PDA

View Full Version : From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?



Forrest
09-09-09, 02:17 AM
I freely admit I’m running scared. It’s not what happens with metals…those are reasonably predictable by iTulip’s best guys, within reason, and I learn more all the time.

I have gold and a bit of silver, the house is paid for, and the real estate (income units) if sold even in this market would net as much as is owed against it. All that’s nice if our society doesn’t change too much, too fast.

But I don’t like what I see.

The daily Market is up, the futures are down, and the price of gold…well, it’s nice to see it above $1,000.00, since it seems to be the tipoff that a very nice pump and dump is in progress.

The Mainstream Media reports nothing…bought and paid for by the ‘very left’ and their corporate Tarp bailed out friends. So, barring the financial channel’s, I find what info I need on the internet, from books, and a lot of double checking of facts, and watch my ticker updates day and night.

But now we really are up against a possible turn away from our Constitution. Not that the current administration hasn’t already run rampant over law after law, but if they get their public option to provide Government Health Care, eviscerating rather than reforming the current legal/structural/financial/ health insurance system in place, power will shift to control of the people, not by the people, and debt peonage will soon follow.…if not immediately, certainly very soon.

I don’t mind burying the gold, but running for the hills, as other generations have done is beyond my ability. My dad’s 84, and fragile except with a shotgun, and I limp badly. So no running.

But a Marxist flavored Autocracy, hand in hand with all the corporate giants really bothers me. So does the UNEP Treaty which has been twice before congress, and quietly pulled as not being quite the right time to finish up consolidating NAFTA. (UNEP combines all three NAFTA countries into one region, and divides up things into new, larger states/countries)…well, I don’t really fancy a rush toward globalism.

I like going slow, because I hate change. Most people do. I could put up with all the creeping socialism everywhere because of the incrementalism, and under a law abiding society, I can figure out the rules, and get by.

But the country isn’t following a lot of the rules anymore…just the ones that suit them, and I tend to despise marxism.

If the radical Left takes over quickly, I know what I will do.

Do any of you? :eek:

kartius919
09-09-09, 02:29 AM
What is Marxism? What is Marxist flavored Autocracy? What is radical Left? What is non radical left? Is there a non radical left? Or all left radicals? Free radicals? What is a radical? Square root of one half is radical 2 over two? Are rights non-radicals? Are there radical rights? What is right? Is right right? Or center all the better? How quickly is quickly?

Forrest
09-09-09, 04:47 AM
What is Marxism? What is Marxist flavored Autocracy? What is radical Left? What is non radical left? Is there a non radical left? Or all left radicals? Free radicals? What is a radical? Square root of one half is radical 2 over two? Are rights non-radicals? Are there radical rights? What is right? Is right right? Or center all the better? How quickly is quickly?
 
Dear me…Kartius, you are nitpicking to death a fairly honest statement of the danger I view the country is in, and that it might mean trouble for some part of the political spectrum, and for members on this board. I don’t speak against any party, just ideologies.

Naturally, we don’t have a Marxist/Communist Party influencing our Democrats supposedly, anymore than we have Corporate interests influencing elections, or Religions influencing Republicans! And none, ever, could possibly be interested in anything but the best outcome for everyone's future, based on that faded old Constitution.


“Marxism is the economic, social, political, pseudo-scientific philosophy, theory, belief, or system based on the works of Karl Marx of Germany. The theory seeks the elimination of the notion of private property in order to gain control of the economic "means of production" by taking it from the bourgeois (the wealthy or propertied class) for the benefit of the proletariat (working class.) His philosophy of history was called "historical materialism" in which his goal was to bring about the end of history, by means of an eventual perfect, classless, utopian society he called Communism.

Marxist notions of collectivization and redistribution of the property of the bourgeois puts it on a collision course with the economic philosophy of Capitalism and free markets, and also with the social-governmental philosophies related to Democracy, in the oldest, pre-Marxism sense of that word. Marxism seeks to promote class warfare or, today, at least, class strife, and succeeds best where clear, major delineations exist between classes.” ~V. Biorseth~


Naturally, we do have a few people here and there with Marxist beliefs, and they are welcome to them…until they start breaking the law, instead of using it. At that point, I would like someone to hold up the Constitution of the United States…the ORIGINAL one…, and point out that laws were meant to be followed, which to me means pretty much everything regarding income tax, and various other anomalies, like fiat currency.

I will presume that you have sufficient education to look up the definition of all the other words and phrases you don't understand, and get on with answering your essential question.

You are saying, or asking of me, where do I stand, what is left or right of center to me politically, how do I think, what do I believe, and why.

As a Liberal Constitutionalist, The Constitutionalist part in my view means I believe in the laws of our county as originally envisioned by the founders of the country, and the Liberal part means that I believe that everyone should have the same minimum opportunities and benefits, such as food, and education, until they can take care of themselves. In other words, we help each other out. How it is done is irrelevant to me, as long as it is fair.

From birth to death we should take care of each other to the extent that we can medically, as well as physically, where there is real need...not just a lazy hand reaching out for more freebies. It can be done, indeed, has been done, as early as 10,000 or more years ago. In fact, many societies managed fairly well until about 1917...not perfectly, of course, but many of us tried to even things out voluntarily.

However, after a child is 18 years of age, they should be on their own unless they are taking, and excelling in advanced studies. The parents involved do not need the same minimal care unless they are disabled, or beyond a statutory retirement age, as decided by the people in an open election, nor should a child under 18 receive unnecessary food and education assistance if his parents can pay for it. I love vouchers.

If the people want to vote for more care or less, that is their right. For those that are invariably poor through bad management or the trials of life, I do believe that as wealthy a society as ours can afford to pool a fund to cover their basic needs. That doesn't mean setting them up in more than a boarding house, with communal dinners, and it doesn't mean giving them their own computer, their own cell phone, and a Dish Network account. It also doesn't mean I have to agree to give away money they never earned to buy things they can earn for themselves, unless they are elderly or disabled, and even then, I think the family should step in first, if there is one.

Rights to me are what the Bill of Rights granted us, and are also what the Marxist influenced Democrats would like to strip us of…you know…free speech, free right of assembly, free right of worship and so on.

Marxist flavored Autocracy unfortunately mean Marxist influenced finances, laws, and thuggery, and I cannot but be unalterably opposed to these things. I want power over my life...not power over yours.

It’s my life, my God given rights, and my hard earned money you take from me at your peril. Nope, not greed…I have a good deal of common sense and even the occasional charitable motive. But if I earned while you sat in front of the TV smoking crack, I see no reason to give you what is mine.

That is what personal property rights are about, and Marxism is against.

Now, did you want to say or ask something with more meaning? :D

*T*
09-09-09, 09:26 AM
It is one hell of a stretch to call the US Marxist or blame its current situation on Marxism. Most of Europe has genuine socialised healthcare. Would you call the UK, Germany, France, Marxist?

The US doesn't have a radical left. What you define as left is, by international standards, still on the right.

ricket
09-09-09, 09:56 AM
If the radical Left takes over quickly, I know what I will do.

I think you need to spend a little more time on this site before spewing Fox News talking points.

ricket
09-09-09, 10:03 AM
 It’s my life, my God given rights, and my hard earned money you take from me at your peril. Nope, not greed…I have a good deal of common sense and even the occasional charitable motive. But if I earned while you sat in front of the TV smoking crack, I see no reason to give you what is mine.

Im sure that all those entities who have loaned us trillions of dollars to buy flat screen TVs and drive 7mpg Hummers would say the same about you. But you work you say? Well, you shouldve thought about that before being a US citizen. Don't like being lumped in the same group with a bunch of losers? Then you shouldnt categorize others as lazy ass crack smoking TV watchers either.

Your attitude is downright ridiculous and these kinds of uninformed statements (and I assume actions) are what is causing so many problems in our country today. Get off your "OMG THE SOCIALISTS ARE COMING" bandwagon, I'm sick and tired of hearing about this shit *now*. What about during the last presidency??

Wow. Just wow is all I can say. I try to keep my mouth shut on most things, but this post was one of the most ridiculous ones I have seen. It's a good thing it got moved to Rant and Rave and the Political Abyss because it sure belongs there.

PS I bet you voted for Palin because she was the greatest thing to ever hit the political landscape since Jesus.

World Traveler
09-09-09, 10:11 AM
I can understand concerns about the constitution being applied properly and about the future of America. Most thinking Americans do have those concerns today.

But the 99% of Americans who are not financial oligarchs or banking elite need to move beyond the Left/Right, Marxisim/Socialism, Democrat/Republican, and Welfare Queen ideological debates. It is NOT the Poor who are robbing this country blind and getting taxpayer bailouts valued at trillions of dollars, it is the finanacial oligarchs and banking elite who are. The oligarchs are asset-stripping America, not the Food Stamp Program recipients.

