....lybob Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 You know a "conservative" who thinks America should be a neo-imperialist power with a foreign policy based on conquest and exploitation? More likely that you just think you do, because you're retarded. where's OC when you need him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 belittling an idea doesn't make it untrue. Did he just demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of "libertarian", "neo-fascist", or both? both, at their core, most importantly,want things their own way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 1, 2012 Author Share Posted May 1, 2012 belittling an idea doesn't make it untrue. both, at their core, most importantly,want things their own way. Do they want them their way any more than you want things your way? I would suspect the Libertarian though wants his way but also wants you to be able to have your way, as long as you don't !@#$ with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Do they want them their way any more than you want things your way? I would suspect the Libertarian though wants his way but also wants you to be able to have your way, as long as you don't !@#$ with him. that's a fundamental difference. i think the good of the many trumps the good of the few, even if at times actions that benefit the many may not be advantageous to me personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 both, at their core, most importantly,want things their own way. That's not even close to being true about either. that's a fundamental difference. i think the good of the many trumps the good of the few, even if at times actions that benefit the many may not be advantageous to me personally. THAT is closer to neo-fascism than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 1, 2012 Author Share Posted May 1, 2012 that's a fundamental difference. i think the good of the many trumps the good of the few, even if at times actions that benefit the many may not be advantageous to me personally. It always comes back to you liberals knowing what's best for everyone else. That "moral superiority" you carry around must get pretty heavy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 both, Every person, political movement, party, and nation at their core, most importantly,want things their own way. Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 that's a fundamental difference. i think the good of the many trumps the good of the few, even if at times actions that benefit the many may not be advantageous to me personally. "Volk and nation first." Where have I heard that before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 "Volk and nation first." Where have I heard that before? But he's a doctor, and no doctor would ever abuse that notion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 But he's a doctor, and no doctor would ever abuse that notion... This thread was destined for Godwin-dom from the very start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 This thread was destined for Godwin-dom from the very start. Not Godwined yet...it wasn't a Hitler reference, just an Aktion T4 reference. People who talk about "the good of the many" are usually the last people who should be responsible for determining it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Both of the Major Politcal Parties seem to have a preference for Big Federal Government- the Fed has expanded throughout my 35 years, whether it be an R or D in the House, R'd or D's in the Congress Etc.... my conclusion, they both have a vested interest in keeping Government right where it is. They both try to use it as a lever to push an Ideaology. The good news, is the Republicans check the Democrats, and the Democrats check Republicans. In this situation you get neither the minimialist government full privitization one side adores, or the Government Central Planning model the other is in love with.... MOST Americans are somewhere in and around the middle, trying to make their lives better, hoping for a little extra to live nicely when they are too old for this ****... We really do need a Thrid Party to emerge, ideally a Libertarian. We need someone who will has no vested in either D or R ideaology, but someone who can take the good that is working, cut the bad that is failing, and REALLY pare down Government to its intended scope. I have lost hope that either candidates that these parties put forth will be able to accomlish much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Not Godwined yet...it wasn't a Hitler reference, just an Aktion T4 reference. People who talk about "the good of the many" are usually the last people who should be responsible for determining it. I might have to brush up on my internet laws. I always thought Godwin extended it to Nazis in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 oh, you forgot Clinging to Guns and Bibles.... everybody know every conservative always has one of both on hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 b-large having more than two parties won't change much. look at Canada for example. conservative, liberal, green party and two Communist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 For liberals there are never two legitimate sides in a debate. There are only forward and backward, good intentions and bad intentions. It is not necessary to argue the merits of an issue with someone who is pointing backward; it is enough to locate that person as pointing backward. To do so is to make the case and prove the case. The result is predictable: The essence of liberal argument is ad hominem attack. Liberals do not confront arguments directly, any more than they confront religious claims directly; they go behind conservative arguments to vilify the messenger. If you disagree with liberal policy you are a xenophobe, a homophobe, an Islamophobe, a racist, an extremist, or lately a “terrorist.” As the president has said, you are too scared to think straight. Instead of answering your arguments, liberals aim to shut you up with snarky TV entertainment shows. A hundred years ago, the philosopher George Santayana cut to the core of this mentality. In his commentary on Goethe’s Faust, Santayana wrote of the modern liberal that “his ultimate satisfaction in his work is not founded on any good done, but on a passionate willfulness. He calls the thing he wants for others good, because he wants to bestow it on them, not because they naturally want it for themselves. Incapable of sympathy, he has a momentary pleasure in policy.” Just perfect. What this willful liberal does not admit is that decent, intelligent people who understand their own interests and understand liberal policies can still reject them. Jeff Bergner . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 (edited) "Volk and nation first." Where have I heard that before? sure, to believe in that ideal (the good of the many, not your misapplied paraphrase) necessarily means you're a nazi or espouse fascism. geez, that really deserves a forehead slap. seems, at its extremes more in line with another german political philosopher whom the nazi's despised. yet, you see a striking similarity. Jeff Bergner . uh huh...it's liberals who are the dualists, seeing life in black and white and never gray. Edited May 1, 2012 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 can't really say i know them but how bout cheney and bush...isn't that what iraq really about? it just didn't work out so well. and the exploitation in that exercise was ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 sure, to believe in that ideal (the good of the many, not your misapplied paraphrase) necessarily means you're a nazi or espouse fascism. geez, that really deserves a forehead slap. seems, at its extremes more in line with another german political philosopher whom the nazi's despised. yet, you see a striking similarity. The point was to parody your ridiculous analogy - it just so happens that mine is slightly more accurate, Herr Doktor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 b-large having more than two parties won't change much. look at Canada for example. conservative, liberal, green party and two Communist... I really don't know where to begin when someone suggests looking at Canada as an example of a dysfunctional society. Either you can spend your whole life studying examples or you can remember the old computer lingo garbage in garbage out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts