Why many US conservatives believe Hitler to have been left wing [Archive]

Rollo

2nd February 2012, 00:03

You're wasting your time if I'm honest by opening this discussion here.

I think the confusion arises if you only use a two-dimensional political compass. Left or right wing is too simplistic. The Nazis economic model was more centre-left than right wing, which is why the American Right claim that Hitler was left wing. What is forgotten is that you can apply 'Right or Left' to the social model as well. Fascism is the social right wing.

The end result of this is that the American Right try to claim that anyone who believes in centre-left economics must also be a fascist.

The above is why the Political Compass is useful:
Political Compass - Analysis (http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2)
It also depends on perspective and the terminology you use.

The Liberal Party in both the UK and Australia are both named because of their economic stance (in the case of the Liberal Party in the UK, in the latter half of the 19th Century). Yet neither of them were particularly "liberal" if you use the American sense of the word.
In fact the Australian Liberal Party just like the Conservative Party in the UK and the GOP are all members of the International Democrat Union which is a international "alliance" (for want of a better word) of centre-right to rightist parties.

Basically to be a "conservative" in an American parlence is for someone to be broadly morally conservative but still economically liberal. In terms of economic parlance, the leadership styles of George W Bush, John Howard and Tony Blair all fell into Neoliberalism. To actually suggest such a thing in a discussion of American politics instantly gets you shouted down, which actually speaks of economic ignorance.

The Nazi parties economic policies as carried out, involved quite a lot of nationalisation of industries but moved very very much to the far-right on social policies. Mr Brown's comments above are pretty well much bang on the money.

anthonyvop

2nd February 2012, 03:56

If you were to actually look at the Economic Philosophy of the National Socialist Party you would probably surprised. So much so that you might actually be disturbed to see how to the Left the Nazi Party actually was.

If you care to intelligently debate the Nazi's economic policies I would be more than happy to but please actually take a look at those policies.

Rollo

2nd February 2012, 05:01

If you care to intelligently debate the Nazi's economic policies I would be more than happy to but please actually take a look at those policies.

Let's pick a few:

On May 2 1933 (the day after Labour Day), the Reichstag approved a bill which abolished Trade Unions, the right to strike and any industrial rights to collective bargaining. That's both an economically rightist policy because it removes collectivism thus turning labour prices over to a laissez-faire market system, and it's also a socially rightist policy on the basis that it authoritarianly removes the liberal freedom of choice of the individual.

And incidentally the GOP are trying to pass similar legislation in Utah. (http://utahpulse.com/bookmark/17352805-Proposal-Would-Limit-Collective-Bargaining-with-Public-Employees) Would you agree that the GOP is a "conservative" and ergo centre-right party?

Eki

2nd February 2012, 10:00

Interestingly Thatcher was almost as fascist as Hitler and Stalin:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif

Wasted Talent

2nd February 2012, 10:22

Interestingly Thatcher was almost as fascist as Hitler and Stalin:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif

I think that's rather a ridiculous statement.

She may have been right of centre but in no way was she authoritarian. She worked in a fully democratic system and deplored the likes of Stalin and Hitler.

No, it's a totally ridiculous statement

WT

BDunnell

2nd February 2012, 10:22

If you care to intelligently debate the Nazi's economic policies I would be more than happy to but please actually take a look at those policies.

Ha!

BDunnell

2nd February 2012, 10:24

I think that's rather a ridiculous statement.

She may have been right of centre but in no way was she authoritarian. She worked in a fully democratic system and deplored the likes of Stalin and Hitler.

Just as British socialists were some of the most ardent anti-Communists one could have found in the aftermath of World War Two — a fact some claiming to be able to debate issues of left/right political leanings 'intelligently' are either unaware of or choose to ignore.

Rollo

2nd February 2012, 12:06

Just as British socialists were some of the most ardent anti-Communists one could have found in the aftermath of World War Two — a fact some claiming to be able to debate issues of left/right political leanings 'intelligently' are either unaware of or choose to ignore.

Orwell was very much a declared British Socialist and he touches on the point quite obviously in "The Lion and the Unicorn" (1940) and "Animal Farm" (1946) was very much anti-Communist.

I think that's rather a ridiculous statement.
She may have been right of centre but in no way was she authoritarian. She worked in a fully democratic system and deplored the likes of Stalin and Hitler.
No, it's a totally ridiculous statement
WT

I wonder with what degree the enaction of Part 4 of the 1979 Conservative Party manifesto had to do with the events of the early 1980s and in particular the use of the "sus" laws.

1979 Conservative Party's manifesto:
1979 Conservative Party Manifesto - (http://www.conservative-party.net/manifestos/1979/1979-conservative-manifesto.shtml)

ArrowsFA1

2nd February 2012, 13:05

How on earth can one put forward such a ludicrous uneducated assumption based upon a name.
There does appear to be an overly simplistic view of the political spectrum among a number (not all) Americans which dates somewhat back to the days when world politics was defined by the Cold War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War).

One consequence (see McCarthyism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism) as an illustration) was that anything remotely associated with communism (as epitomised by the USSR) and described as left-wing was lumped into one pot to be opposed, pursued, prosecuted, ridiculed, and shown as un-American.

Although the Cold War as it was is long over that particular attitude still permeates US politics. Clearly Hitler's NSP cannot be seen as being right wing these days because that would mean it being on the same side of the political spectrum as the Republican right (as opposed to the Democrat left) so having socialist in the NSP title neatly puts it in the left pot. For some.

monadvspec

2nd February 2012, 17:23

You're wasting your time if I'm honest by opening this discussion here.

I think the confusion arises if you only use a two-dimensional political compass. Left or right wing is too simplistic. The Nazis economic model was more center-left than right wing, which is why the American Right claim that Hitler was left wing. What is forgotten is that you can apply 'Right or Left' to the social model as well. Fascism is the social right wing.

The end result of this is that the American Right try to claim that anyone who believes in center-left economics must also be a fascist.

It is that very simplistic attitude that I am addressing. I agree with you and am dumbfounded that a country that has so much to offer lacks so much in political knowledge , parlance and in most cases the actual historical circumstances that brought some of these fascist groups to power. The actual two-dimensional compass as you rightly pointed out is deliberate as that is how the arguments are based. From my reading and my viewing of political shows. It is akin to a statement that a person made, one in possession of 50 guns and stated he felt he was prone to violence. When asked why on earth he would have 50 guns if he was considering violence his answer was that all was fine now. He got rid of 49 of them. How does one address that type of , and I am serious here, almost comical , but definitely ignorant response. It has to remain two dimensional since most of the gun advocates in the US view a report and research paper on guns by a person name Lott that was so full of false and idiotic rationalization (sic) that it was laughed at by his peers but became a bible of the National Rifle Association and its members and followers.

BDunnell

2nd February 2012, 18:45

There does appear to be an overly simplistic view of the political spectrum among a number (not all) Americans which dates somewhat back to the days when world politics was defined by the Cold War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War).

Not just that, but also the absurd tone of certain elements of the American media — outlets that even conservatives in Europe consider laughable, if not downright scary.

monadvspec

2nd February 2012, 19:07

Not just that, but also the absurd tone of certain elements of the American media — outlets that even conservatives in Europe consider laughable, if not downright scary.
This is one of the reasons that I posted this. The vitriolic hatred of illegal Mexican aliens as though they were garbage that you should throw out. That these people are so close to slaves that their menial wage keeps them from that horrendous life so sacred to the southern US and to the revered founding fathers even with their "all men were created equal" baloney. Why not say all "white men" and add it to the Declaration of Independence.

Rollo

2nd February 2012, 19:36

It is that very simplistic attitude that I am addressing. I agree with you and am dumbfounded that a country that has so much to offer lacks so much in political knowledge , parlance and in most cases the actual historical circumstances that brought some of these fascist groups to power. The actual two-dimensional compass as you rightly pointed out is deliberate as that is how the arguments are based.

Assume for a second that the compass as shown above is rotated through 45°. From that perspective with a view looking back over the compass, fascists do appear to be to the left of "conservatives". Mind you, virtually everything does. That I think is probably a more accurate picture of how the compass is viewed in American politics; certainly the idiotic demonising of the opposition by both sides of the party divide in the US doesn't help either.

The statement that political knowledge is lacking really doesn't surprise me at all considering that most people genuinely don't actually care about politics.

Bob Riebe

2nd February 2012, 21:53

It is that very simplistic attitude that I am addressing. I agree with you and am dumb....
No argument here.

monadvspec

3rd February 2012, 01:22

Perhaps you can explain to me why it is that the Hispanic illegal immigrants (not even close to all of those folks are from Mexico), who you say are so close to slaves, keep coming here at some risk to themselves? I guess they just love to live in slavery so much that they will go to any lengths to do so, eh?
I believe what I said was close to slavery. You are fitting what I have said into your own reading of what I said. Working in jobs without benefits or legal status as busboys, concrete working, lawn-care, fast food and a myriad of others.
I again, did not say they were slaves. I said it was close to being a slave. There is a difference if you have not noticed.
Why do they come to the US? Because the US promotes itself as the Land of the Free and the golden goose for the less privileged. These people are in the most part peasants and do not have the education nor the resources to look after their families and loved ones. When they leave they are leaving behind their wives and children. Can you imagine what that is like. For those younger,can you imagine a 12 year old or a 14 year old having to leave his/her mother or father?!. They come to provide for their own. Not themselves. A lesson many should view in a kinder heart than those that use the pulpit of radio and television to demonise a people that have more to offer than to take.

Bob Riebe

3rd February 2012, 01:46

anthonyvop

3rd February 2012, 03:27

Let's pick a few:

On May 2 1933 (the day after Labour Day), the Reichstag approved a bill which abolished Trade Unions, the right to strike and any industrial rights to collective bargaining. That's both an economically rightist policy because it removes collectivism thus turning labour prices over to a laissez-faire market system, and it's also a socially rightist policy on the basis that it authoritarianly removes the liberal freedom of choice of the individual.

Funny how some see that act. In actuality it was used to increase employment and one of the stipulations was that the worker could not quit their job or even change jobs without Government approval. It was to benefit the State and not for private companies.
Now I want to to show me where unions or the right to strike has been banned in free-market/Capitalist economies. I can point out many times where they were banned in Socialist countries.

And incidentally the GOP are trying to pass similar legislation in Utah. (http://utahpulse.com/bookmark/17352805-Proposal-Would-Limit-Collective-Bargaining-with-Public-Employees) Would you agree that the GOP is a "conservative" and ergo centre-right party?

The proposed rule is for public servants not actual workers. People in the Military(Real ones) don't have the right to strike either.

monadvspec

3rd February 2012, 04:06

OK, I'll accept your "close to slavery" correction even though it is intended to divert attention away from the heart of my question.

No reasonable US citizen is demonizing the illegals. We just don't want them here. The part you seem to not get is the illegal part of illegal immigrants. The US, of all the countries in the world, was built primarily through immigration and we have plenty of legal immigrants every year. We like immigrants. However, allowing the illegals in is a direct slap in the face of all those who stood in line and applied for immigration the proper and legal way.

Perhaps you should take your righteous indignation and apply it to the governments of the countries whose people choose to "leave their wives and children or mother or father" and get them to change the conditions in those countries so those folks wouldn't want or have to leave. I know I'd be very happy if you could get them to stay home. Those illegals also choose to stay here, if they are able, not "Because the US promotes itself as the Land of the Free and the golden goose for the less privileged", but because we ARE the land of the free with opportunities for the underprivileged and (legal) immigrants.

No, instead you want to beat up on the US for the faults of much of the rest of the world and expect our tax paying citizens to fix everything. By the way, how many illegal folks from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, etc. have YOU welcomed into your home and neighborhood? Just asking. ya know?

I can understand your closed minded stance. Immigration by illegals is no longer monopolized by the US. It is part of almost every country in the EU,particularly GB and Ireland. No, I did not correct myself. You accepted what I stated.
I am not beating up on the great country that is America (North) but at individuals with a very narrow point of view that is seen as narrow minded and self serving.

monadvspec

3rd February 2012, 04:11

Why don't fix their own country if ours is so bad by your silly notions.
Of course they can live off of the welfare that the liberals hand out so their possibly legal relatives keep voting the liberals slave masters in.
---------------------
Mona. said: "It has to remain two dimensional since most of the gun advocates in the US view a report and research paper on guns by a person name Lott that was so full of false and idiotic rationalization (sic) that it was laughed at by his peers but became a bible of the National Rifle Association and its members and followers."

Bob said:That statement is not only a lie, it is asininely incompetent as used; else wise his " peers" would not use it which they do to help eliminate firearm laws, although the Constitution is their number one tool.

Where is the lie?
--------------------------
Mona. said: "That these people are so close to slaves that their menial wage keeps them from that horrendous life so sacred to the southern US and to the revered founding fathers even with their "all men were created equal" baloney. Why not say all "white men" and add it to the Declaration of Independence.
Bob said:Give some sort of proof to that foolish statement.
Yeah the Irish were treated so well in the 1800s, or are you saying Irish are not white, maybe not human even?
What have the Irish got to do with this?

Bob said:Paranoid anti-firearm twits have not been able to put even a slight dent into its accuracy. Accuracy of what,exactly?

Rollo

3rd February 2012, 06:08

Funny how some see that act. In actuality it was used to increase employment and one of the stipulations was that the worker could not quit their job or even change jobs without Government approval. It was to benefit the State and not for private companies.
Now I want to to show me where unions or the right to strike has been banned in free-market/Capitalist economies. I can point out many times where they were banned in Socialist countries.

I bet you can. Big deal.
It doesn't matter even a single iota how authoritarian such a policy might be in a socialist country because that is not the question at hand.
Please stay on the point.

Banning trade unionism is an authoritarian policy which is socially to the right and because it is a laissez-faire with respect to labour prices, it's also an economically rightist policy.

If you care to intelligently debate the Nazi's economic policies I would be more than happy to but please actually take a look at those policies.

Well how about you start then eh?

ArrowsFA1

3rd February 2012, 08:24

Banning trade unionism is an authoritarian policy which is socially to the right and because it is a laissez-faire with respect to labour prices, it's also an economically rightist policy.
Although not a ban, more an all out assault, the right-wing Conservative Thatcher policies & actions with regard to trade unionism illustrated that well:
BBC NEWS | Politics | Enemies within: Thatcher and the unions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3067563.stm)

BDunnell

3rd February 2012, 09:13

Paranoid anti-firearm twits have not been able to put even a slight dent into its accuracy.

When it comes to paranoia, you and your ilk are hard to beat, Bob. Never have I personally come across such a deeply scared group of people as the right-wing Americans on these forums, as demonstrated by your views on gun laws, anti-terrorist measures, immigration or whatever.

BDunnell

3rd February 2012, 09:16

Well, I don't live east of the Atlantic so I assume what you are saying is that there are no English, German or other European media which take laughable, if not downright scary positions, right?

Oh, they do, of course, but if you are seriously suggesting that Fox doesn't surpass any other mainstream outlet in this regard — well, words fail me.

And it is notable that the Daily Mail website has become the world's most popular online news outlet largely as a result of its increasing popularity in the USA. I am far from surprised, given the Mail's blend of inaccurate science, utter paranoia and shallow celebrity obsession.

anthonyvop

3rd February 2012, 13:37

Banning trade unionism is an authoritarian policy which is socially to the right and because it is a laissez-faire with respect to labour prices, it's also an economically rightist policy.

Actually you are wrong. Under a free-market system Labor Unions are 100% acceptable. Granting them "Special" rights isn't. Under the Socialist system the State is the "Union" so other groups would be unacceptable.

Bob Riebe

3rd February 2012, 15:09

When it comes to paranoia, you and your ilk are hard to beat, Bob. Never have I personally come across such a deeply scared group of people as the right-wing Americans on these forums, as demonstrated by your views on gun laws, anti-terrorist measures, immigration or whatever. That is your opinion, from your narrow view.
Meanwhile, Pres. Obama has doubled the number of persons on the no-fly list.

Your statement is hypocritical as gun-laws, i.e. an item that takes away from citizens by controlling their actions, would be an act of paranoia as it fears by branding the possible actions of citizens possibly harmful, without any action having actually taken place.
Of course with you seeming to be a liberal, that is to be expected.

Bob Riebe

3rd February 2012, 15:13

Accuracy of what,exactly?
Let us see, you bring Mr. Lott into the conversation, yet you have no idea what he wrote.
Moronic and to be expected of your usual baseless prattle.

Captain VXR

3rd February 2012, 20:46

There does appear to be an overly simplistic view of the political spectrum among a number (not all) Americans which dates somewhat back to the days when world politics was defined by the Cold War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War).

One consequence (see McCarthyism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism) as an illustration) was that anything remotely associated with communism (as epitomised by the USSR) and described as left-wing was lumped into one pot to be opposed, pursued, prosecuted, ridiculed, and shown as un-American.

Although the Cold War as it was is long over that particular attitude still permeates US politics. Clearly Hitler's NSP cannot be seen as being right wing these days because that would mean it being on the same side of the political spectrum as the Republican right (as opposed to the Democrat left) so having socialist in the NSP title neatly puts it in the left pot. For some.

There still is a lot of McCarthyist type attitudes around, just look at various (predominantly right wing) tabloids screaming about terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrsm and 'evil killer drugs'

Eki

3rd February 2012, 22:21

Just as British socialists were some of the most ardent anti-Communists .
That's not surprising. In Finland the Communists considered the Social Democrats as traitors to the cause, since they refused the armed revolution, and the Soviet Union preferred to cooperate with the Finnish center parties and even the right of center parties rather than with the Finnish Social Democratic Party.

Gregor-y

4th February 2012, 01:27

Republicans love Nazis:
Why Is This GOP House Candidate Dressed as a Nazi? - Atlantic Mobile (http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/why-is-this-gop-house-candidate-dressed-as-a-nazi/64319/)
Can you imagine how embarassing it would have been if he had actually been elected? The guy in the RAF outfit is a nice touch; must be a Mosley fan!

Rollo

4th February 2012, 13:49

Actually you are wrong. Under a free-market system Labor Unions are 100% acceptable. Granting them "Special" rights isn't. Under the Socialist system the State is the "Union" so other groups would be unacceptable.

Under a theoretical completely free-market Labor Unions by definition can not exist. Trade Unions because they are a collective act as a barrier to the operation of the market with respect to prices. Trade Unions and Employer Unions are both collectives designed to increase market power of either the suppliers or the buyers of the commodity in the market.
An absolutely rightist market from an economic perspective is one with no market barriers whatsoever.

Alexamateo

4th February 2012, 15:01

I believe what I said was close to slavery. You are fitting what I have said into your own reading of what I said. Working in jobs without benefits or legal status as busboys, concrete working, lawn-care, fast food and a myriad of others.
I again, did not say they were slaves. I said it was close to being a slave. There is a difference if you have not noticed.
Why do they come to the US? Because the US promotes itself as the Land of the Free and the golden goose for the less privileged. These people are in the most part peasants and do not have the education nor the resources to look after their families and loved ones. When they leave they are leaving behind their wives and children. Can you imagine what that is like. For those younger,can you imagine a 12 year old or a 14 year old having to leave his/her mother or father?!. They come to provide for their own. Not themselves. A lesson many should view in a kinder heart than those that use the pulpit of radio and television to demonise a people that have more to offer than to take.

With all due respect you have no idea what you are talking about.

This issue is near and dear to me, my wife is from Mexico. We met because I became friends with her brother and his wife who were here working. I didn't know it at the time, but they were using papeles suecos Having seen the documents and my wife's real one, I cannot tell them apart. I also know illegals who are fully covered by their company's health insurance. To be certain, there is a mismatch letter from social security in their file, but they just send the letter, there are no instructions or requirements (right now) on what to do with it.

I now sell to Landscape Contractors and Garden Centers all over the Southeast, I am fluent in Spanish, and I talk to people everywhere I go. I only know of one company paying "under the table" as it were and they are no longer my customer because they are also shady in paying their bills. All others are either valid #'s or forged documents or a combination thereof (some have valid tax id#'s but no work permit.) Everybody pays at least payroll taxes. There is some fraud related to claiming too many dependents.

My evidence is anecdotal, but wages went up where I live when these guys started coming in. Production went up and you paid to keep them. You would compete for the top guys. Some have benefits, some could have them but decline them.

Close to slavery? ridiculous statement.

Also, the fix to this is to open up borders and allow for a free movement of goods and people. People would gladly register if there was a way to do it. From a John Stossel article on immigration:

It would be easier to "regulate the flow" if America made it easier for people to work here legally. State Department data show that a British Ph.D. in bioengineering
must wait about six months to get a green card. A South African computer programmer, six years. An Indian computer programmer, 35 years.

A Mexican with a high school diploma must wait a theoretical 131 years! No wonder people sneak into America.

On this point I would bring up this, my wife would like to bring her sister and her family here. They are in Chihuahua State, and violence is starting to reach down there now. A check of Visa Bulletin this morning reveals they are taking applications from on or before May 15, 1996 right now for F4 family sponsored preferences right now. Let's see, If we apply today, we can expect an appointment in 2028. I think her youngest will be 24 then.

Also, the notion is that these people are peasants is way off. Yes, some are people without education and opportunity, but even professional people, (like my brother and sister-in-law) came here because they can make money faster. They saved everything went back and built their house and started his own business in Mexico.

Also, the notion that they leave behind their wife and children is also off base. That was the case, back when one could sneak back and forth across the border with impunity, but the counter-intuitive point is that increased border enforcement led to more illegal immigration. It got more risky to cross, so now people bring their whole families here. (or were as rates have gone down dramatically with the downturn in the economy especially construction.)

The solution is to open up the work and/or residency program and get these people out of the shadows. If you want illegal immigration to stop, raise the # of visas and work permits to meet demand.

monadvspec

4th February 2012, 19:22

Let us see, you bring Mr. Lott into the conversation, yet you have no idea what he wrote.
Moronic and to be expected of your usual baseless prattle.
Pretty audacious of you Bob Riebe to be so presumptuous as to believe you know what I have read. I would never make the same assumption of you , however , due to the damning defensive response to my post it seems I may be bold enough to expose your little hissy fit and your obscene defense of anything to do with your precious second amendment. The very law that ranks your country (you are in the US,right?) the most dangerous of all the industrialized nations of the world. Falling behind some of the developing countries. Maybe you have read Kellerman or McClurg (sic). Inspiring writers to say the least. You have read them Bob Riebe? Always good to be open minded and not simulating the natural instincts of the clam.

This thread is falling off topic and before you bring up Hitler and his taking guns from the Jews. Never happened. The law was enacted prior to Hitler even coming into power.

monadvspec

5th February 2012, 15:35

monadvspec

5th February 2012, 15:37

With all due respect you have no idea what you are talking about.

This issue is near and dear to me, my wife is from Mexico. We met because I became friends with her brother and his wife who were here working. I didn't know it at the time, but they were using papeles suecos Having seen the documents and my wife's real one, I cannot tell them apart. I also know illegals who are fully covered by their company's health insurance. To be certain, there is a mismatch letter from social security in their file, but they just send the letter, there are no instructions or requirements (right now) on what to do with it.

I now sell to Landscape Contractors and Garden Centers all over the Southeast, I am fluent in Spanish, and I talk to people everywhere I go. I only know of one company paying "under the table" as it were and they are no longer my customer because they are also shady in paying their bills. All others are either valid #'s or forged documents or a combination thereof (some have valid tax id#'s but no work permit.) Everybody pays at least payroll taxes. There is some fraud related to claiming too many dependents.

My evidence is anecdotal, but wages went up where I live when these guys started coming in. Production went up and you paid to keep them. You would compete for the top guys. Some have benefits, some could have them but decline them.

Close to slavery? ridiculous statement.

Also, the fix to this is to open up borders and allow for a free movement of goods and people. People would gladly register if there was a way to do it. From a John Stossel article on immigration:

On this point I would bring up this, my wife would like to bring her sister and her family here. They are in Chihuahua State, and violence is starting to reach down there now. A check of Visa Bulletin this morning reveals they are taking applications from on or before May 15, 1996 right now for F4 family sponsored preferences right now. Let's see, If we apply today, we can expect an appointment in 2028. I think her youngest will be 24 then.

Also, the notion is that these people are peasants is way off. Yes, some are people without education and opportunity, but even professional people, (like my brother and sister-in-law) came here because they can make money faster. They saved everything went back and built their house and started his own business in Mexico.

Also, the notion that they leave behind their wife and children is also off base. That was the case, back when one could sneak back and forth across the border with impunity, but the counter-intuitive point is that increased border enforcement led to more illegal immigration. It got more risky to cross, so now people bring their whole families here. (or were as rates have gone down dramatically with the downturn in the economy especially construction.)

The solution is to open up the work and/or residency program and get these people out of the shadows. If you want illegal immigration to stop, raise the # of visas and work permits to meet demand.
I read your long post and do not see where you nave addressed the issue of "what I have no idea" about.

monadvspec

5th February 2012, 15:42

The second amendment is part of the US Constitution, written by Americans and for Americans. It quite frankly is none of your business - or anyone else's unless they are US citizens - how we govern ourselves. You don't like how we run things here? Well then don't come here.

With all due respect the laws of a country that affect others whilst in residence or visiting is their business. Why is it that American gun advocates always skirt the issue staring them in the face. The laws on their books only enhance the issue and not prevent it. Why not take a look at the cost to the health industry to see where the real costs of second amendent lie. In addition, isn't it a little preposterous that fully automated assault weapons can be bought by any of the terrorist groups on the lists of Homeland Security if bought privately?

monadvspec

5th February 2012, 20:58

I repeat - if you don't like our laws and freedoms then don't come here. More to the point, why would you even want to if you dislike our system of government so much?

One of the things that a lot of Europeans, especially those with nanny state forms of government, fail to really understand is that real freedom comes at a price. Sometimes that price is blood. If you are not willing to pay that price then you can have no expectation to be free for very long. Today's assault on freedom are the True Believers of both the left and right who just know what is good for me and everyone else and would love to force everyone to see it there way. Am I worried about the secret police breaking down my door? No, not today or probably tomorrow either. I am worried that someday, if I give up my rights to own a gun, my descendants might have that problem. The biggest threat to our freedom is not communists or radical islamists but the "death of a thousand cuts" as supposedly well meaning people whittle away at all the freedoms - all in the name of our best interests of course - until there are no real freedoms left.

When you move over here and become a citizen of the US, you get a vote (one vote) on the subject of US gun laws. Not before.
Pompous, arrogant and extremely base. You again like so many assume I am European. You are also evading what was stated earlier by me. You seem to believe that counties that are not going around with concealed guns are not free and yet again the most dangerous and violent of all industrialized countries is a badge of honor for you and implies, freedom. My word, what has happened to the US.
Swedish, Finns, French, Irish, British, Norwegians, Australians and New Zealanders are really suffering from their lack of freedom and would love to be John Wayne types.

Answer the the question on the cost of your health care system as a result of gun crimes. In addition, why so much violence.

Eki

5th February 2012, 21:02

Off topic, but I don't bother to start a new thread. The US got a taste of it's own medicine when China and Russia vetoed against a resolution on Syria in the UN Security Council:

Vetoes leave Syria headed for a bloody stalemate - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/05/opinion/slim-syria-veto/index.html?hpt=hp_c1)

The US has several times vetoed resolutions on Israel and allowed killing of Palestinians and Lebanese go on unrestricted. Now Russia and China are allowing killing of Syrian opposition go on unrestricted.

Alexamateo

5th February 2012, 22:30

I read your long post and do not see where you nave addressed the issue of "what I have no idea" about.

Specifically, "close to slavery", no benefits, leaving family behind, etc.. Your characterization of illegal immigration does not come close to what I know and experience. You post like someone who has read about it, but doesn't really have an idea on how it actually is and what people experience.

Bob Riebe

6th February 2012, 00:29

Why not say all "white men" and add it to the Declaration of Independence.

What have the Irish got to do with this?

As a matter of fact the US constitution was written in most part by Irish and Scots.

Nice job of making yourself look foolish Mona..

Bob Riebe

6th February 2012, 00:39

Pretty audacious of you Bob Riebe to be so presumptuous as to believe you know what I have read. I would never make the same assumption of you , however , due to the damning defensive response to my post it seems I may be bold enough to expose your little hissy fit and your obscene defense of anything to do with your precious second amendment. The very law that ranks your country (you are in the US,right?) the most dangerous of all the industrialized nations of the world. Falling behind some of the developing countries. Maybe you have read Kellerman or McClurg (sic). Inspiring writers to say the least. You have read them Bob Riebe? Always good to be open minded and not simulating the natural instincts of the clam.

As you are increasingly making yourself sound like a trolling twit your rambling above fits perfectly.
YOU bring up Lott, YOU cannot defend lies involving him so- why would whether or not I have read Kellerman or McClurg have anything to do with this thread. I did not make accusations about them either way.
Keep on trolling Mona., your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance.

This thread is falling off topic and before you bring up Hitler and his taking guns from the Jews. Never happened. The law was enacted prior to Hitler even coming into power.
Tell that to the Jews who survied WWII Mona., but then for you ignorance is bliss.

Stephen Halbrook writes about the German gun restriction laws in the 1919-1928 period, "Within a decade, Germany had gone from a brutal firearms seizure policy which, in times of unrest, entailed selective yet immediate execution for mere possession of a firearm, to a modern, comprehensive gun control law."[3]
[edit] The 1938 German Weapons Act

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:

Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4]
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]
The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]
The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5]
Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.[6]

Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons

Bob Riebe

6th February 2012, 00:45

Off topic, but I don't bother to start a new thread. The US got a taste of it's own medicine when China and Russia vetoed against a resolution on Syria in the UN Security Council:

Vetoes leave Syria headed for a bloody stalemate - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/05/opinion/slim-syria-veto/index.html?hpt=hp_c1)
The US has several times vetoed resolutions on Israel and allowed killing of Palestinians and Lebanese go on unrestricted. Now Russia and China are allowing killing of Syrian opposition go on unrestricted.
So what?

Your point is?

Bob Riebe

6th February 2012, 00:55

Pompous, arrogant and extremely base.
You again like so many assume I am European. You are also evading what was stated earlier by http://foolstown.com/sm/bud.gifme.
You seem to believe that counties that are not going around with concealed guns are not free and yet again the most dangerous and violent of all industrialized countries is a badge of honor for you and implies, freedom. http://foolstown.com/sm/fly2.gif
Swedish, Finns, French, Irish, British, Norwegians, Australians and New Zealanders are really suffering from their lack of freedom and would love to be John Wayne types.http://foolstown.com/sm/ura1.gif

Answer the the question on the cost of your health care system as a result of gun crimes. In addition, why so much violence. http://foolstown.com/sm/leb.gif ``

monadvspec

6th February 2012, 04:18

Tell that to the Jews who survied WWII Mona., but then for you ignorance is bliss. Tell what to the Jews that survived as opposed to "survied"?

Stephen Halbrook writes about the German gun restriction laws in the 1919-1928 period, "Within a decade, Germany had gone from a brutal firearms seizure policy which, in times of unrest, entailed selective yet immediate execution for mere possession of a firearm, to a modern, comprehensive gun control law."[3]
[edit] The 1938 German Weapons Act

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:

Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4]
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]
The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]
The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5]
Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.[6]

Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons

Once again you post exactly what I stated and yet you are so out of touch you don't even see what I sated nor will I hold my breath to await your granting that you just stated what I had said.

Your attempt at ridiculing me is not going to work whether it is with American politics, European,Mid East, Far East or where in the world you wish to spew your google educated mind.

Eki

6th February 2012, 06:00

So what?

Your point is?
The US could sometime try to play nicely and cooperate with others, if it wants others to play nicely and cooperate.

BDunnell

6th February 2012, 09:02

BDunnell

6th February 2012, 09:03

That is your opinion, from your narrow view.
Meanwhile, Pres. Obama has doubled the number of persons on the no-fly list.

He too is a victim of said paranoia.

Of course with you seeming to be a liberal, that is to be expected.

Not much of an insult to a European, Bob. Of course I class myself as liberal.

airshifter

6th February 2012, 11:56

Pompous, arrogant and extremely base. You again like so many assume I am European. You are also evading what was stated earlier by me. You seem to believe that counties that are not going around with concealed guns are not free and yet again the most dangerous and violent of all industrialized countries is a badge of honor for you and implies, freedom. My word, what has happened to the US.
Swedish, Finns, French, Irish, British, Norwegians, Australians and New Zealanders are really suffering from their lack of freedom and would love to be John Wayne types.

Answer the the question on the cost of your health care system as a result of gun crimes. In addition, why so much violence.

The original thread itself is an arrogant assumption, and lumps those in the US into a group which many if not most do not fit. Why are you offended when such a statement is offered in return?

As for gun laws, one could easily offer both positives and negatives. This applies to almost any topic. But the burden on the health care system and law enforcement is affected a great deal more by those with illegal weapons and/or illegal ownership. It would be just as easy to point out law abiding citizens saved by gun laws, or the fact that Mexico has quite a problem with gun violence.

I'm not suprised at all with Starters response. This thread is but a thinly veiled attack on the US in general, and his sentiment is simple. If you don't like it don't come here.

BDunnell

6th February 2012, 13:23

The original thread itself is an arrogant assumption, and lumps those in the US into a group which many if not most do not fit.

No-one here has said that all Americans think in the way cited by the thread starter; one only has to read the title to see that. Why the persecution complex?

I'm not suprised at all with Starters response. This thread is but a thinly veiled attack on the US in general, and his sentiment is simple. If you don't like it don't come here.

I cannot imagine a citizen of any other country feeling the need to make such a statement. Sad, really. Those of us who are in no way anti-American yet have very real concerns about aspects of American policy could be forgiven for being somewhat offended by the 'you're either with us or against us' tone.

BDunnell

6th February 2012, 13:24

I was wondering if anyone was going to pick up on that. :p

Which suggests there is more than a little truth in it.

BDunnell

6th February 2012, 13:59

Airshifter has it right in that the one poster is letting substantial bias show. The US is close to 300 million people and on a good day there are about 299 million different points of view here.

Were he saying 'Death to all Americans', then I would consider you right to be concerned. As it is, all he's doing is being critical. So what?

monadvspec

6th February 2012, 14:09

Airshifter has it right in that the one poster is letting substantial bias show. The US is close to 300 million people and on a good day there are about 299 million different points of view here.

Let me get one point clear from the start. This is not, nor was it ever intended to be anti-American. If it were then I would be doing a disservice to many of my relatives born and bred in the US.
I would also like to point out that the thread referred to Conservatism in the US. To my understanding there is also a liberal point of view and an Independent one that seems to keep the two in check.
With the number of people that frequent this actual part of the forum it seems that it is very much a point of contention by some people with a conservative point of view as noted by BDunnell that this is an American forum. I mistakenly felt this was the WWW and that points of view from all were accepted.
Am I the one poster displaying bias? If so, please point the actual bias to me.

BDunnell

6th February 2012, 14:21

Lighten up. It's a discussion forum. You don't want to discuss and present/receive other points of view don't click on Chit Chat. He threw out a point of view and got a different one back. Perhaps one not expected but a different one just the same.

With respect, you are the one who seems to be having the difficulty participating in a discussion here. Your get-out — that I somehow don't want to discuss other points of view — is pretty weak. And this is not a humorous topic, hence your request of me to 'lighten up' is equally pointless. Funny you never make the same request of someone like Bob Riebe who happens to share your political standpoint...

F1boat

6th February 2012, 17:11

Many right-wing people claim this because of the "Socialist" part in the name. The GOP also uses Hitler analogies to demonize its enemies and the gullible electorate repeats the mantra.

airshifter

7th February 2012, 05:41

Am I the one poster displaying bias? If so, please point the actual bias to me.

Let's see. We start with a statement that "many" conservatives in the US think Hitler was a left winger. Can you even justify that statement with any factual polling, or any other indication that it is true? Even if so this would completely discount the fact that if viewed on only a two dimensional political basis, many people wordwide could vote either liberal or conservative on a great many people thoughout history.

You then bring up our hated of illegal immigrants, once again without any evidence of it's truth, and act as though we live to make someone suffer in slave like conditions. Why don't you give examples of countries that welcome illegal immigrants with open arms, give them health benefits and find them good jobs? Just how short would that list be?

You not only misrepresent the burden of health care caused by guns, but you completely ignore the fact that the vast majority of such incidents are at the hands of illegal guns in the hands of people not legally eligible to own them. And once again the reference that conservatives are all gun toting cowboys.

I personally don't think you have the slightest grasp on what the average US citizen thinks about politics, nor do you have an understanding of just how blurred the political lines are these days among most people I talk to in this country. I would venture to guess that most likely the small number of people fitting your mold as probably passed in number by the people in other countries that still think there was no moon landing, and that the US blew up the twin towers just for an excuse to start a war.

I think common sense would dictate to take all radical nutbags, regardless of nationality and/or political views, and lump them together in one group. We could call that group global nutbags. Taken out of the picture, one would then find that all over the world most people have very complex belief systems in regards to politics on either a local or global scale.

monadvspec

7th February 2012, 15:59

Let's see. We start with a statement that "many" conservatives in the US think Hitler was a left winger. Can you even justify that statement with any factual polling, or any other indication that it is true? Even if so this would completely discount the fact that if viewed on only a two dimensional political basis, many people wordwide could vote either liberal or conservative on a great many people thoughout history.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.

Who were the people who made these statements. Only the leading minds on all things relative to the Third Reich and Hitler. William Shirer, Allen Bullock, Gunther Lewy and Friedrich Heer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You then bring up our hated of illegal immigrants, once again without any evidence of it's truth, and act as though we live to make someone suffer in slave like conditions. Why don't you give examples of countries that welcome illegal immigrants with open arms, give them health benefits and find them good jobs? Just how short would that list be?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never said that any country accepted Illegals with open arms. However, many do accept them as human beings and don't sit on the border with guns as though waiting to shoot animals. Like the East Germans did to keep the populace in. Countries that treat illegals with dignity, UK, Ireland, Germany, Poland, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal and the Scandinavian countries. Not short and off the top of my head. Ahem, I read about these things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You not only misrepresent the burden of health care caused by guns, but you completely ignore the fact that the vast majority of such incidents are at the hands of illegal guns in the hands of people not legally eligible to own them. And once again the reference that conservatives are all gun toting cowboys.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illegal, you created the mess and the health costs are staggering;manufacturing a product and making it easy to obtain is the responsibility of those you elect to control. However, if I may be so bold, it is the conservatives through the gun lobby (NRA) that prevent the children from living out their lives by allowing laws to lapse and politicians to be shot or even presidents to be assassinated.

On average, guns kill or wound 276 people every day in America. Of those, 75 adults and 9 children will die. In the US there are more than 30,000 deaths and over 100,000 injuries related to gun violence each year. Incredibly more children die or are injured by guns each year in the US than in all twenty-six industrialized nations combined.

Iaddressed this claim and it is easily found in text from the AMA or FBI and CDC.

The health care and economic costs of gun violence in the US are equally staggering. According to the Public Services Research Institute in 2008, firearm homicide and assault cost federal, state and local governments $4.7 billion annually including costs for medical care, mental health, emergency transport, police, criminal justice and lost taxes. They also state that when lost productivity, lost quality of life, and pain and suffering are added to medical costs, estimates of the annual cost of firearm violence range from $20 billion to $100 billion. According to the National Center for Disease Control, the cost of firearm fatalities is the highest of any injury-related death. In fact, the average cost of a gunshot related death is $33,000, while gun-related injuries total over $300,000 for each occurrence.
I personally don't think you have the slightest grasp on what the average US citizen thinks about politics, nor do you have an understanding of just how blurred the political lines are these days among most people I talk to in this country. I would venture to guess that most likely the small number of people fitting your mold as probably passed in number by the people in other countries that still think there was no moon landing, and that the US blew up the twin towers just for an excuse to start a war.

Actually, your summation that I know little about American politics is very much off the mark. I would hazard a guess as I'm sure many non- Americans that their knowledge of world events including the US is very knowledgeable and in fact the status of most countries. We do know what happens in other countries besides our own and we do watch the news and we do read newspapers. Amazing, isn't it. By the way, the majority of your conspiracies from the towers to the moon landing come from your country and not overseas. Clean your own house.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think common sense would dictate to take all radical nutbags, regardless of nationality and/or political views, and lump them together in one group. We could call that group global nutbags. Taken out of the picture, one would then find that all over the world most people have very complex belief systems in regards to politics on either a local or global scale.

Hmmmm, just listening to the nutbags, I wonder do you put Gerry Falwell (sic), I know he is dead, Pat Robertson, Michael Savage, Michele Malkin, Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O' Reilly (the guy we laugh about with his war on Xmas) and his paying off the mistress in order to keep his fine Christian Values intact. Larry Criag (Bathroom Boy), Newt (isn't that some type of lizard) Gingrich, Strom Thurman (daughter conceived by his affair with a black woman) while he practiced family value.
In fact, I/we do know quite a bit about what is happening around the world.

I suggest you read up a little more on your own country so that you may post a more complex post that may challenge those that actually, read, listen and digest in order to form an opinion.

Alexamateo

7th February 2012, 16:22

Hmmmm, just listening to the nutbags, I wonder do you put Gerry Falwell (sic), I know he is dead, Pat Robertson, Michael Savage, Michele Malkin, Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O' Reilly (the guy we laugh about with his war on Xmas) and his paying off the mistress in order to keep his fine Christian Values intact. Larry Criag (Bathroom Boy), Newt (isn't that some type of lizard) Gingrich, Strom Thurman (daughter conceived by his affair with a black woman) while he practiced family value.
In fact, I/we do know quite a bit about what is happening around the world.

I suggest you read up a little more on your own country so that you may post a more complex post that may challenge those that actually, read, listen and digest in order to form an opinion.

Wow!!! You have grouped all of these people together and formed an opinion of American Values. How very Bill O'Reilly of you! :laugh:

What I mean is this, you are accusing a whole swath of the US population based on what you have read from some talking heads who oftentimes say things and make pronouncements in order to drive ratings. You yourself are doing exactly what you would accuse Bill O'reilly of doing. :dozey:

Eki

7th February 2012, 17:46

Q: How many US conservatives does it take to change a light bulb?

A: I don't know, but they are all convinced that Obama broke it.

Bob Riebe

7th February 2012, 18:58

Q: How many US conservatives does it take to change a light bulb?

A: I don't know, but they are all convinced that Obama broke it.
Nope, Bush gets full blame for that one.

monadvspec

7th February 2012, 19:55

monadvspec isn't interested in any reasonable discussion. Seems his only interest in starting this thread was to bash the USA. Facts don't seem to matter much in his view. We probably should stop feeding the trolls.
I take exception to your statement of bashing the US. Where exactly have I bashed the country. I have been speaking about the right wing and conservatism in the US as a response to other posters.

I find that your comment as a moderator is extremely prejudiced to those that are non-American , but you ignore comment on posts like those of Bob Riebe.

To my knowledge the US is by most studies a liberal society not a Conservative one.

monadvspec

7th February 2012, 19:58

Wow!!! You have grouped all of these people together and formed an opinion of American Values. How very Bill O'Reilly of you! :laugh:

What I mean is this, you are accusing a whole swath of the US population based on what you have read from some talking heads who oftentimes say things and make pronouncements in order to drive ratings. You yourself are doing exactly what you would accuse Bill O'reilly of doing. :dozey:

I didn't form an opinion. Best you read what was stated. People in glass houses should not throw stones.

BDunnell

7th February 2012, 20:02

monadvspec isn't interested in any reasonable discussion. Seems his only interest in starting this thread was to bash the USA. Facts don't seem to matter much in his view. We probably should stop feeding the trolls.

Being a troll and voicing opinions that you or anyone else disagree with are two very different things. As a moderator, I would expect you to realise that.

airshifter

7th February 2012, 20:12

Hmmmm, just listening to the nutbags, I wonder do you put Gerry Falwell (sic), I know he is dead, Pat Robertson, Michael Savage, Michele Malkin, Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O' Reilly (the guy we laugh about with his war on Xmas) and his paying off the mistress in order to keep his fine Christian Values intact. Larry Criag (Bathroom Boy), Newt (isn't that some type of lizard) Gingrich, Strom Thurman (daughter conceived by his affair with a black woman) while he practiced family value.
In fact, I/we do know quite a bit about what is happening around the world.

I suggest you read up a little more on your own country so that you may post a more complex post that may challenge those that actually, read, listen and digest in order to form an opinion.

Quite a lot to type to not address much of anything that I asked.

The issue of what conservatives think - a big rant and no evidence that it is even true.

Illegal aliens - news flash, that border is infested with illegal drug traffic and gun traffic. You'll find that even those people caught are treated better than in the country they are trying to work their way out of. Ever see heavy security on the Canadian border?

The gun issue - another long rant that ignores legal vs illegal gun use. Refer to above and gun traffic from Mexico.

As for your list, many would land in my "nutbag" group. Then again you are expressing a very opinionated view yourself. Are there any mirrors in your house?

Bob Riebe

7th February 2012, 20:13

To my knowledge the US is by most studies a liberal society not a Conservative one.Your are wrong.
Unless you have multiple documents that would give you that idea, then your statement in another post about not having an opinion makes you out to be a rather sad liar.

BDunnell

7th February 2012, 20:24

Your are wrong.

Well, Bob, I'd say it's up to you to prove it so. Merely saying 'you are wrong' and then calling someone a 'liar' does not constitute responding to an argument.

Bob Riebe

7th February 2012, 21:04

Well, Bob, I'd say it's up to you to prove it so. Merely saying 'you are wrong' and then calling someone a 'liar' does not constitute responding to an argument.
Mona. said: I didn't form an opinion.
No he made a claim without proof. It is strictly up to him to prove it.
IF not, then I can say anything I wish, and it is fact, not opinion, simply because I said so. He was not stating his opinion, he was floating a supposed fact about other's thought process.

You would make a good liberal U.S. politician. They float lies without any proof and get away with it because the press spreads it as fact, truth be damned.
Well I guess the truth is not damned as no one bothers to check the truth, it is simply ignored.

Eki

7th February 2012, 21:10

The answer is none. They're all being phased out over here in favor of compact flourescents and LEDs.
:rolleyes:
LED light bulbs are still light bulbs, even if they normally last for 10,000 hours or more:

LED light bulbs, GU10 LED, MR16 LED (http://www.ledlightbulb.net/)

F1boat

8th February 2012, 08:59

q: How many us conservatives does it take to change a light bulb?

A: I don't know, but they are all convinced that obama broke it.

rofl :d

monadvspec

8th February 2012, 16:43

donKey jote

8th February 2012, 17:25

I used the troll reference because he throws out unsubstantiated statements and, when rebutted, claims the rebuttal is unsubstantiated. He also makes sweeping generalizations attempting to pin them on those who he deems are in the subject group. My point to others, and myself, is that it is a waste of time to argue with someone like that. Just leave them alone to mutter to themselves.

Yep :up:

Oh, I guess you don't mean the likes of Riebe :p :laugh:

monadvspec

8th February 2012, 19:04

Oh I know the difference. If I thought he was a true troll, as opposed to just annoying, I would have done something about it. He was not sanctioned in any way through my being a Moderator. I also can participate you know.

I used the troll reference because he throws out unsubstantiated statements and, when rebutted, claims the rebuttal is unsubstantiated. He also makes sweeping generalizations attempting to pin them on those who he deems are in the subject group. My point to others, and myself, is that it is a waste of time to argue with someone like that. Just leave them alone to mutter to themselves.

What is the definition of moderator. I seem to have lost the meaning somewhere. I always believed it was a person not unlike a referee that did not take sides and also did not involve themselves in discussions that are primal and incendiary at times. If you wish to discuss I would suggest that you do so as under a different name as it diminishes the thread and dissuades those with a different opinion to yours from posting what they would like but fear alienation through a ban.
You stated I did not reply to questions and generalized. Unfounded and libelous. Go back and read and in the meantime take a look at the person who derails topics yet not one of you ever asks for him to tone down the rhetoric. It seems those that see it are the posters. You as a moderator turn a blind eye. You are letting your political affiliation cloud your judgment. Who is Mark you either asked or, I don't know regarding owning the board. What had that to do with anything?

airshifter

9th February 2012, 01:35

What is the definition of moderator. I seem to have lost the meaning somewhere. I always believed it was a person not unlike a referee that did not take sides and also did not involve themselves in discussions that are primal and incendiary at times. If you wish to discuss I would suggest that you do so as under a different name as it diminishes the thread and dissuades those with a different opinion to yours from posting what they would like but fear alienation through a ban.
You stated I did not reply to questions and generalized. Unfounded and libelous. Go back and read and in the meantime take a look at the person who derails topics yet not one of you ever asks for him to tone down the rhetoric. It seems those that see it are the posters. You as a moderator turn a blind eye. You are letting your political affiliation cloud your judgment. Who is Mark you either asked or, I don't know regarding owning the board. What had that to do with anything?

It has been customary on this site and many others for moderators to be active members of the forum. They can easily follow the rules and enforce rules among the others and still have an opinion. As for Mark, you asked who watches the moderators. As far as I know Mark appoints all moderators, and would act if any of them weren't being unbiased and fair in their actions.

As for your "unfounded and libelous" statement, I found the same thing and asked that you justify your statements that started the thread with some type of source or evidence. You have yet to do so. Rather than reply to my points you seem to have intentionally avoided or otherwise tried to sidestep them while promoting another agenda.

I can agree that topics often get derailed. That's life on the forums. It seems that if a topic is "derailed" by a point of view most don't agree with they get offended, but if they agree with the general point of view of the "derailment" it isn't something that bothers people. Either we can expec the forum as a whole to stay on topic, or we can ignore all attempts at derailing the topic. More often than not people join in on the redirection.

call_me_andrew

9th February 2012, 04:48

If I may be so bold as to go back to the original topic, I don't think all political positions can be accurately graphed on a 2D map because someone who believes in two things on opposite sides gets labeled a "moderate" while someone indifferent to the issues is also labled a "moderate."

An accurate representation of political beliefs would require a 3D cube chart or something more advanced such as a 4D hypercube or tesseract.

F1boat

9th February 2012, 08:29

Bob Riebe

9th February 2012, 12:37

This is undoubtedly true. However, according to political science, of which I have Master's degree, Hitler is a prime example of the extreme right.As definitions of right-wing, or any other bs branding with the word right in it, say that it is "conservative or reactionary" now as those terms are mutually exclusive, I would say that does fine job of showing that political science, at least as far as internet definitions go is political but definitely not science.

As Carl Rove once told a reporter when some numbers showed that Republicans would lose. "There are numbers and there are real numbers that count." He then went on to say Republicans would win easily.
When the Republicans got their butts handed to them in the election, that definitely showed their is no science in political science.

Brown, Jon Brow

9th February 2012, 13:02

As definitions of right-wing, or any other bs branding with the word right in it, say that it is "conservative or reactionary" now as those terms are mutually exclusive, I would say that does fine job of showing that political science, at least as far as internet definitions go is political but definitely not science.

As Carl Rove once told a reporter when some numbers showed that Republicans would lose. "There are numbers and there are real numbers that count." He then went on to say Republicans would win easily.
When the Republicans got their butts handed to them in the election, that definitely showed their is no science in political science.

So you are dismissing a whole field of study just because a poll was once wrong?

Do you always think that logically?

F1boat

9th February 2012, 15:07

So you are dismissing a whole field of study just because a poll was once wrong?

Do you always think that logically?

From what I have seen in the ChitChat section, yes.

Bob Riebe

9th February 2012, 17:01

So you are dismissing a whole field of study just because a poll was once wrong?

Do you always think that logically?
No any field of study that labels reactionary and conservative to be the same type of person and with the same political thought, dismisses itself.

Rove was not using a poll, he had his own scientific (political) numbers.

Political Science majors, spend money to learn what every street hustler learns for free, although hustlers run with a more visceral crowd.

monadvspec

9th February 2012, 17:53

It has been customary on this site and many others for moderators to be active members of the forum. They can easily follow the rules and enforce rules among the others and still have an opinion. As for Mark, you asked who watches the moderators. As far as I know Mark appoints all moderators, and would act if any of them weren't being unbiased and fair in their actions.

As for your "unfounded and libelous" statement, I found the same thing and asked that you justify your statements that started the thread with some type of source or evidence. You have yet to do so. Rather than reply to my points you seem to have intentionally avoided or otherwise tried to sidestep them while promoting another agenda.

I can agree that topics often get derailed. That's life on the forums. It seems that if a topic is "derailed" by a point of view most don't agree with they get offended, but if they agree with the general point of view of the "derailment" it isn't something that bothers people. Either we can expect the forum as a whole to stay on topic, or we can ignore all attempts at derailing the topic. More often than not people join in on the redirection.

Instead of being so defamed and utterly debased by the opinion of another you then proceed to erroneously state an untruth that your question was not answered. Where was the question? However, I did supply you with facts and will do so again. I believe it was post 64.
I presume you know who the CDC in the USA is, the AMA, the FBI and many other organizations.

On average, guns kill or wound 276 people every day in America. Of those, 75 adults and 9 children will die. In the US there are more than 30,000 deaths and over 100,000 injuries related to gun violence each year. Incredibly more children die or are injured by guns each year in the US than in all twenty-six industrialized nations combined.
The health care and economic costs of gun violence in the US are equally staggering. According to the Public Services Research Institute in 2008, firearm homicide and assault cost federal, state and local governments $4.7 billion annually including costs for medical care, mental health, emergency transport, police, criminal justice and lost taxes. They also state that when lost productivity, lost quality of life, and pain and suffering are added to medical costs, estimates of the annual cost of firearm violence range from $20 billion to $100 billion. According to the National Center for Disease Control, the cost of firearm fatalities is the highest of any injury-related death. In fact, the average cost of a gunshot related death is $33,000, while gun-related injuries total over $300,000 for each occurrence

Rollo

9th February 2012, 21:58

No any field of study that labels reactionary and conservative to be the same type of person and with the same political thought, dismisses itself.

From the OED:
reactionary:
adj - opposed to (esp. political) change ir reform; conservative
n - a person who favours reactionary policies

From the Merriam-Webster:
reactionary:
adj - relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction; especially : ultraconservative in politics

So what you are in effect saying is that the English Language itself, on both sides of the pond is wrong. Hmm.

I for one wish you well on your crusade to change English as she is spoke:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3299/3503448168_7cfb49b975.jpg

BDunnell

9th February 2012, 22:07

So what you are in effect saying is that the English Language itself, on both sides of the pond is wrong. Hmm.

Given Bob's often unique interpretations of the English language, I am in no way surprised.

BDunnell

9th February 2012, 22:50

Apparently there are now three versions of the English language. The way it is written, the way spoken and the way texted. Personally I'm still trying to master just one of the three. :rolleyes:

In no way can the way some people text be classed as a version of the English language! I in no way object to the evolution of language, but wish it wouldn't happen through mistakes.

Rollo

9th February 2012, 23:03

The most obvious example of a reactionary and conservative government that I can think of would be the National Government under the Premiership of Chamberlain.
Economically it thought that a smaller government was the order of the day and in a more general sense the actions of Sir John Simon and Lord Halifax can not be said to be anything but reactionary: they wouldn't know radicalism if you put a tail on it and called it a Reichsadler.

Bob Riebe

9th February 2012, 23:48

From the OED:
reactionary:
adj - opposed to (esp. political) change ir reform; conservative
n - a person who favours reactionary policies

From the Merriam-Webster:
reactionary:
adj - relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction; especially : ultraconservative in politics

So what you are in effect saying is that the English Language itself, on both sides of the pond is wrong. Hmm.

I for one wish you well on your crusade to change English as she is spoke:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3299/3503448168_7cfb49b975.jpg

Definition of CONSERVATIVE
1
: preservative
2
a : of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism: as (1) : of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2) : progressive conservative
3
a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional b : marked by moderation or caution c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners

Definition of REACTIONARY
: relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction.

re·ac·tion
n.
1.
a. A response to a stimulus.
b. The state resulting from such a response.
2. A reverse or opposing action.

As the American Indians say- White men speak with forked tongue.
Words mean things. People who change the meaning of a word to fit their dogma are babbling twits but then we are speaking of political speak, so that fits the norm.
Now to try to foist reactionary as the action only of conservatives, is not only the pot calling the kettle black, it is rather moronic, but as I said this is political speak, and labeling people regardless of the truth is the norm, especially by liberals.

Rollo if you want to chase windmills, have at it, but you must have better things to do.

BDunnell

9th February 2012, 23:56

Words mean things. People who change the meaning of a word to fit their dogma are babbling twits but then we are speaking of political speak, so that fits the norm.
Now to try to foist reactionary as the action only of conservatives, is not only the pot calling the kettle black, it is rather moronic, but as I said this is political speak, and labeling people regardless of the truth is the norm, especially by liberals.

So you are saying that the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of 'reactionary' is politically motivated? What utter nonsense. You are not in a very good position from which to lecture others on language.

Bob Riebe

10th February 2012, 02:46

So you are saying that the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of 'reactionary' is politically motivated? What utter nonsense. You are not in a very good position from which to lecture others on language.
OED, which is the slowest to change, and other dictionaries only put in such colloquialisms when there use is so common, it becomes common language, whether or not it totally ignores the meaning of the word, although I was a bit surprised that that ******* definition of conservative and reactionary seems to have originated in the U.K.

The corruption of the word/s was politically motivated. I have no idea what political standards the publishers of the OED held or hold.

There was an article in the news two or three months ago about which slang words were going to be incorporated into the OED and which ones would be eliminated from the abridged volumes, and why.

Since you are a stickler for grammar, you should spend the time to search out the information on the dictionary war that took place apprx. fifty years ago over definitions of words to be allowed into the dictionary.

donKey jote

10th February 2012, 18:22

I wonder if these US marines are left wing... after all the SS were Hitlers sharp shooting Schutzstaffel :dozey:
Polémica por una foto de marines de EE UU con una bandera nazi | Internacional | EL PAÍS (http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2012/02/10/actualidad/1328853006_671879.html)

http://ep00.epimg.net/internacional/imagenes/2012/02/10/actualidad/1328853006_671879_1328853949_noticia_normal.jpg

Jag_Warrior

11th February 2012, 17:26

I have read many times in many newspapers from the Times of London, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, the Irish Times and websites and am very much appalled by the belief in many cases of amongst the American conservative and Republican supporters that belief that Hitler was a left wing politically based upon the simple premise that he was leader of the National Socialist Party.
How on earth can one put forward such a ludicrous uneducated assumption based upon a name. Is the IRA right wing since it is the Irish Republican Army? Were the Republicans of Spain right wing? Was the GDR Democratic or the Republic of North Korea.
This disturbs me as it indicates a very shallow knowledge of real political meaning by many who vote and in essence have no idea what they are voting for or against.
Comments would be appreciated and civility also.

Well, we're talking about the same group of people (social conservatives) who typically don't know the difference between socialism (the economic system) and communism (the governmental system), who, during the financial crisis, linked the word "czar" to communist Russia, who profess support of supply side economics (as if it was some sort of religion), but can't understand or explain it and generally seem to react with emotion rather than data or facts.

In short, many of them just aren't very bright. "Thick", I think is the word I'm looking for. :D

monadvspec

11th February 2012, 18:12

Mona. said: I didn't form an opinion.
No he made a claim without proof. It is strictly up to him to prove it.
IF not, then I can say anything I wish, and it is fact, not opinion, simply because I said so. He was not stating his opinion, he was floating a supposed fact about other's thought process.

You would make a good liberal U.S. politician. They float lies without any proof and get away with it because the press spreads it as fact, truth be damned.
Well I guess the truth is not damned as no one bothers to check the truth, it is simply ignored.

Bob Riebe, where did I state "I didn't form an opinion?

monadvspec

11th February 2012, 18:22

Well, we're talking about the same group of people (social conservatives) who typically don't know the difference between socialism (the economic system) and communism (the governmental system), who, during the financial crisis, linked the word "czar" to communist Russia, who profess support of supply side economics (as if it was some sort of religion), but can't understand or explain it and generally seem to react with emotion rather than data or facts.

In short, many of them just aren't very bright. "Thick", I think is the word I'm looking for. :D

Jag-Warrior, I always enjoy your posts both at the INDY Car forum and here.

You usually hit the nail on the head , but alas, if you are not using concrete nails some of your comments fall in deaf ears.

Recently, I have been accused that I did not respond to a comment made by a poster. This indication was done with civility and I accepted it with the belief that the issue would be resolved as was suggested by removing my post.

However, the inflammatory post from the other person was left up and still sits there. It is a post by Airshifter.

As a seasoned member of these forums is it customary to delete a post using the excuse that the thread was off topic and yet leaving accusatory post up which is very much in the favor of the person who deleted mind.

I feel as though the profound bias that I have seen is more pervasive than I thought and someone with an opposing or liberal view is dismissed.

Bob Riebe

11th February 2012, 18:53

Bob Riebe, where did I state "I didn't form an opinion?Post 74

Bob Riebe

11th February 2012, 19:07

Well, we're talking about the same group of people (social conservatives) who typically don't know the difference between socialism (the economic system) and communism (the governmental system), who, during the financial crisis, linked the word "czar" to communist Russia, who profess support of supply side economics (as if it was some sort of religion), but can't understand or explain it and generally seem to react with emotion rather than data or facts.

In short, many of them just aren't very bright. "Thick", I think is the word I'm looking for. :D
Well Jag it seems this: so·cial·ism
noun \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

puts you and your inept attack in this category-"many of them just aren't very bright."
By definition there is no real difference between the so-called economic and political sides. Either way the government owns and controls all.

Have a nice day. :)

Jag_Warrior

11th February 2012, 20:30

Jag-Warrior, I always enjoy your posts both at the INDY Car forum and here.

You usually hit the nail on the head , but alas, if you are not using concrete nails some of your comments fall in deaf ears.

Recently, I have been accused that I did not respond to a comment made by a poster. This indication was done with civility and I accepted it with the belief that the issue would be resolved as was suggested by removing my post.

However, the inflammatory post from the other person was left up and still sits there. It is a post by Airshifter.

As a seasoned member of these forums is it customary to delete a post using the excuse that the thread was off topic and yet leaving accusatory post up which is very much in the favor of the person who deleted mind.

I feel as though the profound bias that I have seen is more pervasive than I thought and someone with an opposing or liberal view is dismissed.

I have to admit, I'm not familiar with that situation. I sort of skipped to the end after reading your post. But I thought that it was a good, sincere question that you asked.

Well Jag it seems this: so·cial·ism
noun \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

puts you and your inept attack in this category-"many of them just aren't very bright."
By definition there is no real difference between the so-called economic and political sides. Either way the government owns and controls all.

Have a nice day. :)

Uh no, Bob. Just as I said, one is a governmental system and the other is an economic system. You can theoretically have a socialist economic system within a democracy. And, as China demonstrates, you can have capitalism, or elements thereof, within a communist government system. Words, and the definitions of those words, do matter, my friend. Why do some find this to be so difficult?

As if by clockwork, this just demonstrates to others here what we face in this nation with so called "social conservatives". I once tried to explain the pluses and minuses of supply side theory to one of these people on another forum. And he came back at me with quotes from the Bible... which weren't even relevant! But that was the basis for his economic beliefs. I suppose he had heard that supply side economics was what his kind was supposed to believe in, so that's what he believed. He didn't know anything about it, but his "faith" told him to follow other members of the herd... so he did.

So I try not to waste too much time discussing much of anything with people who lack basic, fundamental knowledge these days, Bob. Sorry, but recent events have taught me that life is too short. But I do thank you for proving the point in my initial post.

Bob Riebe

11th February 2012, 20:35

I have to admit, I'm not familiar with that situation. I sort of skipped to the end after reading your post. But I thought that it was a good, sincere question that you asked.

Uh no, Bob. Just as I said, one is a governmental system and the other is an economic system. You can theoretically have a socialist economic system within a democracy. And, as China demonstrates, you can have capitalism, or elements thereof, within a communist government system. Words, and the definitions of those words, do matter, my friend. Why do some find this to be so difficult?

As if by clockwork, this just demonstrates to others here what we face in this nation with so called "social conservatives". I once tried to explain the pluses and minuses of supply side theory to one of these people on another forum. And he came back at me with quotes from the Bible... which weren't even relevant! But that was the basis for his economic beliefs. I suppose he had heard that supply side economics was what his kind was supposed to believe in, so that's what he believed. He didn't know anything about it, but his "faith" told him to follow other members of the herd... so he did.

So I try not to waste too much time discussing much of anything with people who lack basic, fundamental knowledge these days, Bob. Sorry, but recent events have taught me that life is too short. But I do thank you for proving the point in my initial post.That your post was not very bright, you are welcome.

Jag_Warrior

11th February 2012, 21:01

Hitting me with a Bible verse would have been so much more impressive. :rolleyes:

BDunnell

11th February 2012, 21:29

That your post was not very bright, you are welcome.

Bob, how you have the gall to accuse others of not being very bright I have no idea. Your contributions are hardly those of a great intellect.

Ranger

12th February 2012, 02:56

I have read many times in many newspapers from the Times of London, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, the Irish Times and websites and am very much appalled by the belief in many cases of amongst the American conservative and Republican supporters that belief that Hitler was a left wing politically based upon the simple premise that he was leader of the National Socialist Party.
How on earth can one put forward such a ludicrous uneducated assumption based upon a name. Is the IRA right wing since it is the Irish Republican Army? Were the Republicans of Spain right wing? Was the GDR Democratic or the Republic of North Korea.
This disturbs me as it indicates a very shallow knowledge of real political meaning by many who vote and in essence have no idea what they are voting for or against.
Comments would be appreciated and civility also.

When the term 'fascism' becomes an accurate description of a government, it doesn't matter whether they are originally left or right wing.

Any political comparison to Hitler/Stalin in western countries is greatly exaggerated for the purpose of cheap political point-scoring.

monadvspec

12th February 2012, 03:41

Bob, how you have the gall to accuse others of not being very bright I have no idea. Your contributions are hardly those of a great intellect.

Bob Riebe, I do see that I did make that remark. So now it is up to you to disprove it.

monadvspec

12th February 2012, 03:58

Bob Riebe

12th February 2012, 04:35

I do notice while reading newspaper articles that the word Progressive has replaced liberal since conservatives believe that the word is in some way demonic. I will use the word progressive from now on in place of liberalism so that I do not offend the thin skinned attitudes of the "classic" Conservative.Actually, it may very well be the newspapers are liberal and know that word does them more harm than progressive, although progressive was used before liberal, so it is just a circle.

Bob Riebe

12th February 2012, 04:46

Bob Riebe, I do see that I did make that remark. So now it is up to you to disprove it.
Hmm, let's see, I convince you that you actually said something, so that seems to prove you have no idea what you are writing and this is in a post where you apparently are addressing Mr. Dunnell as it is his quote you copy.

Oh dear Mony-Mony, if you do not even know what you wrote,or to whom you are addressing it, no one will ever convince you of anything.

Bob Riebe

12th February 2012, 04:54

Bob, how you have the gall to accuse others of not being very bright I have no idea. Your contributions are hardly those of a great intellect.
Yours are near entirely grade school insults of posters who are at least dealing with the topic, which you fail to do, so what is your point, beyond hearing (seeing) yourself speak?

If you are as ignorant of the subject at hand as your posts seem to indicate, for you silence would be golden, but then people who are legends in their own minds do what you do quite often.
The similarity in tone of Monadvspec's and your posts, is making me wonder if your are not the same person under different monikers. Troll on boys.

Bob Riebe

12th February 2012, 04:56

Hitting me with a Bible verse would have been so much more impressive. :rolleyes: Your point, if you have one, as your babbling about socialism fell flat on its face?

Jag_Warrior

12th February 2012, 06:07

Your point, if you have one, as your babbling about socialism fell flat on its face?

The point:

Neither capitalism nor socialism are governmental systems. Socialism and communism are NOT one and the same. In my original post, I pointed out that there are more than a few undereducated wingnuts, who refer to themselves as "social conservatives", who are too ignorant to know that FACT. And in comes Bob... proving my point.

Is that clear enough for you?

monadvspec

12th February 2012, 14:53

Bob Riebe, I do see that I did make that remark. So now it is up to you to disprove it.

A slip of the tongue is no fault of the mind. It also applies to writing posts. I apologize to BDunnel for mistakenly hitting the 'post reply' under his name instead of the character that is Bob Riebe.

monadvspec

12th February 2012, 14:56

Your point, if you have one, as your babbling about socialism fell flat on its face?

It would be very interesting to know where exactly you feel Jag_Warrior fell on his face. Pardon me for saying this but it appears from the many post that you write your face must have fallen and you can't get up.

BDunnell

12th February 2012, 17:46

Actually, it may very well be the newspapers are liberal and know that word does them more harm than progressive, although progressive was used before liberal, so it is just a circle.

Can you provide evidence for 'progressive' being used before 'liberal'?

BDunnell

12th February 2012, 17:48

Yours are near entirely grade school insults of posters who are at least dealing with the topic, which you fail to do, so what is your point, beyond hearing (seeing) yourself speak?

If you are as ignorant of the subject at hand as your posts seem to indicate, for you silence would be golden, but then people who are legends in their own minds do what you do quite often.
The similarity in tone of Monadvspec's and your posts, is making me wonder if your are not the same person under different monikers. Troll on boys.

Again, no-one should forget that you once considered a suitable contribution to this forum to be: 'Go bunky-troll on! Drink chug-a-lug-drink-chug-a-lug...'

donKey jote

12th February 2012, 19:13

... and that was on a "good" day :p :laugh:

BDunnell

12th February 2012, 20:28

... and that was on a "good" day :p :laugh:

It was. The words were all correctly written.

Bob Riebe

12th February 2012, 21:28

The point:

Neither capitalism nor socialism are governmental systems.-- Socialism and communism are NOT one and the same. In my original post,
I pointed out that there are more than a few undereducated wing-nuts, who refer to themselves as "social conservatives", who are too ignorant to know that FACT. And in comes Bob... proving my point.

Is that clear enough for you?
Meanwhile, the definition of socialism says :( Despite of your opinion)
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution.
I do believe politics and the government controlling is a governmental affair.
So you are simply wrong but what is that word you used? You are--"too ignorant to know the fact"?

So now what are you clear about?

The ony one speaking of "social conservatives is you.

Here is your original statement:--Well, we're talking about the same group of people (social conservatives) who typically don't know the difference between socialism (the economic system) and communism (the governmental system), who, during the financial crisis, linked the word "czar" to communist Russia, who profess support of supply side economics (as if it was some sort of religion), but can't understand or explain it and generally seem to react with emotion rather than data or facts.
In short, many of them just aren't very bright. "Thick", I think is the word I'm looking for.

Bob Riebe

12th February 2012, 23:59

Again, no-one should forget that you once considered a suitable contribution to this forum to be: 'Go bunky-troll on! Drink chug-a-lug-drink-chug-a-lug...'
I did not consider it anything, I said it because I felt like it.

Now your continual sniping at posters without contributing anything of value, whether one agrees with it or not, to a threads topic, is what you consider a suitable contribution to this forum.

You do as you please and I will do a I please. If you continue to moan and whine about it, I will treat that with as much respect as that deserves.

Bob Riebe

13th February 2012, 00:12

Can you provide evidence for 'progressive' being used before 'liberal'? I speak only of U.S. politics. I make no claim for other countries.

19th Century Roots. The term "progressive" first came into use in an American political context in the late 19th century.

Scholar of liberalism Arthur Schlesinger Jr., writing in 1956, said that liberalism in the United States includes both a "laissez-faire" form and a "government intervention" form. He holds that liberalism in the United States is aimed toward achieving "equality of opportunity for all" but it is the means of achieving this that changes depending on the circumstances. He says that the "process of redefining liberalism in terms of the social needs of the 20th century was conducted by Theodore Roosevelt and his New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson and his New Freedom, and Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal. Out of these three reform periods there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security."

Bob Riebe

13th February 2012, 00:17

It would be very interesting to know where exactly you feel Jag_Warrior fell on his face. Pardon me for saying this but it appears from the many post that you write your face must have fallen and you can't get up.This from a person who cannot remember what he wrote only a few day before in the same forum- you have mortally wounded my soul- oh- there, I feel much better now.
As you do not have an opinion, unless I prove it, what you have just written is nothing from nothing.

Jag_Warrior

13th February 2012, 06:06

Meanwhile, the definition of socialism says :( Despite of your opinion)
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution.
I do believe politics and the government controlling is a governmental affair.
So you are simply wrong but what is that word you used? You are--"too ignorant to know the fact"?

So now what are you clear about?

The ony one speaking of "social conservatives is you.

Here is your original statement:--Well, we're talking about the same group of people (social conservatives) who typically don't know the difference between socialism (the economic system) and communism (the governmental system), who, during the financial crisis, linked the word "czar" to communist Russia, who profess support of supply side economics (as if it was some sort of religion), but can't understand or explain it and generally seem to react with emotion rather than data or facts.
In short, many of them just aren't very bright. "Thick", I think is the word I'm looking for.

And "thick" is still the word I am looking for. That word is like your brother. Just embrace it. I define the terms as they were defined in the Routledge Dictionary of Economics... when I got my degree in Economics. And that is how I will continue to define the terms. Despite there being a variety of sources that offer varying (incorrect) definitions, no where would one find any (legitimate) source which claims that the two terms are synonymous.

By definition there is no real difference between the so-called economic and political sides.