Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 73
  1. angiest's Avatar
    Posts
    933 Posts
    Global Posts
    952 Global Posts
    #21  
    Other than Palin, what did McCain do to endear himself to the base of the Republican Party, let alone anyone on the "far-right?" Oh, he did it in his primary fight this year, inexplicably touting his record on illegal immigration (much like the comical fight for governor of Texas between Rick White and Bill Perry, where both claim to be tough on illegal immigration but neither has such a real record), but as a presidential candidate, he left of a lot to be desired. Candidates like McCain are a major reason people like myself left the Republican Party years ago. Or should I say, is why the Party left us...
  2. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    His actions and even your statement of moderates in the party being "pseudo-democrats" show just how much control the extreme Right currently have over the party.
    huh? lol
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #23  
    Orion Antares, if you don't mind, would you please tell me what "far-right" means to you? It means different things to different people, so I want to make sure I understand your points about them more clearly. What are the core principles of the "far-right", again from your perspective?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4.    #24  
    I think I got my answer.
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by GuyFromNam View Post
    It's impossible to have a layman's discussion about this. It absolutely serves no purpose whatsoever, except radicalize behaviour and escalate situations.
    Seems we've reached that point.
  6.    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Using socialism to defeat fascism? Is that like fighting fire with fire?
    I think you meant to ask "*Wasn't* that fighting . . . ?"

    'Cause it happened.

    Note that I used quotes around the S-word, BTW. I obviously wasn't talking about Communism or anything of the sort.

    But it's instructive to know that some people actually think the "Greatest Generation" didn't need the Federal Government--or any government at all?--to defeat the Axis Powers. After all, those folks had real gumption! (Think that's what they used to call it.)
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Orion Antares, if you don't mind, would you please tell me what "far-right" means to you? It means different things to different people, so I want to make sure I understand your points about them more clearly. What are the core principles of the "far-right", again from your perspective?
    The principles of hypocrisy in claiming some principle or value to be of great value to them up until they have to face the same principle or value coming from an opposing group to a certain topic or action or sticking with it has a negative impact on them personally and pull a complete one-eighty until the situation has passed. I'd also include this as a value of the extreme Left. The distinction from a moderate would be that the moderate would admit to making exceptions or to having changed their mind in whole on a topic and give reasoned arguments for those ideas rather then emotional arguments or try to grasp at straws when caught and called out on the hypocrisy.

    The second major point and which is specific to the far Right is the idea, or at least the projected idea, of wanting to try to take the nation and society back to a "golden" age that never actually existed. It's a delusion to try to claim that you can go back to some "perfect" or "better" state that never actually existed and it's an attempt to play on emotions of nostalgia and "familiarity".

    There are varied degrees for these obviously and no one is "perfect" but in general these seem to be consistently strong among the extreme Right. Right leaning moderates tend to be more reasoned, that is when ever you can actually hear from one.

    Micael, I'm curious to hear your perspective on what is an extreme Leftist? What do you view as their core principles and what would you view as being defining principles for being a moderate, regardless of leanings?
  8. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by grappler View Post
    I think you meant to ask "*Wasn't* that fighting . . . ?"

    'Cause it happened.

    Note that I used quotes around the S-word, BTW. I obviously wasn't talking about Communism or anything of the sort.

    But it's instructive to know that some people actually think the "Greatest Generation" didn't need the Federal Government--or any government at all?--to defeat the Axis Powers. After all, those folks had real gumption! (Think that's what they used to call it.)
    grappler, it *was* the people that went overseas and fought. They were coordinated by the federal government, i.e., the military as GI's. They are also the people that went to the factories and worked for the 'private' manufacturers that produced war materials funded by our tax dollars, as administrated by the "government".

    It's kind of weird the way you seem to have the government set up as some sort of higher power. Maybe I'm just misreading you?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  9. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    The principles of hypocrisy in claiming some principle or value to be of great value to them up until they have to face the same principle or value coming from an opposing group to a certain topic or action or sticking with it has a negative impact on them personally and pull a complete one-eighty until the situation has passed. I'd also include this as a value of the extreme Left. The distinction from a moderate would be that the moderate would admit to making exceptions or to having changed their mind in whole on a topic and give reasoned arguments for those ideas rather then emotional arguments or try to grasp at straws when caught and called out on the hypocrisy.

    The second major point and which is specific to the far Right is the idea, or at least the projected idea, of wanting to try to take the nation and society back to a "golden" age that never actually existed. It's a delusion to try to claim that you can go back to some "perfect" or "better" state that never actually existed and it's an attempt to play on emotions of nostalgia and "familiarity".

    There are varied degrees for these obviously and no one is "perfect" but in general these seem to be consistently strong among the extreme Right. Right leaning moderates tend to be more reasoned, that is when ever you can actually hear from one.

    Micael, I'm curious to hear your perspective on what is an extreme Leftist? What do you view as their core principles and what would you view as being defining principles for being a moderate, regardless of leanings?
    I just asked what you thought their core beliefs were, not to provide analysis on their thinking. The principles of hypocrisy and delusions? Yeah, that's it..... Kind of makes dialogue with you difficult, at best, when you just want to be insulting to those you disagree with.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I just asked what you thought their core beliefs were, not to provide analysis on their thinking. The principles of hypocrisy and delusions? Yeah, that's it..... Kind of makes dialogue with you difficult, at best, when you just want to be insulting to those you disagree with.
    Well I'm sorry if that offended you but from an observational stand point those are the classifying qualities and the reason for calling them "extreme" or "far" in the first place. A defining point of an extremist is their use of emotion over reason.
  11. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    Micael, I'm curious to hear your perspective on what is an extreme Leftist? What do you view as their core principles and what would you view as being defining principles for being a moderate, regardless of leanings?
    Well, here's my hit list of leftist ideals. I'm sure someone on the left will beat holes in it, but it's just a high level list of my concept of the liberal core beliefs.... (understanding that not all on either side are clones of each and believe exactly the same things - these are just the topics I've heard them speak out on):

    Social justice, gay rights, anti-capitalists, socialized medicine, global warming, Big government provides everything you need - cradle to grave (e.g., social and financial socialism), affirmative action, elimination of christian religious expression in public.

