How do we speed up the politically irrelevancy of the far right ?

The term "Far right" has lost its true meaning, as has "Far left". They have become little more than words to slander people who disagree with you.

The real Far Right are fascists and nazis. They are about as far right as one can get.

The real Far Left are the communists. They are about as far left as one can get.

Of course, this will fall upon deaf ears, as the people who use these terms overwhelmingly view people who disagree with them as fascists and nazis or as communists. That is why it is impossible to get anything done in Washington.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but totalitarianism is a philosophy which transcends the political spectrum. Totalitarianism is not an ideology in its own right, but is rather a philosophy which is practiced alongside an ideology.

Someone can be left wing and totalitarian, just like someone can be right wing and totalitarian. End of story.

 

Actually, if you were educated in economics etc. you would realize how people actually vote. They vote based on financial self interest. When one group of politicians promises free stuff, they get votes. When one population demographically gets larger, that demands free stuff, politicians promise on it and naturally they get votes. It has very little to do with what the other side says, this is all about the economy, stupid.

You need to read books, more books! They explain these things if you bother to look at them!

 

You prolly do make good money being a government paid one@ after hours, if you are a private employee still being a liberal after the age of 40 you still must be smoking bud and workimg at the quickie mart

 

Perhaps in your anecdotal experiences that is the case, unfortunately the numbers do not bear that out.

I would think this is common knowledge, but since you seem ignorant of this demographic trend, I will be more than happy to provide statistical sources to back up my claim
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_96.html

If you notice in 1996 that 55% of 18-24 yr olds voted Democrat, and 16 years later, those same voters now older voted 47% democrat suggesting a statistically significant shift to the right

I have little doubt that you love your grandmother very much. With that being said, your comments in regards to older Americans in general have been disrespectful and in bad taste.

The written word is expressly absent of tone and tenor, and as such, the only "tone" that you are detecting is the voice inside your head that apparently hears whatever it wants to hear.

You and I have had a short conversation with a very narrow scope. Most of what you have said in OUR conversation has been invectives directed at senior citizens.

I am well aware of my political leanings, which are decidely conservative fiscally, while being liberal socially. I have made no claim whatsoever that contradicts my beliefs.

You preach about "patiently presenting the errors in misinformed opinions", and in our conversation at least, you have done no such thing. As far as demonstrating you not practicing what you preach, are you expecting me to copy and paste the entirety of our conversation where you have thrown a few invectives yet have failed to "patiently present the errors in any misinformed opinions?" Rather than you asking me to prove a negative why dont you cut and paste any part of our conversation up to that point where you "patiently presented the errors" in anyones opinion?

Who said anything about you being a strawman, and how would that term apply to this conversation even remotely?

It has nothing to do with me "getting personal", and everything to do with you throwing in your vocation into a discussion, where your vocation couldnt possibly be more irrelevant.I try to keep conversations on topic, and I saw your long winded discussion about your vocation to be more about you than it was about the actual topic.

The only reference I have made about your career was to try to keep you from going off on an irrelevant tangent. Keeping you on track in no way shape or form constitutes a personal insult, nor is it an example of me "lashing out in anger". LOL....I do find your ridiculously off based representations of "my" mood to be rather humorous.

On this we agree.

Indeed. I found it particularly respectful, open, and eloquent when you referred senior citizens as "blue hairs".

Nowhere in our conversation have I attacked you on any opinion that I am not aware of where you stand. I addressed you with a narrow focus, first to comment on your statement about being being 30 with an MBA, and then once again after you replied and you called old people "blue hairs". Now somehow those two replies are "exactly what you stated is causing the decline of the right wing"? LOL.....you must be kidding?

Explain where the "irony" exists in my post please?

 

Well that must be it, oh wait people like myself that take nothing from the government still vote against you, hmmm must be that other Excuse, white guilt, oh wait I was not born here so had nothing to do with how the white Americans treat those they felt inferior due to the color of their skin. Hmmm, maybe you should go read some more books and try and figure out why so many do not see the Cons as the answer these days. Step 1. purge the Tea Party from the GOP, Step 2. purge the Libertarians pretending to be Republicans from the GOP, Step 3. learn to work with the Democrats, step 4. accomplish something that actually helps the Nation.

 

The Core Beliefs of the Tea Party IS the Tea Party and are
very reasonable. They are why I support the Tea Party.

 

No. You can't be a left wing totalitarian, as left wing denotes a strong desire for social freedoms. Social freedoms do not exist in a totalitarian state, as it requires complete subservience. Which is what the far right demands.

True Communism is arguably conservative, as it requires the dismantling of all government, which is something many conservatives would love to see. Though true Communism also requires memebres of a community to be locally focused, duty bound and filled with desire to serve the common good, which are leftist traits. This is why the totalitarian oligarchies of China and Russia are Communist in name only.

If you haven't read any of Marx's writings, it's difficult to get a clear picture of the utopia (by definition an impossible ideal, but something to strive for) Marx pictured for a self-efficient communist community or nation.

Marx was under no misconception regarding his philosophy being applicable to large national bodies.

Anyway, I digress. All of this is to establish that totalitarianism is not compatible with leftist ideals.

These words have such fluid meaning that there really is no "end of story" where political philosophies and ideologies are concerned.

 

You sound quite intellectually capable. You must be a member of the corporate individuals Stndown describes.

Could this be where your anger comes from?

 

The envy and Marxism is strong in this one.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you believe your corruption borders on legal?

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, so you are a failure so others must pay. Understood.

Sour grapes...Society's failures are always the best breeding ground for the Marxists. Congratulations. You quality.

 

The envy and Marxism is strong in this one. Where do all of you come from? Is there a nest somewhere?

- - - Updated - - -

Have you no discernment? Don't you get tired of carrying around all of that hatred against your country? Have you considered moving to some Marxist utopia so that you can be happy? Would you please take the monster who occupies the White House and his wife with you?

 

Guess that is why the left is using force of government to implement their utopian ideas then eh? Guess that is why they are so intent on silencing opposition and PC tyranny.

 

I believe you might have the BOP on that, my friend, as there are so few. Many philosophers who conservatives claim established their ideology are also claimed by liberals! It's actually pretty amusing. Locke comes to mind.

Though if you consider the conservativism inherent in the various sects of Christianity, and the reality of pre-enlightenment Europe, ruled by totalitarian Christian and socially conservative array of interrelated monarchies, there is about 1000 years of conservative philosophic refinement.

You could read Bulfinch's mythology for some insight on that. He was a conservative historian. You would probably like his work.

 

Fascism is totalitarian. It is largely found on the left. Mussolini, long the darling of America's left was fascist. Hitler, also initially embraced by America's left wing was national socialist and fascist. Woodrow Wilson, America's Left was fascist. Theodore Roosevelt was fascistic if not actually fascist. FDR. Fascist. Stalin. International socialist.

No. Fascism, despite decades of Leftist whitewash is just like all of the totalitarianisms of the left whether Progressivism, liberalism, statism, national socialism, international socialism...or whatever new names you come up with to hide your fundamentally evil natures.

Leftists believe that the state is supreme. Conservatives believe the individual must be supreme.

Which do you embrace?

 

But that is the way to bet.

When you are young and have nothing of value save your idealistic youth you tend to be a liberal idiot who wants others to pay for you wettest dreams.
Then you begin to earn and if you are lucky you marry and have children. Rationality just might follow. Slowly, perhaps, one recognizes that tyranny is found in unconstrained governments. This is where Conservatism is found.

Not everyone is fit to live in freedom. Those who are not have a name as well. Liberals.

 

Except, of course, that fascists are totalitarian left. And NAZIs are national socialists. They are also left. Or do you prefer the international socialists to the national socialists?

 

The only reason I said I supported the beliefs, but not the tea party is because I worry about the divisiveness it has created amongst conservatives. We WILL need to be able to put that divisiveness aside and rally together if we want to ever set our country back on the path to prosperity.

 

What an impressive pantload.

 

is that why you, as a conservative, embrace the idea of the rich owner determining what type of insurance her serf employees can have ?

 

If you have ever paid attention to me you would know that I believe the individual should pay for the kinds of insurance the individual wants to have.

But you are a fascist, aren't you? You want the government to coerce businesses into giving things to people.

You are one greedy SOB. You demand gifts. Then you demand the right to describe the gifts you demand. That takes a certain totalitarian sickness.
I believe it is fatal.

 

The only divisiveness the Tea Party has created is from leaving the big
government right. The Tea Party is the best thing to happen to the
Republican party since President Ronald W. Reagan. Being a 90%
Libertarian, I'm not a Conservative, I can't stand the fact that the
so-called Conservatives are as much in favor of big government as the
Liberals. It simply depends upon where the money is wasted. Period.

We must elect Tea Party members. They are the only politicians
that are against "business as usual".

 

This is a good analogy, however, truth be told, Collectivists believe
the State is supreme and those for Liberty are against Collectivism.

I can't say that Conservatives believe the individual is supreme
because so many of them are in favor of more government.
Boehner is a prime example.

The individual is definitely more supreme than any form of government.
Period. A person is either for a central government that tells them what
to do or they are for Liberty and want the government to be small.

To boil it down, there are those who are in favor of Collectivism and
those who are in favor of Liberty. There isn't anything in the middle.
Those who believe there is middle ground are in favor of Collectivism.

I suggest that everyone read "The Road to Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek.
It's a true eye opener.

Here's a link to the "Illustrated Road to Serfdom". Notice that it
was financed by General Motors in the 1940's.

 

Nope. I am claiming that many 'big cheeses' certainly do though.

 

I know how the world works. The big boys with the big money, control everybody and everything (no matter how they go there). Those big boys (and what they were/are allowed to get away with) are the reason this whole economy lies on the brink of disaster. Last time I looked, poor people weren't flying in on their personal jets, asking for bailouts.

 

Ha ha! You're about 25 years too late Charlie. Your only options are to embrace nihilism or lash out and start busting heads open and feasting on the soft, mushy left-wing brains therein.

 

Boehner is not a conservative, he's a RINO statist and an Obama enabler.