From a reply in a thread @ HotAir on the just-released Finance Committee Healthcare Reform Bill:
Liberalism at its core is coercion and force. For all the moral preening the Left does about how much they care and how heartless we conservatives are the truth is quite the opposite. There is nothing kind about using the force of government to compel ostensibly free citizens to surrender significant portions of their labor and property (income) to the state to serve the purposes not of the nation but of the State, i.e. the government.
Liberalism makes half the population servants to the other half of the population through various social programs that cannot be opted out of even though our lives are diminished by the confiscation of our earnings.
Liberalism root and branch is anathema to the American tradition of individualism as well as poisonous to liberty for how can liberty exist when the state seeks to control the lives of individuals rather than the individual himself? Liberals are always trying to claim the moral high ground but how can this be a valid claim when their entire agenda can only be enacted by force?
Conservatism is the truly compassionate ideology because it seeks to free, and keep free, the individual from the state. I do not now and will never work for the state and will die fighting against it if I must.
DerKrieger on October 19, 2009
Talk about cutting to the chase. I don't know who DerKrieger is, but I'd vote for him.
I guess this proves that Conservatives are stupid.
utemia, I am sure people said the same about hitler and the slavery in the USA...
Anti-Slavery Advocate in USA a few hundred years ago: Slavery is evil, and anyone who supports it is evil
Slaver: I find it a bit absurd to use concepts like good vs evil while talking about political ideologies in the US or anywhere else in western countries.
Sane person in nazi germany: I find hitler and all he stands for to be evil
Nazi: I find it a bit absurd to use concepts like good vs evil while talking about political ideologies in the US or anywhere else in western countries.
The notion that when something becomes "politics" it is suddenly immune to being good and evil is absurd. Granted sometimes people demonize the opposition unjustly. Calling them evil when they are not. But the whole point of having a thinking sentient brain is to be able to make judgement calls. You should strive towards unbiased intelligent logical and fact based positions.
It wasn't the evilness of slavery that really started the civil war to end slavery, (and certainly not that little lady Harriet and her melodrama) it was economical issues. Agriculture in the South depended on slaves working the plantations, it was the economic backbone. So it had nothing to do with right vs wrong but rather was just a means to cripple the opposition. In this case it was also "good" in the end, but it took until the civil rights movement in the 50ies and 60ies to nominally end the segregation. At least now it is illegal, but I suppose it is still very much ingrained in some people.
Hitler .. he was not evil for you if you were a party follower and never stepped out of line, quoted the apropriate ideology, blond and blue eyed and loved banging your wife to have dozens of children. If it comes down to it, the majority of the German population under Hitler falls into that category. The years between 1933-1938 were what people thought the most secure and stable and when they were most happy. That is from a series of polls done in the late 40ies and 50ies about public opinion on a lot of different issues, making this a historic source that has to be interpreted.
Hannah Arendt wrote an interesting essay/book about the Nazi evil issue called "The banality of Evil". It has been criticized and interpreted alot.. she was a jounralist who sat in into the trial of Joseph Eichmann in Jerusalem. She basically came to the conclusion that Joseph Eichmann wasn't a monster, he only wanted to be good as his job which was making trainschedules and organizing the transports of millions of people to concentration camps. He was following orders and obeying the law and was unable to think for himself. this is just a really short abstract and doesn't do the essay any justice nor the whole issue about what evil really is - but I'd thought I'd mention it here shortly.
Maybe I should have specified the timeframe to post 1945 when talking about political ideology in western countries.
So exploiting people is evil because it's like slavery, so would you ban 1 dollar shops and discounters? Because the producers, farmers, factories can only produce cheap products if they hardly pay their workers anything, especially if they import cheap plastic stuff and toys from Asia. So no more Walmart? Just how far are you willing to go to stop evil.. it is amazing how fast you end up on the flipside with ideals and good judgement calls become difficult. That's my two cents.. I just don't think there are good answers without pitfalls in any political ideology.
Good job.
Which stemmed from liberalism.
Many of the founding fathers were, in beliefs, liberal. Hell, one of the most vaunted people there is in terms of the modern conservative movement - Thomas Paine - supported very liberal ideas.
Try telling that to Glenn Beck, who got Paine drastically wrong.
History has shown that extremism in ANY form only serves to destroy, period. It is that balance that helps society maintain stability, and ultimately prosper. Actually the middle ground is often the only fucking reasonable and rational approach, instead of going with the moronic "there is ONLY right and wrong," (and the right is mine!!!")
Actually, he's got it pretty right. You either have extreme conservatism (in modern form) and the big corporations and their ilk get the fun shit. Or, you have the extreme liberalism, which im sure you leads to things, since you're so fond of bashing it.
You're a day late and a dollar short, as usual. What's the matter nowhere else to troll?
Wtf is up with the personal attacks Nitro?
Oh it's nothing personal, just a response and a question. If you think that's harsh, I guess a traffic cop blowing a whistle is police brutality! BTW I predicted you'd show, but at least it's not about you (this time)... you're just protecting a friend from hurtful words like late and short.
Nothing personal, but yet you implied he was trolling, which, so far as I remember from the like 4-5 years ive been around here, has a negative connotation around here. So, as such, you're attacking him by associating him with something that is negative.
Yeah, I noticed, but your prediction falls flat because of the main point behind it. Sorry, you lose.
Though I've gained some respect for him from interacting, I don't know much, if anything, about him. So why would I defend him? I'm merely curious why you waste your time attacking, suggesting, or implying negative things toward damn near anything liberal. As you said, your own words...
[sic]
Obviously, there's a difference between deserved criticism, and outright verbal lashings. That said, yeah you can criticize or even disagree with someone without crossing the line into your words being a dagger in them.
Whatever happened to CIVIL debate?
Did I? First, I asked him a question, which he could have answered (but I think he knows what trolling consists of). Second, what would you call two word sentences (minus corrections for spelling) that add little or nothing to the topic? Must I post a link for you?
That's reaching pretty far, wouldn't you say? By your definition Bush was viciously attacked every day in office and still is by people such as yourself. I posted (which had nothing to do with Infidel BTW) and he just couldn't let it go, yet I'm attacking him??? AJ remember back a few months I suggested you try the military? Well, I was wrong, you don't appear to know what an attack really is. There was no malice in my remark, for all I know there was none in Infidel's toward me. He took the opportunity to zing me and got zinged back. Nobody called for the Liberal Avenger to keep the peace, thank you very much.
Now two things could have happened, before you intervened: It could have ended and the folks debating the topic get back to it, or Infidel could have responded and I could have responded back or as bored as I am with this, let it go. So now ask yourself if you really helped matters? All this really does is give other readers a bad impression of us all and since you're super sensitive of what other think about you (remember a negative association is an attack in the AJ dictionary), as opposed to me, who gets hurt the most? If the truth is too painful, submit a complaint about me to Stardock.
Did I imply you know each other? Someone sympathetic to your ideas can be considered friendly. I.E. there are many friends of Obama that have never personally met him.
It's alive and well here on JU. Go over to DU and check it out if you really want to see uncivilized debate.
But at any rate is this an example of what you were talking about when you mention CIVIL?
I do admit I may have jumped the gun - but - my point still stands, why do you fucking bash people who are liberals? What is the point in such bullshit? It's that type of crap that screws everyone over.
That being said...you know, after reading this and then re-reading this, you've taught me something that I should've remembered. People just don't fucking give a damn about others, and they will do whatever they want, civility be damned. People like you and others are just going to keep bashing things, and implying that people are this and that (then back track and say that you're not, when it's pretty obvious). So, you know, have a great day, go enjoy your ridiculous actions. I find that I no longer enjoy discussing things here, it only annoys and frustrates me.
~AJ
I am confused.. what exactly are you two going on about? And what does it have to do wth the debate about good vs evil in politics or ideologies? I find that issue more interesting than you guys snarling at each other. Even though there is an entertainment value to it, maybe I should get popcorn for the next time I check JU lol. Cheers
For me, it comes down to the fact that it pisses me off to no end (call it a pet peeve) when people make snide comments. Nitro, and damn near all here make childish and snide comments at people just because they have a different ideology. Wtf? How is that mature? How is that civil?
But like I said, whatever. Nitro's probably going to give his two cents and claim I'm a many number of things.
As far as I recall, that is par for the course while talking about politics in the US - the making fun of each other and ridiculing and making snide comments. Every talk radio show, every anchor man or woman, breakfast TV, talkshow host etc. does it. I think it is immature but it is the way it is, and it is normal for you guys. I think I've stated it somewhere else that emotions get in the way of debating an issue sincerely most of the times and that it is a dangerous road to use emotions and aggrevating each other as a campaign strategy because emotions always blur things - but it is the american way.
Just make fun back and get a laugh instead of having wounded feelings, you'll avoid having an ulcer and save healthcare costs
Personally, I find the american way of talking about politics ridiculous, using adjectives like good and evil and for some, comparing Obama to Hitler etc.. honestly, that is really bizarre for me. I like humanities and philosophy, getting down to the principles of ethics and morals and what it means to be human. People make fun of that mostly because they forgot where the things they took for granted came from, eg. natural sciences evolved from nature philosophists like Schelling and Fichte and many others that wanted to explain the world with their models but discovered (to their horror) that their model of the world didn't hold up to all they discovered. Because of that they had to expand, and that was the birth of natural science. People like Alexander von Humboldt who was a philosopher turned scientist.
But even if todays advocates of science scoff at the notion of philosophy having any meaningful contribution to anything (just people doing nuthing but sitting on their asses and calling that work, right lol), they're just ignorant fools who lack the basics.
It's alive and well here on JU