# Liberal vs Conservative debate split from "Am I missing something"



## jlhummel (May 22, 2008)

Welcome to the wonderful world of Liberalism!!!  Were you must not prepare to protect yourself or your loved ones thats what the government and the police are for.  If u just think good thoughts nothing bad will happen to you!


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 22, 2008)

jlhummel said:


> Welcome to the wonderful world of Liberalism!!! Were you must not prepare to protect yourself or your loved ones thats what the government and the police are for. If u just think good thoughts nothing bad will happen to you!


 
Actually, the comment "straight to Hell" is not something a liberal would say. That's a conservative remark.


----------



## snoack (May 22, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Actually, the comment "straight to Hell" is not something a liberal would say. That's a conservative remark.


 
Actually, a Conservative would recognize the individual's right to free and open expression (as long as it wasn't putting others in harms way or in anyway engaging in any kind of illegal action) and that a simple conversation wasn't in any way interefering with their own rights...so a Conservative would never have butted in to the conversation in the first place.

A Liberal determines that everybody should be regulated in accordance to their values and beliefs, and is completely intolerant of any divergent thought or opinion.


----------



## Tez3 (May 22, 2008)

snoack said:


> Actually, a Conservative would recognize the individual's right to free and open expression (as long as it wasn't putting others in harms way or in anyway engaging in any kind of illegal action) and that a simple conversation wasn't in any way interefering with their own rights...so a Conservative would never have butted in to the conversation in the first place.
> 
> *A Liberal determines that everybody should be regulated in accordance to their values and beliefs, and is completely intolerant of any divergent thought or opinion*.


 
This has to be one of the most bigotted things anyone has said about me and frankly I'm offended, yep that right I'm liberal and to be liberal is to be tolerant of others, allowing free thought and free speech, free love too if you have a mind for it. Your ideas of liberalism are totally at odds with what it actually is, I think you mean totalitarianism or perhaps fascism?

This is liberalism





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_(UK)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_Kingdom


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 22, 2008)

snoack said:


> Actually, a Conservative would recognize the individual's right to free and open expression (as long as it wasn't putting others in harms way or in anyway engaging in any kind of illegal action) and that a simple conversation wasn't in any way interefering with their own rights...so a Conservative would never have butted in to the conversation in the first place.
> 
> A Liberal determines that everybody should be regulated in accordance to their values and beliefs, and is completely intolerant of any divergent thought or opinion.


 
You're kidding, right.


----------



## CoryKS (May 23, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> This has to be one of the most bigotted things anyone has said about me and frankly I'm offended, yep that right I'm liberal and to be liberal is to be tolerant of others, *allowing free thought and free speech*, free love too if you have a mind for it. Your ideas of liberalism are totally at odds with what it actually is, I think you mean totalitarianism or perhaps fascism?


 
If this is how you respond to free thought and speech, maybe tolerance isn't the word you're looking for.  Maybe one of your other choices fits better.


----------



## Tez3 (May 23, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> If this is how you respond to free thought and speech, maybe tolerance isn't the word you're looking for. Maybe one of your other choices fits better.


 
How do you respond when you are maligned then?
I'm very tired of people thinking liberals are worse than Satan. Just because free speech is allowed it doesn't mean people can't be insulted by what's said and being allowed to say so. tolerance doesn't mean you can't answer back.
If I were such as accused I would be demanding only my voice is head and no one elses, no one said we couldn't argue and that we have to agree.


----------



## CoryKS (May 23, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> How do you respond when you are maligned then?


 
Most of the time, I don't. There are countless posts on this forum where some very sharp accusations and implications are launched (indirectly) at me by association with the things I believe. Some I address, some I don't. Nobody's opinion is going to change anyway, so it's not a pressing concern. 

Certainly feel free to explain why you disagree with snoack's opinion; but if your claim is one of superior tolerance for free speech, it doesn't make sense to respond in such a way as to suggest that snoack was wrong to express it (or even to have it?). Rather than argue whether the opinion was correct, you classified it as bigoted and offensive in order to shut him down.


----------



## Tez3 (May 23, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> Most of the time, I don't. There are countless posts on this forum where some very sharp accusations and implications are launched (indirectly) at me by association with the things I believe. Some I address, some I don't. Nobody's opinion is going to change anyway, so it's not a pressing concern.
> 
> Certainly feel free to explain why snoack's opinion is wrong; but if your claim is one of superior tolerance for free speech, it doesn't make sense to present it in such a way as to suggest that snoack was wrong to express it (or even to have it?). Rather than argue whether the opinion was correct, you classified it as bigoted and offensive in order to shut him down.