The oligarchs pull the most important strings in both political parties, and use Left/Right debates and social issue (like abortion, scholl prayer, etc.) debates to divide and conquor Americans.

They don't care which political party or ideology is running Washinton, as long as they control things behind the scenes and they keep getting richer. They use the media to keep us distracted, examples: Fox News (Rupert Murdoch), CNBC (GE).

We the 99% have much more in common than we have differences. We're slowly getting poorer and we have a political process that is not responsive to our needs. Working together and refusing to believe rhe propaganda that often passes for news, we can reign in that 1%, and refuse to be divided/conquored.

jtabeb
09-09-09, 12:07 PM
Your RANT is the perfect example of how a country goes FASCIST.

Fascist target the strawman of Marxism to get the population to go along. Always worked that way.

I can categorically state that there is NO RISK of our country descending into a Marxist Autocracy.
( I think FRED would agree, but not on so certain terms)
THERE IS AN EXTREME RISK of a Descent into FASCISM however. And that is the real threat.I include FRED's comments from the select side on my post about "FASCISM is just a Supreme Court Decision Away" so that YOU can judge for yourself, where the threat lies.

(Yes, he was responding to a thread that I posted, so I'm putting the disclaimer in front)


FRED:
"Interesting that Moyers' observation of the power of the Insurance arm of the FIRE Economy media to frame the health care debate is quickly sidetracked even here among the well informed iTulip readership by an argument about right versus left positions on the topic.

http://www.itulip.com/forums/../images/uscorporatemedia.jpg

While we're arguing about that, as the member who posted this thread points out, the foundations of a corporate fascist state are being built. Once it is completed, will it be right wing fascist or left wing fascist?

Moyers indeed has a left wing background. For the sake of balance, we'd like to see a member of the right who expresses a similar view.

Does a right wing commentator exist, who operates on Moyers' level, with a multi-decade long career and a national audience, who takes a similar anti-Oligarchy position? Curiously, no. Perhaps we have our answer to the question above.

A more constructive endeavor than arguing left versus right on the Labor Day holiday is to come up with a list of 10 Facts You Can't Say in the Corporate Media that Prove it is Controlled. I'll start.

1. To maintain staffing levels, the U.S. military depends on an army of indebted and unemployed citizens.
2. Most laws, but especially drug laws, are selectively enforced by wealth class.
3. Reporters and editors are afraid to report certain facts for fear of retribution--they may be fired and their reputations damaged to the point that they are unemployable in their industry. Several we have talked to quit the field because they could no longer function in an environment where they lived one story away from ending their journalism career.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Fact #1 is interesting because, historically, after a system evolves that selects military personnel by wealth group, the military can be quickly politicized and manipulated as a voting block to meet political ends.

Fact #2 is interesting because, historically, after a system of selective law enforcement is in place, typically selective prosecution based on political affiliation comes next.

Fact #3 is interesting because fear is the life blood of a fascist system. More and more private decisions are based not on opportunity to better one's condition but out of fear of losing one's current place in society. Anyone who can instill fear has power, and anyone who has power can instill fear.

Others? "

By all means, don't take my word for it. But if you dig, you will find that the threat YOU FEAR is the exact OPPOSITE of the one we face.

God Bless and Take care.

V/R

JT

Slimprofits
09-09-09, 12:46 PM
It is NOT the Poor who are robbing this country blind and getting taxpayer bailouts valued at trillions of dollars....

Yes it is, Marxist. Just how many Che t-shirts do you own? ACORN controls JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs. ACORN decides who gets the bailouts and who doesn't. Bawney Fwank!!!! Long Form birth certificate!!!! Hitler spoke to the children too!!!!


The Mainstream Media reports nothing…bought and paid for by the ‘very left’ and their corporate Tarp bailed out friends.


Exactly my patriotic friend. Fox News and Clear Channel Radio are the only grass-roots, from the ground up media entities that are owned and staffed by REAL Americans.


Would you call the UK, Germany, France, Marxist?

You wouldn't? Pass the Freedom Fries.





(exit, stage left...)

ThePythonicCow
09-09-09, 02:03 PM
I think you need to spend a little more time on this site before spewing Fox News talking points.
Speak for yourself, ricket, not for this site.

Some of us here consider Fox, of the major TV networks, to be the least objectionable spew.

ThePythonicCow
09-09-09, 02:36 PM
Your RANT is the perfect example of how a country goes FASCIST.

Fascist target the strawman of Marxism to get the population to go along. Always worked that way.

I can categorically state that there is NO RISK of our country descending into a Marxist Autocracy.
( I think FRED would agree, but not on so certain terms)
THERE IS AN EXTREME RISK of a Descent into FASCISM however.
Useful response, jtabeb. Thanks.

The "ism" labels always leave me a bit hesitant. I fear a little too much theorizing can be used to obfuscate essentials.

I tend to look at this a little different (as usual.) It seems to me that we are bombarded by all sorts of scares, pleadings, urgings, distractions, ... that have one common theme. That being to yield up, by ignorance, lassitude, compulsion, fervor, patriotism, or any other means imaginable, some of our personal power and freedom to some other party (not an individual we know personally)

Some of this is good and essential. Humans, ants, bees, sardines, sparrows, wolves and many other beings gather together for their common welfare.

But this essential and deeply engrained propensity is easily corrupted. Each individual is responsible for knowing to whose benefit (cui bono) his common efforts acrue.

Yes, we should help the poor, the infirmed, the weak. Yes, we should oppose fascist oligarchies and marxist autocracies. Yes, we should aid the victims of oppression, genocide, starvation and mass epidemics in far away lands. Yes, we should help the victims of fire, crime, poverty, and violence in our own communities, and oppose the crooks, thieves, arsonists, rapists and vandals.

But always be aware who is the agent claiming our time and money for such good purposes. Do not let anyone agent become too powerful (e.g. the U.S. federal government.) Beware of agents who misrepresent their intentions, usually more for their own benefit than for the purpose they claim or our benefit.

ThePythonicCow
09-09-09, 02:36 PM
Your RANT is the perfect example of how a country goes FASCIST.

Fascist target the strawman of Marxism to get the population to go along. Always worked that way.

I can categorically state that there is NO RISK of our country descending into a Marxist Autocracy.
( I think FRED would agree, but not on so certain terms)
THERE IS AN EXTREME RISK of a Descent into FASCISM however.
Useful response, jtabeb. Thanks.

The "ism" labels always leave me a bit hesitant. I fear a little too much theorizing can be used to obfuscate essentials.

I tend to look at this a little different (as usual.) It seems to me that we are bombarded by all sorts of scares, pleadings, urgings, distractions, ... that have one common theme. That being to yield up, by ignorance, lassitude, compulsion, fervor, patriotism, or any other means imaginable, some of our personal power and freedom to some other party (not an individual we know personally)

Some of this is good and essential. Humans, ants, bees, sardines, sparrows, wolves and many other beings gather together for their common welfare.

But this essential and deeply engrained propensity is easily corrupted. Each individual is responsible for knowing to whose benefit (cui bono) his common efforts acrue.

Yes, we should help the poor, the infirmed, the weak. Yes, we should oppose fascist oligarchies and marxist autocracies. Yes, we should aid the victims of oppression, genocide, starvation and mass epidemics in far away lands. Yes, we should help the victims of fire, crime, poverty, and violence in our own communities, and oppose the crooks, thieves, arsonists, rapists and vandals.

But always be aware who is the agent claiming our time and money for such good purposes. Do not let any one agent become too powerful (e.g. the U.S. federal government.) Beware of agents who misrepresent their intentions, usually more for their own benefit than for the purpose they claim or our benefit.

Serge_Tomiko
09-09-09, 03:22 PM
Your RANT is the perfect example of how a country goes FASCIST.

Fascist target the strawman of Marxism to get the population to go along. Always worked that way.


Fascism, at its heart, is a rejection of egalitarianism. Marxism is a complicated notion, but it is hardly a strawman. It is better identified as progressivism. Whether or not the major political parties aspire to true Marxism is irrelevant - they all hold egalitarian ideals as not merely desirable but inevitable.

In any event, fascism is in and of itself a pejorative term in modern discourse. There are legitimate criticisms of progressive ideals of democracy as the basis of government authority, egalitarianism as statement of fact regarding human nature, and materialism as the primary ethic of governance. Anyone with a critical mind can question the wisdom of the future of mankind being the subject of a popularity contest. It requires little empirical evidence to contradict the notion that humans are inherently equal. The bankrupt cultures of the industrial economies is proof enough that material prosperity does little to bring happiness to the people.

Then, there is the pernicious doctrine of modern banking itself that was very much the target of Fascist ideologues. Put simply, modern banking and compound interest is, in the words of Ezra Pound, against nature. It cannot and will not survive.

All I will say is these questions led to the greatest war in the history of mankind. Oversimplification at this stage is foolish.

ricket
09-09-09, 03:59 PM
Speak for yourself, ricket, not for this site.

Some of us here consider Fox, of the major TV networks, to be the least objectionable spew.

Except for the ridiculous lying on the very nature of their own company.

They continuously rail against "the mainstream media" when *THEY* are one of the largest media companies in the world (NewsCorp). They have the largest number of viewers who eat up their "fair and balanced" hate-mongering shows and it's leading Americans to become dumber and dumber about what is really going on.

You can do a google search and find many many many contradicting statements from the pundits and idiots on FoxNews who appear woefully under-educated on even the most basic of realities. Their continued support for personalities and politicians who have the most bizarre beliefs infuriates me to no end.

These statements are not to endorse or condone the other actions of other networks, merely to point out that FoxNews is probably at the top of the list when it comes to fallacies in their content.

jtabeb
09-09-09, 04:10 PM
Useful response, jtabeb. Thanks.

The "ism" labels always leave me a bit hesitant. I fear a little too much theorizing can be used to obfuscate essentials.

.

"I don't believe in 'ism's', I just believe in me"

John Lennon, quoted by Matthew Broderick in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" (1986).

jtabeb
09-09-09, 04:18 PM
Except for the ridiculous lying on the very nature of their own company.

They continuously rail against "the mainstream media" when *THEY* are one of the largest media companies in the world (NewsCorp). They have the largest number of viewers who eat up their "fair and balanced" hate-mongering shows and it's leading Americans to become dumber and dumber about what is really going on.

You can do a google search and find many many many contradicting statements from the pundits and idiots on FoxNews who appear woefully under-educated on even the most basic of realities. Their continued support for personalities and politicians who have the most bizarre beliefs infuriates me to no end.

These statements are not to endorse or condone the other actions of other networks, merely to point out that FoxNews is probably at the top of the list when it comes to fallacies in their content.

They enemies of "US" is "THEM". I classify "THEM" as those corporate entities that would seek a fascist form of governance to descend upon this country and those that do their bidding. Everyone else, is "US", including those that watch FOX NEWS, at least in my book.

ricket
09-09-09, 04:20 PM
They enemies of "US" is "THEM". I classify "THEM" as those corporate entities that would seek a fascist form of governance to descend upon this country and those that do their bidding. Everyone else, is "US", including those that watch FOX NEWS, at least in my book.

I still don't want them on my side if they are too dumb to realize theyre the ones that ushered them into power...

ThePythonicCow
09-09-09, 05:04 PM
You can do a google search and find many many many contradicting statements from the pundits and idiots on FoxNews who ..No, I will not do a google search. I do not watch Fox (nor any TV). I will not attempt the futile task of persuading you to watch Fox.

I will only request that you don't suggest to newcomers that your views represents this sites views. Some here may agree with you, some not. I know for a fact at least one who doesn't agree -- myself.

Thanks, and have a good day.

jtabeb
09-09-09, 06:43 PM
I still don't want them on my side if they are too dumb to realize theyre the ones that ushered them into power...

Well, that's sad then, because by your actions, you are allowing "THEM" to win.

Serge_Tomiko
09-09-09, 06:47 PM
They enemies of "US" is "THEM". I classify "THEM" as those corporate entities that would seek a fascist form of governance to descend upon this country and those that do their bidding. Everyone else, is "US", including those that watch FOX NEWS, at least in my book.

What precisely IS a fascist form of government?

The so-called fascist governments were able to rally relatively large segments of their population to wage war against the combined forces of the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and later the United States - political entities that controlled the vast majority of the world.

Truly, what does our corporate dominated democracy have to do with those nations?

I really am perplexed at all this talk of fascism. Fascist governments rose in direct response to the London-New York international banking powers that wrecked havoc on the world in the post-WWI era. If anything, the rise of fascism should give everyone pause as to how quickly the world can change as a result of corrupt banking practices.

We all talk about how this is the Second Great Depression. If that is so, then we should not discount the very real possibility desperate people will accept yet another Caesar to force rapid "change".

metalman
09-09-09, 08:39 PM
how brilliant of forrest to post this to political abyss!

i'll add one to the list...

6. every day the name of every brave man or woman who gives a life or limb in defense of our nation must appear on the front page of every newspaper and web site to remind us of their sacrifice.

doom&gloom
09-09-09, 09:42 PM
No, I will not do a google search. I do not watch Fox (nor any TV). I will not attempt the futile task of persuading you to watch Fox.

I will only request that you don't suggest to newcomers that your views represents this sites views. Some here may agree with you, some not. I know for a fact at least one who doesn't agree -- myself.

Thanks, and have a good day.

i'm with ya, and i DO watch Fox at times. The Amerikan Kleptocracy is in full
force, and we the people get 'divided' like sheeple following our selected party
while decrying the other guys as partisans.

rubbish.

we are being used. and abused. by BOTH sides. and those who think otherwise
have not learned to think for themselves.

*T*
09-10-09, 04:42 AM
ACORN controls JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs. ACORN decides who gets the bailouts and who doesn't.[/COLOR]

This is illustrating a fascist / corporatist system, not Marxism.

*T*
09-10-09, 04:47 AM
Fascist governments rose in direct response to the London-New York international banking powers that wrecked havoc on the world in the post-WWI era. If anything, the rise of fascism should give everyone pause as to how quickly the world can change as a result of corrupt banking practices.

We all talk about how this is the Second Great Depression. If that is so, then we should not discount the very real possibility desperate people will accept yet another Caesar to force rapid "change".

It's rare I agree with Serge Tomiko, but take heed of this. I think the 'Caesar' point is also jtabeb's point. We are at risk of a 'strong leader'.

ricket
09-10-09, 12:24 PM
Well, that's sad then, because by your actions, you are allowing "THEM" to win.

If they are easily persuaded by obvious lies, then does that not make them quite a liability when it comes to warfare?

kartius919
09-10-09, 02:01 PM
He points to Caesar as almost a nostalgia for the beginning of the Roman Empire. I could easily point to Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, etc in which wide spread warfare was the prescription for the debilitated economy. Of course it only worked so far until you run out of easy prey. Then there is just death by lead or starvation.

jtabeb
09-10-09, 02:08 PM
What precisely IS a fascist form of government?

The so-called fascist governments were able to rally relatively large segments of their population to wage war against the combined forces of the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and later the United States - political entities that controlled the vast majority of the world.

Truly, what does our corporate dominated democracy have to do with those nations?

I really am perplexed at all this talk of fascism. Fascist governments rose in direct response to the London-New York international banking powers that wrecked havoc on the world in the post-WWI era. If anything, the rise of fascism should give everyone pause as to how quickly the world can change as a result of corrupt banking practices.

We all talk about how this is the Second Great Depression. If that is so, then we should not discount the very real possibility desperate people will accept yet another Caesar to force rapid "change".

It's not Obama, but what COMES AFTER that is the source of my fears.

This type of political movement (see below)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112683449

(Listen to the interview when it becomes available)

could possibly use the protection of corporate speech and the unlimited source of funds that this represents as a spring board to capturing the presidency or a majority of the congress. At which point they would be able to implement their radical agenda. Which is a totalitarian, non-constitutional religious theocracy.

You know the same thing we are fighting against the Islamic Jihaddi movement.

It's basically the same threat.

But the Jihaddi movement uses violence to achieve governmental power, and then implements their radical agenda.

A religious theocratic movement in the United States would much more likely use a political means of obtaining power, as a means of then being able to implement their agenda (which is just as radical in scope as the the Jihaddi movement). Of course the religious bases are completely different (Islamic vs Christian).

But in summary, Achieving governmental power as the means to then be able to implement a radical agenda are the same for both groups. (As I said, the means to initially achieve governmental power are different, as are the religious bases, but the overriding goal is the same).

Anyway, hope that clears up the issues I see as posing a major threat to our governance.

Did, that make sense?

V/R

JT

ThePythonicCow
09-10-09, 05:36 PM
A religious theocratic movement in the United States would much more likely use a political means of obtaining power, as a means of then being able to implement their agenda (which is just as radical in scope as the the Jihaddi movement). Of course the religious bases are completely different (Islamic vs Christian).

...

Did, that make sense?

The "Christian" part doesn't make much sense to me. To the extent that Christians support such fascist tyranny, they are being used, just as so many others are used, in my view.

If I lived in an Islamic Middle Eastern country that was going through a more tyrannical phase, it would worry me substantially that I am in no way Islamic. But presently living in America, it worries me not at all whether I have the "proper" religion, other than perhaps it's a good idea not to be too outspoken for the occassional religion that gets scapegoated now and then, such as Islam after 9/11. But even then, the danger is far less than say for a Jew in Germany in 1940, or even a Japanese descendent in America in 1943.

So, no, your mention of "Christian" in your explanation doesn't make sense to me.

jtabeb
09-10-09, 06:34 PM
The "Christian" part doesn't make much sense to me. To the extent that Christians support such fascist tyranny, they are being used, just as so many others are used, in my view.

If I lived in an Islamic Middle Eastern country that was going through a more tyrannical phase, it would worry me substantially that I am in no way Islamic. But presently living in America, it worries me not at all whether I have the "proper" religion, other than perhaps it's a good idea not to be too outspoken for the occassional religion that gets scapegoated now and then, such as Islam after 9/11. But even then, the danger is far less than say for a Jew in Germany in 1940, or even a Japanese descendent in America in 1943.

So, no, your mention of "Christian" in your explanation doesn't make sense to me.

Only as the goup of disaffected likely to be targeted. (The "patsy" group, if you will)

Stong collective identity, common morals, etc.

This is not "blame the christians", it's pointing out the group that is likely to be targeted by such efforts.

Very similar to fascist buisness interests in the '30s during the great depression.

If my remembrance of history is correct. The exact polarization that we are seeing today is very similar to what we saw at that time.

I'm not blaming the rape victem here, just pointing out who would be targeted as a "vehicle" to acheive these goals by a different group.

(The health care industry using the conservative right as a foil for healthcare reform, for example). Do they agree with the principles of the conservative right? Hell no. But it does acheive an objective of theirs, preserving the status quo.

The point is people end up THINKING that they serving their are serving their own agenda, when in reality they end up serving the agenda of another group, without being aware. "used" is an approprate term here, I think.

Make sense?

ThePythonicCow
09-10-09, 06:55 PM
Only as the goup of disaffected likely to be targeted. (The "patsy" group, if you will)
...
Make sense?Ah, ok. That makes sense.

As I wrote back in August of 2002, still visible on the web at http://www.freerepublic.com/~thepythoniccow/: (http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ethepythoniccow/:)


Liberalism is a ploy by a few would be tyrants to gain the support of the masses by convincing them to work for some purpose, any purpose, that is not to one's own damn good, not subject to common sense.

If you're working for the obvious benefit of yourself, your family and your neighbors, doing something you can observe the benefits and costs of, and experience the results of, then you are the enemy of liberals. For you are in control of your own life.

If you can be persuaded, out of guilt or fear or whatever, to work to save the starving children in a faraway land (but not the kid next door), or the environment (but not the tree in your backyard) or the victims of genocide or the homeless or the elderly (in the abstract - not your actual mother) or world peace or whatever, then you are in the control of the spinmeisters who establish these "goals". They can get you to do anything, just by spinning it right.

For a few, such as Dr. Livingston or Mother Theresa, such faraway ills are immediate and personal, and something to be directly addressed from personal awareness. God bless them.

But do-gooders from a distance are a dangerous fuel for the liberal mischief of tyrants.

jtabeb
09-10-09, 08:09 PM
Ah, ok. That makes sense.

As I wrote back in August of 2002, still visible on the web at http://www.freerepublic.com/~thepythoniccow/: (http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ethepythoniccow/:)

Are you a "liberal"? I am.

(here is a test to see, don't balk, read it and see if this fits your political persuasion).

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

I don't like labels per say. Esp today when most don't have a good enough understanding of the definitions at play (present company excluded, of course).

BTW, this used to be what was once called a "Republican", a very great stretch in today's environment if you ask me.

ThePythonicCow
09-10-09, 08:39 PM
Are you a "liberal"? I am.Yes, a classic liberal, likely so, give or take.

In the context of what I quoted of my own words from 2002 above, "liberal" referred to the socialist big government mutant of that word.

jtabeb
09-10-09, 11:34 PM
Yes, a classic liberal, likely so, give or take.

In the context of what I quoted of my own words from 2002 above, "liberal" referred to the socialist big government mutant of that word.

I know.

I think the point is that we either have an "ideological" basis for our political discourse, or we have a pragmatic one.

I would prefer pragmatic, as I think it is more inclined to produce actual workable solution AND it also ensures that we HOPEFULLY actually address the root cause of the issue.

Ideological debates tend to ignore what ever evidence one party or the other doesn't like. The result is that the root cause is never addressed.

(like the drunk looking for his keys by the streetlamp when he lost then in the back alley behind the bar).

Both parties do this and use this to avoid any ACTUAL resolution of the root causes and that what I (and I bet others) find so distasteful about political polarization these days.

From my own perspective, health care reform is necessary both from a moral social justice stand point and a budgetary stand point.

This means we have damn good reasons for attempting to fix the health care system.

The same is EVEN more true of economic reform.
The social justice issue is even more important in this case than the budget. (and I am not talking about wealth redistibution.) What I am talking about in terms of economic reform is everything that Ron Paul has said (and much better than I could have).

Obama's greatest weakness in my book is his failure to address economic reform in an honest and straight forward manner has crippled his credibility in the health care arena.

It just goes to show that "honesty, really is the best policy". Even when it is not popular or if the nation doesn't want to hear it.

I think he would have much more credibility and acceptance had he not resorted to economic "make believe" about the Potempkin recovery.

This may end up being (honesty on the economy and the Fed) the straw that broke the back of his political popularity. Because ultimately, people can smell bullshit, even though the elites pretend otherwise.

I wish he would take an honest broker approach to financial reform. But so far I have been disappointed.

This failure to "tell it like it is" in economics has crippled his credibility not just in terms of health care, but all the other policies that he has or will propose.

VIT
09-11-09, 12:49 AM
Both parties do this and use this to avoid any ACTUAL resolution of the root causes and that what I (and I bet others) find so distasteful about political polarization these days.

Obama's greatest weakness in my book is his failure to address economic reform in an honest and straight forward manner has crippled his credibility in the health care arena.


Agree about not addressing the root causes. But this would mean to start a war against. It does not look he selected this path, at least as by now he is trying to solve problems peacefully. It just does not work sometimes. I see he will lose a popularity anyway, I would prefer this will be due to right actions vs not actions (motion is not an action). He would be probably the best person to do this still when we are not in deeper hole. Otherwise as a lot of people discussed in this thread next time choice might be much uglier.

I am very skeptical about any ability to change current things and the reason is where all these resources would come from ? Economy taxes are already high, income and productivity imbalance is high also and etc. The next what will happen is that taxes will be raised for those people/economy sectors who still has something so this will put a big bar on any recovery. Sure this would not be a financial sector since they get money for free already and there is nothing to tax there. So the only natural way is to reduce economy expenses including government but I can not remember this ever happened by will anytime in the history. Usually you go up and up on the cliff until you slip and make a freefall to the ground.

ThePythonicCow
09-11-09, 12:54 AM
I think the point is that we either have an "ideological" basis for our political discourse, or we have a pragmatic one.It's not an either-or.

Rather what you describe is typical in situations where our "ideologies" are inadequate. Any one ideology will have deep flaws, so we make do with fragments of more primitive ideologies which seem grounded in various practical experiences, frequently expressed as stories and sayings handed down and passed around.

I prefer to take a third way when faced with such a predicament. Over time, after some study and practice in an area, I develop intutions on how things work. I cannot entirely explain these intuitions coherently, even to myself. When the intutions become strong enough in a particular discipline, I can begin to form opinions of the various popular ideologies that are well grounded in my intuitions, noticing parts of each that seem right or their essential flaws or contradictions. In some cases, I can then create new structures in a discipline, guided by my intuitions, that extend both the practice and the theory.

I don't just follow practical guidelines. I don't just (when my thinking is mature enough) follow a particular ideology.

Granted, in the particular instance of political discourse to which you refer, I am no Plato, Hobbes or Marx. I will stumble along for the rest of my years in this life with weak, ill-formed intutions into the political sphere. My "third-way" will be more crude than either of your choices, not more elevated ;).

On your other comments, yes, health care and economic reforms are morally, socially and economically necessary.

Sometimes the necessary doesn't happen, or only happens in too late, too ugly.

jtabeb
09-11-09, 08:35 AM
I prefer to take a third way when faced with such a predicament. Over time, after some study and practice in an area, I develop intutions on how things work. I cannot entirely explain these intuitions coherently, even to myself. When the intutions become strong enough in a particular discipline, I can begin to form opinions of the various popular ideologies that are well grounded in my intuitions, noticing parts of each that seem right or their essential flaws or contradictions. In some cases, I can then create new structures in a discipline, guided by my intuitions, that extend both the practice and the theory.



On your other comments, yes, health care and economic reforms are morally, socially and economically necessary.

.


1. Ditto and Yes.

I don't know how many ways we can keep agreeing, so I'm gonna stop know. (I think substantively, anyway. Nuance, maybe a little difference).

But you have the big picture and the whole sum of my objective in live is to make sure we are all looking at the big picture.:rolleyes: