Toddster at least attack extremist socialism, not liberalism. Way different agendas.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Toddster at least attack extremist socialism, not liberalism. Way different agendas.

Sorry I disagree completly. Both lead to the same place.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Toddster at least attack extremist socialism, not liberalism. Way different agendas.

Current liberalism is pushing socialist/communist ideals. Most socialist/communist governments can be shown to be detrimental to their populations in one way or another (see Soviet Union, North Korea and China human rights abuses). One does not need to be pushing Naziism to be dangerous.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: I just didn't think we had 'em on PFF.

We've been saying that for years now.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Current liberalism is pushing socialist/communist ideals. Most socialist/communist governments can be shown to be detrimental to their populations in one way or another (see Soviet Union, North Korea and China human rights abuses). One does not need to be pushing Naziism to be dangerous.

A case of modern politicians demonizing a philosophy by associating it with something diametrically opposed. Damn liberals is easy if you can equate them with 'communist' dictatorships, and taking away peoples freedom but that's the exact opposite of the definition.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

To Quote:

Liberalism
Liberalism can be understood as (1) a political tradition (2) a political philosophy and (3) a general philosophical theory, encompassing a theory of value, a conception of the person and a moral theory as well as a political philosophy. As a political tradition liberalism has varied in different countries. In England — in many ways the birthplace of liberalism — the liberal tradition in politics has centred on religious toleration, government by consent, personal and, especially, economic freedom. In France liberalism has been more closely associated with secularism and democracy. In the United States liberals often combine a devotion to personal liberty with an antipathy to capitalism, while the liberalism of Australia tends to be much more sympathetic to capitalism but often less enthusiastic about civil liberties.

So as the I and most liberals defines it... tolerance, personal and economic freedom, government by consent. Doesn't sound much like a fascist society to me, and sure doesn't sound like the sort of society that rounds up and kills members it doesn't agree with. That may be the result in socialist countries where freedoms have been given up for 'security' and the "good of the whole". Liberalism is more about the good of the individual even when it clashes with the wants of the majority. Liberalism will clash with Capitalism when Capitalism turns into Fascism. It will also clash with Socialism when that turns into Totalitarism. Start taking away property, freedom, consent and your not in a liberal society. Liberals are the ones against abortion laws. Invasion of personal decision. Gun laws? Liberals are on both sides... if you are a Libertarian like myself your against most gun laws also.

As a Libertarian, I'm pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-business yet anti-corporations running this country, pro-privacy, anti-large centralized government, anti-religous public institutions, and think our judical system needs a shot of common sense. I'm anti-stupid wars where we stick our noses into other country's business for the sake of corporate profits or because we feel a case of manifest destiny and think we can run their country better than they can Is anything there that sounds like the ex- Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, WWII Germany or Italy? Liberalism is where you do what you want to do until it adversely impacts others. Stray to far in any extreme and your not talking about liberals, your talking democracy turned to anarchy, communism turned in to socialist dictatorship, capitalism turned fascism, freedom of religon falling to theocracies.

It's all about balance and the consent of the people. Once you tell a person they can't do something because the government says so, because it would be bad for business, because it would be bad for them, you've moved outside liberalism. That's why liberals can't agree... there is no perfect example, they can't agree with each other. Some will want guns outlawed because they feel everyone will be safer, others will feel that's a false belief (me!). Freedom as a basic tenent is hard to corral. The average person will be willing to give up rights, freedom, privacy etc for a sense of safety/justice/whatever the person taking it uses as the boogieman of the day. A liberal may want to take away the drug companies ability to charge us up the woohoo because as a country we can afford it, but it's that balancing point... have the capitalist companies turned our government fascist? (ie. is the government being run for their benefit rather than the people). When we can be taken to wars that only benefit companies, when people are being thrust into insurmountable debt by legalized loansharking with banks making the rules and enforcing them to their own benefit, are we a republic by and for the people or are we a fascist republic (by and for the corporations)?

If you think we are still a representative democracy by and for the people... try and do something about the agricorps or mining corporations poisoning the land we live on and the water we drink. Is it socialism to want the land and water NOT polluted for corporate profit? That's the line where someone is doing something that effects everyone else. If you sit in a house reading **** and eating cheetos... does that effect the rest of us? Doesn't effect me, shouldn't be agencies worrying about it

jewish supresm at its best.

quote Originally posted by STIFFLER: jewish supresm at its best.

I guess this proves you don't have to be able to spell to be a disgusting racist bigot.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: I guess this proves you don't have to be able to spell to be a disgusting racist bigot.

Among other things.

quote Originally posted by larryemory: First of all this is another attempt to associate anyone (on the right) with atocities. I find it amazing how liberals have tried to paint Nazis as right wing. Nazis were a socialist monstosity. What part of that don't you understand? But I suspect enlightenment is not your goal.

Larry, how do you breathe with your head stuck so far in... (I'll be polite)... the ground. Not that it'll have any effect on you, because for you the facts apparently mean nothing, but for anyone else who might for second think that Larry knows what the heck he's talking about, here's something to have a look at. The link is Here, and the following is a brief excerpt.

I've bolded a couple of words to make sure Larry doesn't miss 'em.

quote - The government of Nazi Germany was a fascist, totalitarian state. Totalitarian regimes, in contrast to a dictatorship, establish complete political, social, and cultural control over their subjects, and are usually headed by a charismatic leader. Fascism is a form of right-wing totalitarianism which emphasizes the subordination of the individual to advance the interests of the state. Nazi fascism's ideology included a racial theory which denigrated "non-Aryans," extreme nationalism which called for the unification of all German-speaking peoples, the use of private paramilitary organizations to stifle dissent and terrorize opposition, and the centralization of decision-making by, and loyalty to, a single leader.

This is just one of thousands of links on this subject to be found on the 'net.

This absolute resistance by certain individuals to admit that the Nazi government was ultra right-wing seems so infantile. It's like swearing up and down that the sky isn't blue, that the earth isn't round, etc. Repeating over and over that it isn't so won't change a thing. Good or bad, it's part of mankind's history.

quote Originally posted by STIFFLER: jewish supresm at its best.

Well you outted yourself... out of curiousity, may I ask your age and background? I have suspicions of your age range (no insult intended... two possibilities one in 50's but from your writing and nick, I'd say teens to early twenties). Mind letting us know if your of arabic, germanic, or some other decent? I don't want to stereotype you, just curious? Religous belief if any? Homeschooled?

BTW if I thank you for aknowledging my superiority :-) Do some reading and explore other cultures and you can rise up there also. Being born to a jewish mother didn't have squat to do with it except maybe the expectations my parents held for me may have been higher than yours since they expected me to have to deal with bigots. Adapt and overcome was my military motto. Latest is that if I didn't learn something today, I didn't live.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: A case of modern politicians demonizing a philosophy by associating it with something diametrically opposed. Damn liberals is easy if you can equate them with 'communist' dictatorships, and taking away peoples freedom but that's the exact opposite of the definition. [SNIP] Is it socialism to want the land and water NOT polluted for corporate profit? That's the line where someone is doing something that effects everyone else. If you sit in a house reading **** and eating cheetos... does that effect the rest of us? Doesn't effect me, shouldn't be agencies worrying about it

As usual, well thought out and well written, Scott Wa.
I hope you have your flame proof suit on. The PFFRWLSDT will continue the attack on reason for as long as the forum exists. Then, like the Borg, they will move on to attempt to infect others with their disease.
Its like trying to teach a mule to dance....You just can't do it.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: ...

Scott, I have no interest in getting into a debate on the subject of what you "think" the definition of the word "Liberal" means. Clearly, you have an interpretation that is less militant than it actually is and I applaud you for that. But the fact remains that the people out there calling themselves "Liberals" are monsters. One need only look as far as France, Loius Farakhan, Michael Moore, Hillary, etc. to see that the exact same things they espouse on a daily basis were the exact same things that Lenin espoused...and they will achieve the same results if this country is not made CLEARLY aware of the threat they represent.

Let be clear on this point about people trying to label one extreme as "different" to another. Nazis or Commies....NO DIFFERENCE. They use the same tactics of torture and intimidation, they both centralize power in the hands of the very few (or the one), they both stiffle political disention with brutality, they both make attempts to brain wash the governed into passivity and patriotic ferver, they blame others for their troubles (jews, capitalists, whatever), and they NEVER last.

Do NOT let this hypocracy of dangerous men like Howard Dean or Michael Moore fool you just because they call themselves "liberals" instead of "Communists" or "Nazis". Lenin and Hitler both thought THEY were benevolant and righteous too. Look where it led.

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I'm wagering good money that it's a duck!

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 03-03-2006).]

^^^^

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: As usual, well thought out and well written, Scott Wa. I hope you have your flame proof suit on. The PFFRWLSDT will continue the attack on reason for as long as the forum exists. Its like trying to teach a mule to dance....You just can't do it.

See, I told ya.

quote Originally posted by larryemory: Huh? I completly agree with you? All these horrors did happen. Where did you get the idea that I was saying otherwise?

Hey Larry, I agreed with you and was adding, not disagreeing.

Arn

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Well you outted yourself... out of curiousity, may I ask your age and background? I have suspicions of your age range (no insult intended... two possibilities one in 50's but from your writing and nick, I'd say teens to early twenties).

Yeah, ya gotta watch those 50 something folks like me--and those 20 something guys like JohnnyK.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: This is just one of thousands of links on this subject to be found on the 'net. This absolute resistance by certain individuals to admit that the Nazi government was ultra right-wing seems so infantile. It's like swearing up and down that the sky isn't blue, that the earth isn't round, etc. Repeating over and over that it isn't so won't change a thing. Good or bad, it's part of mankind's history.

It's one of those things... if one group uses it the wrong way enough times, maybe it'll become the truth... if you interchange liberal, democrat, socialist, communist and throw "damn" in front of it enough times, they all become the same? It works for the group... it's not a mistake by the people leading the flock.

Same tactic as blaming jews for everything... hey there is a jewish guy in charge of something and I don't like something related... must be his fault... Hitler stated that everywhere you had a problem there was a jew involved... gee, and a thousand christians. Can't be the christians fault, they are in numbers where if you blame them as a group, they can fight back... so go for the 6% part of the population. Blame the jewish bankers, jewelers, teachers, doctors, scientists.. then move that onto the butchers, bakers, soldiers, garbage men, street sweepers. Hey, don't like some movie... blame the jews, I saw a jewish name in there somewhere. Don't like politics, blame the jews... must be one on some advisory committee, in the cabinet. Forget the other 90% of the people involved... it's got to be the fault of the guy with that jewish sounding name. Can't get a good paying job... blame a jew, a black, an asian. Ignore that your doing drugs, getting drunk, spending your money on cars, concerts etc rather than buckling down and getting an education, making good contacts by volunteering your time in the community, treating those around you as equals and lending a hand when needed. Much easier to blame someone else and look for a conspiracy.

Move to today... blame a liberal, a nice vague target. If they don't agree with you, they are a damn liberal/democrat/socialist/commie. Could substitute homo, ****** (n word) , chink, kike, wop, wetback, towelhead, sandjockey...(using those terms for a point) they just found a word that is acceptable to use and redefined it to mean the same thing they did with the old racist names. Someone else is at fault for everything and if we could just get rid of them...

[This message has been edited by Scott-Wa (edited 03-03-2006).]

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Let be clear on this point about people trying to label one extreme as "different" to another. Nazis or Commies....NO DIFFERENCE. They use the same tactics of torture and intimidation, they both centralize power in the hands of the very few (or the one), they both stiffle political disention with brutality, they both make attempts to brain wash the governed into passivity and patriotic ferver, they blame others for their troubles (jews, capitalists, whatever), and they NEVER last.

I have no great love for any of the Democratic leaders, you singled out, but this portion of your argument treads on thin ice. If I had the desire to spend some time on Google, I could come up with plenty of examples of high ranking Republicans doing the same things. Torture? McCain damn near had to martyr himself to stop that, or does it only count if we're talking about foreign nationals? Intimidation? Plenty of powerful Congressional leaders throwing their weight around, not to mention the Governator. Centralizing power? The Bush Administration seems to be big on doing what they like and telling Congress to get over it lately. Stifilng political disention with brutality? Dragged Shehan out in cuffs, only to release her uncharged later (bad example, but it works). They don't need to brainwash the public into following them, the public doesn't care enough to follow politics already. Hell, a good amount of the public thinks its just dandy that they're illegally spying on American citizens. Patriotic ferver? Hmm, lets see, Patriot Act, boycott France, etc etc.

My point simply is that "evil" comes in all forms. Demonizing a few Democratic wackos is fine, as long as you acknowledge that there are plenty of other wackos out there who are just as deserving but waving a different flag.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Not that I'm stereotyping 50 year olds or 20 somethings, it's just that some older people are set in their thoughts and facts don't matter, dangit you whippersnappers, THAT"S THE WAY IT IS! And the younger guys are looking for comraderie, someone to show them the way, there are people that will except all sorts of BS if it's a simpler answer and diverts blame for their own issues. Military, cults, white power, Hamas... whatever, someone tells you how it is, don't look for answers outside what you've been told to look at. Usually led by that older guy that decided long ago that THAT"S THE WAY IT IS! He's got the answer! And you don't have to think to hard, read to much, just go kick a little ass.

Age has nothing to do with any of that. There are weak minds of all ages. Sometimes the old exploit the weakness of the young--sometimes it's the other way around.
Mind me asking your age Scott-Wa?

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: A case of modern politicians demonizing a philosophy by associating it with something diametrically opposed. Damn liberals is easy if you can equate them with 'communist' dictatorships, and taking away peoples freedom but that's the exact opposite of the definition. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/ To Quote: Liberalism Liberalism can be understood as (1) a political tradition (2) a political philosophy and (3) a general philosophical theory, encompassing a theory of value, a conception of the person and a moral theory as well as a political philosophy. As a political tradition liberalism has varied in different countries. In England — in many ways the birthplace of liberalism — the liberal tradition in politics has centred on religious toleration, government by consent, personal and, especially, economic freedom. In France liberalism has been more closely associated with secularism and democracy. In the United States liberals often combine a devotion to personal liberty with an antipathy to capitalism, while the liberalism of Australia tends to be much more sympathetic to capitalism but often less enthusiastic about civil liberties.

Your reply was well thought out, researched and written. With all due respect, it doesn't address the real issue. My objection to liberalism does not lie in a dictionary definition of Liberalism, or in one person's take (yours) on what it means. I define liberals by what they are doing. They're doing it in California, which is virtually run by liberals, unchecked. They liberals are doing it in Congress. Liberal presidents do it. They often persue policies that have more in common with socialsm and communism than American democracy and capitalism. I strongly disagree with what they are pushing. The dictionary doesn't push those policies, the current liberal politicians do and are.

quote It's one of those things... if one group uses it the wrong way enough times, maybe it'll become the truth... if you interchange liberal, democrat, socialist, communist and throw "damn" in front of it enough times, they all become the same? It works for the group... it's not a mistake by the people leading the flock.

I might be guilty of namecalling, but when I see things happening that I strongly object to, it angers me. I strongly object to many elements of the liberal "agenda", just as liberals feel the same about conservatives.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Age has nothing to do with any of that. There are weak minds of all ages. Sometimes the old exploit the weakness of the young--sometimes it's the other way around. Mind me asking your age Scott-Wa?

42 this month.

I agree with you completely that there are weak minds of all ages. I think there is always hope someone can recognize a problem and improve themselves.

But, you'll notice it's the young that tend to get exploited in the military, one reason they recruit them young... easier to train/brainwash/indoctrinate (pick your term) compared to someone with more life experience. Same goes for cults going after high school/college age kids. The older person may or may not be mallable anymore, but it's the ones fixed in their ways that tend to be waving their fists at the whippersnappers or attempting to indoctrinate the youth into their fringe beliefs, ranting about the good old days and looking for someone to blame because life didn't turn out the way they planned. I'm not at all trying to stereotype 20 something and 50 somethings, just my observations of people with certain traits tend to fall into certain categories. There are racists and bigots of all ages, just seems that the ones willing to come out in public tend to be at the extremes of age... either they don't care what people think yet or anymore.

IT was alot eazyer in the 60's
the rightwing nuts were in favor of the war [Viet-nam] and againts civil rights
support the KKK and john birch society
so it was eazy to see just how wrong the idea and ideals they held were
they loved to bust heads and talk of states rights and gods laws
hate the hippies. womens lib, gays, blacks, ect

40 years later the ideas and ideals are the same but the buzzwords are changed
now they use wellfare or underclass instead of race to hate
support a different war
still talk of gods laws and states rights [somethings never change]
unless the state wants to support liberal ideas [gay marriage or legal pot ect]
hate the goverment but love the rulers and the stupid rules
want no control over the CORPs polution or huge proffits
hate unions and workers rights in any form

BUT I REMEMBER WHO THEY WERE THEN
and the ideas and ideals HAVE NOT CHANGED
so I KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ABOUT NOW
and one word sums it up
HATE

BTW hitler was a rightwing NUT TOOO

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

Oh crap, it got political. Aus backs out of the room slowly

100% slavic / 100% roman catholic. You guys must really fear something it shows in this thread..

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: 42 this month. I agree with you completely that there are weak minds of all ages. I think there is always hope someone can recognize a problem and improve themselves. But, you'll notice it's the young that tend to get exploited in the military, one reason they recruit them young... easier to train/brainwash/indoctrinate (pick your term) compared to someone with more life experience. Same goes for cults going after high school/college age kids. The older person may or may not be mallable anymore, but it's the ones fixed in their ways that tend to be waving their fists at the whippersnappers or attempting to indoctrinate the youth into their fringe beliefs, ranting about the good old days and looking for someone to blame because life didn't turn out the way they planned. I'm not at all trying to stereotype 20 something and 50 somethings, just my observations of people with certain traits tend to fall into certain categories. There are racists and bigots of all ages, just seems that the ones willing to come out in public tend to be at the extremes of age... either they don't care what people think yet or anymore.

I'll take that for what it's meant to be I guess and suppress my urge to see it as an insult to our military men and women. I'm sure you meant no offense, and thus I'll take none. I've known plenty of military who joined/were drafted in their late 20s -even early 30s and they were no less or more prone to rebel against their training. It's a mixed bag. It's my belief that the younger folks have more physical stamina and are generally much more physically fit than say folks in their mid 40s, and they make better soldiers for it. It would suit me if they used the oldest 1st, who have already lived their lives, allowing the younger folks to do the same. Enough of that.

The same can be said tho, for our education system. We teach them young, before they are too old to learn new ideas? They do have more malleable mind sets--tho it may not seem so to educators today.

And our business/industry models. Business prefers a young educated mind, that the industry can train in their way of doing things. Buisness ads may ask for experienced people, but they don't want folks with too much of it. The younger guys/gals will likely get the nod every time.

Many of the on-campus cults are/were started by young people-not the old fogeys. Many of what is percieved to be 'radical' groups are the same--(see the 60s)

I do notice you picked 2 age groups that exclude yours tho.

It's been my observation for about 40 yrs, that each age group thinks all others are the bane of America, and that has held true no matter which age I fit into at the time I was observing this, or which age group I was observing. (The teen kids are lazy, the mid 20's are reckless drunks/drug addicts, the mid 30-45 age are only selfishly materialistic, the older folks are stuck in the past, and the very old a burden to society). Each age group has something bad to say about all the others. Each age group firmly believes they alone are the enlightned group, and all others fall short of the glory of vision and intelligence.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 03-04-2006).]

quote Originally posted by STIFFLER: 100% slavic / 100% roman catholic. You guys must really fear something it shows in this thread..

How can we be on page 3 already without this jack ass' red bar flashing yet?

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: 42 this month. I agree with you completely that there are weak minds of all ages. I think there is always hope someone can recognize a problem and improve themselves. But, you'll notice it's the young that tend to get exploited in the military, one reason they recruit them young... easier to train/brainwash/indoctrinate (pick your term) compared to someone with more life experience. Same goes for cults going after high school/college age kids.

Scott, you need some education here. Lots of "old guys" fought and died in the World Wars. It was often as not the "old guys" who were at the heart of the Resistance in France and Holland. And "old guys" can get hoodwinked into believing cr*p just the same as a "young guy". I know lots of guys in my age group 55+ who believe total nonsense, just the same as they always have because they are more often than not, jerks and idiots. No age discrimination at all, just human nature. Once an idiot, always an idiot.

These issues of maliability and programability are not the reason armies typically recruit "young guys".

The facts are that young men ages 15 -25 have more energy, have more nerve (ability to take risks), and better reflexes. Their vision is better, and their hand-eye coordination is better. This means that they are much more likely to stay alive on the battlefield. This is known since time in memorial. Remember it was pilots aged 19-24 who won the Battle of Britain. It is also the reason most army regulars are out of the service by age 55. Most guys over 55 couldn't pass the boot camp rigours, let alone survive an all out battle experience.

Just my .02 and FYI.

Arn

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: 42 this month. I agree with you completely that there are weak minds of all ages. I think there is always hope someone can recognize a problem and improve themselves. But, you'll notice it's the young that tend to get exploited in the military, one reason they recruit them young... easier to train/brainwash/indoctrinate (pick your term) compared to someone with more life experience. Same goes for cults going after high school/college age kids. The older person may or may not be mallable anymore, but it's the ones fixed in their ways that tend to be waving their fists at the whippersnappers or attempting to indoctrinate the youth into their fringe beliefs, ranting about the good old days and looking for someone to blame because life didn't turn out the way they planned. I'm not at all trying to stereotype 20 something and 50 somethings, just my observations of people with certain traits tend to fall into certain categories. There are racists and bigots of all ages, just seems that the ones willing to come out in public tend to be at the extremes of age... either they don't care what people think yet or anymore.

I was 42 last november and the one regret I have in my life is that I could not join the military due to my color blindness. I worked for the Navy building Submarines instead. But I would have joined up in a shot! No exploitation, just a man who has a passionate belief in doing his small part to give back to the greatest country on Earth. You need to spend a few years overseas. Your attitude will change.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: I was 42 last november and the one regret I have in my life is that I could not join the military due to my color blindness. I worked for the Navy building Submarines instead. But I would have joined up in a shot! No exploitation, just a man who has a passionate belief in doing his small part to give back to the greatest country on Earth. You need to spend a few years overseas. Your attitude will change.

I did spend time overseas.. I spent 7.5 years in the Army.. extended twice and re-enlisted once, been stationed in Germany, been to Japan, Korea, etc. Enjoyed my time in for the most part, went in partially because I expected to be reprogrammed a bit, motivated, given purpose etc... one reason I got out was I felt the touchy feely part of the military was getting a bit to much, I didn't feel I could trust many of the people surrounding me in my stateside unit in case of a war. I got out as a Sergeant days before the first Gulf war rather than taking an unaccompanied tour to Korea for a few years. I've got a stack of awards and commendations from my time in.

I was making generalizations but not trying to stereotype. One of the things the military does is break you down and rebuild you. That tends to be easier to do with a younger person. Look at what happens during basic training, Seal training etc.. they want to bust you down to core values and rebuild you to be a team player that can follow orders, think as a team member where the good of the unit excedes your own well being. Not someone that stops to question an order given under fire etc, the leader needs to know the troops are going to do what they are told when they are told it. They don't need your life experience being a factor in your decisions making as a lower enlisted troop. For Officers and NCOs you have somewhat different requirements that still need that same base they instilled in boot camp/basic training. Then they cultivate your decision making/ leadership ability, again following a specific process. There is a formula to everything because you are and need to be completely replaceable even though you are a needed component in your unit.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: How can we be on page 3 already without this jack ass' red bar flashing yet?

Did I hit a sensitive spot.... heh

quote Originally posted by Toddster: At least I gave you the courtesy of READING your post before slamming it Scott. Give it a try sometime. You STILL have not addressed the point. What, pray tell, is the difference between your commies and your nazis then? a duck is a duck! Or to quote Ayn Rand, "A is A"...uh, she was a writer... A Russian writer... a Jewish Russian writer who escaped "liberalism" in the early 1920's. Try reading 'We The Living' some day if you think Liberalism is so great.

I apologize if I appear to have attacked you personally, but your reponse seemed like a good example of my issue with wording.

I'm not completely a proponent of liberalism, my complaint is "Liberal" being used when it's not the correct term. If you have a problem with communism, call it that. If your problem is with socialism, call it that. If it's with radicalism call it that. No one uses the correct terms anymore because pundits just mix them up and misuse them to categorize anyone that doesn't agree with them into one big group when most of those people are diametrically opposed on many issues. Calling gays, athiests, anarchists, radicals, democrats, independants and everyone else that isn't a right wing god fearing christian republican a liberal is wrong.

If your contrasting Soviet communism/ Chinese communism with Nazi facism one major difference is religon, one lacked it the other was claiming a god given destiny. Other is lack of classes in communism, although in Soviet union there were some since actual communism failed there early on, there was most definitely a heirarchy of classes in Nazi Germany and one of their claims to power was divine right. The Nazis purged the social leftists early on.

I know who Ayn Rand is... I read "Fountainhead"( have a first edition and the original movie), and "When Atlas shrugged" along with essays. "We the Living" I haven't read, it was her first novel and only got 3000 copies out originally. Was told in architecture college by the dean that I'd be gone by the end of the semester because I had read and liked "Fountainhead"... he was right.

BTW, she like Alan Greenspan was born to jewish parents but was an atheist.

She was pro capitalism, pro choice, anti communism... not sure where you got anti liberal. Let's go back to her words which reflect my problem with your usage.

"... [T]ake the word "liberal." In the nineteenth century, this was a proper term which stood for one who defended rights and limited government -- except that it never represented a fully consistent political philosophy. So historically, what started as nineteenth-century liberalism gradually became modern liberalism. (Conservatives used to claim that they were the true liberals, but they have given up doing so.) Similarly, some people today use "libertarian" to designate the pro-free enterprise position, but there are some modern liberals who call themselves libertarians as well. This stealing of terms with undefined connotations is so prevalent today that I simply do not use any of these words. This is one reason I prefer "pro-capitalist" to "conservative." When what is being disguised or destroyed is not exactly what you uphold, then drop the word and use another."

You can read it here.. http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html#Q4.10

Her words describing her philosophy... "Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."

Rest of her philosophy as she described it here.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro

As a libertarian, objectivist's feel I'm a wuss and that libertarians are objectivists with the teeth pulled out or as she thought... a perversion and diametrically opposed.

She was an interesting person and had some interesting ideas, but followers have a cult like sense.

[This message has been edited by Scott-Wa (edited 03-04-2006).]

Hit a nerve? Get real. Maybe the same nerve as when ya get a smell of a pile of putrifed roadkill guts in the middle of a hot July afternoon while changing a flat tire. Hard to control the gag reflex. Run along now, polish up your jackboots, and make sure you have your swastika on straight---your 15 minutes of infamy are over here in OT--for now.

quote Originally posted by STIFFLER: Did I hit a sensitive spot.... heh

You couldn't hit a two dollar hooker with 20 bucks. You are that enept.

But I really have learned a lot iin this thread and from the links so I am really really glad you started it. Even you are useful. Thanks..

------------------
PLAY HARD-DIE FAST
"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten, that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."
-- H. L. Mencken

Your welcome guys. Alote of you can't handle the fact of the amount of bullshit in world war 2. So you have twisted everything around because of your insecurity. Thats what happens when you question things people get uptight and start useing terms like bigot and racist. When they have no argument these things come out because you have nothing left to say. Thank you come again.

[This message has been edited by STIFFLER (edited 03-05-2006).]

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: I'm not completely a proponent of liberalism, my complaint is "Liberal" being used when it's not the correct term. If you have a problem with communism, call it that. If your problem is with socialism, call it that. If it's with radicalism call it that. No one uses the correct terms anymore because pundits just mix them up and misuse them to categorize anyone that doesn't agree with them into one big group when most of those people are diametrically opposed on many issues. Calling gays, athiests, anarchists, radicals, democrats, independants and everyone else that isn't a right wing god fearing christian republican a liberal is wrong.

My point Scott is that ALL of these terms are synonyms. You need to look at this problem from the 10,000 foot level. It is the forest and the trees. The fundamental flaw with ALL "liberal", "Socialism", "Communist" "leftist" philosophy is that those of us who are more industrious, intelligent, or just plain luckier than others, OWE those others some of our spoils with no expectation of a return.

THIS is flawed thinking and does no good for anybody. It only helps the "others" in the short term but doe not teach them a trade or skill which will allow them to be productive and useful and proud. It does no good to the producers because it provides a disincentive to produce. If you read Atlas Shrugged then I need explain that point no further.

quote If your contrasting Soviet communism/ Chinese communism with Nazi facism one major difference is religon, one lacked it the other was claiming a god given destiny. Other is lack of classes in communism, although in Soviet union there were some since actual communism failed there early on, there was most definitely a heirarchy of classes in Nazi Germany and one of their claims to power was divine right. The Nazis purged the social leftists early on.

You are getting into hair splitting differentians here Scott in the same way that you might accurately point out that you and I are genetically different. MY POINT is so what? We are still human beings with the same desires and needs in life. Communism and Fascism may USE religion differently but they both use it to control! One claims they are God on Earth the other Claims they are God's messenger on Earth. No significant difference in that the ultimate goal of this misuse of religion is to control and placate the population into compliance. I still do not see any difference in the two and you haven't pointed any difference out in either their motivation (power) or their results (extinction). And...you can't.

quote I know who Ayn Rand is... I read "Fountainhead"( have a first edition and the original movie), and "When Atlas shrugged" along with essays. "We the Living" I haven't read, it was her first novel and only got 3000 copies out originally. Was told in architecture college by the dean that I'd be gone by the end of the semester because I had read and liked "Fountainhead"... he was right.

Since architecture was a subplot in the story and the REAL message was a philosophical one I tend to think your Architecture teacher wasn't too bright. Perspicacity of your Architecture Teacher aside, you should read We the Living. It was her best book in my opinion and it is the one she described as the "closest thing to an autobiography I will ever write". It is a the story of how the "promise" of communism decayed into the brutal regime of the Soviet Union. The scarey part is that the "promise" is the same tired crap we keep hearing from people who call themselves "liberals".

In other words, when communists start calling themselves liberals, don't blame ME for fearing liberalism.

quote BTW, she like Alan Greenspan was born to jewish parents but was an atheist.

Actually she wasn't an athiest. She was agnostic and detailed her beliefs of "a God" in the Objectivist Newsletter.

quote She was pro capitalism, pro choice, anti communism... not sure where you got anti liberal. Let's go back to her words which reflect my problem with your usage. "... [T]ake the word "liberal." In the nineteenth century, this was a proper term which stood for one who defended rights and limited government -- except that it never represented a fully consistent political philosophy. So historically, what started as nineteenth-century liberalism gradually became modern liberalism. (Conservatives used to claim that they were the true liberals, but they have given up doing so.) Similarly, some people today use "libertarian" to designate the pro-free enterprise position, but there are some modern liberals who call themselves libertarians as well. This stealing of terms with undefined connotations is so prevalent today that I simply do not use any of these words. This is one reason I prefer "pro-capitalist" to "conservative." When what is being disguised or destroyed is not exactly what you uphold, then drop the word and use another." You can read it here.. http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html#Q4.10 Her words describing her philosophy... "Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life." Rest of her philosophy as she described it here. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro As a libertarian, objectivist's feel I'm a wuss and that libertarians are objectivists with the teeth pulled out or as she thought... a perversion and diametrically opposed. She was an interesting person and had some interesting ideas, but followers have a cult like sense.

I have no argument that most objectiveists are extremists who take her teachings too literally. This is clearly the case in MOST religion whether it be followers of Mohamed, Christ, or Rand. But Rand never advocated the interest of the self at the COST of others. The minute my persuit of my life's goals interferes with another person's rights then I have stopped being an objectivist and started being the very thing rand fought, a communist...or nazi...or any other extremist bent on changin the way other people think and act for his own sake.

I will once again point out that you are becoming to focused on "terms" and not focused enough on Cause and Effect. For example, did you know that the Soviet Space Station was named "Mir"....the Russian word for Freedom!

extremists are SPECIALISTS is hijacking words in order to win over those too naive to see that the word itself does not mean squat if the actions you practice are inconsistent with that word. When Liberals allowed the line between Communism and Liberalism to become blurred they lost ALL credibility. I DO remember the days when a Liberal was just left of center. Those days are long gone now.

Don't blame me for it, you have yourselves to blame for letting it happen.

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 03-05-2006).]

quote because you have nothing left to say.