 

I see you didn't read my post fully. I didn't say I had a superior tolerance for free speech, snoack claimed liberals don't allow free speech. He *stated *that liberals were quote _A Liberal determines that everybody should be_ _regulated in accordance to their values and beliefs_, _and is completely_ _intolerant of any divergent thought or opinion _unquote. I posted three links to show that liberalism is not what he thinks it is, we have a centuries old tradition of liberalism and Liberal governments in this country. Some of our best Prime Ministers were Liberals, Gladstone among them.
Many Americans equate liberalism with communism and nothing could be further from the truth, indeed Maggie Thatcher herself said that the Conservative Party were the true Liberals. As I said I'm really tired of this misnaming and misthinking and of being sneered at by non British people for being what is common and acceptable in this country...  a liberal. There is a huge gap in understanding here as to the meaning of liberal, if people understand what we mean by it over here they'd understand why I was offended.
If I had communist leanings I would vote for the communist party or if less radical I would vote for the Labour party. I vote for neither.


----------



## theletch1 (May 23, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> How do you respond when you are maligned then?
> I'm very tired of people thinking liberals are worse than Satan. Just because free speech is allowed it doesn't mean people can't be insulted by what's said and being allowed to say so. tolerance doesn't mean you can't answer back.
> If I were such as accused I would be demanding only my voice is head and no one elses, no one said we couldn't argue and that we have to agree.


 


CoryKS said:


> Most of the time, I don't. There are countless posts on this forum where some very sharp accusations and implications are launched (indirectly) at me by association with the things I believe. Some I address, some I don't. Nobody's opinion is going to change anyway, so it's not a pressing concern.
> 
> Certainly feel free to explain why you disagree with snoack's opinion; but if your claim is one of superior tolerance for free speech, it doesn't make sense to respond in such a way as to suggest that snoack was wrong to express it (or even to have it?). Rather than argue whether the opinion was correct, you classified it as bigoted and offensive in order to shut him down.


I think what we may have here is something that is oft joked about on the board... a language barrier between two different variants of English.  Liberal in the UK has one distinct meaning and in the US another.  This topic, however, is quickly drifting us away from the topic of the OP.  Perhaps one of you two would like to start a thread in the study to *politely* discuss the subject so that all parties could become informed on the differences.


----------



## Tez3 (May 23, 2008)

Well he started it!
No she did.
No he did.
She did
He did.
MUM. . . both chorus!
Behave! or I'll tell your dad when he gets in.
Silence but still making faces at each other
then giggles and kids go off to play together.


----------



## snoack (May 28, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I think you mean totalitarianism or perhaps fascism?
> 
> This is liberalism


 
Truer words were never spoken.  

Liberalism leaves no space for divergent opinion.  Liberal "thoughts" (LMFAO!) aren't popular, why do you think your candidates have to hide what they REALLY stand for?

As far as media is concerned, Liberals VASTLY dominate print and television, only talk radio is a refuge from their intolerance.  

BTW, the fact that you and Rutherford both neg repped me for having the audacity to post an opinion that was contradictory to yours PROVES my point about an intolerance of divergent opinion.  Like always, you guys make it too easy.


----------



## snoack (May 28, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I see you didn't read my post fully. I didn't say I had a superior tolerance for free speech, snoack claimed liberals don't allow free speech. He *stated *that liberals were quote _A Liberal determines that everybody should be_ _regulated in accordance to their values and beliefs_, _and is completely_ _intolerant of any divergent thought or opinion _unquote.


 
Right, and by you ripping into me you PROVED my point.  I don't care what your stupid wikipedia definitions of liberalism are.

Why do Liberals feel the need to attempt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine?  Because their ideals don't fly with the majority in this country (Air America went bankrupt).  Why won't Hillary or Obama tell the truth about their plans for social restructuring?  Because they'd be CRUSHED in the GE.

This isn't England, pal, this is America (and thank God for that, as you guys seem bound and determined to allow yourselves to be colonized by the Muslims the way you bend over backwards for them).  We have a right to express our opinions here.


----------



## snoack (May 28, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> You're kidding, right.


 
No, actually I'm not

Let's have some examples, shall we?

- The Fairness Doctrine-
not content with the stranglehold the currently own in print media and the Big 3 news networks, liberals are attempting to revise the Fairness Doctrine in order to attempt to curtail or shut down talk radio, the one area of the media where conservatives dominate?  Why?  Because a divergent opinion is offered that 'attacks' liberals (basically telling us what they stand for and what they're voting record is- that's an attack in their eyes)

- Barrack HUSSEIN Obama's candidacy-

IF we have the nerve to disagree with ANYTHING he says, we are merely being racists.  We're not allowed to talk about his relationships, we're not allowed to talk about the fact that he enjoys international support by such freedom-loving luminaries as Fidel castor, Hugo Chavez, that nutcase in Iran, Hamas, and Kim Jong Il.  We're not allowed to talk about him spending 20+ years attending a church who's pedagogy was Black Liberation Theology.  We're not allowed to talk about his relationship with Bill Ayers.  Hell, we're not even allowed to say his middle ********** NAME!

- "Global Warming"-

As evidence CONTINUES to mount to disporve the theory of global warming (you know, inconvenient things like the fact that temperature increases have leveled and actually started to reverse in trend, the fact that the Eastern Antartic ice sheet is THICKENING, the fact that in the last 30 years the polar bear population has gone from about 850 to over 2200...I could go on all day), liberals continue to cling hopelessly and hypocritically to this tired, worn out hypothesis.  With the insistance of funding the impractical use of ethanol, they've jacked up food prices (btw, it takes a gallon of gas to produce a gallon of ethanol), hitting the American public with a double-edged sword of increased fuel and food prices

- Congressional approval ratings and performance-

We keep hear about the President's record low approval ratings (keep hearing how they've hit a new low- yet have been consistant for about 18 months now), yet we never hear about how bad Congress' have been since the Democrats took over.  Yeah, they ran on a platform of change in '06, and boy did we get change-

- gas up nearly 100%
- foreclosures at record highs

hey, you guys like to inaccurately blame the President for things he can't control, I say turnabout is fair play

- the war-

Once again, the Democrat controlled Congress doesn't have the nerve to act on it's "convictions" of ending the war?  Why is that?  Is it because they know that we're actually smarter then we think we are, and that we understand how successful the war effort is going during the Surge?

You want to go toe-to-toe with me at politics?

...bring it...


----------



## CoryKS (May 28, 2008)

snoack, it's generally a good idea to read to the bottom of a thread before responding to individual posts.  Had you done so, you would have noticed that Jeff had already given a warning about staying on topic.  KenpoGuy has a problem he wants to discuss, and while it's possible, as some here have theorized, that religion or politics contributed to the reaction he got from non-MA people, lets not get so tangential about it that his thread gets locked.


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 28, 2008)

snoack said:


> You want to go toe-to-toe with me at politics?
> 
> ...bring it...


 
OK, you are talking about the ills of the Democratic party. I couldn't give a crapp less about them, they're a bunch of currpt morons. I'm talking about political and social liberalism. Big differnce.

With that being said, go away. I don't feel like dealing with you.

Ohh, by the way, I didn't give you negitive rep. I have NEVER given negitive rep. So, please appologise.


----------



## Nolerama (May 28, 2008)

snoack said:


> No, actually I'm not
> 
> Let's have some examples, shall we?
> 
> ...



Haha. Watching one too many cheerleading movies?

You're pretty emotional about this. Unfortunately, your arguments are based on what YOU consider facts.

That's okay. You have that right to live in your own world.

But please, take it off topic and in a new thread. THEN you can open yourself up for people on both sides of the Dem/Rep line to rip on your lack of composure and shaky facts.

I suggest you grow up a bit, pal. Your myopic viewpoint is depressing.


----------



## Tez3 (May 28, 2008)

snoack said:


> Right, and by you ripping into me you PROVED my point. I don't care what your stupid wikipedia definitions of liberalism are.
> 
> Why do Liberals feel the need to attempt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine? Because their ideals don't fly with the majority in this country (Air America went bankrupt). Why won't Hillary or Obama tell the truth about their plans for social restructuring? Because they'd be CRUSHED in the GE.
> 
> This isn't England, pal, this is America (and thank God for that, as you guys seem bound and determined to allow yourselves to be colonized by the Muslims the way you bend over backwards for them). We have a right to express our opinions here.


 
This is an international forum with people from different backgrounds and different beliefs, it's also a very tolerant place.
This thread is vastly off topic now. As other have said if you want to discuss politics there are plenty of threads on which to do that.


----------



## howard (May 28, 2008)

snoack said:


> This isn't England, pal, this is America...



No, "this" is the internet. A global virtual community.

You know, the _worldwide_ web.

England is just as much a part of this community as the US is, as is every other corner of this globe (btw, I'm American, born and bred. But I won't dare tell you my middle name ).

If having to share space with people whose opinions differ from yours exercises you to the degree evident in your posts in this thread, perhaps you simply go elsewhere.


----------



## FearlessFreep (May 28, 2008)

Did I wander into the Study by mistake?  I could've sworn I was looking for a thread about why people are judgmental to martial artists...


----------



## Empty Hands (May 28, 2008)

snoack said:


> You want to go toe-to-toe with me at politics?
> 
> ...bring it...


----------



## elder999 (May 28, 2008)

snoack said:


> No, actually I'm not
> 
> Let's have some examples, shall we?*<snip!>*
> 
> ...


 
Well.....


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 28, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Well.....


 
:lfao::lfao::lfao:


----------



## exile (May 28, 2008)

I don't exactly have a horse in this race, and I know that the split in the thread is maybe making it a bit tricky to figure out what's at issue. I think the point that people have made about the inclusiveness of MartialTalk and the need to keep a civil tone in discourse is great, and my instinct is that at this point, it would be helpful if someone could maybe rephrase the point at issue in this thread's OP in a way that got the discussion back to issues of substance, rather than personalities. The former usually turn out to be the best kind of debate, eh?


----------



## Tez3 (May 28, 2008)

I was confused as hell about this thread as I thought it was still on the other one!
I think the point of this one and it was suggested that the thread split off then was that American ideas of Liberalism is* vastly* different from British ideas of being a Liberal. Here it's a respectable thing to be a Liberal as they are the centre party and have been around for centuries. *I think the* *American liberals* *are what we would call the Labour party* or at the very least the socialist party so we are having an argument sorry a discussion about something neither side has any idea of what the other means! It's like we are using the word orange to describe a fruit when one actually means an apple and the other a pear!

(Winston Churchill was a Liberal , he served in a Liberal government in different positions.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill


----------



## Makalakumu (May 28, 2008)

Here's the thing...

Look at the way that the word "liberal" has transformed in American political discourse (I can't say much for other countries).  Liberal used to equate with freedom, now certain people associate it with tyranny.  

The same thing happened with the word "conservative".  It used to be associated with freedom, but now certain people associate it with tyranny.  

So, the real **** that goes down and takes away our real freedoms is always the other sides fault.  

The people who made it this way ****ing laugh at discussions like this.  They want us to be looking at each other like strange cats even though we're both looking for the same thing.

Freedom.

We are being played against each other.  The whole enterprise is a giant ****ing game the elite play in order to keep the lower social classes thinking about how to fight each other better.

It's the oldest trick in the book and we're falling for it again...


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 28, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I was confused as hell about this thread as I thought it was still on the other one!
> I think the point of this one and it was suggested that the thread split off then was that American ideas of Liberalism is* vastly* different from British ideas of being a Liberal. Here it's a respectable thing to be a Liberal as they are the centre party and have been around for centuries. *I think the* *American liberals* *are what we would call the Labour party* or at the very least the socialist party so we are having an argument sorry a discussion about something neither side has any idea of what the other means! It's like we are using the word orange to describe a fruit when one actually means an apple and the other a pear!
> 
> (Winston Churchill was a Liberal , he served in a Liberal government in different positions.)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill


 
Tez have you seen a graph that places political parties by liberal-conservative and libertarian-fascist? If so, The Republican party would be about 70% into conservative, and 45% into libertarian. The Democratic party (the "liberal party" in the states) is 55% into conservative, and 45% into fascist. The ideals of liberalism is the same through out, the differnce is, we have no liberals in the national level (or next to none), therefore, Americans tend to assume that liberalism = what ever the Democratic party is doing.


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 28, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Here's the thing...
> 
> Look at the way that the word "liberal" has transformed in American political discourse (I can't say much for other countries). Liberal used to equate with freedom, now certain people associate it with tyranny.
> 
> ...


 
Are you a Socialist?


----------



## Makalakumu (May 28, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Are you a Socialist?


 
Nope.

"I am nussing, Lebowski!"


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 28, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Nope.
> 
> "I am nussing, Lebowski!"


 
Funny. But you sound a little like Marx.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 28, 2008)

I am thinking i will just stay away from this one


----------



## Makalakumu (May 29, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Funny. But you sound a little like Marx.


 
I'm kind of a hard guy to figure out.  My politics don't really fit any labels any more.  I agree and disagree with all sorts of "sides".  Mostly, I want what everyone else wants...

A stable environment for my family.
The ability to make a living and provide for them.
The ability to pursue happiness.

There are lots of great ideas to make all of this happen and that is what real politics should be about.

But its not.  Right now, our political system is out of our control.  The people with the most money own it and they shape the world for their own benefit.  Oftentimes, the three things I listed above are not on their priority list.  

My point in my previous post was to hint that the words "liberal" and "conservative" are artificial constructions.  Their "definitions" were contrived to divide us against each other.  Both "sides" have the same bosses.  Their "issues" are artificial.

Never mind the men behind the curtain.


----------



## Tez3 (May 29, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Funny. But you sound a little like Marx.


 
Groucho or Harpo?

Sorry, couldn't resist!

When people want to 'get' at liberals over here the jibe is that they are the sit on the fence people! that they don't actually go one way or another. It's probably true in that liberals here are the middle of the road ones who want the compromises between the Labour and the Conservatives, the liberals want balance. Though I have to say the Labour party here is getting dangerously conservative. 
I think the amount of Socialist parties in Europe confuses Americans too especially as there are many Christian socialist parties. Socialist doesn't equate to communism in Europe they way it does in America, here communism is communism but confusingly you will find Christian communists in Italy. they do quite well in their elections.
The party I think we have to watch in the UK although it's still a small one is the British National Party, they are a fascist party through and through. The promote racial hatred and even though they deny it they have a military wing called Combat 18. The 18 stands for the first and 8th letters of the alphabet AH, Adoph Hitler. You can argue about liberals, Democrats, Republicans, Tories etc but these are the ones keen to take away your rights, these are ones behind much of the racial tensions in our towns. they are also starting to make inroads into our local councils. Frankly these are evil people about evil work. We have to watch, like the their 'parent' party the Nazis, that they don't slip in under the radar and become any larger. What they stand for is illegal and immoral, democracy is a dirty word to them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 29, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I'm kind of a hard guy to figure out. My politics don't really fit any labels any more. I agree and disagree with all sorts of "sides". Mostly, I want what everyone else wants...
> 
> A stable environment for my family.
> The ability to make a living and provide for them.
> ...


 
There's a politician from Nebraska (cann't remember his name or what he's running for though), he says "it's not about right or left, it's about forward or backward." I say "it's not about right or left, it's about who you want to be in charge: the greedy, the curupt, or the Proletarian Dictatorship"

Funny Tez. However, Marx himself said nothing much about religion, it was Stalin who condemmed religion. Stalin was really the one who screwed the pooch with Socialism/Communism. Infact, both are dirty words State-side. A classic example is Universal Health Care. Some of us are trying to get it, those against (the Republicans) are calling it "Socialised Healthcare". Geuss why? 
Democracy is a dirty word in general. Aristotle was one of the first ones to coin the term, and he said it when a government of the people becomes curropt. Haha.

MMM... this makes me wonder about something... topic for anouther thread though.


----------



## elder999 (May 29, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Funny Tez. However, Marx himself said nothing much about religion,.


 
But _what_ he said....



> _Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions._
> Karl Marx, _Critique of Hegels Philosophy of Right_


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 29, 2008)

elder999 said:


> But _what_ he said....


 
OK, so I forgot about that essay (I'm pretty sure it was an essay). But, I'm sure if we were to ask Marx how to abolish the opium of the people, he would probably not advocate what Stalin did (ie, round up and execute every priest, demolish every house of worship, and make yourself a pseudo-God in Gods place). He would probably be fine up until it came to replacing God. But what do I know?


----------



## jlhummel (May 29, 2008)

Welcome to the wonderful world of Liberalism!!! Were you must not prepare to protect yourself or your loved ones thats what the government and the police are for. If u just think good thoughts nothing bad will happen to you!

Hey folks that was me or at least my statement.  The point I was making is that from my view liberalism seems to take the stance that government or other angencies (police) are responcible for protecting you.  That when (you) taking a stance of owning a weapon or getting training in MA to protect yourself or your family you are promoting violence or the use of personal violence.  Even if you never use the weapon or the training.  That if you trust in others these things are really not needed and that by owning a weapon or training in a martial art you promote the very violence that you are trying to protect against.  This type of circular thinking seems in my opinion to be a very center part of the liberal way of thinking and problem solving.  

Let the opinions fly


----------



## CoryKS (May 29, 2008)

jlhummel said:


> The point I was making is that from my view liberalism seems to take the stance that government or other angencies (police) are responcible for protecting you.


 
Exactly.  It's "freedom from" anything bad rather than "freedom of" choice to pursue those things which one desires.  One's desires may lead one to explore options that have negative repercussions.  In a "freedom of" setting, one may weigh the options and decide that the benefit of an action outweighs the possible risks; in a "freedom from" setting, that choice has already been made for you.  

It's like living in your parents' house vs. moving out into your own apartment.  You can have your room and board paid for, meals prepared for you, laundry done, but you have to abide by the rules of the house.  Or you can get your own place.  It's harder -- you'll have to get a job to pay for the rent, the bills, the food -- but you have complete autonomy in how you conduct your life, provided that you don't break the law. 

That said, I don't think the woman in KenpoGuy's post was arguing from the "liberal" perspective.


----------



## Archangel M (May 29, 2008)

A little more on the difference between US "liberals" and European ones....Wikipedias definition of "Classical Liberalism"



> "Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. Happily they did not capture it in Europe, and were glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are."





> "Beginning in the late nineteenth century, and especially after 1930 in the United States, the term liberalism came to be associated with a very different emphasis, particularly in economic policy. It came to be associated with a readiness to rely primarily on the state rather than on private voluntary arrangements to achieve objectives regarded as desirable. The catchwords became welfare and equality rather than freedom. The nineteenth century liberal regarded an extension of freedom as the most effective way to promote welfare and equality; the twentieth century liberal regards welfare and equality as either prerequisites of or alternatives to freedom. In the name of welfare and equality, the twentieth-century liberal has come to favor a revival of the very policies of state intervention and paternalism against which classical liberalism fought. In the very act of turning the clock back to seventeenth-century mercantilism, he is fond of castigating true liberals as reactionary!"[49]


----------



## SageGhost83 (May 29, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> A little more on the difference between US "liberals" and European ones....Wikipedias definition of "Classical Liberalism"


 
Ironically, many American liberals are well-versed in Communism and Marxism and they even draw from those sources while presenting some their own viewpoints. Their policies seem to follow that model, too.


----------



## Tez3 (May 29, 2008)

When did America start to hate communism so much and why? Of all the countries in the world America is surely the last one that would ever go over to communism, I imagine you could count active communists in the Sates in hundreds not even thousands.It's seems especially during the McCarthy years that the reds under the beds scare was just that, a scare. I know the then Soviet bloc had 'the bomb' but they were hardly going to invade in all honestly, they simply couldn't have afforded to. Nato matched them for weapons so it was always going to be a stand off. So honestly, why are Americans so afraid of communists? Other countries have them and they've never actually bothered anyone, being, frankly political no hopers, even the Labour Party here doesn't rate them.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 29, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> When did America start to hate communism so much and why?



There is a long history to it, which came to a particular head in the 1930's.  Union busting, huge strikes, lots of labor unrest, and the backlash to it were all a big part of the landscape in regards to the Great Depression.  However, this is a history shared by many other nations, with union busting and labor unrest a much larger problem in certain parts of Europe for much longer.  

Interestingly, when it was convenient and necessary, the Commies weren't such bad guys after all.  That time of course was WWII.  Right afterwards, before the war even ended, the demonization and backlash started up all over again.  Given that, I don't think the reaction is a long term historical one, but mostly due to the propagandizing and social control necessary to hype the American people up to perceive and confront the USSR as an enemy.  I guess the programming stuck, although of course in most segments of our society you really don't see this intense dislike and reaction anymore.  There is simply no need.  After all, the American people are in no great hurry to give up their Socialist institutions - the military, social benefit programs, and the like.

The intense anti-communism is now mostly relegated to a small segment of the ideological right.  Like all fringe beliefs, this is of course amplified on the internet, so that your average Brit might think it is really more widespread than it actually is.  To the extent that the average American even really understands what Socialism and Communism are, they really don't give a damn anymore.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 29, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> There's a politician from Nebraska (cann't remember his name or what he's running for though), he says "it's not about right or left, it's about forward or backward." I say "it's not about right or left, it's about who you want to be in charge: the greedy, the curupt, or the Proletarian Dictatorship"
> 
> Funny Tez. However, Marx himself said nothing much about religion, it was Stalin who condemmed religion. Stalin was really the one who screwed the pooch with Socialism/Communism. Infact, both are dirty words State-side. A classic example is Universal Health Care. Some of us are trying to get it, those against (the Republicans) are calling it "Socialised Healthcare". Geuss why?
> Democracy is a dirty word in general. Aristotle was one of the first ones to coin the term, and he said it when a government of the people becomes curropt. Haha.
> ...


Backward or forward is right or left.
Sean


----------



## Ray (May 29, 2008)

It's deeper than just the two words "liberal" and "conservative."  I believe there are fiscal conservatives and liberals; social conservatives and liberals; as well as a few other ways to look at liberal vrs conservative.

Lastly there is the "convenient liberal" (or "convenient conservative").  e.g. I'm completely against abortion except in the case of my mistress who is pregnant with my out-of-wedlock child.


----------



## Ahriman (May 29, 2008)

Hmm, I don't know why do Americans hate commies, I know why *we* Hungarians hate them. We had extreme right and extreme left dictatorships here, the latter ending in 1990. We're still suffering from the second, and those who were alive then have good memories about Horthy _(the right extremist dictator, I mean governor)_. Simply put, in our national experience dictatorships suck, but lefties screw up the economy, while righties help it growing.
Oh, and my parents and grandparents told us about the good old educational things like proving why will the USA collapse in a few years, why are all westerners are idiots, rapists, drunkards and the like. If anyone from the USA would've been here, he/she would have a reason for hating communism for the rest of his/her life.
...
Now this issue with parties taking up names of ideals or parties misusing titles... we have a similar thing here. The self-proclaimed right side is following something resembling communism while the socialists are more like the "traditional" right side. So if we don't want communism here we have to vote for one of the descendants of the former Hungarian Communist Party. Even more interesting that the "right side" has skinheads AND gypsies as supporters - imagine Nazis and jews allying under the flag of Stalin.
...
After all, I hate politicians. I hate racists. I hate criminals. Someone should shoot them all. _ (and yes, I simplified things a bit. It's aaaalways more complicated...)_


----------



## Archangel M (May 29, 2008)

Why do we "hate" Communism?

"The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: *Abolish all private property*." 
- Karl Marx

"Communism and fascism or nazism, although poles apart in their intellectual content, are similar in this, that both have emotional appeal to the type of personality that takes pleasure in being submerged in a mass movement and *submitting to superior authority*." 
- James A. C. Brown

"Communism is the death of the soul. It is the *organization of total conformity *- in short, of tyranny - and it is committed to making tyranny universal." 
- Adlai E. Stevenson 

"Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy." 
- Mao Tse-Tung

"We must hate - *hatred is the basis of communism*. Children must be taught to hate their parents if they are not communists." 
- Vladimir Ilich Lenin

It basically stands for everything my relatives left the European side of the globe for all those years ago. We got tired of not having our own property, our own say and the ability to tell our royal overlords to shove it.


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 29, 2008)

I doubt Lenin said that, you're misunderstanding Marx, and the rest of that is irrelevant. Why? The only one of those men who are left and claims to be Communist is Mao, and he is _not_ a Communist.

I could read nothing about Democracies origin, and what it does and how it does it, then, I could look at a country which is dictorial, curropt, and so on and so forth, but, claims to be Democratic. I have no basis of knowledge or understanding of Democracy, so I could very well say "this is Democracy, it is evil" Problem is, every truelly Socialist or Communistic state doesn't claim to be. But, every state which claims to be Socialistic/Communistic is in fact not. Same problem.

Now then, This area of discussion is over. I will NOT argue with someone as to what is and is not Socialism, and whether it is good or not. Feel free to argue with others, but I'm done.

On a parting thought I AM BEOWULF!!!!


----------



## CoryKS (May 29, 2008)

Y'know, it's funny how whenever somebody explains the reasons, based on historical events, why they hate communism/socialism, people reply with "well, you don't really understand socialism.  You don't understand what Marx was saying.  You don't get it."  Poor, misunderstood socialism.  It's so hard to understand that fricking hundreds of millions of people have died because of... what?  Poor implementation?  Semantic nuance?

Just once, consider the possibility that maybe a political theory that is so difficult to grasp that it has failed miserably every. single. time. it has been tried -- and taken countless lives down with it -- maybe that theory should remain just that:  a _theory_.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 29, 2008)

> Interestingly, when it was convenient and necessary, the Commies weren't such bad guys after all. That time of course was WWII. Right afterwards, before the war even ended, the demonization and backlash started up all over again.


 
Thats not exactly true.  Many in the U.S. government and population despised Communism during WWII.  Patton is the definitive example.  He wanted to push on into Russia, and not just stop with the Nazis.

Quite frankly, although I dont see the Communist Party itself being influential, the ideals off communism (my working definition of which is extreme socialism) have crept into the U.S. political spectrum.  Please, though, at this point dont confuse this with saying that we have quiet a corrupt a system as the old USSR. I think that most people who believe it have a sincere belief that it is the best thing for all people.  IMO, they are wrong because it refuses to take human psychology into account.


----------



## Archangel M (May 30, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> I doubt Lenin said that, you're misunderstanding Marx, and the rest of that is irrelevant. Why? The only one of those men who are left and claims to be Communist is Mao, and he is _not_ a Communist.
> 
> I could read nothing about Democracies origin, and what it does and how it does it, then, I could look at a country which is dictorial, curropt, and so on and so forth, but, claims to be Democratic. I have no basis of knowledge or understanding of Democracy, so I could very well say "this is Democracy, it is evil" Problem is, every truelly Socialist or Communistic state doesn't claim to be. But, every state which claims to be Socialistic/Communistic is in fact not. Same problem.
> 
> ...


 
The day I take the word of an 18 yo kid on the origins and authenticity and meanings of direct quotes.....I doubt you understand the true philosophy of any political system.


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 30, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> The day I take the word of an 18 yo kid on the origins and authenticity and meanings of direct quotes.....I doubt you understand the true philosophy of any political system.


 
Thats a Red Herring and you're because you cann't argue with me using anything that resembles fact.


----------



## brianhunter (May 30, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Thats a Red Herring and you're because you cann't argue with me using anything that resembles fact.


 
I think he argued with you using a good deal of facts and direct quotes. You are not using any sort of intellectual debate or factual rebuttals.

You are "debunking" qoutes and history based on your feelings and personal beliefs without any real fact while accusing others of the same thing.

When in grade school we called this type of arguing; _"I know you are but what am I?"_

I think it is pretty obvious that you have no true ability to think or debate with any true facts or critical thinking skills. You also stated you were done responding to people in this thread.


----------



## Archangel M (May 30, 2008)

It amazing what people on the internet think is "fact" or will accept as "fact".


----------



## exile (May 30, 2008)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sho...d.php?p=427486. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Bob Levine
-MT Moderator-


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 30, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> "The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property."
> - Karl Marx
> 
> "Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy."
> ...





CuongNhuka said:


> I doubt Lenin said that, you're misunderstanding Marx, and the rest of that is irrelevant. Why? The only one of those men who are left and claims to be Communist is Mao, and he is not a Communist.



Well I would say Archangel M has taken Marx out of context to make a point that Marx was not exactly making.

And yes I do believe Lenin said that or at least the &#8220;"We must hate - hatred is the basis of communism&#8221; bit as for the rest, I am not exactly sure.

And Mao Tse-Tung was most certainly a Communist or at least as much as anyone else that claims to be is. 

Although I believe Archangel M is mixing up Socialist and Communist Theory for his argument a bit the quotes he supplied are correct. 

But you can get tons of quotes on hatred form all over the world and from just about every culture so it is everywhere otherwise there would be nothing said about it. 

"You know, the thing that struck me about Civil War music was how bloody it was; it was full of hatred. There was incredible vitriol in it." 
T-Bone Burnett

&#8220;Hatred is an element of the struggle, a relentless hatred of the enemy&#8230;transforming him into an effective, violent and selective, cold blooded killing machine. A people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy.&#8221; Che Guevare.

"Hatred is inveterate anger." 
Marcus Tullius Cicero

"Islam teaches tolerance, not hatred; universal brotherhood, not enmity; peace, and not violence. "
Pervez Musharraf


----------



## SageGhost83 (May 30, 2008)

I am with you, Xue. A lot of the arguments made could easily apply to both sides of the coin. Hate is universal, and millions of people have died under the implementation of *every* form of government, not just communism. It is like two people wrestle in the mud then one points at the other and accuses him of being filthy because he is covered in mud. Communism has never succeeded in any nation. However, every democracy that has ever stood has collapsed - even going back to Athenian democracy. I think it has more to do with the competence of a particular government than the system they are implementing because you can screw democracy up pretty badly and make it look just as backward and evil if a total jerk gets voted into office by a naive or even vindictive populace. Was communism a total failure or was Stalin just a total prick who would've screwed up any and every system including democracy itself? I think that every system has its pro's and con's and can be extremely good or extremely bad depending on who's in charge and what they are willing to do with that power. No system is perfect and some systems work better or worse depending on the ones in charge, type of civilization, culture, and so forth. For the record, my money is on democracy.


----------



## Archangel M (May 30, 2008)

But when coming from the "founding fathers" of the political movements...I believe those quotes are more telling.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 30, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> But when coming from the "founding fathers" of the political movements...I believe those quotes are more telling.


 
It is interesting that you point out founding fathers.

There has been more than a little speculation that the founding fathers of our country when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were not writing for all in the country actually but more for white land owners

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

If that was in fact the case that puts our founding fathers in a different light as well and is also telling.

But then I have always been one to say that you cannot really judge history by the standards of the present.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 30, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> There has been more than a little speculation that the founding fathers of our country when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were not writing for all in the country actually but more for white land owners.



Some were, some weren't.   Some were for universal suffrage and the abolishment of slavery, but if they had stood by their guns too strongly, no union would have taken place.  Hence the 3/5ths compromise, and similar.  Politics is the art of the possible, after all.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 30, 2008)

and later (much later and not by the founding fathers) the additions of the 15th and 19th amendmants.

But this is getting into things of another thread


----------



## snoack (May 31, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> OK, you are talking about the ills of the Democratic party. I couldn't give a crapp less about them, they're a bunch of currpt morons. I'm talking about political and social liberalism. Big differnce.
> 
> With that being said, go away. I don't feel like dealing with you.
> 
> Ohh, by the way, I didn't give you negitive rep. I have NEVER given negitive rep. So, please appologise.


 
Consider this an apology for the neg rep...

but ONLY the neg rep.


----------



## snoack (May 31, 2008)

Nolerama said:


> Haha. Watching one too many cheerleading movies?
> 
> You're pretty emotional about this. Unfortunately, your arguments are based on what YOU consider facts.
> 
> ...


 
Funny, you talk about MY opinion and MY "shaky" facts-

prove their shaky, if you can.  There isn't a single thing I said that can't be backed up.


----------