    I'd expected a similar list from you, describing your view of the extreme right's beliefs. I suppose you'll now simply take my list and write the simple antithesis for each?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Well, here's my hit list of leftist ideals. I'm sure someone on the left will beat holes in it, but it's just a high level list of my concept of the liberal core beliefs.... (understanding that not all on either side are clones of each and believe exactly the same things - these are just the topics I've heard them speak out on):

    Social justice, gay rights, anti-capitalists, socialized medicine, global warming, Big government provides everything you need - cradle to grave (e.g., social and financial socialism), affirmative action, elimination of christian religious expression in public.

    I'd expected a similar list from you, describing your view of the extreme right's beliefs. I suppose you'll now simply take my list and write the simple antithesis for each?
    If I went with an equally jaded list it would be something like:

    Controlled public speech and opinion, racial profiling, anti-science, favoring multi-national businesses over domestic businesses, protecting large corporations over protecting consumers, war-mongering around the world, a self-important view-point, Democrats are all socialists/communists/fascists, liberals are all socialists/communists/fascists, no conservatives could ever be socialists/communists/fascists, and elimination of non-Christian religious expression in public and private followed by enforcement of Christian doctrine on all non-Christians.
  13. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #33  
    I think I said you'd probably do something like that
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I think I said you'd probably do something like that
    I think you asked me to do that actually.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by grappler View Post
    I often use the TuneIn/RadioTime app to listen to Antioch Radio Network, which plays vintage radio shows 24/7. It's really entertaining, and highly I recommend it.

    Often, they play shows from the World War II era. An episode of "The Great Gildersleeve" they played this morning aired only weeks after the Pearl Harbor attack, and there was a talk in the breaks--including the commercial breaks--about the war just begun and about the collective effort on the part of all citizens that would be required to win it, which only became more true when we entered the European theater.

    When I hear or read about those times, I'm struck by the ease with which the federal government was able to marshal the will of the entire nation in the war effort, determining the direction of manufacturing, rationing food, gasoline, etc., all moves that would apparently be vigorously resisted today.

    One of the unfortunate consequences of the current widespread allergy to anything that "smacks of socialism" is that we have no collective purpose and make no collective sacrifice, even though the infrastructure that makes up our common space is crumbling, and even though we have two wars going--three if you count the "War or Terror," or whatever we're calling it these days.
    Mobilizing a nation to engage in total war where losing against formidable opponents may have catastrophic consequences for the populace is a bit different than implementing another power grabbing, vote buying entitlement scheme. But the US did have at least 8 years of the latter to 'soften it up' for this mobilization. There were a lot of people who opposed those policies before & during the war and unfortunately, they lost the early cases described in this book: The dirty dozen: how twelve Supreme ... - Google Books It was certainly a time when most of the citizens trusted the government to 'do the right thing', which was gone after the 60s.

    If we needed to implement a bit of so-called "socialism" today to defeat fascism, would we do it?
    I'd prefer a common sense solution, but it probably wouldn't be considered politically correct, agitators for said enemy would con students into protesting for them, and have lawyers in court hamstringing the entire response.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Social justice (fair and ethical treatment for all), gay rights (freedom from discrimination based on sexual preference), anti-capitalists (support for the working population), socialized medicine (universal health care), global warming (environmentally aware and concerned), Big government provides everything you need - cradle to grave (e.g., social and financial socialism)(e.g. providing resources for those in need), affirmative action (assistance to eliminate the negative effects of discrimination), elimination of christian religious expression in public (separation of church and state).
    Reframing semantics.
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Reframing semantics.
    Most, if not all, of those are non sequitor, e.g., "global warming (environmentally aware and concerned)". Global warming is a political football based on junk science. The other is a fair concern that people on all sides can get behind.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Most, if not all, of those are non sequitor, e.g., "global warming (environmentally aware and concerned)". Global warming is a political football based on junk science. The other is a fair concern that people on all sides can get behind.
    ummmm how do you know its junk science? Do not get me wrong here, I am not a total buy in on the whole thing, I believe we as humans have some responsibility to the issue, however, I also believe that its part of just what happens every million years or so.. but claiming its junk, nawww..
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    ummmm how do you know its junk science? Do not get me wrong here, I am not a total buy in on the whole thing, I believe we as humans have some responsibility to the issue, however, I also believe that its part of just what happens every million years or so.. but claiming its junk, nawww..
    first, consider that someone that doesn't buy the idea of global warming can still be environmentally aware. In fact, one could believe it but think man isn't causing it, and be environmentally awareaqconcerned.

    now, you want proof about it being politics vs science (other than the spokesperson being a failed politician)?

    answer these questions:

    how many ice ages have there been (global cooling followed by global warming)...

    then tell me how many happened before the industrial age when air pollution emerged... Or was previous warming caused by the flatulance of cows or dinosaurs?
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    ummmm how do you know its junk science? Do not get me wrong here, I am not a total buy in on the whole thing, I believe we as humans have some responsibility to the issue, however, I also believe that its part of just what happens every million years or so.. but claiming its junk, nawww..
    Anyone who was even mildly conscious in the 70's when they were claiming we were headed for the next ice age would realize that this stuff is cyclical and dependent on where government grants are being dispensed. Follow the money.

    The sooner people realize this instead of being emotionally swept up in the cause "de jour" the sooner this junk science will subside.
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions