No. of Recommendations: 7
Guess the author (I'll post in a reply)....

"We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand: ... an end to the power of the financial interests. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. We demand. . .the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of national, state, and municipal governments. In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education ... We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents ... The government must undertake the improvement of public health - by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor ... by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth. We combat the ... materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of the common good before the individual good."








Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 26
That quote came to you from the...

Nazi Party political program, adopted in Munich, February 24, 1920

For my liberal friends this is why we on the right are so unnerved by big government. You may see a future Utopia, but we hear history's warnings. What is it that you see that see that you disregard history? What method of governance do you envision that prevents centrally powered government from using that power for evil ends? I would like to know.

TJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What is it that you see that see that you disregard history? What method of governance do you envision that prevents centrally powered government from using that power for evil ends? I would like to know.

Me too! Nazi stood for "National Socialist" party. That is why I'm thrown off when people refer to the Nazi's as fascists. Perhaps it comes from the support the Nazi's gave Francisco Franco in the Spanish Civil War.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
That quote came to you from the...

Nazi Party political program, adopted in Munich, February 24, 1920

For my liberal friends this is why we on the right are so unnerved by big government. You may see a future Utopia, but we hear history's warnings. What is it that you see that see that you disregard history? What method of governance do you envision that prevents centrally powered government from using that power for evil ends? I would like to know.

TJ



I surely thought it was a quote from Ralph Nader........but hey, same song, different refrain.

Didn't the Nazi's also undertake the task of confiscating all guns from private citizens??
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Didn't the Nazi's also undertake the task of confiscating all guns from private citizens??

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -- ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." --Heinrich Himmler

An understanding of history is just so important to political discourse. I'm so glad someone forced me to read everything from Thucydides' commentaries on the Pelloponesian wars to the current National Security Strategy.

TJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
<"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -- ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." --Heinrich Himmler>

I can't think of any successful overthrow of one governmental system with another that did not involve disarming the people. Anyone who thinks themselves inherently safe from a governmental system (any governmental system) is guilty of self-delusion.

The statement above by Himmler is the answer to Carijillo's question about why Nazi's are identified as fascists even though they called themselves "socialists". Fascism is a governmental system based on authoritarian rule by a dictator in which the people's will is subordinated to the goal of serving the State. Thus, Nazi's were fascists.

TJ, I envy your incredible depth of knowledge of history. It is truly amazing. If you're not careful you are going to inspire me to pick up a history book. Any recommendations as to a good place to start?


Michele

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
Nazi Party political program, adopted in Munich, February 24, 1920

As they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing :-). (This post has gotten embarrasingly long, sorry).

This kind of post makes me wonder how many liberals someone like TJLea really comes into contact with on a regular basis, or whether he just hears about them on right-wing radio. For me, I have too many conservative friends and colleagues to really compare their views to Nazis, but clearly many conservatives on this board rarely come into contact, or have meaningful discussions with, many liberals at all (except those who won't eat honey:-)). So you go by stereotype and shorthand.

Sorry, I'm about to digress, but when I was in high school, one of the things that interested me about politics was the discovery that not everyone who is smart and reasonable has the same political views. I grew up with relatively liberal parents (surprise!), though my Dad is pretty moderate these days, and I naively believed that pretty much all smart people, like my parents, were Democrats. Imagine my surprise when I found that my high school history and government teacher, who I liked and respected, was actually a Ronald Reagan supporter!! (Gasp!) Instead of concluding that he was just ignorant of history, which would have been difficult given his job, it clued me in that reasonable, educated people could disagree.

Later, I considered this kind of embarrassing, since I figured that I had been really clueless about this and most everyone else must have figured this out long before I did. Now, after reading this board recently, I'm not so sure.

Anyway, just wanted to dump that story on everyone. I won't be able to reply to TJLea's Nazi quote as much as I would like -- I have work to do -- but let me take a shot:

We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living.

The US federal government has not had full employment of citizens as a goal for years, if ever, and no liberals advocate it. It is now conventional wisdom among most policymakers that a certain level of unemployment is necessary to prevent inflation.

In Great Britain, they did have a policy of full employment for years after WWII, until Thatcher came along. While the policy helped create an economic mess in the UK that Thatcher straightened out, it did not come close to tyrrany or fascism. There is a lot more to history than the Nazis.

The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all.

This is the opposite of what most modern liberals believe, particularly regarding gay rights, pro-choice, etc. The feminist movement of the 70s is another example of how liberals believe the opposite of this.

Therefore, we demand: ... an end to the power of the financial interests.

Oh yeah, that's what Bill Clinton must have been seeking when he appointed Robert Rubin to the Treasury. Surely that's what John Corzine (former Goldman Sachs exec, now liberal Dem Senator from NJ) seeks too!

We demand a broad extension of care for the aged.

Yes, Democrats support this, and so do many Republicans, or at least they say they do. And they're right to do so: Social Security has been a tremendous success in raising the living standards of the elderly, despite its current financing problems. To say that this makes you a Nazi is laughable.

We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents

Great idea. So what if it was once in the Nazi platform?

What is it that you see that see that you disregard history?

Actually, history is very much on the side of liberals, such as myself, who support a limited welfare state. There are very few, if any, examples in AMERICAN history of the federal government overreaching and significantly curtailing freedoms in order to support liberal programs or goals. Social Security has been around since the 30s, Medicare since the mid-60s, to just take two examples, and they've had very positive impact on the lives of senior citizens, without increasing the power of the govt to curtail freedoms.

In addition, as super-investors such as Philip Fisher and Peter Lynch have pointed out (in Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits, and Learn to Earn, respectively), the extended role of the Federal government since the Great Depression has helped smooth the business cycle and reduced the severity of the boom and bust cycle that plagued the American economy in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Again, there's a lot more to history than the Nazis.

I have complete trust in the American people as voters, and in the people who are sent to Washington as elected representatives (at least that they won't try to be tyrants), and in the system of checks and balances that continues to work very well today. For example, just a few years ago, two power-hungry people -- Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton -- battled and checked each other until both left government, exhausted. I trust all these dynamics to prevent the federal government from overreaching and "using ... power for evil ends."

Fool on,

Chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If you're not careful you are going to inspire me to pick up a history book. Any recommendations as to a good place to start?

Thanks for the kind words.
The best place to start with history is not some dry tome, but pick a specific subject which you enjoy and if there is a well reviewed book on the subject or a biography you might enjoy then read it.

My path to history was warfare. I read about battles and the more I read about battles the more I learned about the societies and conditions which prompted them. The relationship between citizen and state was crucial for understanding warfare and I was off.

You did ask for a specific recommendation however so, if you like this wandering meandering approach to history (described immediately below) then I recommend its most famous practitioner James Burke. He's not going to get the scholarly nod but it is enjoyable to go for the ride.

In his opening pages, for instance, he writes of the invention of uniform coinage, an invention that hinged on some unknown Anatolian prospector's discovering that a fleck of gold rubbed against a piece of schist--a "touchstone"--would leave a mark indicating its quality. Just so, we owe the invention of modern printing to Johann Gutenberg's training as a goldsmith, for his knowledge of the properties of metals enabled him to develop a press whose letterforms would not easily wear down. With Gutenberg's invention, Burke notes, came a massive revolution in the European economy, for, as he writes, "the easier it is to communicate, the faster change happens."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Burke%2C%20James/102-0654873-5104163

Particularly Connections and The Day the Universe Changed.

Warmest regards,

TJ

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Nazi quote: We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living.

Chris' reply: The US federal government has not had full employment of citizens as a goal for years, if ever, and no liberals advocate it. It is now conventional wisdom among most policymakers that a certain level of unemployment is necessary to prevent inflation.

I'm sitting here wondering how anyone could think that the State seeking to make sure that some people are without jobs is any better that the State seeking to make sure that every one is employed.

Chris, would you like some more rope?

Regards,
Alan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Speaking of history and guns and since I mentioned Franco, I do believe that Franco was a military leader and that the Spanish Civil War began with members of the Spanish military taking up arms against the so-called Republicans that had assumed power from a Monarch. The military came down on the side of the "Nationalists" who were opposed to the socialist and anti-clerical reforms of the "Republicans". (funny how these terms get turned around in modern usage). It would be interesting to know if the "Republicans" had similar anti-gun philosophy which may have contributed to their own demise. I do believe however that it was their own disorganization and embracing of radical and somewhat competing factions that helped them lose their power. What is also interesting is the transition from Monarchy to Republicanism as experienced in most European countries. Maybe the Spanish Civil War was a natural product of that transition.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That is why I'm thrown off when people refer to the Nazi's as fascists
_________________

It's in the dictionary.
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=nazi
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=fascism
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Chris' reply: The US federal government has not had full employment of citizens as a goal for years, if ever, and no liberals advocate it. It is now conventional wisdom among most policymakers that a certain level of unemployment is necessary to prevent inflation.

I'm sitting here wondering how anyone could think that the State seeking to make sure that some people are without jobs is any better that the State seeking to make sure that every one is employed.

Without reading Chris's post, I note that most Economists believe that full employment is not the same as zero employment. Most economists accept the notion that a certain level of unemployment is natural. It represents the amount of employable resources that are in either transition from one job to another or simply choose not to work for a period of time for whatever reason.

I don't believe that policymakers believe that a certain level of unemployment is necessary to prevent inflation. However, policymakers used to have zero unemployment was a policy goal and could have helped stimulate inflationary pressures by way of trying to achieve zero unemployment. Nowadays, they accept a certain amount of "frictional" unemployment.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Great Post Chris!

My response is also long but in for a penny...

First of all you have no idea who I am or where I come from. My understanding of politics comes from history, and the unpleasant experiences I have had with both violent tyranny and benign tyranny all over the world Africa, Eastern Europe and Yugoslavia being the biggest examples.

I too believe intelligent people can disagree. I also believe many intelligent people are ignorant of many aspects of history. Just as I am ignorant about a great many things.

The point of the post was merely this when we involunatrily give money to the government for things beyond the necessity of the state, we lose a certain amount of freedom. The more we give, the more we lose. Eventually we place ourselves at risk of losing all. This I think was very clear to the founding fathers who wanted to limit in extremis the federal government. It was Jefferson who said...

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

This I believe is true. I never said liberals were Nazis. That stereotypical inference you made all by yourself. The path to tyranny is slippery. That was my point.

You believe "history is very much on the side of liberals, such as myself, who support a limited welfare state." Though this is not part of the power we gave to the government in our Constitution. You say "There are very few, if any, examples in AMERICAN history of the federal government overreaching and significantly curtailing freedoms in order to support liberal programs or goals." So my liberty is curtailed, but only slightly not "significantly." That's a relief, with the amount of money I pay in Taxes I would disagree. Regardless, by what right does the government, empowered by the body politic, established to secure the blessings of liberty, diminish my liberty even slightly. "Social Security has been around since the 30s, Medicare since the mid-60s, to just take two examples, and they've had very positive impact on the lives of senior citizens (except those who viewed SS as their full retirement and now are impoverished because they had not planned for any additional retirement income, or people like my Grandmother who had to give away all she owned to qualify for medicare...TJ), without increasing the power of the govt (Money equals power in America so that is false...TJ) to curtail freedoms." Yet it does so without warrant. If the state of Maryland wants to take my money to help seniors. I'll pitch in or move. If my mother needs assistance I'll help her. Where though is the constitutional warrant that says the IRS can knock on my door and imprison me if I don't give a 65 year old millionaire in Boca Raton, Florida part of my paycheck.

Since you wondered about me personally, and you shared with us some of your history...
I was raised by liberals (surprise), all my family are liberals all my nonwork related friends are liberals. I have one conservative Uncle. That's it. In fact at the local level I like liberal ideas (Parks, schools, mass transit, homeless shelters all that). I just think they only work well at the local and sometimes state level. My liberal friends are my intellectual equals and sometimes superiors. I don't listen to conservative talk radio very much. I'm not even a registered republican. So if I "stereotype" it is based on the foundation of my contacts with my very smart liberal friends. How could I have turned my back on these ideals. very simply. I discovered that all of my smart friends were not smarter than the dumb masses when it came to running there own lives, and even if they would run their lives better they should butt out anyway. When they wanted to run their lives for them (Social Security: the government can save for your retirement better than you) then I am cautious at best and wary of increased government power at worst.

TJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Author: TMFChris Date: 4/5/01 10:54 AM Number: 39404
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=14706372
_________________________________

Chris, I think you missed the point. That might have been the official Nazi doctrine, but it was all a bunch of lies designed to trick the people into supporting Hitler. There is no way Hitler actually believed or practiced that doctrine.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
The path to tyranny is slippery

So true...which is why I am outraged that anyone running for office would argue that legally cast votes should not be counted and that the USSC would go along with such a suppression of democracy.

--ET
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<< Most economists accept the notion that a certain level of unemployment is natural. It represents the amount of employable resources that are in either transition from one job to another or simply choose not to work for a period of time for whatever reason.>>

........Carajillo,....more years ago than I care to remember, I had an economics professor that felt that 2% unemployed was "zero unemployment"....I asked him how could that be....he said "well there's always some guys out there that just won't work under any circumstance, so 2% is about as low as you can get"........over the years I've come to agree with my old prof...I've actually known guys that have scuffled along without a real job for years......they do a little spot labor here and there, fish and hunt whenever they please; live in a trailer down by the river......they don't sweat April 15 either....

the beat goes on.....
Stonewalls
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
You may see a future Utopia, but we hear history's warnings. What is it that you see that see that you disregard history? What method of governance do you envision that prevents centrally powered government from using that power for evil ends? I would like to know.

Are you implying that liberals believe the same as Nazi's?

I don't see big government making a future Utopia. Liberals and moderates are not socialists or communists regardelss of what other say. You say we disregard history. The history I'm interested in is the one that shows poor people, especially children, forced to sell their bodies on the streets to earn money for food, yet still starved; or the one where businesses and people polluted land and drinking water unrestrained.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<,....more years ago than I care to remember, I had an economics professor that felt that 2% unemployed was "zero unemployment"....I asked him how could that be....he said "well there's always some guys out there that just won't work under any circumstance, so 2% is about as low as you can get"........over the years I've come to agree with my old prof...I've actually known guys that have scuffled along without a real job for years......they do a little spot labor here and there, fish and hunt whenever they please; live in a trailer down by the river......they don't sweat April 15 either....

Absolutely true. I am sure we have all met them. Under certain economic systems that have 0% unemployment of the population as their goal, these people are forced to work and employers are forced to hire them. Not a situation I would want to be in if I was trying to make a profit as a corporation. But, then again, under these economic systems, corporations do not have making a profit as a goal. So, gee, I guess it's a win-win situation. :o)


Michele

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Are you implying that liberals believe the same as Nazi's?

What I am saying is tyranny generally comes from a centrally controlled government and the path from liberty to central control is very gradual and makes its gains when the body politic is willing to sacrifice their liberty for saftey and security.

I don't see big government making a future Utopia.

Then why support it?

Liberals and moderates are not socialists or communists regardelss of what other say.

But you favor central control of the economy and implement social programs which redistribute wealth in a "fair and equitanble fashion"

You say we disregard history.

As a general rule, I do.

The history I'm interested in is the one that shows poor people, especially children, forced to sell their bodies on the streets to earn money for food, yet still starved; or the one where businesses and people polluted land and drinking water unrestrained.

And how do we solve this problem?
Rule of law and reasonable oversight on the conduct of business as it affects others.
How do we achieve it?
My survey of history tells me...Capitalism, some variation of democratic rule, and limited government.

What does the history you're interested in tell you to do?

TJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
<What does the history you're interested in tell you to do?>

mine tells me not to generalize and/or pigeonhole
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
So now you've changed your claim. First we supported central government, now we support big government. I support adequate government. Do you support no government?

But you favor central control of the economy and implement social programs which redistribute wealth in a "fair and equitanble fashion"

I don't think having limited social programs based on need is central control in the fashion of socialism and fascism.

And how do we solve this problem?
Rule of law and reasonable oversight on the conduct of business as it affects others.
How do we achieve it?
My survey of history tells me...Capitalism, some variation of democratic rule, and limited government.


And we have those three things now. My perception of you and many conservatives/libertarians on this board is that you want NO government at all, especially federal government. IMO, federal government is needed to provide oversight to businesses because they tend to operate on a national level. Imagine the paperwork mess that would result if no federal rules existed, and corporations had to deal with up to 52 different complete sets of rules.

I don't see how anyone can complain that the current set of laws that affect the conduct of business is unreasonable. American business for the past ten years has boomed, they certainly don't seem to be suffering from the current level of government.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
What does the history you're interested in tell you to do?

mine tells me not to generalize and/or pigeonhole


In LOOTP you responded to this quote..."Do we really want to take chances with that much contaminated meat being served to our children at lunch?" "

with

Ah screw 'em. If they want uncontaminated food, they can go to private school.

Physician heal thyself.

TJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
"I don't see how anyone can complain that the current set of laws that affect the conduct of business is unreasonable."

This reminds me of George Mcgovern stating that he felt the same way as this.....until he opened a Bed and Breakfast after retiring from the Senate and had to deal with the Federal paperwork bureaucracy himself. He went out of business as I recall.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<Physician heal thyself>

and your impressive research skills relate to my use of history how . . . ?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
So now you've changed your claim. First we supported central government, now we support big government. I support adequate government. Do you support no government?

Central Government and big governemt is typically synonomous but not always. I submit many on the left support big and central government. I do support government. Two weeks ago I was writing in support of the environment, gay rights and government support to the disabled. I guess you missed those posts. I support reasonable governmental oversight on the activities of business.

I don't think having limited social programs based on need is central control in the fashion of socialism and fascism.

Neither do I but that's not what we have is it? And who decides who is needy? The people who seek your vote. We must be cautious of a self corrupting process.

My survey of history tells me...Capitalism, some variation of democratic rule, and limited government.
And we have those three things now. My perception of you and many conservatives/libertarians on this board is that you want NO government at all, especially federal government.
Never said that, limited yes. None. never...TJ IMO, federal government is needed to provide oversight to businesses because they tend to operate on a national level. Imagine the paperwork mess that would result if no federal rules existed, and corporations had to deal with up to 52 different complete sets of rules. They do have to deal with federal, state and local rules wherever they operate.

I don't see how anyone can complain that the current set of laws that affect the conduct of business is unreasonable. American business for the past ten years has boomed, they certainly don't seem to be suffering from the current level of government.
I don't think I ever made that point (I would, but I don't think I did). I believe the point you made was business was polluting and forcing children into poverty because of the lack of government involvement. My point when this all started was US intervention into Africa to solve these problems would not necessarily help and could possibly hurt. I stated that the form of government a society adopts is critical to its success. You said "We need to help" I said what should we do and can you show me if previous help has proven successful. I showed in many cases "help" has hindered the rise from poverty and promoted tyranny over the poor world wide. You said you had no time to research.

I think we are in much agreement domestically on regulatory necessity but differ on foreign aid.

TJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Physician heal thyself

and your impressive research skills relate to my use of history how . . . ?


I'm sorry. I thought you were being a little hypocritical. If I recall you did not use history at all only concluded it was wrong to pidgeonhole and genralize. If I cannot assume some things about someone who supports a specific political philosophy then the idea of political philosophy is meaningless. So I do generalize. I don't like right and left, I think that's way to general. Earlier today I posted 5 philosophies and 6 belief systems so we could limit the amount of generalization, if people felt more comfortable with associating with one of them instead of being merely left or right.

From the earlier posts I can say I am on the border of libertarian and conservative. I also follow the belief system described as corporatia. You may feel free to generalize all you wish as TMFChris did with me earlier. If you are wrong and misrepresent my beliefs as baitham did then I will correct you.

Cheers,

TJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<<For my liberal friends this is why we on the right are so unnerved by big government. You may see a future Utopia, but we hear history's warnings. What is it that you see that see that you disregard history? What method of governance do you envision that prevents centrally powered government from using that power for evil ends? I would like to know. >>>

That's really interesting. But how do you explain the dichotomy between what the right wing says about freedom and their efforts to control through coercion and rhetoric and lies? How do you explain that like Germany in the 1930s and onward, the right wing allows no deviation from the party line? Storm trooper tactics by the right wing instead of a powerful central government. That's really scarey.

"What you do screams so loud, I can't hear what you're saying."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
That's really interesting. But how do you explain the dichotomy between what the right wing says about freedom and their efforts to control through coercion and rhetoric and lies?

Examples please.

How do you explain that like Germany in the 1930s and onward, the right wing allows no deviation from the party line?

Examples please.

Storm trooper tactics by the right wing instead of a powerful central government.

Huh!?!

That's really scarey.
"What you do screams so loud, I can't hear what you're saying."


Indeed.

Be specific and I'll be happy to engage all you want.

TJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
...That's really interesting. But how do you explain the dichotomy between what the right wing says about freedom and their efforts to control through coercion and rhetoric and lies? How do you explain that like Germany in the 1930s and onward, the right wing allows no deviation from the party line? Storm trooper tactics by the right wing instead of a powerful central government. That's really scarey.

"What you do screams so loud, I can't hear what you're saying."


If Republicans are right wing, then how do you account for their defections on the Congressional votes this week? That doesn't look like lock step to me.

HMMMMMM. The democats on the other hand did vote lock step with the leadership. Hmmmmm. Wow, even the lies where there regarding gutting Medicare and Social Security.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Well, if folks are looking for quotes, etc. from both sides of the fence, here is a quick selection, shamelessly stolen from sites on the Net dealing with the concept of authoritarian control and universal law (particularily law created for the good of the people). ---------

"There is the great silent, continuous struggle; the struggle between the State and the individual; between the State which demands and the Individual who attempts to evade such demands. Because the individual, left to himself, unless he be a saint or a hero, always refuses to pay taxes, obey laws, or go to war."
- Benito Mussolini

"I'm here because I want to redefine the meaning of citizenship in America.... If you're asked in school, 'What does it mean to be a good citizen?' I want the answer to be, 'Well, to be a good citizen, you have to obey the law, you've got to go to work or be in school, you've got to pay your taxes and - oh, yes, you have to serve....'"
- Bill Clinton

"And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities."
Bill Clinton,

"To destroy arms, however, is not enough. We must create even as we destroy - creating world-wide law and law enforcement as we outlaw world-wide war and weapons."

John F. Kennedy Future of the United Nations Organizations 1961

"By the end of this decade (2000 AD) we will live under the first One World Government that has ever existed in the society of nations ... a government with absolute authority to decide the basic issues of human survival. One world government is inevitable."

Pope John Paul II quoted by Malachi Martin in the book "The Keys of This Blood"

We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a New World Order, a world where the rule of law, not the rule of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this New World Order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders."

President George Bush


I don't know. None of it sounds particularly cheery to me.


Michele
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Examples please.

Storm trooper tactics by the right wing instead of a powerful central government.

Huh!?!

How about Ruby Ridge and Waco?

Oh, wait a minute, they were Janet Reno's storm troopers weren't they?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
If I cannot assume some things about someone who supports a specific political philosophy then the idea of political philosophy is meaningless. So I do generalize

Hmmmm.
This from the person who labels those who disagree with them as "intellectually lazy".

Funny, cause my definition of "intellectually lazy" is some on who relies on labels and generalizations.

NellieD

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
How about Ruby Ridge and Waco?

Oh, wait a minute, they were Janet Reno's storm troopers weren't they?

______________________

What about Elian Gonzales?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Response to 39505 (too long to copy) by TJLea

Disingenuous requests for specificity: The last refuge of fools and scoundrels. Not sure which you are; I trust the former.

You can start by reading the posts on this board as you all spout the "party line" while you march in lock-step around the mulberry bush. (The "bush" pun was unintended, but I like it.)

For lies and meaningless rhetoric you can go to the right wing press. Although Limbaugh and Drudge aren't "press" you can start there and move on to the Wash. Times and I'm sure many I've never even heard of.

I not comfortable using Hitler and the Nazis to discuss current politics. It strikes me as cheap and dirty. So I'm not going to carry on the storm trooper analogy (or this discussion) any further.

I don't know exactly how all of you have been manipulated in thinking you've arrived at the ultimate truth with absolutely no room for doubt but it's interesting and frightening. You might have a look at Eric Hoffer's "True Believer". It's old but pertinent.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Hmmmm.
This from the person who labels those who disagree with them as "intellectually lazy".

Funny, cause my definition of "intellectually lazy" is some on who relies on labels and generalizations.


See I define intellectually lazy as someone unwilling to do their homework, someone unwilling to seek the fundamental and secondary causes and effects of a policy issue, those who refuse to acknowledge data which jeapordizes their point of view, or those who do not state or defend positions but merely perform drive-by-postings assured that their opinion must be correct.

In the case of today's postings at least TMFChris was willing to say medicare and social security improved the lives of elderly and was something we need to do. Everyone else merely throwing stones. I disagree with Chris but I don't think he is intellectually lazy. Yet you said that all who disagree with me are labeled by me as intellectually lazy.

So, if anyone here is intellectually lazy according to your standard, we should assume it would be you who labeled me a labler. Correct?

TJ
The Human Pinata (Man! I must have hit a nerve today)
:)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Yet you said that all who disagree with me are labeled by me as intellectually lazy.

Now, where do you think I got that idea? Could it have been from your little "What I believe" manifesto (post 39360):

Who do you believe opposes your point of view?
The intellectually lazy.


You have used those exact words countless times on this board to label those who disagree with you on a variety of issues. Are you backpedaling now? (And note in this post and my last: I did not say "all who disagree" which would have been a generalization, I said "those who disagree".)

So, if anyone here is intellectually lazy according to your standard, we should assume it would be you who labeled me a labler. Correct?

I did not label you anything. I simply shared my definition of "intellectually lazy". And since you are seem to think we all care so much about your definitions of things, I don't see how this would bother you.

See, just because you believe something (and apparently believe yourself to be more "intellectually motivated" than others) doesn't mean you are right, no matter how long your posts are.

Carry on!
NellieD
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Not long before, but without doubt once the quote went into "common good before the individual good", the source was obvious. It is not so clear to me, however, why centralized power by definition would be worse than decentralized power or even the power of one individual. It strikes me that it's not the centralization of power that causes problems. There's another quote: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." I think that without vigilance on the part of the powerful, they are likely to be corrupted by their power whether it is absolute or not. I'm a transactional lawyer, and I truly see the very generalized benefits to society (as well as many specific benefits to certain individuals) of private (i.e., non-state owned), big businesses in the marketplace every day. But isn't there an element of centralized power (and presumably the accompanying evils) there, too, at least in the tendency of every market player to try to gain market share to the point of dominance if not monopoly? Why is an elected government's exercise of its power more evil than the exercise of power by a monopolist? In that light, there seems to be a disconnect between the conservative tenet that centralized power is evil and conservatives' simultaneous weakness on the antitrust front. Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
FW,

Disingenuous requests for specificity: The last refuge of fools and scoundrels. Not sure which you are; I trust the former.

"Scoundrel.... Scoundrel?"--Han Solo. Nothing disingenuous your words were so generalized they would have been easy to pick apart. It just makes it easier when you go first.

You can start by reading the posts on this board as you all spout the "party line" while you march in lock-step around the mulberry bush.

You're right; gay marraige, polygamy, gays in the military, end to farm subsidies, environmental regulation, no federal funding for public education are all in the Republican party plank. Not!

I don't know exactly how all of you have been manipulated in thinking you've arrived at the ultimate truth with absolutely no room for doubt but it's interesting and frightening. You might have a look at Eric Hoffer's "True Believer". It's old but pertinent

No one here thinks they have the ultimate truth. But we do have an opinion and we have the capacity to reinforce our arguments. If you read most of the posts they are a call for debate not a call for adherence. That your worldview is so threatened by other opinions stated strongly merely makes me presume it is a weak position, essentially meritless.

So I'm not going to carry on the storm trooper analogy (or this discussion) any further.

I think that is wise.

TJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Free40,

Well posted. You asked.

Why is an elected government's exercise of its power more evil than the exercise of power by a monopolist? In that light, there seems to be a disconnect between the conservative tenet that centralized power is evil and conservatives' simultaneous weakness on the antitrust front.

In a nutshell because government traditionally has a monopoly on force and can kill you (see Hitler, Stalin etc...), wheras Microsoft can only make you pay $40 for a windows upgrade (even a monopolies prices cannot exceed what people are willing to pay). That said I should imagine conservatives suppport anti-trust regulation. Capitalists desire competition. However, in Microsofts case there was pleanty of room for doubt as to the nature of the monopoly. For example, if I own all the silver in the world I have a monopoly, but if everyone decides that diet coke is the only soft drink they'll consume does Coca Cola have a monopoly that must be broken up?

Cheers,

TJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
NellieD,

Well posted.

As long as we're generalizing.
On intellectual laziness. I do think "liberals" are generally intellectually lazy. I do generally disagree with most things liberals have to say. However I do not knee jerk and assume everyone who doesn't agree with me is intellectually lazy. Everyone who is willing to post has to be regarded as an individual. Even then, many refuse to bring their A-Game to the board. When I say: I believe A. Here's a quote supporting A which shows I'm not alone in thinking A and historically others have thought A as well. Here's some research on this web site saying A is supported by these studies and here is a book on A for those who want to read more on A. And someone says: Well I disagree, A isn't right and I'd love to stay and present my argument but I've got to go now. And by the way just because you say it doesn't mean it's right. Well then I will probably specifically call them intellectually lazy.

