and the right their view on inherent human nature?
I mean, the right seems to think that humans are inherently "bad", that is to say laws are needed to restrict human nature from acting out on it's "baser" instincts.
Whereas the left seems to think that if left to our own devices, it'll all work out (with a whole lot of social tampering first of course).
Now this is not entirely correct, because it is not necessarily a question of right vs. wrong (i.e. morality), but of what works and what doesn't. Can a society survive without basic family structure, regulated borders and some sort of underlying universal moral foundation?
History would suggest no, although it remains to be seen whether modern Western culture will survive.
Perhaps conservatives are just pessimists, but then again maybe they are realists.
Irving Kristol describes change in political leaning as being a "liberal mugged by reality".
"The path to hell is paved with good intentions". |
The Left - Right spectrum is pretty useless, really. It fails to acknowledge the complexity of political views. Using your difference, capitalist "Libertarians" have a much higher regard for human nature than Lenin or Stalin, who are lumped on the "Left".
Economically, on one hand we have state ownership of the economy (Left) and Free Market Capitalism (Right). But then Anarchists, Council Communists and Democratic Socialists etc don't want the state to control the economy, and they are widely considered extreme left political positions. Similarly the Corporatism of Fascism and Nazism is neither full state ownership nor full free market, so would fall somewhere in the middle, despite being widely considered extreme right political positions. |
Which is why we have the handy dandy political compass! 
|
|
|
|
Bob Greece
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 1823
|
Posted: December 21 2007 at 07:13 |
stonebeard wrote:
|
No right-wing libertarians then?
On this compass, I am next to the Dalai Lama. 
|
|
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: December 21 2007 at 08:21 |
1800iareyay wrote:
I hate to get off topic, but I've just spent an hour on another forums political thread, and I just want to say how much I appreciate the civility and thought expressed in this thread. People have the incredible ability to ignore facts and simply spout party-loyal rhetoric. Why waste one’s time on a forum like that? Seriously, isn’t it annoying when people vote strictly alongt the party line? Here there is actual defense, and it doesn't get ugly. Thank you again.
To get things moving, what does everyone think about the Lakota's wishes to secede four states from the Union? The last time somebody tried this, we had one hell of a war. I learn something new every day… The Lakota talk about their independence for quite a while. What source the proposed state’s revenues would be coming from? The welfare checks would be gone then. Looks more like a tour de force to attract attention to achieve some other goal.
|
_popupControl();
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: December 21 2007 at 08:24 |
Forgotten Son wrote:
The Left - Right spectrum is pretty useless, really. It fails to acknowledge the complexity of political views. Using your difference, capitalist "Libertarians" have a much higher regard for human nature than Lenin or Stalin, who are lumped on the "Left".
Economically, on one hand we have state ownership of the economy (Left) and Free Market Capitalism (Right). But then Anarchists, Council Communists and Democratic Socialists etc don't want the state to control the economy, and they are widely considered extreme left political positions. Similarly the Corporatism of Fascism and Nazism is neither full state ownership nor full free market, so would fall somewhere in the middle, despite being widely considered extreme right political positions. |
_popupControl();
Defining things is the most difficult task. Look at the PA list of prog bands.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Political discussion thread
