Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems to me in reading these threads that there are a number of people who are increasingly embracing a staunchly conservative, antiintellectual, antiimigrant, evangelical Christian, anti liberal, pro-military, pro-corporate power model for America. In this thinking there is one acceptable flavor for America and all other varieties are unAmerican options to be stomped out, whether they are athiest, gay, muslim, leftist, environmentalist, or whatever. And when you try to discuss things with these folks you get an endless stream of parroted vacuous slogans (Hussein Obama is a MUSLIM, global warming is a HOAX, tax cuts increase revenue!), and a complete unwillingness to consider ANY fact that does not fit in their ideological orthodoxy. In fact, any information, even from hundreds of senior scientists will be rejected, attacked, or ignored by political spinmeisters. This is pushing us away from a balanced, informed way to run our society, where ideas are constantly refined in light of new information and research, towards fanaticism.
This seems to me to be largely similar the rise of 20th century European fascism. I fear a reactionary, aggressive, intolerant world view that carves us into the chosen people and the scapegoats is taking over our country. Some will say it is the left, but I would have to say the far left socialists have been in retreat since Carter, perhaps before. This time it is coming from the far right.
You have no idea what fascism is.
fas·cism
/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ Show Spelled[fash-iz-uhm]
–noun 1. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
It will be a combination of left and right, not just one side or the other.
Many on the left just want to be left alone, same as on the right but neither of them are willing to give up their wants yet.
It is those on both sides who are so he** bent on getting the force of law passed in an area they desire, that worry me.
Eventually it will be authoritarian vs. just leave me alone.
One huge problem with politics is that every single person in politics is there because they have an axe to grind (as do I). From city council all the way up to the POTUS, every single one of them has one single issue they are stuck on.
It seems to me in reading these threads that there are a number of people who are increasingly embracing a staunchly conservative, antiintellectual, antiimigrant, evangelical Christian, anti liberal, pro-military, pro-corporate power model for America. In this thinking there is one acceptable flavor for America and all other varieties are unAmerican options to be stomped out, whether they are athiest, gay, muslim, leftist, environmentalist, or whatever. And when you try to discuss things with these folks you get an endless stream of parroted vacuous slogans (Hussein Obama is a MUSLIM, global warming is a HOAX, tax cuts increase revenue!), and a complete unwillingness to consider ANY fact that does not fit in their ideological orthodoxy. In fact, any information, even from hundreds of senior scientists will be rejected, attacked, or ignored by political spinmeisters. This is pushing us away from a balanced, informed way to run our society, where ideas are constantly refined in light of new information and research, towards fanaticism.
This seems to me to be largely similar the rise of 20th century European fascism. I fear a reactionary, aggressive, intolerant world view that carves us into the chosen people and the scapegoats is taking over our country. Some will say it is the left, but I would have to say the far left socialists have been in retreat since Carter, perhaps before. This time it is coming from the far right.
Hmm..
I don't think so..
but what I am certain of...
Is there is a lot of propaganda BS being driven by various factions.
/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ Show Spelled[fash-iz-uhm]
–noun 1. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Sounds like the current administration to me.
Sounds like an environmentalist to me. The modern green jihadi IS the definition of a fascist.
It seems to me in reading these threads that there are a number of people who are increasingly embracing a staunchly conservative, antiintellectual, antiimigrant, evangelical Christian, anti liberal, pro-military, pro-corporate power model for America. In this thinking there is one acceptable flavor for America and all other varieties are unAmerican options to be stomped out, whether they are athiest, gay, muslim, leftist, environmentalist, or whatever. And when you try to discuss things with these folks you get an endless stream of parroted vacuous slogans (Hussein Obama is a MUSLIM, global warming is a HOAX, tax cuts increase revenue!), and a complete unwillingness to consider ANY fact that does not fit in their ideological orthodoxy. In fact, any information, even from hundreds of senior scientists will be rejected, attacked, or ignored by political spinmeisters. This is pushing us away from a balanced, informed way to run our society, where ideas are constantly refined in light of new information and research, towards fanaticism.
This seems to me to be largely similar the rise of 20th century European fascism. I fear a reactionary, aggressive, intolerant world view that carves us into the chosen people and the scapegoats is taking over our country. Some will say it is the left, but I would have to say the far left socialists have been in retreat since Carter, perhaps before. This time it is coming from the far right.
Anti-intellectual is a slanderous ad-hominem attack to disparage the credibility of the speaker rather than the argument of those who disagree with you. It is also an opinion statement which exposes a bias of arrogance where you either consciously or sub-consciously consider your opinions and statements as intellectually superior to those who disagree with you. Perhaps this is true, perhaps not, but you need to address the argument rather than slander the speaker to prove this or you are the one who appears anti-intellectual.
As for anti-immigrant, I would like to understand what you mean by this term. Perhaps you consider me anti-immigrant because I wish to quit spending money we don't have on people who are in this country illegally. I wish to tighten security on our borders to prevent people from entering our country illegally. I wish to provide tighter requirements for allowing those who wish to emigrate to our country legally.
I don't consider this anti-immigration, I consider it rational requirements for legal immigration. If you disagree I respect that but would like to hear your arguments rather than ignorant labels.
I am pro-military in the sense of national defense, however I absolutely abhor the military occupation of sovereign nations by our armed forces as well as the use of military personnel (against our constitutional rights) and para-military forces by our own government against citizens of the United States.
I am very much pro-small business and believe that big business has a role in a free society. However I believe the relationship between big business and government is riddled with illegal arrangements and corruption (corporatism) again in violation of our rights defined within the Contitution and Bill of Rights.
As for evangelical Christian traditions, again there is a role for them in a free society as long as they do not engage in violence, coercion or subversion of our rule of law as I believe Islam does. (note the statement 'believe', I try not to state my beliefs as facts)
The bottom line Fiddle, is I don't believe we are as far apart as a 2 party system who divides and distracts the populace would like us to believe. A 2 party system that I believe is also not as far apart in ideology as they would also have us believe.
There are many issues which divide us, however a 2 party system is irrational as a system to resolve these differences as it does not allow enough diversity to truly encompass political thought. I am not a 'republican' or 'democrat' - I am a citizen of the United States who recognizes the corruption of our system for what it is and reject these silly labels which encourage our division and distration while both parties continue to rape us and our country at the behest of corporate and foreign interests.
I liked this post. Thanks. And I hope you are right. Antiintellectual in this context means that the far right has gotten so far out there that science must pass through their political filter before it is accepted. Global warming is an example. Evolution is another. Tax cuts miraculously generated revenue is another. Libertarian ideals will create a fine society, though such ideals have never generated a society in the history of modern nations, and so on and on and on.... I agree that the two party system makes it all devolve in to a zero sum political game were ideological purity and kneecapping are the best ways to win. They just are not likely to be the best policies for the country.
'course, then again, conservatives are breeding like rabbits.
I'm gay. Their calls for my execution will be among the first I'm also a Buddhist. And a pacifist.
Dude, if the conservatives gain complete control, I'm just facked.
I'm conservative. I don't want to see you executed. I want to see you live and freely practice the religion of your choosing. And, if my candidate of choice, Ron Paul gets elected, you can look forward to an end to most of the wars.
Liberals in their self-righteousness, worship the idea of welfare, instead of having a desire to truly help people. Nothing good comes from stealling from one pocket to place it in another that you determine more deserving. What right do you have to decide the person earning that income is not deserving of gaining from it. It is his property, not yours, not his neighbors, not the governments.
5. President Franklin Roosevelt’s “liberal” welfare policies always emphasized work and responsibility. He called entitlement-welfare a narcotic and warned that if it became a habit it could ruin our nation. He called it a “subtle destroyer of the human spirit” and admonished that it could become addictive (1935 address to the Congress). America was rescued from the Depression by the industrial boom of the Second World War. With full-employment and a burgeoning economy, welfare spending amounted to little in the 1940’s and grew very slowly in the 1950’s and early 1960’s.
15. The dysfunctional family in America has proved to be the number one cause of all our social pathologies: violent crime, drug abuse, educational decline, child poverty, child abuse, teenage pregnancies and illegitimate births, divorces, etc. Large numbers of children growing up with only single mothers, who themselves have been victims of illegitimacy, mature without a moral code except what they make up themselves on the streets. Many have no knowledge of right and wrong; they know no work ethic; they have learned no responsibility, diligence or discipline; they are only partially literate and have developed no skills. They are subject to becoming victims of crime and the drug culture. The children that welfare is seeking to protect and nurture because of society’s misplaced compassion often repay that society with indigence and criminality, and they multiply all the social pathologies generation after generation which feeds the monstrous growth of the whole welfare tragedy.
16. A major reason why the welfare system has failed is that it made no moral demands on its recipients. It was virtually a “free ride.” What private charities and the religious organizations could demand; namely, that the poor be or become “deserving,” was not permitted of a value-neutral government program. This fact plus the conscious rejection of the Judeo-Christian value system by the leftist-liberals, who have run the society for the last 30 years, helps explain why the welfare system has just about ruined us. They have given us a living object lesson in how the charity business ought not to be run.
17. The principles of Judeo-Christianity are essentially Biblical principles of tough and realistic love. They presuppose a view of the nature of man which is an anathema to liberals; namely, that man’s nature is subject to an overriding self-interest called selfishness, which the theologians call sin. In the face of all the evidence for this evaluation of man, it is difficult to understand the opposition of the secular humanists and liberals to this premise. Perhaps it is their fairy tale view of human nature which has prompted most liberals to call any discipline injected into the welfare system draconian measures proposed by a mean-spirited conservative majority. I wonder if they would call a football coach like a Vince Lombardi or a military commander like a General Schwartzkopf mean-spirited when they tried to inculcate discipline and responsibility into their respective “teams?” There are several Biblical principles which have never been considered or applied in the present administration of the welfare program. They are expressions of “tough love” which has always been a part of the Judeo-Christian ethic.
I agree with most of this. I am a driven, hardworking liberal. Having spent two decades and tens of thousands of dollars of my own money establishing my career, I don't respect slackers and panhandlers, and I fully supported welfare reform in the 1990s. My views are pretty similar to Roosevelt's on the topic. It corrodes the spirit, so work projects are better if it comes to that.
However, I take issue with your characterization of the liberal position on this. I don't think that people should get a free ride, and the vast majority of my liberal friends feel the same way. We work, pay taxes, give to charity,volunteer, raise our kids just like most Americans, and try to live ethical lives. I think society does need safety nets, but they should not become lifestyles.
Last edited by Fiddlehead; 08-13-2011 at 11:46 PM..
/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ Show Spelled[fash-iz-uhm]
–noun 1. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Sounds like the current administration to me.
Hardly. The far right has fixed on a Christian, laisse-faire, pro-military, hubristic, preemptive, combative model of dialogue that is closer to it than the current government. Obama is not a nationalist, nor is he a dictator, he is far too accomodating for that, nor does he ignore science. The Tea Party, in constrast, hits a number of notes.
I did not say we were there yet, but the far right rhetoric increasingly has that flavor.
These c-d lefty troll threads are out of control. Where are the mods?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ɪz
I'm also a Buddhist. And a pacifist.