Why? Someone used to do it to me. It made me so mad I had to do my homework just to show him. Ofttimes, I found his arguments had merits and I was forced to rethink my position. Sometimes I was right, he was just speaking with authority and had nothing to back it up. Either way it was good for me and I was hoping to pass on some intellectual rigor to someone who may hate me and want to prove me wrong.

did not label you anything. I simply shared my definition of "intellectually lazy". And since you are seem to think we all care so much about your definitions of things, I don't see how this would bother you.

I am hoist upon my own petard. I apologize.

See, just because you believe something (and apparently believe yourself to be more "intellectually motivated" than others) doesn't mean you are right, no matter how long your posts are.

Of course you are correct. But If I offer solid argument should I not expect solid retort. If I offer evidence should I not expect counterevidence or the repudiation of that evidence? As to post length. Sorry. We intellectually lazy, know-it-all, intolerant, name calling, right wing nazis (did I leave aything out)are long winded. I will seek brevity in the future.

TJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
TJ,

But If I offer solid argument should I not expect solid retort. If I offer evidence should I not expect counterevidence or the repudiation of that evidence?

No. Not at all and this is where you are completely off base.
Most of us come here for some entertainment and to hear a few opinions. If anyone is forming their political opinions purely on the "evidence" that others post here, then I am truly frightened (and I would consider that person to be intellectually lazy).
The thing is: no matter how much evidence, quotes, links, etc. you put in your posts, you can still be very, very wrong. The fact that people don't produce counter-evidence and repudiation of every one of your points is proof that they have better things to do with their time and/or don't have such an inflated notion of their views that they feel they need to share every last one of them.

You say:
I do think "liberals" are generally intellectually lazy. I do generally disagree with most things liberals have to say.

But then in another post you tell about all of your intelligent liberal friends whose opinions you value.
So which is it? Or do you think that, being your friends, the liberals you associate with are somehow intellectually superior to the average liberal?

And I don't even know why you would write something like: "We intellectually lazy, know-it-all, intolerant, name calling, right wing nazis (did I leave aything out)are long winded". I have never called you any of these things and am the first one to reject labels and name calling of any sort. It is beyond me why you would want to perpetuate such non-productive exchanges.

NellieD
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
The fact that people don't produce counter-evidence and repudiation of every one of your points is proof that they have better things to do with their time and/or don't have such an inflated notion of their views that they feel they need to share every last one of them.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
How about Ruby Ridge and Waco?

Oh, wait a minute, they were Janet Reno's storm troopers weren't they?


To all conspiracy nuts:

The Ruby Ridge incident occurred Aug. 22, 1992. GB1 was pres.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Come on, ogrecat...you know Hillary was behind Ruby Ridge...she was also on the grassy knoll....she was also Deep Throat (well, maybe that was Monica). Anyhoo, we have already identified the source of all evil so your attempts a disinformation are futile!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
OK, this is a reply to TJLea's post, which he made yesterday but is way back in this thread. I guess that's the consequence of a popular thread.

Anyway, thanks for your reply TJ. I probably came across as overly sensitive, but using the Nazis as a comparison point will cause reactions. You wrote: The point of the post was merely this when we involunatrily give money to the government for things beyond the necessity of the state, we lose a certain amount of freedom.

Perhaps, I think it's a tiny if infinitesimal amount, since we are in a democratic republic. It gets to what you think of as involuntary. When taxes are levied by elected representatives, there is an element of consent. We fought the revolution for taxation with representation, which we now have, not for no taxation.

You then quote Jefferson: It was Jefferson who said...

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."


Far be it from me to correct Jefferson, but I think up til World War II, he was right, but since then I think he's wrong. When you look at the civil rights movement, for example, you see a huge increase in freedom in this country. I'm beginning to think that what progresses naturally in this country is paranoia about government.


The path to tyranny is slippery. That was my point

I appreciate that, but that's why I noted that the UK's far greater progress, just to take one example, down the road towards socialism in the 70s produced Thatcher, not fascism. That's why I talk about paranoia.

Anyway, have to run.

Fool on,

Chris
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement