38 replies to this topic

[Lysistrata]

Let's unpack all this...

 

 

Regarding abortion, the left supports a woman's right to chose.

You don't have to be left to support a woman's right to choose... but to be right you have to support a woman's responsibility to pay for their own abortion. You have to be left if you want to steal money to pay for your personal problems.

 

 

My definition of being liberal, or left leaning involves having concern for and protecting the individual liberties of all people, not just the powerful.

Along with having your own definition of liberal, you also want to be the one who decides what individual liberties will be protected, and which individual liberties will be discarded. I can't see much difference on what you believe is powerful.

 

 

I believe most (not all) of our founding fathers were liberals philosophically and the constitution is a liberal document.

Can't stop making shit up. This is what the left does most often. The founding fathers were rich dudes that didn't want to pay taxes to a Monarchy on the other side of the Atlantic. They wanted their own country, and their own government. The Constitution is a set of laws created to bind the states on common ground... it's not a political platform.

 

 

I am hesitant to continue my thoughts on this because it is really hard for some people to show respectful disagreement and I'd rather not get into it with anyone.

It sounds like you could be the person DM was talking to on Facebook. Just lay down the law according to you, call them Hitler, and leave before you lose the debate.

 

 

But suffice it to say that a leader who puts the well being of the few over the well being of the many is not liberal.

Let me get this straight... a leader (Obama) who puts the well being of the few (minorities, gays, illegals) over the well being of the many (everyone else)... is not liberal? So, no one on the left is liberal. Got it.

 

 

Also communism is a badly abused term that has ceased to have much to do with Marx's philosophy.

So, the philosophy of Karl Marx is good... you just hate everything that his philosophy turns out to be? Got that too. 

[Sister Midnight]

Yawn. There you go again, Listeria, I knew you'd resort to distorting, dismissing, deflecting, and belittling what I say. You've become predictable and your response to me is boring and unworthy.

[DarkFox]

Second, there is some validity between a Hitler/Trump comparison. Hitler and many Germans of his time were anti-semites. He recognized this and used hate and xenophobia to rally the downtrodden country to scapegoat Jews as the cause of many of Germany's woes. By promising to make Germany great again and making blanket statement that preyed upon hate and fears of OTHERS, who were a threat to German way of life, he rose to power. Trump has used those same tactics, preying upon xenophobia, hate, rage over the perceived loss of power to certain ethnic groups (early example: Mexican "murders and rapists" invading America and ruining it; Current example: people from eight Muslim countries are too dangerous to admit into the USA). Trump promised to "make America great again" with blanket statements condemning these OTHERS. No, he hasn't attempted genocide, but if a "Final Solution" is on his agenda, xenophobic rhetoric would be how he'll get a movement started. Hitler didn't start out yelling "KILL ALL THE JEWS IN THE WORLD," he did it all gradually so it became more and more acceptable to marginalize the Jews and then send them off to "camps." Hitler became a world leader with many of the same tactics Trump has used to become a world leader. And, no I'm not saying Trump actually is planning genocide, just pointing out similar tactics to gain power, and why the use of said tactics is alarming to some people.

 

 

All valid points but many leaders/dictators/jerks came into power using similar tactics. While I can see their point of view better from your well written response, I still don't see it, and hopefully never will. Trump is motivated by money, words to him are just a means to making money. I see Trump as a completely different beast, because mass genocide is no where near as profitable as long wars, or better yet trade agreements.

[Fox Fire]

Along with having your own definition of liberal, you also want to be the one who decides what individual liberties will be protected, and which individual liberties will be discarded. I can't see much difference on what you believe is powerful.

 

Her comment was actually exactly what liberalism is.

 

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.^[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation.^{[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

 

Left/Right doesn't necessarily equal Conservative/Liberal. 

 

Can't stop making shit up. This is what the left does most often. The founding fathers were rich dudes that didn't want to pay taxes to a Monarchy on the other side of the Atlantic. They wanted their own country, and their own government. The Constitution is a set of laws created to bind the states on common ground... it's not a political platform.

 

They were absolutely liberals. They're liberalism largely revolutionized the worlds politics. The constitution is the oldest liberal governing document in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#American_Revolution

 

Modern American liberalism and conservatism are both based on the classical liberalism. The only difference is views on markets and their interpretation of liberty. 

[Lord MK]

I agree with lysistrata, on his views on the founders of your country's founders.
Many want to believe that they were liberalls, but were they?
They were all rich and powerful, with the exception of maybe hamilton.
Check the facts before airing all kinds of comments.

But i don't agree with lys point glorifying the american second amendment.
The second amendment was one of the results of the founding fathers being rich and powerful.
Those times, only people like them had guns and they felt guns are their right and so created the second amendment.
Giving people right to bear arms is a fuse to a disaster.
It will only lead to racial violence, hate crimes etc.

[Sister Midnight]

Second, there is some validity between a Hitler/Trump comparison. Hitler and many Germans of his time were anti-semites. He recognized this and used hate and xenophobia to rally the downtrodden country to scapegoat Jews as the cause of many of Germany's woes. By promising to make Germany great again and making blanket statement that preyed upon hate and fears of OTHERS, who were a threat to German way of life, he rose to power. Trump has used those same tactics, preying upon xenophobia, hate, rage over the perceived loss of power to certain ethnic groups (early example: Mexican "murders and rapists" invading America and ruining it; Current example: people from eight Muslim countries are too dangerous to admit into the USA). Trump promised to "make America great again" with blanket statements condemning these OTHERS. No, he hasn't attempted genocide, but if a "Final Solution" is on his agenda, xenophobic rhetoric would be how he'll get a movement started. Hitler didn't start out yelling "KILL ALL THE JEWS IN THE WORLD," he did it all gradually so it became more and more acceptable to marginalize the Jews and then send them off to "camps." Hitler became a world leader with many of the same tactics Trump has used to become a world leader. And, no I'm not saying Trump actually is planning genocide, just pointing out similar tactics to gain power, and why the use of said tactics is alarming to some people.

 
 
All valid points but many leaders/dictators/jerks came into power using similar tactics. While I can see their point of view better from your well written response, I still don't see it, and hopefully never will. Trump is motivated by money, words to him are just a means to making money. I see Trump as a completely different beast, because mass genocide is no where near as profitable as long wars, or better yet trade agreements.

I think this is apropos: https://thenib.com/strength-through-unity?t=recent

[ccabal86]

Why I really dislike the 1-dimensional "Left-Right" scale is that it's reductionist to the point of being completely useless. At the very least a Political Compass-style 2-dimensional chart to determine one's political character is necessary: https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 . Having one scale show the "social" and the other the "economic" dimension is a fairly good start. In this regard Stalin was "strongly authoritarian, strongly collectivist" which I think nobody can really argue against.

 

Off-topic, but my current alignment is:

 

Economic Left/Right: -2.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.97

 

Which to be honest, I think is kind of off, as I would not by any means consider myself to be "left" on the economic scale, but I'm also not a huge fan of authoritarian solutions. That said, this test is quite old, and their questions could use a good bit of updating.

[Lord MK]

That site is outdated, man.

"Socialists like Mahatma occupied a less extreme leftist position "
gandhi is not a leftist or right or centrist, he was a very apolitical man. He had only one goal, the true freedom of India.

[DeathMerchant]

But i don't agree with lys point glorifying the american second amendment.
The second amendment was one of the results of the founding fathers being rich and powerful.
Those times, only people like them had guns and they felt guns are their right and so created the second amendment.
Giving people right to bear arms is a fuse to a disaster.
It will only lead to racial violence, hate crimes etc.

The main reasoning for the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights was to protect against future tyranny of the government, should the government be so inclined to engage in such practices. In essence, it was designed to be another form of checks and balances. At the time slaves were not considered free people, so the right to bear arms didn't apply to them, but the rich and powerful were not the only ones with firearms. Nor did the rich and powerful ever intend to take away or restrict the average free person's ability to own a firearm. You have to remember that merchants, hunters, trappers, craftsmen, foresters, builders, and any other profession of the day had relatively easy access to weaponry. All one had to worry about was keeping a small amount of ammunition and your gunpowder dry. Another point to note is that the average civilian also had access and the ability to own the most powerful weapons of the day. Cannons, Howitzers, and Mortars could be owned by anyone willing to pay for them. In fact, during the 1600s-1700s, artillery groups were often privately owned companies, operated by a volunteer force. And contrary to popular belief, even several forms of 'automatic' weaponry existed at the time. The founding fathers were indeed aware of the existence of the Belton flintlock, Girandoni air rifle, Kalthoff repeater, Puckle gun, and to a lesser extent the Pepperbox guns. So the creators of the Constitution and Bill of Rights knew of such powerful weapons in the hands of private citizens, and they chose to protect that right of their citizens owning the most advanced weaponry at the time. Otherwise their would have been a short clause that would have read something like this, "With the exception of calibers larger than X inches, capable rate of fire beyond X of shots per minute, limited to X number of weapon ownership per person, and the weapon owner must register all future weapon purchases with the Federal or State Government they currently reside in". Now that is not to say I am advocating for every American to have the ability to legally own a WMD, as those kill indiscriminately and require a vast amount of time and monetary to safeguard and maintain them. But I have no qualms about a law abiding citizen owning a suppressed or fully automatic weapon. Which can already be purchased legally in almost very state. As for criminals, it is also rather easy it is to manufacture those types of weapons illegally. They don't need to follow the law to buy a machine gun, they simply build there own. I've mentioned it on these forums before, but go look at some of the ingenious fully automatic weapons built from scratch in places such as Palestine, Pakistan, Philippines, Mexico, Chile, Iraq, Canada, Australia, and the UK. All countries with some of the most extreme gun control laws and yet that doesn't stop an enterprising black market from creating a supply to fill a demand.

 

People who may be subject to hate crimes, also have the provisions to purchase firearms themselves. That is the best part of America, if you are a law abiding citizen, you have every legal right to protect yourself, friends, and loved ones with the use of a firearm. All regardless of economic status, religion, race, gender, or what you classify your sexuality as. I have never met a single person, who by purchasing a firearm, filled their heart with hate and made them want to kill someone. And with the exception of a couple individuals rotting in prison for life, I don't expect to ever meet someone like that.

[ccabal86]

That site is outdated, man.

"Socialists like Mahatma occupied a less extreme leftist position "
gandhi is not a leftist or right or centrist, he was a very apolitical man. He had only one goal, the true freedom of India.

 

I did say it was outdated, I just wanted to make a point. Gandhi was not apolitical by any means. He had a very reactionary, "back to the roots" ideology that echewed industrial development and envisioned a largely agrarian-based society. He was very much political.

[Sister Midnight]

Why I really dislike the 1-dimensional "Left-Right" scale is that it's reductionist to the point of being completely useless. At the very least a Political Compass-style 2-dimensional chart to determine one's political character is necessary: https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 . Having one scale show the "social" and the other the "economic" dimension is a fairly good start. In this regard Stalin was "strongly authoritarian, strongly collectivist" which I think nobody can really argue against.

Off-topic, but my current alignment is:

Economic Left/Right: -2.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.97

Which to be honest, I think is kind of off, as I would not by any means consider myself to be "left" on the economic scale, but I'm also not a huge fan of authoritarian solutions. That said, this test is quite old, and their questions could use a good bit of updating.

Why I really dislike the 1-dimensional "Left-Right" scale is that it's reductionist to the point of being completely useless. At the very least a Political Compass-style 2-dimensional chart to determine one's political character is necessary: https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 . Having one scale show the "social" and the other the "economic" dimension is a fairly good start. In this regard Stalin was "strongly authoritarian, strongly collectivist" which I think nobody can really argue against.

Off-topic, but my current alignment is:

Economic Left/Right: -2.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.97

Which to be honest, I think is kind of off, as I would not by any means consider myself to be "left" on the economic scale, but I'm also not a huge fan of authoritarian solutions. That said, this test is quite old, and their questions could use a good bit of updating.

Your Political Compass

Economic Left/Right: -5.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.82

I'm more liberal than Ghandi! LMAO!

[Lord MK]

That site is outdated, man.

"Socialists like Mahatma occupied a less extreme leftist position "
gandhi is not a leftist or right or centrist, he was a very apolitical man. He had only one goal, the true freedom of India.

I did say it was outdated, I just wanted to make a point. Gandhi was not apolitical by any means. He had a very reactionary, "back to the roots" ideology that echewed industrial development and envisioned a largely agrarian-based society. He was very much political.

Back to the roots?
Gandhi never envisioned the idea of an agrarian society. From where did you get these points?
The left have a nasty habit of distorting India's history.
Gandhi was never left, in fact he was one of the founders of the Indian National Congress, which is a centre-right party. But that is not to contradict my early statement, gandhi formed that party only because everyone persuaded him and because of his law background and higher education ,he knew that the fight for independence has to be both political and apolitical.
He never eschewed industrial development development,
If anything he promoted development that makes Indians go unhungry.
He was an active promoter of khadi industries, and every other indian industries.
He only resented those british industries whose sole aim was to loot India.
If you think Gandhi was a back to roots person, boy you donot know Gandhi.

[ccabal86]

Small, self-sufficient and communal economies VS Nehru's large scale industrial programs. Everyone should do some "bread making" work. The economy should serve to satisfy people's needs and give them a spiritual experience vs the economy should generate wealth and profit.

Sounds pretty "back to the roots" for me

[Lord MK]

Gandhi was Nehru's mentor.

Spiritual experience?
What?

Satisfying people needs is what every economy does.

People need wealth to satisfy their needs and so an economy that creates wealth is one that satisfy people's needs so Gandhi's ideals were similar to Nehru's.

[onbekende]

 

You have to be left if you want to steal money to pay for your personal problems.

 

eeeeeh, you have a weird idea of what "the left" is if that is a definition you are going with.

[Lysistrata]

 

 

You have to be left if you want to steal money to pay for your personal problems.

 

eeeeeh, you have a weird idea of what "the left" is if that is a definition you are going with.

 

Socialism steals money from people that earn it, and gives it to people who don't. Weird idea of what the left is, but it's a pretty straightforward and honest idea of complete weirdness... I know. The problem with Socialism is when they finally run out of other people's money to steal... then everyone is poor. There have been plenty of examples in history that demonstrate how stupid this is. I'm glad to know I won't live long enough to see the destruction. I will just live my life the best I can, for as long as I can.

[onbekende]

Yep, clearly doesn't understand socialism. Does understand Capitalism strangly to the C (easy pun ).

 

Stop trying to claim every narcissist in the world is a socialist, stop trying to make socialism fit into a personal survival strategy mindframe. It is about society, a group of people, plural! I once again find myself wondering why we haven't got enough islands on this world...

[Lysistrata]

Yep, clearly doesn't understand socialism. Does understand Capitalism strangly to the C (easy pun ).

 

Stop trying to claim every narcissist in the world is a socialist, stop trying to make socialism fit into a personal survival strategy mindframe. It is about society, a group of people, plural! I once again find myself wondering why we haven't got enough islands on this world...

[onbekende]

gratz?