PDA

View Full Version : A Question of a comparison


irishjayhawk
01-02-2008, 10:39 PM
I'm expecting patteeu to roll his eyes at this question but it seems pretty clear to me.

Anyway, my comparison is:

Communism to Islam.


Is that an unfair comparison? If so, why? (Other than one is political and one is religious, arguably)

Taco John
01-02-2008, 10:41 PM
Actually, they're both religions, when you boil it down. In one religion, they believe that the state is the ultimate, and in the other, they believe in Allah.

irishjayhawk
01-02-2008, 11:04 PM
Actually, they're both religions, when you boil it down. In one religion, they believe that the state is the ultimate, and in the other, they believe in Allah.

Fair point, actually. Didn't think about it that way.

Would you agree that our fight now versus Islam is the same as the 60s fight against Communism? Then protecting Democracy and now protecting Christianity (in the a guised way)

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-02-2008, 11:11 PM
..

Communism is a form of socialism, but not all socialism is communism. Please remember that, folks.

Oh, and if we are to take your comparison at face value, then our religion is "democracy" and all we are doing is fighting a series of holy wars.

Mr. Kotter
01-02-2008, 11:11 PM
Fair point, actually. Didn't think about it that way.

Would you agree that our fight now versus Islam is the same as the 60s fight against Communism? Then protecting Democracy and now protecting Christianity (in the a guised way)

That is not even close, as an analogy...UNLESS you want to equate "democracy" with "Christianity" which, even I, would say is ludicrous IMHO.

Communism, and radical Islam, ARE comparable in that both. but only insofaras each has/will....expose[d] our nation to great national security dangers. Both fights, however, are about one thing; preserving democracy, as we know it, in the real world.

irishjayhawk
01-02-2008, 11:16 PM
That is not even close, as an analogy...UNLESS you want to equate "democracy" with "Christianity" which, even I, would say is ludicrous IMHO.

Why would you have to equate those two? I'm lost at what you're getting at.


Communism, and radical Islam, ARE comparable in that both. but only insofaras each has/will....expose[d] our nation to great national security dangers. Both fights, however, are about one thing; preserving democracy, as we know it, in the real world.

I think I'm missing something between both and but. there.

And while it is true that both fights are preserving democracy, it isn't necessarily NOT true that it's not against Christianity, too.

ClevelandBronco
01-02-2008, 11:21 PM
And while it is true that both fights are preserving democracy, it isn't necessarily NOT true that it's not against Christianity, too.

It isn't necessarily not true that it's not?

I'm not sure if that isn't necessarily not the case.

I'm going to go pray for clarity now.

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-02-2008, 11:24 PM
The Cold War was not about preserving democracy. That's a completely ridiculous statement. If it was, we had a hell of a way of showing it by throwing out democratically elected socialists in several countries (Sandanistas, Allende, etc.) in order to install pro-capitalism, authoritarians.

The Cold War was about preserving capitalism. Don't conflate the two.

Taco John
01-02-2008, 11:25 PM
Fair point, actually. Didn't think about it that way.

Would you agree that our fight now versus Islam is the same as the 60s fight against Communism? Then protecting Democracy and now protecting Christianity (in the a guised way)


I sure wouldn't say that. The fight against Islam to me is a skirmish... a side show. I think that if they didn't have us to join forces to fight against, they'd do what they've done for thousands of years: fight against themselves.

They didn't focus on us until recent decades, when we decided to start re-arranging their society to benefit our commercial goals - namely oil.

Taco John
01-02-2008, 11:27 PM
Communism is a form of socialism, but not all socialism is communism. Please remember that, folks.

Oh, and if we are to take your comparison at face value, then our religion is "democracy" and all we are doing is fighting a series of holy wars.


I think some view democracy as the new-age Christianity. The first time, we crusaded to push Christianity. This time around, we're Crusading for democracy. In reality though, neither are the real reasons we're crusading. They're just the friendly face that we're putting on our greed to make the rank and file feel noble about the cause.

We don't honestly give two straws about democracies in muslim countries. If we did, we wouldn't be backing so many ruthless dictators around the world. Also, if we did, we'd have a lot of democracies voting in Anti-American policies, which is why we're continually backing ruthless dictators around the world. They're easier to bribe than entire parliments.

Mr. Kotter
01-02-2008, 11:32 PM
The Cold War was not about preserving democracy. That's a completely ridiculous statement. If it was, we had a hell of a way of showing it by throwing out democratically elected socialists in several countries (Sandanistas, Allende, etc.) in order to install pro-capitalism, authoritarians.

The Cold War was about preserving capitalism. Don't conflate the two.

Democracy is, sometimes, unfairly conflated with tyranny of an illiterate and ignorant "majority".....that's the ONLY conflation going on here.

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-02-2008, 11:34 PM
Democracy is, sometimes, unfairly conflated with tyranny of an illiterate and ignorant "majority".....that's the ONLY conflation going on here.

:spock:

Sorry dude, I just don't see your point at all in reference to that post. I was talking about the US's support of dictators over the elected majority, I was not making a pejorative statement about democracy.

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-02-2008, 11:36 PM
I think some view democracy as the new-age Christianity. The first time, we crusaded to push Christianity. This time around, we're Crusading for democracy. In reality though, neither are the real reasons we're crusading. They're just the friendly face that we're putting on our green to make the rank and file feel noble about the cause.

We don't honestly give two straws about democracies in muslim countries. If we did, we wouldn't be backing so many ruthless dictators around the world. Also, if we did, we'd have a lot of democracies voting in Anti-American policies, which is why we're continually backing ruthless dictators around the world. They're easier to bribe than entire parliments.

Yup.

Taco John
01-02-2008, 11:37 PM
:spock:

Sorry dude, I just don't see your point at all in reference to that post. I was talking about the US's support of dictators over the elected majority, I was not making a pejorative statement about democracy.



He's just trying to say something to sound intellectual.

You know that guy who knows nothing about weed, but cant stop talking about it around the stoners. He's that guy, only around politics.

Mr. Kotter
01-02-2008, 11:39 PM
:spock:

Sorry dude, I just don't see your point at all in reference to that post. I was talking about the US's support of dictators over the elected majority, I was not making a pejorative statement about democracy.

It's pretty simple, really. Calling the democracies you cited .... "Democracy" as commonly understood in the West ...is an insult, to the notion of democracy itself.

The ONLY reasons "majorities" supported the Socialistic tyrants you cite, is due to two reasons; corruption and graft that was the same as that which they professed to be fighting, and illiteracy and ignorance of "common people" in understanding the nature of what a socialistic government really is, in real life.

irishjayhawk
01-02-2008, 11:41 PM
I think some view democracy as the new-age Christianity. The first time, we crusaded to push Christianity. This time around, we're Crusading for democracy. In reality though, neither are the real reasons we're crusading. They're just the friendly face that we're putting on our greed to make the rank and file feel noble about the cause.

We don't honestly give two straws about democracies in muslim countries. If we did, we wouldn't be backing so many ruthless dictators around the world. Also, if we did, we'd have a lot of democracies voting in Anti-American policies, which is why we're continually backing ruthless dictators around the world. They're easier to bribe than entire parliments.

I agree with everything in the second paragraph. However, I don't quite understand the first. And it might be because it's late, and I just worked 9 hours, but...

What "first time" are you referring to?


I'm just not sure how - and again maybe because I'm not completely lucid - the comparison isn't valid?

We fought because we were scared of Communism taking over Capitalism (and the country). Now we fight Islam because we're scared of Islam taking over Christianity (and the country). What am I missing?

And I'm out until morning when I can be a bit more understanding.

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-02-2008, 11:44 PM
It's pretty simple, really. Calling the democracies you cited .... "Democracy" as commonly understood in the West ...is an insult, to the notion of democracy itself.

The ONLY reasons "majorities" supported the Socialistic tyrants you cite, is due to two reasons; corruption and graft that was the same as that which they professed to be fighting, and illiteracy and ignorance of "common people" in understanding the nature of what a socialistic government really is, in real life.

So a democracy is legitimate if the United States says it is, and illegitimate if it doesn't pass our sniff test. Moreover, anyone who supports socialist candidates are axiomatically uneducated, illiterate, and ignorant.

That's enlightening.

You seem to be unable to divide your beliefs about socialism against what others who weren't raised in the breadbasket of capitalism would think about such a concept.

If you grew up with jack f*cking shit, the concept of a mean wage is a pretty f*cking appetizing prospect.

Furthermore, if you are going to impugn the intelligence of the voters in other countries, perhaps you should look at your own country of residence, which is largely comprised of one issue voters, and also highly scattered with people who are functionally illiterate.

Responses like yours are the height of ethnocentrism.

Taco John
01-02-2008, 11:46 PM
The first time I'm referring to is the Crusades. In that era, "we" were supposedly spreading Christianity (I, of course, am using the term "we" in the broadest cultural sense - I don't believe you and I merit any blame for this effort). In this era, we are supposedly spreading Democracy.

Also, I don't believe that any American has any fear of Islam taking over Christianity, or the country. If there are Americans who beleive this, these are the types of Americans whom the word "fringe" was invented for.

Taco John
01-02-2008, 11:48 PM
So a democracy is legitimate if the United States says it is, and illegitimate if it doesn't pass our sniff test. Moreover, anyone who supports socialist candidates are axiomatically uneducated, illiterate, and ignorant.

That's enlightening.

You seem to be unable to divide your beliefs about socialism against what others who weren't raised in the breadbasket of capitalism would think about such a concept.

If you grew up with jack f*cking shit, the concept of a mean wage is a pretty f*cking appetizing prospect.

Furthermore, if you are going to impugn the intelligence of the voters in other countries, perhaps you should look at your own country of residence, which is largely comprised of one issue voters, and also highly scattered with people who are functionally illiterate.

Responses like yours are the height of ethnocentrism.



I just wanted to take this opportunity to remind you that you're talking to a government teacher in the public education system.

patteeu
01-02-2008, 11:49 PM
Fair point, actually. Didn't think about it that way.

Would you agree that our fight now versus Islam is the same as the 60s fight against Communism? Then protecting Democracy and now protecting Christianity (in the a guised way)

I think it's very similar, except that we aren't fighting Islam, we are fighting Islamism. And we aren't fighting to protect christianity, we are fighting to protect western liberalism (as in the ideas of individual liberty that arose from the western enlightenment). What we are fighting against is the notion that manmade law should be replaced by a strict islamic law. The two systems are incompatible in the same way communism was incompatible with western liberalism and capitalism.

They may not be trying to "take away *our* freedoms" (at the moment), but they are trying to take away the freedoms we hold dear from their own countrymen and given time and success, they will be looking to take those freedoms from us too.

Mr. Kotter
01-02-2008, 11:49 PM
...

Responses like yours are the height of ethnocentrism.

And responses like yours are the height of psuedo-intellectual arrogance, and idealistic myopia.

I have a place in this country; clowns like you should move to China. ;)

Mr. Kotter
01-02-2008, 11:51 PM
I just wanted to take this opportunity to remind you that you're talking to a government teacher in the public education system.

And, you, are a fellow backing a guy who has ZERO chance of securing the nomination that HE SEEKS.

:spock:

Heh.

Taco John
01-02-2008, 11:53 PM
And, you, are a fellow backing a guy who has ZERO chance of securing the nomination that HE SEEKS.

:spock:

Heh.


You won't be laughing when you're voting for Obama over Paul as your choice in 2008.

It will be the first time you voted for a Democrat in how long again, Mr. Democrat?

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-02-2008, 11:54 PM
And, you, are a fellow backing a guy who has ZERO chance of securing the nomination that HE SEEKS.

:spock:

Heh.
http://ganjataz.com/general-bollocks/images/by-GT/forum-shitz/pot-kettle-black.jpg

Mr. Kotter
01-02-2008, 11:58 PM
http://ganjataz.com/general-bollocks/images/by-GT/forum-shitz/pot-kettle-black.jpg

I've said, basically....that Thompson's only chance for the nomination, is if and when McCain throws his support Fred's direction.

At least I'm honest. Candid. Unlike the Paulite dreamer/creamer types we have that have made this place so...."icky."

:)

Mr. Kotter
01-03-2008, 12:00 AM
You won't be laughing when you're voting for Obama over Paul as your choice in 2008.

It will be the first time you voted for a Democrat in how long again, Mr. Democrat?

FWIW, I voted Gore in 2000....but I disregard your inaccuracies to state that, yes, a competent Obama would be far more preferable to an incompetent Paul. Yes. FTR.

:)

irishjayhawk
01-03-2008, 09:50 AM
I think it's very similar, except that we aren't fighting Islam, we are fighting Islamism.

When Christianity has it's own word or an equivalent, especially in the dictionary, I'll recognize this "Islamism". It's merely semantics the West and the War's PR crew. If Christianism means "the Christian religion" or something similiar, then Islamism means "the Islamic religion". NOT some stupid pro-Western way of thinking that Islam wants to spread everywhere. Christianity has the same goal - and much more pronounced earlier in history. Where is it's "word".

So, please, stop throwing around stupid pr words and play semantics. Come out and say it. It's against Islam, specifically the fundamentals within it, but not necessarily JUST the fundamentals. At least, not now.


And we aren't fighting to protect christianity, we are fighting to protect western liberalism (as in the ideas of individual liberty that arose from the western enlightenment). What we are fighting against is the notion that manmade law should be replaced by a strict islamic law. The two systems are incompatible in the same way communism was incompatible with western liberalism and capitalism.

And, this, is the definition of blow back and ethnocentrism. Why shouldn't we allow the middle east and/or countries around there to institute their own law, just as we have here (with democracy)? It's called playing police and it's beginning to break our resolve. It's also why Paul's stance is so popular.


They may not be trying to "take away *our* freedoms" (at the moment), but they are trying to take away the freedoms we hold dear from their own countrymen and given time and success, they will be looking to take those freedoms from us too.

Ah. Okay, so we must protect them against their religion. Got ya. Man, I was scared the Iraq war had a purpose of WMDs but it was just to protect them against Islam and non-democratic ideals because we are against Islam and have democratic ideals.

irishjayhawk
01-03-2008, 09:52 AM
The first time I'm referring to is the Crusades. In that era, "we" were supposedly spreading Christianity (I, of course, am using the term "we" in the broadest cultural sense - I don't believe you and I merit any blame for this effort). In this era, we are supposedly spreading Democracy.

Ah, I wouldn't have guessed the Crusades. :)

Also, I don't believe that any American has any fear of Islam taking over Christianity, or the country. If there are Americans who beleive this, these are the types of Americans whom the word "fringe" was invented for.

Perhaps, but the PR campaign for that line of thinking is up and running.

irishjayhawk
01-03-2008, 09:55 AM
So a democracy is legitimate if the United States says it is, and illegitimate if it doesn't pass our sniff test. Moreover, anyone who supports socialist candidates are axiomatically uneducated, illiterate, and ignorant.

That's enlightening.

BEP says this, too. And in a different light, so does patteeu.


You seem to be unable to divide your beliefs about socialism against what others who weren't raised in the breadbasket of capitalism would think about such a concept.

Apparently, no one has heard of ethnocentrism. Or, at least, if they have, they ignore it.


If you grew up with jack f*cking shit, the concept of a mean wage is a pretty f*cking appetizing prospect.

Furthermore, if you are going to impugn the intelligence of the voters in other countries, perhaps you should look at your own country of residence, which is largely comprised of one issue voters, and also highly scattered with people who are functionally illiterate.

All I can do is smile. :) (Good response)


Responses like yours are the height of ethnocentrism.

Yep.

trndobrd
01-03-2008, 10:25 AM
I'm expecting patteeu to roll his eyes at this question but it seems pretty clear to me.

Anyway, my comparison is:

Communism to Islam.


Is that an unfair comparison? If so, why? (Other than one is political and one is religious, arguably)



If you haven't read it, you should pick up a copy of "Politics of Ideocracy" by Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz.

He suggests that Communism, Nazism, Islamic Fascism (i.e. Iran and Afghanistan under Taliban rule) and other ideology based regimes are nearly identical in structure except for the names and terminology. He draws distictions between Ideocracies and plain old strong-arm dictatorships or other non-democratic forms such as Monarchies.

The primary attributes of Ideocracies are single party rule based, ostensibly, on some form of self-authenticating truth, which can only be interpreted correctly by a small number (usually one) of individuals. A systematic dismissal or outright crackdown on other allegiances (competing ideologies or religions, ethnic, tribal, etc) are common to ideocracies.

Essentially, his point is that Russian Communism, Nazism, Ba'athism (remember, Iraq under Hussein was not an Islamic state), and Islamic Fascism are all pretty much the same animal.

irishjayhawk
01-03-2008, 10:31 AM
If you haven't read it, you should pick up a copy of "Politics of Ideocracy" by Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz.

He suggests that Communism, Nazism, Islamic Fascism (i.e. Iran and Afghanistan under Taliban rule) and other ideology based regimes are nearly identical in structure except for the names and terminology. He draws distictions between Ideocracies and plain old strong-arm dictatorships or other non-democratic forms such as Monarchies.

The primary attributes of Ideocracies are single party rule based, ostensibly, on some form of self-authenticating truth, which can only be interpreted correctly by a small number (usually one) of individuals. A systematic dismissal or outright crackdown on other allegiances (competing ideologies or religions, ethnic, tribal, etc) are common to ideocracies.

Essentially, his point is that Russian Communism, Nazism, Ba'athism (remember, Iraq under Hussein was not an Islamic state), and Islamic Fascism are all pretty much the same animal.

Is it a hard read? I mean really academic?

Sounds kind of like what I've been thinking but I add more religious element to it, as I see it as Christianity versus Islam in a very specific sense (political).

patteeu
01-03-2008, 10:39 AM
When Christianity has it's own word or an equivalent, especially in the dictionary, I'll recognize this "Islamism". It's merely semantics the West and the War's PR crew. If Christianism means "the Christian religion" or something similiar, then Islamism means "the Islamic religion". NOT some stupid pro-Western way of thinking that Islam wants to spread everywhere. Christianity has the same goal - and much more pronounced earlier in history. Where is it's "word".

So, please, stop throwing around stupid pr words and play semantics. Come out and say it. It's against Islam, specifically the fundamentals within it, but not necessarily JUST the fundamentals. At least, not now.




And, this, is the definition of blow back and ethnocentrism. Why shouldn't we allow the middle east and/or countries around there to institute their own law, just as we have here (with democracy)? It's called playing police and it's beginning to break our resolve. It's also why Paul's stance is so popular.




Ah. Okay, so we must protect them against their religion. Got ya. Man, I was scared the Iraq war had a purpose of WMDs but it was just to protect them against Islam and non-democratic ideals because we are against Islam and have democratic ideals.

I'm sorry if I'm talking over your head. I'll have to consult with Taco and see if he knows where I can find a cartoon video online that will explain it for you.

And your "definition of blowback" comment indicates that you don't understand that either.

Mr. Kotter
01-03-2008, 10:43 AM
Is it a hard read? I mean really academic?

Sounds kind of like what I've been thinking but I add more religious element to it, as I see it as Christianity versus Islam in a very specific sense (political).

I would also recommend it highly. He was a prof at KU during my undergrad days. Good instructor, and a great mind. It is quite readable, though certainly not a page-turner.....that the Stephen King generation often demands.

irishjayhawk
01-03-2008, 10:44 AM
I'm sorry if I'm talking over your head. I'll have to consult with Taco and see if he knows where I can find a cartoon video online that will explain it for you.

And your "definition of blowback" comment indicates that you don't understand that either.


I know the definition of blowback. Doing something in another country that provokes people to attack us later down the road. Causing our own misery. Inviting attacks. Yes, I understand that.


You fail to understand the whole issue of Islamism - both the word itself and the definition - being a big propaganda item. If it were objective, Christianity would have the same definition in the dictionary. It would be used the same way. Since it isn't, I refuse to buy it. If we're fighting Islamism, then are they fighting Christianism (us)? You know, Christians spreading their government of choice: democracy? It's a stupid notion and one you continually buy into.

I don't.

patteeu
01-03-2008, 10:53 AM
I know the definition of blowback. Doing something in another country that provokes people to attack us later down the road. Causing our own misery. Inviting attacks. Yes, I understand that.

If you know what it means then why did you say that what I posted was the definition of blowback when it wasn't anything like what you posted above? I bet you just googled it or something, didn't you? ;)


You fail to understand the whole issue of Islamism - both the word itself and the definition - being a big propaganda item. If it were objective, Christianity would have the same definition in the dictionary. It would be used the same way. Since it isn't, I refuse to buy it. If we're fighting Islamism, then are they fighting Christianism (us)? You know, Christians spreading their government of choice: democracy? It's a stupid notion and one you continually buy into.

I don't.

You seem to understand the concept I'm describing and just quarrel with the label. I'll take that as evidence that I've successfully communicated the idea and that you would rather engage in a semantic argument than engage the idea.

FWIW, they *are* fighting us, but they aren't fighting "Christianism" whatever that is. As I already said, they are fighting against western liberalism (which, btw, is largely secular despite the fact that it's heavily influenced by judeao-christian values). They also reject other outside ideologies like communism, because they too conflict with the islamist ideology.

Cochise
01-03-2008, 11:02 AM
FWIW, they *are* fighting us, but they aren't fighting "Christianism" whatever that is. As I already said, they are fighting against western liberalism (which, btw, is largely secular despite the fact that it's heavily influenced by judeao-christian values). They also reject other outside ideologies like communism, because they too conflict with the islamist ideology.

They dislike Judaism and Christianity equally, along with any other idea that does not fall under the strict blanket of what they feel Islam is. Other forms of government, besides Islam, seem to be despised as well. The idea seems to be that the faith is good, and anything that is not the faith is not good.

irishjayhawk
01-03-2008, 11:03 AM
If you know what it means then why did you say that what I posted was the definition of blowback when it wasn't anything like what you posted above? I bet you just googled it or something, didn't you? ;)

That would make your day if I did. :) But, no, I didn't.



You seem to understand the concept I'm describing and just quarrel with the label. I'll take that as evidence that I've successfully communicated the idea and that you would rather engage in a semantic argument than engage the idea.

Why, yes it's semantics. However, you don't see that Islamism isn't a fair word. There is no equivalent (as you suggest below) for other religions. It's Islam we're fighting.


FWIW, they *are* fighting us, but they aren't fighting "Christianism" whatever that is. As I already said, they are fighting against western liberalism (which, btw, is largely secular despite the fact that it's heavily influenced by judeao-christian values). They also reject other outside ideologies like communism, because they too conflict with the islamist ideology.

If we are fighting Islamism, they are, without a doubt, fighting Christianism. Both religions have their government style of choice: democracy vs dictatorship/facism/etc.

patteeu
01-03-2008, 11:07 AM
They dislike Judaism and Christianity equally, along with any other idea that does not fall under the strict blanket of what they feel Islam is. Other forms of government, besides Islam, seem to be despised as well. The idea seems to be that the faith is good, and anything that is not the faith is not good.

Exactly. And they even dislike Islam if it's not practiced as a comprehensive political system in addition to being a religion because in their view, that's apostasy. That's why they have been trying to overthrow nominally islamic governments in the middle east for decades (or maybe longer).

Cochise
01-03-2008, 11:15 AM
Exactly. And they even dislike Islam if it's not practiced as a comprehensive political system in addition to being a religion because in their view, that's apostasy. That's why they have been trying to overthrow nominally islamic governments in the middle east for decades (or maybe longer).

It's not only a religion, to this brand of people, it's a comprehensive idea about your view taking over the world that encompasses religion, politics, government, private life, everything.

patteeu
01-03-2008, 11:26 AM
It's not only a religion, to this brand of people, it's a comprehensive idea about your view taking over the world that encompasses religion, politics, government, private life, everything.

Yep. :thumb:

trndobrd
01-03-2008, 01:38 PM
It's not only a religion, to this brand of people, it's a comprehensive idea about your view taking over the world that encompasses religion, politics, government, private life, everything.


Which get's back to the point of the book I mentioned. Since (Nazism, Communism, Islamic Fascism, etc.) is the one true answer, as interpreted by a small number of those with special knowledge, it becomes the basis and justification for conquest.

Just to clarify, I do not see Islam as a threat, I do see the use of Islam by Facist types as a tool, as a threat.

penchief
01-03-2008, 02:19 PM
Actually, they're both religions, when you boil it down. In one religion, they believe that the state is the ultimate, and in the other, they believe in Allah.

Some would say that capitalism is the religion of greed. I'm all for free enterprise and the fair market. But not at the expense of humanity. Balance is the key. Which doesn't necessarily equate to communism as you would have us all believe.

You always cite our founding fathers to support your neo-logic yet you always overlook the fact that economic fairness and "power to the people" is what they were aiming at. They weren't asking for unchecked power or the ability to exploit our country's resources, natural or human.

You are the one that pursues your extreme ideology with a religious fervor. You have no room to cast aspersion upon those who are capable of seeing beyond their own selfish needs when it comes to religion, politics, or commerce.

Taco John
01-03-2008, 02:24 PM
What's that thing called again? cPiggy?

penchief
01-03-2008, 02:34 PM
What's that thing called again? cPiggy?

What are you referring to? My post?

If so, you are only exposing your inability to address any form of logic that contradicts your own ideology. Wake up, bro. Our founding fathers did a wonderful thing. They empowered all of us by giving us each a say in our own future.

The right wing, and by extention the neocons, have decided to strip us of our say. And they are doing that on all fronts, including the economic front. The problem I have with you is that you are unwilling to address the extreme philosophy of non-regulation and non-taxation that both neocons and Paul-cons share, which ultimately leads to the same result (elitism without representation).

Taco John
01-03-2008, 02:47 PM
I dont care what I'm exposing. I can't debate ignorant people. It's impossible to debate someone who you have to educate the fundamentals to at the same time. It's not that I can't address your issues. It's that you don't make any sense. You are a demagogue who says things that sound flowery, but ultimately mean zip. For instance "elitism without representation."

It pains me to even have to quote such repulsive stupidity.

trndobrd
01-03-2008, 03:25 PM
Some would say that capitalism is the religion of greed. I'm all for free enterprise and the fair market. But not at the expense of humanity. Balance is the key. Which doesn't necessarily equate to communism as you would have us all believe.

You always cite our founding fathers to support your neo-logic yet you always overlook the fact that economic fairness and "power to the people" is what they were aiming at. They weren't asking for unchecked power or the ability to exploit our country's resources, natural or human.

You are the one that pursues your extreme ideology with a religious fervor. You have no room to cast aspersion upon those who are capable of seeing beyond their own selfish needs when it comes to religion, politics, or commerce.


Do you mean power to the people who counted as one whole person, or the people who counted as three-fifths of a person?

penchief
01-03-2008, 03:31 PM
I dont care what I'm exposing. I can't debate ignorant people. It's impossible to debate someone who you have to educate the fundamentals to at the same time. It's not that I can't address your issues. It's that you don't make any sense. You are a demagogue who says things that sound flowery, but ultimately mean zip. For instance "elitism without representation."

It pains me to even have to quote such repulsive stupidity.

Fundamentals of what? Ideology? Or common sense?

I've always been more than willing to debate you on ideas. But you have avoided that debate in favor of promoting your ideology. You have chosen to label my beliefs so that you can pigeon-hole me rather than address my ideas, and you have chosen to attack my intelligence rather than answer my questions.

I can't speak for others but I know that your method does zero to advance your beliefs with me. All you seem to do is reinforce my belief that you are a true right-winger who is more frustrated by Bush's incompetence than you are outraged by his eco-political assault on the people of the United States.

penchief
01-03-2008, 03:36 PM
Do you mean power to the people who counted as one whole person, or the people who counted as three-fifths of a person?

You're point is valid but so is mine. We don't count people as three-fifths anymore because we evolved. The point is that I want to keep evolving. It doesn't have to stop here. Being a step ahead of the rest of the world when it came to human rights was what gave us our moral authority. These criminal fuggers in the Bush White House have sold us out for reasons of greed and hubris. America's history has taken a turn for the worst, IMO.

Taco John
01-03-2008, 03:45 PM
Fundamentals of what? Ideology? Or common sense?

I've always been more than willing to debate you on ideas. But you have avoided that debate in favor of promoting your ideology. You have chosen to label my beliefs so that you can pigeon-hole me rather than address my ideas, and you have chosen to attack my intelligence rather than answer my questions.

I can't speak for others but I know that your method does zero to advance your beliefs with me. All you seem to do is reinforce my belief that you are a true right-winger who is more frustrated by Bush's incompetence than you are outraged by his eco-political assault on the people of the United States.



That's funny because all you do is reinforce my believe that you have no ideas, intelligence, or substantive questions.

I loved "eco-political assualt" by the way. Marx would be proud.

trndobrd
01-03-2008, 03:54 PM
You're point is valid but so is mine. We don't count people as three-fifths anymore because we evolved. The point is that I want to keep evolving. It doesn't have to stop here. Being a step ahead of the rest of the world when it came to human rights was what gave us our moral authority. These criminal fuggers in the Bush White House have sold us out for reasons of greed and hubris. America's history has taken a turn for the worst, IMO.


Your point was that the Founders of this nation were engaged in some sort of "power to the people" hippie counterculture. They were not. What they did accomplish was the establishment a form of government in which the rights of the individual are superior to the power of the state and the power of government derives from the people, not by divine fiat.

Having said that, the United States was woefully far behind the rest of the world in human rights for most of our history. Try not to let your rage against all things connected to the Bush administration blind you to the realities of history.

penchief
01-03-2008, 04:06 PM
That's funny because all you do is reinforce my believe that you have no ideas, intelligence, or substantive questions.

I loved "eco-political assualt" by the way. Marx would be proud.

See. You keep proving my point. You are totally impotent when responding to me. You never try to be sincere. You are only aggressive and insulting. That tells me that you can't back up your ideas. That tells me that you are full of hot air. You're basically a cheerleader for a cause that you haven't thought entirely through (otherwise you'd just respond rationally). You have a bandwagon mentality and you are showing it more and more every day.

penchief
01-03-2008, 04:08 PM
Your point was that the Founders of this nation were engaged in some sort of "power to the people" hippie counterculture. They were not. What they did accomplish was the establishment a form of government in which the rights of the individual are superior to the power of the state and the power of government derives from the people, not by divine fiat.

Having said that, the United States was woefully far behind the rest of the world in human rights for most of our history. Try not to let your rage against all things connected to the Bush administration blind you to the realities of history.

What was the Boston Tea Party all about? Taxation without representation? That's what I thought.

trndobrd
01-03-2008, 04:17 PM
What was the Boston Tea Party all about? Taxation without representation? That's what I thought.



Huh?

penchief
01-03-2008, 04:19 PM
Huh?

I get your point. And to that fact, we are still behind. But, we have been the one country that has had the influence to lead by example and make a difference. When we gave up on those ideals it struck a major blow to the rest of the world that saw us a force for good instead of a force for greed (and by extention, death and destruction).

As far as the Boston Tea Party comment goes, what do you believe our founding fathers wanted more? Representation or no taxation?

trndobrd
01-03-2008, 04:27 PM
I get your point. And to that fact, we are still behind. But, we have been the one country that has had the influence to lead by example and make a difference. When we gave up on those ideals it struck a major blow to the rest of the world that saw us a force for good instead of a force for greed (and by extention, death and destruction).
As far as the Boston Tea Party comment goes, what do you believe our founding fathers wanted more? Representation or no taxation?


When did this happen?


As far as the Boston Tea Party, it's hard to say which they wanted more. Much like today, people don't view taxation in merely economic terms, but rather taking from their person.

penchief
01-03-2008, 04:45 PM
When did this happen?.

Well, we gave up on them big time when our government decided to invade and occupy a country that didn't attack us. When our government decided to spy on Americans without a warrant. When our government decided that torture was acceptable. When our goverment decided to deny American citizens their constitutional rights as prisoners of the government. When our government decided to promote instability. When our government decided to go underground.

As far as the Boston Tea Party, it's hard to say which they wanted more. Much like today, people don't view taxation in merely economic terms, but rather taking from their person.

The way they worded it makes it sound like they didn't object to taxation as much as they objected to not having representation. It sounds like they wanted "a say" more than they objected to taxes. Many of them were loyal subjects who didn't mind paying taxes.

They thought that their taxes entitled them to a say in their own government and they were right. IMO, they protested FOR representation, not necessarily against taxation.

trndobrd
01-03-2008, 04:55 PM
Well, we gave up on them big time when our government decided to invade and occupy a country that didn't attack us. When our government decided to spy on Americans without a warrant. When our government decided that torture was acceptable. When our goverment decided to deny American citizens their constitutional rights as prisoners of the government. When our government decided to promote instability. When our government decided to go underground.





Oh, the Civil War. Pretty tough times.

penchief
01-03-2008, 05:05 PM
Oh, the Civil War. Pretty tough times.

And we had slavery back then, too. What's your point? The evolution of the United States and the unfulfilled ideals of our founding fathers have always provided a template for the pursuit of universal liberty. It doesn't make sense to allow commercial forces to destroy those ideals that were intended to give a voice to all Americans.

penchief
01-03-2008, 05:13 PM
When did this happen?


As far as the Boston Tea Party, it's hard to say which they wanted more. Much like today, people don't view taxation in merely economic terms, but rather taking from their person.

Are you saying that people view taxation differently today than they did then?

If so, doesn't that kind of undercut the argument that paulitarians stand for the exact same thing that our founding fathers stood for when it comes to taxation? Or anything else for that matter?

Taco John
01-03-2008, 05:13 PM
It doesn't make sense to allow commercial forces to destroy those ideals intended to give a voice to all Americans.



Anyone have any idea what he's rambling on about?

penchief
01-03-2008, 05:15 PM
Anyone have any idea what he's rambling on about?

Hey, why don't you respond to the post you bailed on and then we'll come back to this one. Go back to where we left off and give it a go before you jump in the middle of something new.

penchief
01-03-2008, 05:18 PM
Anyone have any idea what he's rambling on about?

Our rights and our voice in government. Which have been usurped by crooked businessmen posing as public servants wanting to exploit our government for greedy purposes. That's what I'm talking about. And it seems that your brand of "liberty" will do nothing to stop them from continuing on.

trndobrd
01-03-2008, 10:21 PM
When did this happen?


As far as the Boston Tea Party, it's hard to say which they wanted more. Much like today, people don't view taxation in merely economic terms, but rather taking from their person.




Are you saying that people view taxation differently today than they did then?

If so, doesn't that kind of undercut the argument that paulitarians stand for the exact same thing that our founding fathers stood for when it comes to taxation? Or anything else for that matter?


No, I'm not saying people view taxes differently. Try reading my post instead of attempting to manufacture a misstatement out of thin air.

penchief
01-04-2008, 08:48 PM
No, I'm not saying people view taxes differently. Try reading my post instead of attempting to manufacture a misstatement out of thin air.

Okay, I see what you are saying and I don't necessarilly disagree. But, all I'm saying is that we should all take the rallying cry, "No taxation without representation," at its face value. It sounds like they were saying that they would not object to taxation if they were given their due representation.

Conservatives today act as if zero taxes is the Holy Grail. All I'm saying is that life constitutes a whole lot more than how much each of us antes up into the communal pot. I think our founding fathers were saying that their voices should be heard.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 10:49 PM
Okay, I see what you are saying and I don't necessarilly disagree. But, all I'm saying is that we should all take the rallying cry, "No taxation without representation," at its face value. It sounds like they were saying that they would not object to taxation if they were given their due representation.

Conservatives today act as if zero taxes is the Holy Grail. All I'm saying is that life constitutes a whole lot more than how much each of us antes up into the communal pot. I think our founding fathers were saying that their voices should be heard.

Aha! Busted! :p

ClevelandBronco
01-04-2008, 10:55 PM
communal pot.
communal pot.
communal pot.
communal pot.
communal pot.

BucEyedPea
01-04-2008, 11:05 PM
as in pol pot?

patteeu
01-04-2008, 11:14 PM
as in pol pot?

As in pot smoking commie. ;)

Silock
01-04-2008, 11:15 PM
I think we should compare candle wax to picture frames next. This game is fun!

Ugly Duck
01-04-2008, 11:30 PM
Moreover, anyone who supports socialist candidates are axiomatically uneducated, illiterate, and ignorant.

Responses like yours are the height of ethnocentrism.

The Social Democrats comprise the oldest and largest political party in Sweden. Lets just hope that we haven't offended any Swedish planeteers as axiomatically uneducated, illiterate, and ignorant. They seem pretty dang happy as socialists. They also make hella good cars.... I've been driving Volvo since before Ford bought the car division. Guess I've been supporting the uneducated, illiterate, and ignorant.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 11:35 PM
The Social Democrats comprise the oldest and largest political party in Sweden. Lets just hope that we haven't offended any Swedish planeteers as axiomatically uneducated, illiterate, and ignorant. They seem pretty dang happy as socialists. They also make hella good cars.... I've been driving Volvo since before Ford bought the car division. Guess I've been supporting the uneducated, illiterate, and ignorant.

You do that everytime you buy a Raiders ticket too. ;)

Taco John
01-05-2008, 01:38 AM
As in pot smoking commie. ;)



God bless those "Franklinesque Libertarians..." ROFL

penchief
01-05-2008, 03:40 AM
Aha! Busted! :p

Not at all. Admitting that that we have a common interest is a lot different than advocating communism. I guess if you want to say that roads and bridges are just part of the communist plot, be my guest.

penchief
01-05-2008, 03:43 AM
God bless those "Franklinesque Libertarians..." ROFL

Franklin was well aware of what our common interests were.

JohnnyV13
01-06-2008, 01:36 AM
What was the Boston Tea Party all about? Taxation without representation? That's what I thought.

Blah. Taxation without representation wasn't really the core issue, that was just the propaganda to make the rebellion sound nice.

When Ben Franklin was in England negotiating with the Brits to resolve the issues between the colonies and the British Govt, the Continental Congress wrote letters instructing him not to accept any compromise that would result in colonial representation in Parliament because they would simply be out-voted.

While writing these letters, the rebellion leaders were whipping up the "no taxation without representation" slogans. Pretty clear that was just the PR rhetoric and not truly what they objected to.

For example, the taxes on the colonies weren't really that oppressive. Americans had lower tax rates that citizens living in England. The Brits bankrupted the exchequer paying for the French and Indian War 20 years before the rebellion, to protect the colonies from the French. The tea tax was so low that a family would have to drink a gallon of tea a day for a year to pay a pound in tax.

Also, the american rebellion wasn't really a "grass roots" bottom up rebellion. INstead, it was led by the large landowners whipping up the populace through organs like local newpapers.

This reality suggests that the core issue was that these big landowners really hated the idea that England might start bringing in nobility over their heads after they had busted their butts rising to the top in colonial society.

penchief
01-07-2008, 02:41 PM
I wasn't tying Franklin to the "taxation without representation" question. That question was a seperate thing designed to challenge those who think that zero taxes is the be all and end all of America's virtue. Someobody else brought up Franklin. I only responded to that person's comment.

As far as my view of Franklin goes versus those who want to claim all our founding fathers for purely partisan political reasons, Franklin's personal beliefs and conduct advocated humanity and society's common interests while also being true to one's own independence. His life's work is a testament to that. To suggest that he would oppose any kind of government involvement via taxation or regulation, ala the paulitarians, is almost entirely incorrect. Franklin believed very much in the common good. He devoted his entire life to promote the common good as well as individual self-sufficiency.

Taco, you keep trying to educate me with your partisan bullshit literature all the time. Why don't you read The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin and then get back to me.

Yes, Franklin is all about personal responsibility and self-sufficiency. And I agree with him on that. I always have. But Franklin was both pragmatic and idealistic. He was a philosopher, scientist, inventor, writer, printer, diplomat, and public servant extraordinaire. He saw the bigger picture. He got it. Balance was key.

Not only was Franklin probably our most important founding father, he was the true father of our country, IMO. That classic American work ethic that we used to be able to brag about can be traced to Franklin. The building blocks of this country were rooted in Franklin's philosophical and political beliefs. He helped author and proof-read the final version of the Declaration of Independence. His wisdom, judgment, and humility facilitated the birth of our country, IMO.

His diplomacy secured our victory in the Revolutionary War. He created the modern day postal system, he started this country's first public libraries and the first volunteer fire deptartment, he introduced the first paved streets, and the first street lamps. And more. Yet, Franklin didn't make a dime from his personal discoveries/inventions such as the lightening rod, bifocals, Franklin stove, etc, etc, etc. He gave his inventions away freely for the benefit of humankind.

It's clear that Franklin was very much interested in advancing the common good moreso than securing riches (blasphemy!). So, shame on those of you who try to hijack Franklin's legacy in order to promote your own narrow agenda.