# Rights and lefts a new thread



## billc (Jan 9, 2011)

I just came across two articles from "Front Page" magazine exploring what it is that makes up a "left" wing political position. In this article he actually takes the time to delve into what a "right" wing political perspective. I have been asking for this in particular through several threads. Since the Ann Coulter thread is on page 20 I thought this topid deserved its own thread. Especially after all the (word deleted to achieve an acceptable rating) I took about Nazi and Facism being types of socialism.

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=22626

So what are Rightists? 
The prime focus in this paper has been on defining and explaining what Leftism is. It would nonetheless be remiss not to give also at least a skeletal outline of what Rightism is so I will now do that. If Leftism and Rightism are NOT mirror-images, as this paper asserts, some such account does appear necessary in order to complete the picture. I have, however, written one book and many previous papers for those who wish to study conservatism at greater length 

Military Dictators? 
In the late 20th century, it was a common rhetorical ploy of the more "revolutionary" Left in the "Western" world simply to ignore democracy as an alternative to Communism. Instead they would excuse the brutalities of Communism by pointing to the brutalities of the then numerous military dictatorships of Southern Europe and Latin America and pretend that such regimes were the only alternative to Communism. These regimes were led by generals who might in various ways be seen as conservative (though Peron was clearly Leftist) so do they tell us anything about conservatism? 
Historically, most of the world has been ruled by military men and their successors (Sargon II of Assyria, Alexander of Macedon, Caesar, Augustus, Constantine, Charlemagne, Frederick II of Prussia etc.) so it seems unlikely but perhaps the main point to note here is that the Hispanic dictatorships of the 20th century were very often created as a response to a perceived threat of a Communist takeover. This is particularly clear in the case of Spain, Chile and Argentina. They were an attempt to fight fire with fire. In Argentina of the 60s and 70s, for instance, Leftist "urban guerillas" were very active &#8212; blowing up anyone they disapproved of. The nice, mild, moderate Anglo-Saxon response to such depredations would have been to endure the deaths and disruptions concerned and use police methods to trace the perpetrators and bring them to trial. Much of the world is more fiery than that, however, and the Argentine generals certainly were. They became impatient with the slow-grinding wheels of democracy and its apparent impotence in the face of the Leftist revolutionaries. They therefore seized power and instituted a reign of terror against the Leftist revolutionaries that was as bloody, arbitrary and indiscriminate as what the Leftists had inflicted. In a word, they used military methods to deal with the Leftist attackers. So the nature of these regimes was only incidentally conservative.

It might be noted, however, that, centuries earlier, the parliamentary leaders of England &#8212; led by Fairfax, Cromwell etc. &#8212; did something similar to the Hispanic generals of the 20th century. Faced by an attempt on the part of the Stuart tyrant to abrogate their traditional rights, powers and liberties, they resorted to military means to overthrow the threat. There is no reason to argue that democracy cannot or must not use military means to defend itself or that Leftists or anyone else must be granted exclusive rights to the use of force and violence.

and some more from the article.

A Conservative Revolution 
And the parliamentarians who were responsible for beheading King Charles I in 1649 were perfectly articulate about why. They felt that Charles had attempted to destroy the ancient English governmental system or "constitution" and that he had tried to take away important rights and individual liberties that the English had always enjoyed &#8212; liberty from the arbitrary power of Kings, a right to representation in important decisions and a system of counterbalanced and competing powers rather than an all-powerful central government. It is to them that we can look for the first systematic statements of conservative ideals &#8212; ideals that persevere to this day. And they were both conservatives (wishing to conserve traditional rights and arrangements) and revolutionaries! 

The biggest mistake that has been made by psychologists (e.g. Altemeyer 1981 & 1988) and others, however, is to identify conservative motivation with opposition to change. Obviously, from Cromwell to Reagan and Thatcher, change has never bothered "conservatives" one bit &#8212; but preservation of their rights and liberties from governments that would take those rights and liberties away always has. THAT is what has always made a "conservative" &#8212; and it still does. 


http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24245


----------



## billc (Jan 9, 2011)

Historically, the core of conservatism has always been a suspicion of government power and intervention and conservatives therefore accept only the minimum amount of government that seems needed for a civil society to function. So it is no wonder that there is no authoritarian version of conservative ideology. If it were authoritarian it could not be conservative.


----------



## crushing (Jan 9, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Historically, the core of conservatism has always been a suspicion of government power and intervention and conservatives therefore accept only the minimum amount of government that seems needed for a civil society to function. So it is no wonder that there is no authoritarian version of conservative ideology. If it were authoritarian it could not be conservative.



This looks like a lead up to why Republicans, and especially the neo-cons, should not be considered conservatives.


----------



## billc (Jan 9, 2011)

I'm not really concerned with the whole neo-con thing.  My interest is the use of the term facist or nazi when people attack conservatives, especially Ann coulter, Rush and the others.  And also, when people say religion has killed more people.  Other than that, you know, whatever.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 9, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I'm not really concerned with the whole neo-con thing.  My interest is the use of the term facist or nazi when people attack conservatives, especially Ann coulter, Rush and the others.  And also, when people say religion has killed more people.  Other than that, you know, whatever.



i dont call her a fascist. I just call her a wingnut.


----------



## billc (Jan 9, 2011)

At least that is, well if not more accurate, at least not as innacurate as calling her a facist, or a nazi.  You could write Henry Rollins and explain that to him.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 9, 2011)

as for those two threads, I dont agree with em but as they are long it would be a long looooooooooooooooooooong post to explain why


----------



## billc (Jan 9, 2011)

I get it.  That's why I like to link.  People can read them or not, but at least they are out there to see.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 9, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I get it.  That's why I like to link.  People can read them or not, but at least they are out there to see.



Indeed. I have doubts about the authenticity of your links though. As someone else pointed out you do seem to post ones who agree with you, and you agree with them. Interesting though it is, that isn't how one should go about proving a thesis. (I have a major in history and am thinking of going for my Masters in history.) One thing we learned is that sometimes, presenting and acknowldging a contradictory viewpoint can actually help strengthen your argument and not weaken it. It is no surprise some here question you and your 'sources' and links, really.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 9, 2011)

billcihak said:


> At least that is, well if not more accurate, at least not as innacurate as calling her a facist, or a nazi.  You could write Henry Rollins and explain that to him.



I'd be able to, too. lol. There is a difference between your fascism ideology and your typical capitalist religious conservative ideology. He sounds like a nutbar too.


----------



## billc (Jan 9, 2011)

My links are my links, they can get their own. I present what I have found they can do their own homework to show me why Hitler wasn't a lefty. My sources tend to be Ph.d's, this one and Thomas Sowell As well as hayek and Mises. Sowell started out as a Marxist economist, you can read some of his early books on Marx. Jonah goldberg is a columnist and a pundit. His liberal facism book is interesting.  The link above about the leftists is where I found the interesting history on Rightists.  It also explains why the left wants to put Hiltler on the "right" instead of the left where he belongs.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 9, 2011)

billcihak said:


> My links are my links, they can get their own. I present what I have found they can do their own homework to show me why Hitler wasn't a lefty. My sources tend to be Ph.d's, this one and Thomas Sowell As well as hayek and Mises. Sowell started out as a Marxist economist, you can read some of his early books on Marx. Jonah goldberg is a columnist and a pundit. His liberal facism book is interesting.  The link above about the leftists is where I found the interesting history on Rightists.  It also explains why the left wants to put Hiltler on the "right" instead of the left where he belongs.



I just spent some time reading up on Sowell. All I can say is Wow. I disagree with most of his beliefs especially the one about pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps.  I myself was one of the ones helpedby such programs such as the one that allows studentw who did not complete highschool (such as myself) to still get a chance to go to university though they have to be 21 or older. I now have my degree and can now go for my masters if I so wish.  And according to this guy if you applied his thoughts to martial arts people like me wouldnt be able to advance in rank and try for a Black Belt in martial arts because i was born with a balsnce problem. Fact is if there were no programs like that, if people had to survive on their own bootstraps many of em wouldnt make it.

But yeah you provide your own sources (if one can call them that) and if you want others can get their own. if you say so.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2011)

Bill if you've had replies you don't like on other threads it's because your arguments are so simplistic they make having a reasoned discussion very difficult. To even try arguing with you we have to also state things simply and world affairs and politics are far from simple.

Your statements that the Nazis and the Communists are all socialists and that all socialists are bad, violent and unhappy simply aren't acceptable as proof of anything. Another statement that socialism killed millions is likewise empty. You've even posted up a thread about socialism in Europe failing when the story is about something happening in Italy which shows you have no understanding of Europe or Italy for that matter. There's too many statements you have made such as 'all socialists hate religion' 'conservatives aren't violent' that require refuting and that gets in the way of even hoping for a decent discussion.

I think you should be honest here and say that your motives for these posts isn't to explore the nuances of political thought but merely to emphasis that your beliefs are the correct ones to have. the inference is that we are wrong and you are right.

For these and many others I'm bowing out of discussing politics with you yet again, especially if you are going to tell me things like the Anglo Saxon approach to terrorism being gentle.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 10, 2011)

True, Tez. I'm a lefty and I'm not violent.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 10, 2011)

The jack boots hurt, no matter who is wearing them.:mst:
Sean


----------



## billc (Jan 10, 2011)

I will say it directly, I believe that the left is wrong.  At their best they drag a society down and at their worst they are dangerous.  I am also a conservative, so I believe in democracy, limited government, individual rights, especially those in the Bill of rights of the constitution of the U.S.  I believe in the freedom of religion, the press and the right of every individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness.  I believe that the left does not hold these to the same respect that I and other conservatives do.  You need only look to the murder on Saturday and the reaction of the left wing politicians and media to see how they view the world.  Are all people who are left of center violent.  Of course not.  Do I think they are wrong.  Absolutely.  I will put my energy to electing people who agree with me the same as you and people of your beliefs will try to get your guys elected.  I will fight to protect your rights the same as I will fight to protect my own.  

I like to post sites that match my opinion, in the way I feel comfortable expressing it.  If people here do not like my just linking to other sites, read something else.   We each have our own way of expressing ourselves and I am more than happy with the way others here express themseleves.  I don't believe in stopping anyone from posting whatever they like as long as it matches the forum rules, because this site is the property of the people who created it.  I believe in the right of people to control their own property as well.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 11, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I am also a conservative, so I believe in democracy, limited government, individual rights, especially those in the Bill of rights of the constitution of the U.S.  I believe in the *freedom of religion*, the press and the right of every individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness.  I believe that the left does not hold these to the same respect that I and other conservatives do.



So what about the right wing response to the "Ground Zero Mosque"?  Was that more respectful of freedom of religion than the "left"?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 11, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I will say it directly, I believe that the left is wrong. At their best they drag a society down and at their worst they are dangerous. I am also a conservative, so I believe in democracy, limited government, individual rights, especially those in the Bill of rights of the constitution of the U.S. I believe in the freedom of religion, the press and the right of every individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness. I believe that the left does not hold these to the same respect that I and other conservatives do. You need only look to the murder on Saturday and the reaction of the left wing politicians and media to see how they view the world. Are all people who are left of center violent. Of course not. Do I think they are wrong. Absolutely. I will put my energy to electing people who agree with me the same as you and people of your beliefs will try to get your guys elected. I will fight to protect your rights the same as I will fight to protect my own.
> 
> I like to post sites that match my opinion, in the way I feel comfortable expressing it. If people here do not like my just linking to other sites, read something else. We each have our own way of expressing ourselves and I am more than happy with the way others here express themseleves. I don't believe in stopping anyone from posting whatever they like as long as it matches the forum rules, because this site is the property of the people who created it. I believe in the right of people to control their own property as well.


 


It's Bob's property actually.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 11, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I will say it directly, I believe that the left is wrong. At their best they drag a society down and at their worst they are dangerous.
> ...
> Are all people who are left of center violent. Of course not. Do I think they are wrong. Absolutely.


 

And this, from both sides, is the crux of the problem. When one starts to believe that the other side is wrong. Not a view I don't share, not coming from a differnt angle. Just plain wrong. They're wrong, they don't count. I have no need to listen to what they say. That is a dangerous path to go down. You lose civility in the political discourse. It's easier to put down your opponent because he doesn't count. After all, he's wrong, so why bother. Never mind he may have a better approach, or that combining solutions may result in a better one. 

All you end up with is 2 polarized sides that don't talk to each other, whose goal is to wrest power from the other, and the welfare of the country be damned.


----------



## Rayban (Jan 11, 2011)

Tez you keep stealing all the good words and paragraphs from my head 

So I'll just say ditto.

I don't consider myself a violent upstart and I lean left.  If I label what I am, Libertarian is the closest I can come up with.  Minarchist as well (not entirely, just a minimal amount)


----------



## Steve (Jan 11, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> And this, from both sides, is the crux of the problem. When one starts to believe that the other side is wrong. Not a view I don't share, not coming from a differnt angle. Just plain wrong. They're wrong, they don't count. I have no need to listen to what they say. That is a dangerous path to go down. You lose civility in the political discourse. It's easier to put down your opponent because he doesn't count. After all, he's wrong, so why bother. Never mind he may have a better approach, or that combining solutions may result in a better one.
> 
> All you end up with is 2 polarized sides that don't talk to each other, whose goal is to wrest power from the other, and the welfare of the country be damned.



I really think you liberals need to understand the rules of the game.  It's about time someone wrote a few of them down for you.  

To start with, you're just being a wishy washy.  Moral relativism is a trait to be reviled and detested (I know they mean the same thing, but that's how hated it should be).  It's also a leftist trait.  True conservatives believe that there is right and there is wrong.  There is no middle ground, nor is there any room for debate.  So, this bollocks about meeting half way is going to have to stop.  

Conservatives are right, even when they're not.  And liberals are wrong all the time... and when they're right, it's because they listened to a conservative.  

And should a conservative be wrong, we will discuss at length all of the liberals throughout history who were also wrong.

And if a liberal is wrong, we will say, "I told you so."

And if a trait is shown to be evil, we will make that trait liberal.  Particularly if we don't share that trait... but even if we do.

And if there is a villain, whether fictional or not, he or she or it was a liberal.  Darth Vader was liberal.  So was the Grinch.

If a conservative media outlet says something over the top or incorrect, it was a joke... come on, people.  A joke.

If a liberal media outlet says something over the top, it was a plot.  

All media outlets are liberal.  Fox news, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, The NY Post and Drudge don't exist...  move along, there is nothing to see here.  These aren't the droids you're looking for.  You can go about your business.

If a conservative media outlet says something three times, it's fact.  Even if it isn't fact.  And if they're called on it, see above: it was a joke.

And before I get hate mail, I'll just say out loud that this is intended to be tongue in cheek.  Deep breaths.


----------



## crushing (Jan 11, 2011)

Nope, it's simply the double standard.


----------



## WC_lun (Jan 11, 2011)

okay lets examine some of the beliefs you believe in and how close the "right" politicians and sort follow it...

Freedom of religion - unless you are Muslim and wish to build a building near ground zero.
Freedom for the pursuit of happiness, less government intrusion into people's lives - unless you are gay.  Nope, no marriage for you.  No true equal rights.  You can die for your country, but you better not do it while admitting you are gay.
Less government - unless you control the government, then it is okay to increase the government size.
Less governent spending - again, unless you are in control of the government, then spending is okay.
Pursuit of life - unless you are poor and need medical attention.  Your life isn't worth my tax dollars.
Freedom of religion - if you are Christian.  If you aren't Christian and would like your beliefs to be given equal consideration, or no religious beliefs to be pushed by the state (ala school prayer) then you are just attacking Christians.
Freedom of speech - unless you are critisizing a right wing news personality, pundit, or politician.  Then you just need to shut up.
Less government intrusion - unless that intrusion is to stop legal abortion.
Personal responsibility - unless you are a fellow right winger. Then if you do something wrong, find some left wing person who has done something wrong and just keep pointing at them and thier misbehaviour.  It also doesn't hurt to admitt to your sin and ask forgiveness.  Whatever you do, don't offer forgiveness to anyone from the left.

I could keep going, but won't.  You get the idea.  Obviously not every conservative person is so hypocritical.  Too often though, those who deal in absolutes belive nonsense like the above.

I wonder how much neg rep I'm going to get for pointing out the obvious?


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jan 11, 2011)

At this time in our nation's political discourse, "liberal" means "anything Republicans disagree with," and "conservative" means "anything Democrats disagree with."

It's a shame, and 'twasn't always so.

These days, "liberal" and "conservative" go in the same rhetorical trash heap as racial epithets. They're just labels used by people who want to discount the reasoned opinions of others rather than engage in rational debate.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 11, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> okay lets examine some of the beliefs you believe in and how close the "right" politicians and sort follow it...
> 
> Freedom of religion - unless you are Muslim and wish to build a building near ground zero.
> Freedom for the pursuit of happiness, less government intrusion into people's lives - unless you are gay. Nope, no marriage for you. No true equal rights. You can die for your country, but you better not do it while admitting you are gay.
> ...


 

Same can be said for the Left

Freedom of Religion- Unless you actually believe in god then you cling to your bibles and guns

Freedom for the pursuit of happiness, less government intrusion into people's lives Unless your poor and black then we will make you dependant on the Dem party by putting you in Section 8 housing giving you food stamps and telling you the Republicans are the reason you live here.

Less Govt- Unless youre taking over health care, Auto industry, Credit Card industry

 Pursuit of life-  Unless you make more than x amount of dollars a year then you have no right to have that much money we need to take it and give it to other people that did not earn it

Freedom of religion Only applies to Muslims and atheist anyone else is out of touch with the times and should stop trying to put 10 commandment statues in court houses And should get that damn "in God We Trust" off our money.  And dont get us started on Christmas

Freedom of speech- unless youre on the right then its just hate speech and need to be stopped

Personal responsibility unless were talking about keeping your legs closed, getting a job, paying your bills, getting your own health care

I could keep going, but won't. You get the idea. Obviously not every liberal person is so hypocritical

 
Oh and im sure ill get neg reps I seem to get a few when I post funny thing is nobody leaves their names.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 11, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> okay lets examine some of the beliefs you believe in and how close the "right" politicians and sort follow it...
> 
> Freedom of religion - unless you are Muslim and wish to build a building near ground zero.
> Freedom for the pursuit of happiness, less government intrusion into people's lives - unless you are gay. Nope, no marriage for you. No true equal rights. You can die for your country, but you better not do it while admitting you are gay.
> ...


 

My personal views on the above 
I could care less where the Muslims build a Mosque. If they buy the land they should be allowed to build anything they want. But they can&#8217;t get upset if Hooters buys the lot next door.

I could care less about Gay Marriage. I don&#8217;t think anyone should need permission from the Govt to Get married. I should not need a License to marry someone. I also don&#8217;t care if they are in the military.

Less Govt spending I&#8217;m good with that. Cut all budgets from Military to Fish and Wildlife. End all Fed Agencies if there is a state equivalent like Dept of Education
Pursuit of life. Again its not the Feds job to take care of you. 

Freedom of Religion is not Freedom from religion. If a county decides it wants to say the One nation under god in the pledge in its schools then the ACLU from 2 states away should butt out. If a local fire dept wants a manger scene in front then so be it.

Freedom of speech I don&#8217;t want to shut anyone up not Obama, not Palin, not Rush, not Maddow

I&#8217;m against abortions because I believe a person right to live is greater than a person&#8217;s right to not be uncomfortable for 9 months
I&#8217;m pro death penalty because I believe some people have proven they are not able to live in society and I believe people need to be punished for their actions.


----------



## Steve (Jan 11, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> My personal views on the above
> I could care less where the Muslims build a Mosque. If they buy the land they should be allowed to build anything they want. But they cant get upset if Hooters buys the lot next door.
> 
> I could care less about Gay Marriage. I dont think anyone should need permission from the Govt to Get married. I should not need a License to marry someone. I also dont care if they are in the military.
> ...


Im on a phone so I will keep it short. I agree with almost all of that.  Except abortion and education.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 11, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Im on a phone so I will keep it short. I agree with almost all of that. Except abortion and education.


I just dont see a point in having 2 layers of bureaucracy its a huge waste of money.  Leave education to the states.


----------



## granfire (Jan 11, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I just dont see a point in having 2 layers of bureaucracy its a huge waste of money.  Leave education to the states.



Hell no.
There has to be somebody who has seen more than the next county in charge of education!


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 11, 2011)

granfire said:


> Hell no.
> There has to be somebody who has seen more than the next county in charge of education!


Im not even sure what that means?


Unless you&#8217;re trying to make fun of the South again like you did in the other thread and if that&#8217;s the case well you&#8217;re just a moron and it does not deserve a response


----------



## billc (Jan 11, 2011)

Headlines from the drudgereport.  More freedom loving from the left.



*SILENCE: RI Gov. bans state employees from speaking on talkradio...
Dem Congressman: If Violent Rhetoric Didn't Cause This Shooting -- It Will Cause Next One!
BILL CLINTON: 'WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THINGS WE SAY'...
NEW PUSH FOR 'FAIRNESS DOCTRINE'...
MSNBC Matthews Cites Radio Stars Mark Levin, Michael Savage As Reason For AZ Shooting...
Dem Senator Fundraises Off Murders... 

*


----------



## billc (Jan 11, 2011)

Canuck, I listen to what the left says, I watch what the left does and that is why I think they are wrong.   You know, it is okay to think someone is wrong.  It doesn't mean that you hate them, it doesn't mean you want to hurt them, it doesn't mean that you can't agree to disagree.  I will vote for people who believe the way I do, you vote for people who believe the way you do.   That is how a free and democratic people( yes, I know we are not a pure democracy) does things.  I do not want to silence you, even though I think you are wrong, I want you to have as much time and access to say your beliefs whenever you can.  This whole, can't we all just come together and find a middle ground, is silly.  I think that taxes are too high, that we need a strong military and that the war in Iraq is necessary as is the theater in afghanistan.  My feelings do not get hurt if you think I am wrong, and I have a sneaking suspician that more than a few people who post here think that I am wrong.

I don't discount you as a person because I think you are wrong.  I just think you are wrong, and that the ideas I believe in work better.  that is all.  Would you like a hug.  It might make you feel better.  You will still be wrong, but you might feel better.


----------



## billc (Jan 11, 2011)

Actually emptyhand, the ground zero mosque question highlights the difference between conservatives and liberals.  Every conservative I heard debate this issue said pretty much the exact same thing:

THEY HAVE A RIGHT, UNDER THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE BASIC FREEDOMS OF THE UNITED STATES TO BUY THE PROPERTY AND BUILD THE MOSQUE.  HOWEVER, IT IS RUDE AND INCONSIDERATE OF THE FEELINGS OF MANY PEOPLE WHO LOST LOVED ONES WHEN MUSLIM TERRORISTS MURDERED THEM, TO BUILD THE MOSQUE THERE.  ALSO, EXPERTS ON ISLAM SAY THAT WHENEVER MUSLIMS WIN A VICTORY, THEY BUILD A MOSQUE AT THE SITE OF THE VICTORY.  THE MAN WHO WANTS TO BUILD THE MOSQUE IS SUSPICIOUS, HIS FUNDING IS SECRET AND THE MOSQUE WILL MORE THAN LIKELY ATTRACT RADICAL MUSLIMS TO IT.  ALSO, THEY SUGGESTED THAT HE COULD BUILD THE SAME MOSQUE BUT AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION, AND THEY ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THERE ARE ALREADY 50 OR MORE MOSQUES IN NEW YORK CITY ALREADY, SO THERE IS NO PREJUDICE AGAINST MUSLIMS OR MOSQUE BUILDING IN THE CITY.

That is what conservatives said about the mosque.  They did not call for a law to stop it, they did not call for violence against the man, and they supported his right to build the mosque.  

After the attack on the congresswoman and the deaths that ocurred, our liberty loving lefties, before any evidence had been produced about the killers motives, blamed the tea party and sarah palin.


----------



## billc (Jan 11, 2011)

Actually steve bjj, Darth Vader and the empire actually do share more in common with the extreme left than the right.  Seriously.


----------



## billc (Jan 11, 2011)

Why do the freedom loving left keep calling for the removal of Fox news and talk radio, especially conservative talk radio.  I heard a liberal politician just recently saying that he would like the fcc to step in and take fox news and msnbc(he throws this network in because noone watches it anyway, and he is trying to hide his intentions in fairness) off the air.


----------



## granfire (Jan 11, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Im not even sure what that means?
> 
> 
> Unless youre trying to make fun of the South again like you did in the other thread and if thats the case well youre just a moron and it does not deserve a response




making fun of the south?
heaven help me...but when a politician runs on the platform of 'but the other guy wants to teach _evolution_ in school' you have to admit things are a bit out of whack. Besides, I can make fun of my home state, so right back atcha.

But maybe you are right, maybe they don't deserve to be enlightened by oh, let's say DC and given a shot in the arm, after all, they do their darndest to make state money support the neighboring states (AKA we don't want no lottery...)


----------



## billc (Jan 11, 2011)

actually bushidomartialarts(long name, lots of typing) that is incorrect. Conservative today means someone who supports low taxes, free enterprise, individual rights, strict construction of the constitution, the bill of rights including freedom of religion and the second amendment and others. Liberal means supports redistribution of income through heavy taxation of people deemed wealthy, a large federal bureaucracy, dicrimination based on past inequality, a living breathing constitution, seperation of church and state to an extreme degree, and the second ammendment applies to hunting(for now) and muskets and a militia, it is not an individual right, to name a few differences.


----------



## Steve (Jan 12, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I just dont see a point in having 2 layers of bureaucracy its a huge waste of money.  Leave education to the states.



Not all states have a dept of education and its in our best interest to have an educated citizenry.


----------



## Steve (Jan 12, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Why do the freedom loving left keep calling for the removal of Fox news and talk radio, especially conservative talk radio.  I heard a liberal politician just recently saying that he would like the fcc to step in and take fox news and msnbc(he throws this network in because noone watches it anyway, and he is trying to hide his intentions in fairness) off the air.



Which liberal was that? Pretty stupid.  I. Would love to see a quote.  I am glad that us conservatives don't continuously quote from the conservative rightwing media.  That would be hypocritical.  And it would be am admission that there is a right wing media...  which would break my brain and also be hypocritical.


----------



## Steve (Jan 12, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Why do the freedom loving left keep calling for the removal of Fox news and talk radio, especially conservative talk radio.  I heard a liberal politician just recently saying that he would like the fcc to step in and take fox news and msnbc(he throws this network in because noone watches it anyway, and he is trying to hide his intentions in fairness) off the air.



Which liberal was that? Pretty stupid.  I. Would love to see a quote.  I am glad that us conservatives don't continuously quote from the conservative rightwing media.  That would be hypocritical.  And it would be am admission that there is a right wing media...  which would break my brain and also be hypocritical.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 12, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Not all states have a dept of education and its in our best interest to have an educated citizenry.



Yeah.  We oughtta get on that.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 12, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Which liberal was that? Pretty stupid.  I. Would love to see a quote.  I am glad that us conservatives don't continuously quote from the conservative rightwing media.  That would be hypocritical.  And it would be am admission that there is a right wing media...  which would break my brain and also be hypocritical.




That would be Senator Rockefeller. 

"There's a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC, 'Out. Off. End. Goodbye.' It would be a big favor to political  discourse; to our ability to do our work here in Congress; and to the  American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith  in their government and, more importantly, in their future."


Because, you know... people have no faith in the government, Not actually because of the lies, the waste and overspending, corruption, etc... but because we have news media on both sides TELLING US ABOUT IT.


----------



## WC_lun (Jan 12, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Same can be said for the Left
> 
> Freedom of Religion- Unless you actually believe in god then you cling to your bibles and guns
> 
> ...


 

I have to hand it to you, you are effecient.  You both miss the point and make it.   It seems that too many people on both sides are willing to believe anything in order to attack the other side.  Never mind that there is plenty of idiocy and stupidity to go around from both sides.  Doesn't matter as long as you are able to attack the other side.  Too many are doing as much as they can to make the other side less than real people who care about thier country.  Billcihak is a perfect example of this.  He'll believe anything negative of the left and then repeat it for the world to hear.  Look for yourself.  He starts a thread with a negative article about the left being "pacifist."  In the same thread he writes a post denigrating the left for being responsible for "most of the political violence."  See the problem there?  In all fairness, billicihak isn't by any means alone in that type of behaviour, from the right or the left.  However, it is pretty difficult to have an honest political conversation when the only constant is the desire to attack the other side.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 12, 2011)

My impression of "the left" is that they seem to be on the constant march for more laws, regulations and restrictions. There is no issue that a new law cant solve.This whole thing about Rep. Giffords shooing...watch how many new bills and laws are going to be proposed and where they will come from. We will try to muzzle radio personalities as part of a "fairness doctrine". "Fairness doctrine" sounds much nicer than 1st Amendment infringement.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 12, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I will say it directly, I believe that the left is wrong.  At their best they drag a society down and at their worst they are dangerous.  I am also a conservative, so I believe in democracy, limited government, individual rights, especially those in the Bill of rights of the constitution of the U.S.  I believe in the freedom of religion, the press and the right of every individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness.  I believe that the left does not hold these to the same respect that I and other conservatives do.  You need only look to the murder on Saturday and the reaction of the left wing politicians and media to see how they view the world.  Are all people who are left of center violent.  Of course not.  Do I think they are wrong.  Absolutely.  I will put my energy to electing people who agree with me the same as you and people of your beliefs will try to get your guys elected.  I will fight to protect your rights the same as I will fight to protect my own.
> 
> I like to post sites that match my opinion, in the way I feel comfortable expressing it.  If people here do not like my just linking to other sites, read something else.   We each have our own way of expressing ourselves and I am more than happy with the way others here express themseleves.  I don't believe in stopping anyone from posting whatever they like as long as it matches the forum rules, because this site is the property of the people who created it.  I believe in the right of people to control their own property as well.



Cool.  Some of my best acquaintances at university were right wingy.  They were nice people.

as for tongue in cheek about the right wingy, I have some too:

 [FONT=&quot]1. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 2. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bushs daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a we cant find Bin Laden? diversion.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 3. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 4. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5. A woman cant be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans benefits and combat pay.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents wont have sex.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10. Global warming and tobaccos link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11. A president lying about an extramarital affair is a impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]12. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]13. The public has a right to know about Hillarys cattle trades, but George Bushs driving record is none of our business.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]14. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless youre a conservative radio host. Then its an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]15. Supporting Executive Privilege? for every Republican ever born, who will be born or who might be born (in perpetuity.)
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]16. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the 80s is irrelevant.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]17. Support for hunters who shoot their friends and blame them for wearing orange vests similar to those worn by the quail.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]18. Believe that Ann Coulter, her Skeletor-like body and Adam's Apple are attractive.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]19. must support the appointment of child predators to congresional committees that are aimed at stopping the abduction and exploitation of children
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]21. Every country that is not Westernized deserves to be bombed
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]22.you must encourage people to be themselves,unless being themselves involves being liberal
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]23.Having an intern give you oral sex in the White House is a crime punishable by impeachment, but unilaterally invading a country, lying to the world and getting almost 5,000 American soldiers killed is perfectly fine... And, God is a white American who hates foreigners...[/FONT]


----------



## Brother John (Jan 12, 2011)

IMAGINE....IF

there were a malevolent power "Out there" who wanted nothing more than the dissolution of the United States and ALL that it's stood for. What would they want to do to RUIN us the best??
Get us to rally against ourselves. To draw up two dichotomous positions so that no matter which way any American felt about life and priorities therein...they'd find it easy to slip right into one of two very general camps:  Right VS Left. (But in the eyes of this imaginary malevolent adversary....all that would matter is NOT which of these two camps was "Correct" or "best", but just so long as it was camp one against camp two and that it was American VS American.) 

We're writing on a "Martial Arts" website here. What's MORE effective? Throwing your attacks at an opponent? OR  Getting them to defeat themselves? To cause them to be SO concerned with their own internal choices, to get them to oscillate back and forth between two 'opposing' choices to the point that they oppose themselves? The cliché of "Use their own strength against them" comes to mind. A house divided....between two pillars that pull in opposite directions.....cannot stand.

ME?  I feel that *partisanship*, on either "*Side*" is the greater of the three evils. 
To knee-Jerk *OPPOSE* someone, get angry and distrustful of them, and to immediately doubt them and think them a Fool or worse...._your opponent_....simply because they come form ( OR: You THINK they come from... ) the opposite camp as You (Right vs. Left / Left vs. Right, Conservative Vs. Liberal)   ...... *is WRONG*

IF America fails or succeeds, it won't be the fault of the Left, it won't be the fault of the Right, it WILL be the fault of AMERICAN's.  The "Fail" or "Succeed" choice is as simple as "United"
Or
"Divided"

Your Brother
John


----------



## billc (Jan 12, 2011)

Liberal Pacifism was supposed to be ironic.   The violence of the left is incredible, and is easily documented.  It wouldn't be as annoying if it weren't for the fact that they then blame groups like the tea party for the "potential of violence,"  when there haven't been any violent gatherings of the tea party.  Of cours, every time the g8, g20 the wto, and any other group comes in, they are rioting, throwing garbage cans through the windows of every starbucks they can find.  They threw eggs at tea party buses, which was caught on video, the beat up Bobby Jindals campaign worker and Ken Gladney, they attack Prince Charles and his wife.  The list  is long and distinguished.


----------



## billc (Jan 12, 2011)

On 21, Blade96 you could add, "into the stone age."


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 12, 2011)

hehe


----------



## billc (Jan 12, 2011)

You know, this thread is rights and "lefts," thanks blade96 for the list.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 12, 2011)

billcihak said:


> You know, this thread is rights and "lefts," thanks blade96 for the list.



No problem, mate.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 12, 2011)

billcihak said:


> actually bushidomartialarts(long name, lots of typing) that is incorrect. Conservative today means someone who supports low taxes, free enterprise, individual rights, strict construction of the constitution, the bill of rights including freedom of religion and the second amendment and others. Liberal means supports redistribution of income through heavy taxation of people deemed wealthy, a large federal bureaucracy, dicrimination based on past inequality, a living breathing constitution, seperation of church and state to an extreme degree, and the second ammendment applies to hunting(for now) and muskets and a militia, it is not an individual right, to name a few differences.


 
I don't suppose you want to add that 'American liberals' believe that because it's the only place they do, liberals here and the rest of Europe believe what you say American conservatives do. If you are going to post things up about Europe, the UK etc you need use the words correctly.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 12, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Not all states have a dept of education and its in our best interest to have an educated citizenry.


 Would that money not be better spent by the states?  Look at the "No child left behind" a federal Govt program that has totally screwed up our school system.  Teachers now teach to pass a test and not teach kids to think and figure out real skills.  I think each state knows what its people need.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 12, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> I have to hand it to you, you are effecient. You both miss the point and make it.  It seems that too many people on both sides are willing to believe anything in order to attack the other side. Never mind that there is plenty of idiocy and stupidity to go around from both sides. Doesn't matter as long as you are able to attack the other side. Too many are doing as much as they can to make the other side less than real people who care about thier country. Billcihak is a perfect example of this. He'll believe anything negative of the left and then repeat it for the world to hear. Look for yourself. He starts a thread with a negative article about the left being "pacifist." In the same thread he writes a post denigrating the left for being responsible for "most of the political violence." See the problem there? In all fairness, billicihak isn't by any means alone in that type of behaviour, from the right or the left. However, it is pretty difficult to have an honest political conversation when the only constant is the desire to attack the other side.


 It was more of a tongue and cheek response to your post I dont believe most of it nor do I believe most people really believe that its said more of a joking stereotype like when you make fun of a rival sports team.    If you look at the very next one I gave you my true feelings about the topics you posted.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 12, 2011)

granfire said:


> making fun of the south?
> heaven help me...but when a politician runs on the platform of 'but the other guy wants to teach _evolution_ in school' you have to admit things are a bit out of whack. Besides, I can make fun of my home state, so right back atcha.
> 
> But maybe you are right, maybe they don't deserve to be enlightened by oh, let's say DC and given a shot in the arm, after all, they do their darndest to make state money support the neighboring states (AKA we don't want no lottery...)


 
You think DC is enlightened?  I live here come take a ride with me and see how enlightened we are.  By the way dont bring anything you dont want stolen and make sure you have a good life insurance policy for your family when you come because you might not make it back.

The South has some of the best universities in the country including Alabama, Florida, Auburn, LSU, Mississippi State, Clemson, Texas, Texas Tech, ect to say the only "smart" people come from the north is just not true.


----------



## granfire (Jan 12, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> You think DC is enlightened?  I live here come take a ride with me and see how enlightened we are.  By the way dont bring anything you dont want stolen and make sure you have a good life insurance policy for your family when you come because you might not make it back.
> 
> The South has some of the best universities in the country including Alabama, Florida, Auburn, LSU, Mississippi State, Clemson, Texas, Texas Tech, ect *to say the only "smart" people come from the north is just not true.*



And where did I say that? Or anybody for that matter.

Yes, there are a lot of smart people in the south. And a lot of good schools.

But they are vastly outnumbered by the blind folded and piss-poor schools that make your eyes bleed. 
And frankly, you, like most everybody else, falls for the secondary education thing.
The primary education, Elementary schools to High School, that's where it's sadly lacking. 

And like I said: I _am _here, so don't tell me what I see out my window!


----------



## Steve (Jan 12, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Would that money not be better spent by the states?  Look at the "No child left behind" a federal Govt program that has totally screwed up our school system.  Teachers now teach to pass a test and not teach kids to think and figure out real skills.  I think each state knows what its people need.


I don't believe it's at all that simple.  Education, like health care, needs to be addressed.  Also like health care, there are many stakeholders each with idea and interests, and not all of them are altruistic.

So, simple answer: maybe.  I don't know.  If it's done right, sure.  It would be great.  If not, it would be a debacle.    I do think that we can reasonably expect a certain standard throughout the country.  Kids should know how to read, write, manage their bank account, be able to think critically and know a little about the world in which we live.  That's not too much to ask.  

Also, we need to remember that public schools are funded through a combination of public funds from all levels of government, federal down to local.  It's not as though States have no say in how the kids are educated.


----------



## Steve (Jan 12, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I don't suppose you want to add that 'American liberals' believe that because it's the only place they do, liberals here and the rest of Europe believe what you say American conservatives do. If you are going to post things up about Europe, the UK etc you need use the words correctly.


Tez, you keep bringing this up.  Just to clue you in, I think everyone understands that politics in England are even more screwed up than here.  You've made that very clear.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 12, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> So, simple answer: maybe.  I don't know.  If it's done right, sure.  It would be great.  If not, it would be a debacle.



Local control has many things to recommend it, to be sure.  However, there is one big glaring downside to local control/local funding: how well funded most schools are is entirely a function of local property values.  In many cases I am aware of, maybe even most, local schools are funded by local property taxes, and in some cases, locally voted on bond measures.

The implications are obvious.  We say we want to give everyone a chance to get a decent education and work their way out of poverty, but schools in poor districts will generally be deficient in funding.


----------



## billc (Jan 12, 2011)

A good column about when American politic was really violent, and you get the bonus mugshot of President Obama's terrorist friend Bill Ayer's included.

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2011/01/11/the-sixties-were-violent-not-today/

the &#8220;Days of Rage&#8221; as described by John Jacobs of the Weatherman faction of the Students for a Democratic Society:
Weatherman would shove the war down their dumb, fascist throats and show them, while we were at it, how much better we were than them, both tactically and strategically, as a people. In an all-out civil war over Vietnam and other fascist U.S. imperialism, we were going to bring the war home. &#8220;Turn the imperialists&#8217; war into a civil war&#8221;, in Lenin&#8217;s words. And we were going to kick ***.

And kick *** they did, hurling Molotov cocktails, setting off fatal bombs, and shooting police. Well, it was the sixties and the early seventies and that was what we did and said then. Ask Bill Ayers and others of the time who remain unrepentant. I&#8217;m not one of them. I think it was crazy.
But I bring it all back now for one reason &#8212; to point out that what we are going through currently, this supposed period of extreme rhetoric bemoaned by so many pundits and politicians, is but a minute radar blip compared to that era.
And some of these pundits and pols are old enough to remember. Apparently, they choose not to.

 The left&#8217;s confused and ambivalent attitude toward violence has never gone away and has now been projected out on their opponents. ​


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 13, 2011)

granfire said:


> But they are vastly outnumbered by the blind folded and piss-poor schools that make your eyes bleed.
> And frankly, you, like most everybody else, falls for the secondary education thing.
> The primary education, Elementary schools to High School, that's where it's sadly lacking.


 Thats not just in the south there are so many bad schools everywhere in this country.


----------



## Steve (Jan 13, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Local control has many things to recommend it, to be sure.  However, there is one big glaring downside to local control/local funding: how well funded most schools are is entirely a function of local property values.  In many cases I am aware of, maybe even most, local schools are funded by local property taxes, and in some cases, locally voted on bond measures.
> 
> The implications are obvious.  We say we want to give everyone a chance to get a decent education and work their way out of poverty, but schools in poor districts will generally be deficient in funding.


Agreed, but as I said, public schools are funded in part by every level of government from federal all the way down to local. The simple point being that, in response to the allegation that local control and funding is better because local people know best what their kids mean, funding and control is not just federal.  There are guidelines, but there is also much latitude from school district to school district to teach kids how they see best to do so.

Now, I'm not at all confident that our local school board and superintendent are effective stewards of these funds, but overall, I think my kids are getting a decent public education.  My problem is that this is at great expense, much of it (IMO) a waste of money designed more to bring accolades to the school district than to actually improve the education of the kids.  

We have some disparity among school districts even within a relatively close area depending upon which voting block approves levies and which don't, and the competence and diligence of the local school boards.  

Governer Gregoire recently announced that she intends to create a Washington State Dept of Education and eliminate the local school superintendents, and in general, this would be more efficient.  Would it be better?   Only if the Dept of Education is adequately funded and has sufficient, competent staff to do the job.  Frankly, though, it pisses me off even to think about our local school superintendent.  The guy makes over $200k per year, the school admin staff averages over $100k, and our teachers are among the lowest paid in the state.  

Anyway, I'm home with a sick baby today, and this subject is irritating me.  I'll just let it go before I go completely off topic on a senseless rant.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 14, 2011)

I hope your baby gets all better!


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 14, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Local control has many things to recommend it, to be sure. However, there is one big glaring downside to local control/local funding: how well funded most schools are is entirely a function of local property values. In many cases I am aware of, maybe even most, local schools are funded by local property taxes, and in some cases, locally voted on bond measures.
> 
> The implications are obvious. We say we want to give everyone a chance to get a decent education and work their way out of poverty, but schools in poor districts will generally be deficient in funding.


 
That's not exactly how it works though.  I did a shotgun google search regarding how different States fund their school districts.  It showed that most school districts receive their funding from a states general fund.  Now, most, though not all, of that funding is based in large part on property tax revenue.  But as an example for California, the Los Angeles Unified School District could receive funding from property values in Los Angeles as well as Beverly Hills.  

I guess it depends on how you define local.  If you mean at the district level, then this position has some validation.  If you are referring to State level, then it loses some of its impact.  Of course, you could always argue poor States versus prosperous States.  

But then, another question to ask is what are the appropriate funding levels for a school district.


----------

