right wing/left wing & name-calling

[ExiledInIllinois]

Congrats to your son as a competitor, and to you as a father.

 

When you do your review of the left, please consider including how they have stopped being freedom demanding "McGovernites" and become intolerant, dictatorial, behavioral controlling makers of rules. The pot smoking, acid tripping people who were frolicking nude in the mud at Woodstock are now on campus stifling free speech, and in NYC purporting a smoking ban (in bars), and passing laws against loud air conditioners and bells on ice cream trucks. Deny this at your leisure. I know it to be true.

 

Btw, being a Bills fan, imho, IS something special for children. My daughters view me as a hard core man who will NEVER give up. They have seen me not abandon my beloved Bills, and know that it will never happen. I have bought them Bills shirts and they wear them with pride. The Bills symbolize more than just a football team. They are a cold weather franchise in a depressed economy, yet the fans just wont quit. They have seen me accosted at Disney, local gas stations, and other places by other Bills fans who saw me wearing the logo. They know how special it is.

 

My oldest wears Bills clothes at an Ivy League college. Fellow students, knowing where she is from, are often confused. Truthfully, she knows little about the team, although Big Sam is her favorite because she saw his touchdown dance and was stunned.    What she DOES know, is to stand by her beliefs, and to not quit. Her sisters feel the same way.

 

Yeah, being a Bills fan IS something special.

281098[/snapback]

 

Exactly you got that right... Never quit! Never stop demanding more from yourself.

 

Your first part:

 

When you do your review of the left, please consider including how they have stopped being freedom demanding "McGovernites" and become intolerant, dictatorial, behavioral controlling makers of rules. The pot smoking, acid tripping people who were frolicking nude in the mud at Woodstock are now on campus stifling free speech, and in NYC purporting a smoking ban (in bars), and passing laws against loud air conditioners and bells on ice cream trucks. Deny this at your leisure. I know it to be true.

 

I am not denying it. Resume of a Boomer:

 

Born: 1950

 

1950-1959: Plopped in front of tube in it's infancy.

 

1960-1969: Rebelled against parents and "establishment"

 

1970-1979: Still not in their "prime earnings years", so they decide to protect the enviroment?

 

1980-1989: This is where the pill kicks in. I got the looks, you got the brains, lets make lots of money! Offspring on the way.

 

1990-1999: Lose site of it all, decide to "reel" in the kids where they went wrong.

 

2000's: Hyperprotective and contolling the power cord.

 

Beyond: Retirement. I got mine. Let somebody else clean up the mess.

 

Where did it go wrong?

 

At the "Greatest Generation" for producing the "Me Generation."

 

BTW... Pass that doob brother, I was born in 1968... Peace, Love, and Happiness!

 

[Campy]

a good rule of thumb is to look at this nation's founders: very strong on individual liberties, property rights, religious freedom, and free enterprise with a limited role of government. if somebody views any or all of the founders in a positive light, then they are in effect supporting a conservative philosophy.

280736[/snapback]

My immediate response to the above was that it makes about as much sense as saying that extreme-right philosophies such as fascism - which severely impairs property rights, free enterprise, religious freedom and individual liberties, and the role of free enterprise - makes the founding fathers a rather liberal bunch. It's a slippery slope you're using, and the truth is that the founding fathers were in that grey area between fascist and socialist ideals.

 

As someone who regularly refers to the founding fathers and the Constitution, I also think we should tread carefully in using your interpretation of their beliefs in certain aspects, namely, free enterprise and the role of government in regulating it.

 

In early America, there was little need for regulation. Barter was still being used as a means of trade, particulary in rural areas, and slavery was recognized as a viable method of devoloping a profitable agriarian society.

 

Fast forward to the mid-nineteenth century and we have the railroads begining their exploitation of "western" farmers and the mining concerns using hydro-mining techniques to wash away mountain sides with little concern for enviromental impact. The government had little choice but to take action by way of regulation.

 

As the industrial revolution took hold, proletariats exploited labor. To avoid regulation (and taxation), men like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan hatched schemes to formulate trusts as they weren't subject to the same regulation as corporations were.

 

Adam Smith's invisible hand is a wonderful idea on paper, but in industrial and post-industrial societies, the pursuit of the dollar isn't neccesarily concerned with the well-being of labor, the environment, ethics, or society at large. That truth is acknowledged across political parties, which is why the first president to use the Sherman Anti-Trust Act as it was intended - to go after the industrialists of the day (as opposed to going after labor unions as previous presidents had done) - was Republican Teddy Roosevelt. Unfortunately, the current administration IMO fails to recognize today that which TR did 100 years ago.

 

Ironies regarding individual freedoms preached by men who were slave-holders aside, the founding fathers were wiser than most men, but not infallible. To hold them as some sort of gold standard may not always be the most prudent argument to fall back upon, and branding modern conservatism as the embodiment of the founding fathers' ideals is not entirely accurate at best, and patently wrong at worst.

[Azalin]

My immediate response to the above was that it makes about as much sense as saying that extreme-right philosophies such as fascism - which severely impairs property rights, free enterprise, religious freedom and individual liberties, and the role of free enterprise - makes the founding fathers a rather liberal bunch.  It's a slippery slope you're using, and the truth is that the founding fathers were in that grey area between fascist and socialist ideals

281281[/snapback]

 

from the American perspective, facism is totalitarianism. nothing is greater anathema to American democracy/republicanism than facism, as you apparently agree with in your accurate assessment of what facism curtails with respect to freedoms. in addition, I wholeheartedly agree that considering the political climate of the world in those days, America's founders were a rather (I'd go so far as to say extremely) liberal bunch. it was completely unheard of to set up a nation where people could be independent in their method and choice of worship, occupation, and general way of life, while making the central authority not only answerable to, but drawing it's political might from, it's citizens.

 

where we are going to disagree is with the notion that the founders were working within some type of bounaries between facism and socialism. for one, you can have socialism and facism married to create one govenmental set of rules....both Germany and Italy of WWII are examples of this. Hitler was a socialist, but he differed from the Soviet brand of communist socialism in that he didn't assume outright control of industry like the Soviets did. he preached duty and service to 'The Fatherland', implying to all that all that everyone did, they did in the name of and for the benifit of, Germany. another big difference between Germany's national socialism and the Soviet brand was that Hitler played really big on the notion that God was looking with favor on his nation. he allowed the continuance of the church due to both his personal belief that he was chosen to lead by divine providence, as well as having the spiritual leaders of the state support him. all praise for God and a unified Europe aside, Germany was still a socialist nation in the days of WWII, despite the 'right wing' nature of Hitler's absolute authority.

 

I mention all that because I believe that Americans nowadays easily mistake what we might call 'right wing' and 'left wing' in America with what is 'right wing' and 'left wing' with respect to various forms of government around the world and throughout history. stated in the simplest terms, the general use of the term 'right wing' implies absolute state authority and left wing implies absolue power from /to the masses. in America....a nation built on extraordinarily liberal principles....the term 'right wing' implies a strict devotion to the literal interpretation of the constitution with the federal government taking a secondary role of authority to both the individual and the fifty states that comprise the nation. that is a very strict definition.....note that it does not include any of the 'forced morality' that we see from certain elements of the American right. in modern America, the term 'left wing' implies the belief that the central authority has supreme power, and that the federal government is the protector of our civil liberties....at least that's what the modern American left's philosophy appears to represent to me.

 

I'm not trying to cloud the issue with these various definitions of right and left. it's just that I often see a marked difference between what a so-called leftist state (ie Soviet Russia) and my leftist buddies here in the states. absolute authority, totalitarianism, and far-right states are also completely different in nature frrom what is termed a right-wing American. in truth, a conservative, right-wing American holds ideals that are only less liberal than the philosophy held by anarchists. a conservative American is a very liberal person when you compare their political beliefs with those of people from any other nation.

 

no disrespect intended, but I do not believe that this nation's founders built this country on ideas culled from a 'gray area' of any kind. I thnk the values that our constitution are built upon are very distinct and definitive. if the foundation of our nation was built on something so nebulous, it would have fallen apart long ago.

[Campy]

no disrespect intended, but I do not believe that this nation's founders built this country on ideas culled from a 'gray area' of any kind. I thnk the values that our constitution are built upon are very distinct and definitive. if the foundation of our nation was built on something so nebulous, it would have fallen apart long ago.

281430[/snapback]

I agree with you on that, and my use of the words "grey area" probably should have been in quotes as I was being somewhat facetious.

 

I guess the problem I have with conservatives that believe they "own" the principles of our founding fathers is evident in things like the definition of a lawful marriage.

 

Generally speaking, conservatives (and by extension, Republicans) are of the opinion that prohibition of gay marriage should be legislated, including ammending the Constitution. Of course, the last time a conservative movment ammended the Constitution with a prohibition, it wasn't too succesful, but conservatives do have a track record of telling us how to live our lives.

 

On the other side of the spectrum are liberals (and by extension, Democrats) who claim that a gay citizen's right to the pursuit of happiness and the benefits provided by lawful marriage are Consititutionally mandated and that the government has no business interfering in their private affairs.

 

I'm not about to argue that either Dems or liberals are truer to the freedoms and rights championed by the founding fathers than conservatives and Republicans are. I will, however, always argue any statement that claims that our founding fathers' principles are representative of, and/or defined by, today's conservatives.

[Azalin]

 

 

Generally speaking, conservatives (and by extension, Republicans) are of the opinion that prohibition of gay marriage should be legislated, including ammending the Constitution.  Of course, the last time a conservative movment ammended the Constitution with a prohibition, it wasn't too succesful, but conservatives do have a track record of telling us how to live our lives.

281473[/snapback]

 

you know, we really don't seem to disagree very much, at least on principle. we both resent intrusion, especially from groups, people, or politicians that tend to oppose our own personal beliefs. I can't fault anyone for being like that.

 

your example that I quote is especially interesting to me for several reasons. I hold nothing against gay people at all, in fact my own personal belief is that their preferences are their own business, just as mine are to me. I've thought about this specific issue a great deal since GW has proposed a constitutional ammendment to define marriage as strictly being between a man and a woman. I have never heard a proposed constitutional ammendment that I like, and I truly do not like this one that's meant to define marriage.

 

that being said, let me spell out what I've been considering on this. marriage goes way, way back....much further into the past (obviously) than the founding of our nation and the authoring of the constitution, and it's roots are in religion. without getting too detailed about all the various types of marriage ceremonies throughout the ages, a modern American 'church wedding' is still based on taking vows before God. the state issues marriage liscences, making the union legal. still, in many people's (including mine) minds, marriage is based in religion. many of these religions do not recognize gay unions as even being thinkable....let alone tolerable. in this, it comes down to a very real conflict between church & state. who wins? they're supposed to be exclusive of eachother, so why do we even have both church and state involved in such a personal issue? to my mind, we shouldn't. I'm actually a bit surprised that this has never before been viewed as an imposition of state into personal religious affairs.

 

the proposed ammendment is looked at by many as an interference into the writing of the constitution. on the surface, I might agree with that. there's one big problem though, and it's another element that I'm surprised that I hear coming from nobody else. the constitution very clearly outlines the seperation of powers and the system of checks and balances. the courts role is to make rulings based on the constitutionality of new legislation. when they make rulings that go beyond that role, they are in effect writing legislation of their own.....a violation of the seperation of powers.

 

if the courts are going to meddle with something that has it's roots so deeply steeped in religion, and do their meddling by skirting the checks and balances that exist in the constitution, then I see no real problem with a constitutional ammendment being proposed to stop them.

 

the courts can easily rule that gay couples can have a legal civil union with all the same benefits that traditionally married couples have, but they don't seem to want to do that. they appear to want to actually change.....or at least modify....the definition of marriage. they're robbing Peter to pander to Paul, and what they're trying to rob is something that has a very long history of being associated with religious practice, beliefs, and values......not to mention tampering with the affairs of church. if it were the other way around, people would be screaming 'injustice!' from all the major broadcast networks.

[ExiledInIllinois]

you know, we really don't seem to disagree very much, at least on principle. we both resent intrusion, especially from groups, people, or politicians that tend to oppose our own personal beliefs. I can't fault anyone for being like that.

 

your example that I quote is especially interesting to me for several reasons. I hold nothing against gay people at all, in fact my own personal belief is that their preferences are their own business, just as mine are to me. I've thought about this specific issue a great deal since GW has proposed a constitutional ammendment to define marriage as strictly being between a man and a woman. I have never heard a proposed constitutional ammendment that I like, and I truly do not like this one that's meant to define marriage.

 

that being said, let me spell out what I've been considering on this. marriage goes way, way back....much further into the past (obviously) than the founding of our nation and the authoring of the constitution, and it's roots are in religion. without getting too detailed about all the various types of marriage ceremonies throughout the ages, a modern American 'church wedding' is still based on taking vows before God. the state issues marriage liscences, making the union legal. still, in many people's (including mine) minds, marriage is based in religion. many of these religions do not recognize gay unions as even being thinkable....let alone tolerable. in this, it comes down to a very real conflict between church & state. who wins? they're supposed to be exclusive of eachother, so why do we even have both church and state involved in such a personal issue? to my mind, we shouldn't. I'm actually a bit surprised that this has never before been viewed as an imposition of state into personal religious affairs.

 

the proposed ammendment is looked at by many as an interference into the writing of the constitution. on the surface, I might agree with that. there's one big problem though, and it's another element that I'm surprised that I hear coming from nobody else. the constitution very clearly outlines the seperation of powers and the system of checks and balances. the courts role is to make rulings based on the constitutionality of new legislation. when they make rulings that go beyond that role, they are in effect writing legislation of their own.....a violation of the seperation of powers.

 

if the courts are going to meddle with something that has it's roots so deeply steeped in religion, and do their meddling by skirting the checks and balances that exist in the constitution, then I see no real problem with a constitutional ammendment being proposed to stop them.

 

the courts can easily rule that gay couples can have a legal civil union with all the same benefits that traditionally married couples have, but they don't seem to want to do that. they appear to want to actually change.....or at least modify....the definition of marriage. they're robbing Peter to pander to Paul, and what they're trying to rob is something that has a very long history of being associated with religious practice, beliefs, and values......not to mention tampering with the affairs of church. if it were the other way around, people would be screaming 'injustice!' from all the major broadcast networks.

282705[/snapback]

 

I hear what you are saying. You say it well.

 

I like to add that I think marriage between a man and woman was more out of ECONOMY which was bolstered by relgious practice, beliefs, and values.

 

In this day and age, I don't think marriage between a man an woman is as essential to economic survival. If fact, that economic suvival might be extended to same sex marriages?

 

???

[Azalin]

I hear what you are saying.  You say it well.

 

I like to add that I think marriage between a man and woman was more out of ECONOMY which was bolstered by relgious practice, beliefs, and values.

 

In this day and age, I don't think marriage between a man an woman is as essential to economic survival.  If fact, that economic suvival might be extended to same sex marriages?

 

???

282769[/snapback]

 

thanks....that's nice of you to say.

 

I've never really considered economy as an early motivation for marriage, but you may well be right. my guess would have been that marriage originally came about due to the desire to not share a mate with anyone else. back in the year 160,000 BC it would have been an effective ploy to make a cave-lady believe that if she wasn't faithful to Grogg, the god of mastadons and lightning would become angry in a fearsomely manifest fashion. you never know....

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Adam Smith's invisible hand is a wonderful idea on paper, but in industrial and post-industrial societies, the pursuit of the dollar isn't neccesarily concerned with the well-being of  labor, the environment, ethics, or society at large. 

281281[/snapback]

Nor should it be. There is no place for ethics, labor or the environment in a free and open marketplace.

[Pete]

That's some post. 

 

To answer the question buried within all of that, I believe people liken the current administration to nazism in only that  individual rights have been eroded and descension is not allowed, lest one be labelled unpatriotic.  According to pretty much all history books, that is what happened in Nazi Germany (among other things).

279776[/snapback]

 

In the past two months I have visited Aushwitz, Anne Frank House, the Jewish Museum in Berlin, and Sachsenhausen. I suggest any moron who throws around the word "nazi" does the same. The word nazi is the most extreme word for hate. Anyone who calls anyone a nazi is supremely ignorant. To dissent is patriotic. To label someone a nazi is incredibly imbecilic. Thats an insult to holocaust victims and familys.

[KRC]

In the past two months I have visited Aushwitz, Anne Frank House, the Jewish Museum in Berlin, and Sachsenhausen.  I suggest any moron who throws around the word "nazi" does the same.  The word nazi is the most extreme word for hate.  Anyone who calls anyone a nazi is supremely ignorant.  To dissent is patriotic.  To label someone a nazi is incredibly imbecilic.  Thats an insult to holocaust victims and familys.

284199[/snapback]

 

Exactly. I was a Dachau several years back. It is something that I will always remember and will have a lasting impact on my life.

 

I guess people need to resort to those types of things when they have nothing to contribute to the discussion. It is pretty sad.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Exactly. I was a Dachau several years back. It is something that I will always remember and will have a lasting impact on my life.

 

I guess people need to resort to those types of things when they have nothing to contribute to the discussion. It is pretty sad.

284208[/snapback]

 

I've said the smae thing a thousand times before. I'm related to a victim of the Nazi regime. So everytime I hear nozzlenut or her ilk use the term, it makes me want to jump through the screen and strangulate them.

[KRC]

I've said the smae thing a thousand times before. I'm related to a victim of the Nazi regime. So everytime I hear nozzlenut or her ilk use the term, it makes me want to jump through the screen and strangulate them.

284217[/snapback]

 

Instant loss of credibility and will not be tolerated on this board.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Instant loss of credibility and will not be tolerated on this board.

284227[/snapback]

 

What, use of "Nazi" or strangulation?

[KRC]

What, use of "Nazi" or strangulation?

284230[/snapback]

I don't care if you strangle them, just don's use the Nazi references while doing it.

[Pete]

on a related note- I loved Berlin! People were so kind there- not to mention German girls are gorgeous and friendly. Anyways Berlin is one of the safest citys in the world but I still saw a few nazis. I am impressed with the way Berlin has handled Germanys past history. There are Jewish monuments and museums everywhere. There is a Jesse Owens street. There is a Joe Louis street. They have chosed to confront their past and try to make ammends then rather then sweep in under the rug so to speak. It is against the law to "seig heil" or say "heil hitler", etc. If anyone said it in Berlin they would go to jail and pay some serious fines. To get around this neonazis shout 88(h is the 8th letter of the alphabet). I saw a few skinhead nazi punks. Two had humungous dogs. They say if you see a boot with white laces to run. I saw that at the Ostbanhous station. I am a history buff and went to Munich, Dresden, and Neurenberg too. Munich feels much shame about the holocaust and many feel guilty for being German. Munich was Hitlers starting point. Neurenberg is the craziest place I have been. Hitler targeted not only Jews, but gypsys, gays, Slavs, blacks, asians, handicapped, etc. In response to his "blond haired, blue eyed" planned aryan race Neurenberg is a trip. I would say 70% of that town has and/or blue hair, purple hair, red hair, dressed like a vampire, punked out etc. In the train station alone I must of seen literally 20 lesbian couples making out. It seems in response to their past that they have become what hitler despised.