Holy ********* Crazy

[Belsnickel]

(06-01-2017, 12:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: I know some people who are part of the Norvelt Historical society but I've never toured there myself.

It's pretty neat. I've had family there since its founding. My brother-in-law is fascinated by it and every time we visit he goes to drive around.

Edit: As I think back, I've been to quite a few wedding receptions in the Norvelt Firemen's Hall.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-01-2017, 11:30 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It was suppose to be tongue in cheek. Don't worry, I'm not getting worked up over people feigning outrage at a comedian past her prime. 

Yeah, she better watch it, or else ISIS will get her for Cultural Appropriation.

[xxlt]

(06-01-2017, 07:43 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Seriously, you know we see eye-to-eye a lot, but I don't know any political scientists that would say that. And I know quite a few, and just about all of them are liberal. The chart, and those like it, are too one-dimensional to show the real relationship between libertarianism and fascism. But I don't think any of thrm would approve of a 1D representation of the political spectrum at all, either.

I get the criticism of the 1D chart. I also get that a lot of them exist because they are simple to read, particularly for the political neophyte. I would be delighted to see where you or anyone else critical of that placement would place libertarians (libertarians in the US in the current era) on the admittedly flawed 1D chart. Would they be just left of communist? Just right of communist? Would they be right where socialist is? Are all the born again libertarians really socialists just afraid to call themselves that because their daddy Rupert told them socialists are evil for so long they can't get it out of their heads, even though they are starting to think maybe daddy didn't always know best?

Again, it was not my chart, but it was pretty consistent with everything I have read or seen visually represented (including more artful and complex representations). We have had more than one person here call fascists leftists and communists right wingers, so perhaps this is another one of those post racial and post factual moments where left and right mean whatever you want - and you call your opponent whatever you think will hurt her more, be it a no good lefty or a no good righty!

Oh, and for the record, I have said more than once that there are nuggets of libertarian thought that are really appealing. In total though, I see it as problematic and moving toward, yes, fascism. (I know you know this Belsnickel, but for those who don't, know that does not mean I think libertarians where swastikas and want to kill Jews! Many people mistakenly think the Third Riech was the beginning and end of fascism. It wasn't. And more than one political scientist told me over a decade ago they were concerned America was flirting with fascism. I believe with Trump's ascension they would be even more frightened and not because of his worship of "strong men" leaders, but because of his policy leanings.)

The Republican party in America has moved so far right (toward fascism) that many commentators acknowledge that former shining stars Nixon and Reagan would not be accepted in the party today. The Democratic party has moved right too. So, rather than having two parties either side of the moderate middle, we have one to the right of the moderate middle (the Democratic party) and one far to the right of the moderate middle and moving at warp speed if people like McConnell and Trump have their way.

[xxlt]

(06-01-2017, 08:43 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Soooo.... what would make Libertarians closer to Facists, than Conservatives ? We want freedom and equality for everyone. We do not attempt to force religious ideals upon people, like a subsect of conservatives.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Economic policy, primarily, (and I think someone else pointed that out) would account for placing libertarian ideology where it was on the chart in question.

(Many conservatives do not have a religious agenda, as you rightly note. Do you think most fascists advocate freedom of worship? I was not aware that religion was a major issue for US libertarians at this time - but feel free to enlighten me about how religion plays a major role in libertarian policy.)

On what key points would you differentiate libertarians from socialists? Socialists want freedom and equality for everyone.

Here is an excerpt from here (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Fascism) about the loaded term fascism:

Definitions and scope of the word

Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have engaged in long and furious debates concerning the exact nature of fascism and its core tenets. Since the 1990s, there has been a growing move toward some rough consensus reflected in the work of Stanley Payne, Roger Eatwell, Roger Griffin, and Robert O. Paxton. According to most scholars of fascism, there are both left and right influences on fascism as a social movement, and fascism, especially once in power, has historically attacked communism, conservatism and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the "far right" or "extreme right."[12] (See: Fascism and ideology).
Mussolini defined fascism as a collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, classical liberalism, democracy and individualism. He wrote in The Doctrine of Fascism:

Quote:Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity…. The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value…. Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number…. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State.[13]

[xxlt]

(06-01-2017, 11:13 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't think it should be up to a select few, I am for educating people so they recognize this issue. The change has to be democratic or it will never work. There are people trying to do just that right now, organizations devoted to this sort of thing. But, they are constantly being fought against by the political parties. In this game, money wins, and I'll let you guess who has more money.

Ooh, can I guess?

In no particular order, I am gonna go black people, the gays, Moose lambs, the liberal media, unions, tree huggers, pot heads, and welfare queens!

What do I win?

[xxlt]

(06-01-2017, 11:54 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Most people don't realize how many things around them were products of the New Deal. I have family in a town that was created from New Deal policies in SW PA. Skyline Drive, which brings in tons of tourist money for us here, was a New Deal project. It's fun to research this stuff.

Yeah, but what did it do for shareholders? How many millionaires did it create? See, improving the lives of millions of Americans for multiple generations is a flawed metric!

[xxlt]

(05-31-2017, 10:54 AM)xxlt Wrote: PSA:

An older and wiser friend pointed out something which I thought was pretty self evident, but then I realized it wasn't so I will share it. The relationship here isn't a line - it is a circle.

Now you can still be critical of the linear visual and advocate for a sphere or a cube or whatever, but thinking of this as a circle may redeem it a bit, and also explain some of the confusion about, for example, what fascism means. Elements of the extremes are similar hence their proximity to each other on the circle.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-01-2017, 12:07 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: Obviously it was in poor taste but the examples of the right doing the same thing to Obama and the response is telling.

Hypocrites.

Telling how?  Were there things of a similar nature done to Obama and we said, "That's awesome."?  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-01-2017, 01:31 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Telling how?  Were there things of a similar nature done to Obama and we said, "That's awesome."?  

Not "we," but Trump called talk by Ted Nugent of chopping off Obama's head as an unfortunate figure of speech.

[BmorePat87]

(06-01-2017, 01:14 PM)xxlt Wrote: An older and wiser friend pointed out something which I thought was pretty self evident, but then I realized it wasn't so I will share it. The relationship here isn't a line - it is a circle.

Now you can still be critical of the linear visual and advocate for a sphere or a cube or whatever, but thinking of this as a circle may redeem it a bit, and also explain some of the confusion about, for example, what fascism means. Elements of the extremes are similar hence their proximity to each other on the circle.

I know you're suggesting linear isn't perfect, and I agree with a cube model with the axises being economics, authority, and social, but who placed libertarianism as being closer to fascism than standard conservatism? Whether economically, authoritatively, or socially, it doesn't make sense. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-01-2017, 12:34 PM)xxlt Wrote: I get the criticism of the 1D chart. I also get that a lot of them exist because they are simple to read, particularly for the political neophyte. I would be delighted to see where you or anyone else critical of that placement would place libertarians (libertarians in the US in the current era) on the admittedly flawed 1D chart. Would they be just left of communist? Just right of communist? Would they be right where socialist is? Are all the born again libertarians really socialists just afraid to call themselves that because their daddy Rupert told them socialists are evil for so long they can't get it out of their heads, even though they are starting to think maybe daddy didn't always know best?

Again, it was not my chart, but it was pretty consistent with everything I have read or seen visually represented (including more artful and complex representations). We have had more than one person here call fascists leftists and communists right wingers, so perhaps this is another one of those post racial and post factual moments where left and right mean whatever you want - and you call your opponent whatever you think will hurt her more, be it a no good lefty or a no good righty!

So, I don't know what would be a good visualization for these sorts of things. I know that I could see a compilation of many 1D charts for components of the various political ideologies would be eye-opening. You mention libertarianism being around communism, and what is interesting is that on several of those charts those two would be very close to each other. At least as the ideologies are typically looked at in theory in the realm of political science.

I get what you are saying, though. I make the comment that people on here would call me a communist, or just to the right of Stalin, but that my ideological bent is center-left on the global scale. So perspectives on the left-right spectrum in this country are skewed because of the shift to the right leaving a center/center-right party that is left of a party on the right. I mean, there are ways that the Democrats are more conservative than the center-right CDU/CSU party in Germany. Of course, I am speaking of the way these politicians in these parties vote in their blocs in Congress. Since the parties themselves don't really care about policy in this country and the politicians themselves don't have to adhere to the party's platform, it's hard to really assign these things.

(06-01-2017, 12:34 PM)xxlt Wrote: Oh, and for the record, I have said more than once that there are nuggets of libertarian thought that are really appealing. In total though, I see it as problematic and moving toward, yes, fascism. (I know you know this Belsnickel, but for those who don't, know that does not mean I think libertarians where swastikas and want to kill Jews! Many people mistakenly think the Third Riech was the beginning and end of fascism. It wasn't. And more than one political scientist told me over a decade ago they were concerned America was flirting with fascism. I believe with Trump's ascension they would be even more frightened and not because of his worship of "strong men" leaders, but because of his policy leanings.)

The Republican party in America has moved so far right (toward fascism) that many commentators acknowledge that former shining stars Nixon and Reagan would not be accepted in the party today. The Democratic party has moved right too. So, rather than having two parties either side of the moderate middle, we have one to the right of the moderate middle (the Democratic party) and one far to the right of the moderate middle and moving at warp speed if people like McConnell and Trump have their way.

I split your post up and typed up my part one response before reading this section. I took a walk around the quad, then came back to my office and read this more thoroughly. I find it funny that I said the same thing you said in the last portion, here. But yes, the GOP and the way their elected officials have been voting in a group is more akin to the AfD or Front national rather than the CDU/CSU or, say, Les Républicains, which is where the GOP under Reagan and Nixon would have aligned with.

[Benton]

(06-01-2017, 01:14 PM)xxlt Wrote: An older and wiser friend pointed out something which I thought was pretty self evident, but then I realized it wasn't so I will share it. The relationship here isn't a line - it is a circle.

Now you can still be critical of the linear visual and advocate for a sphere or a cube or whatever, but thinking of this as a circle may redeem it a bit, and also explain some of the confusion about, for example, what fascism means. Elements of the extremes are similar hence their proximity to each other on the circle.

(06-01-2017, 02:04 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I know you're suggesting linear isn't perfect, and I agree with a cube model with the axises being economics, authority, and social, but who placed libertarianism as being closer to fascism than standard conservatism? Whether economically, authoritatively, or socially, it doesn't make sense. 

Yeah, I don't think the depiction matters as much as the attempted association of one school of thought (libertarianism) with a completely unrelated one (fascism).

[CageTheBengal]

(06-01-2017, 01:31 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Telling how?  Were there things of a similar nature done to Obama and we said, "That's awesome."?  

It's telling because it shows how much some of you have drank the party koolaid. Some of the first responses circulate around Democrats and the left instead of just simply saying its wrong.

Somehow Kathy Griffith represent all democrats and we just start talking about the left when the subject is really about human decency. The arguing is so blind that it literally does not matter that the same thing happened to Obama to some. It's still a reason to get all riled up and paint the left badly. If it doesn't work out the way you want ignore the facts and focus on some new reason to hate the opposing party. There is no endgame.

When something equally bad has happened to the president before and it doesn't factor into you opinion and it's just an opportunity to try to score points it's hard to respect that. When you come up with an excuse not to absorb facts that make your party look worse that means you drank too much koolaid. It makes me wonder are these people American first or their party allegiance first? Sometimes I wonder if people would rather burn this whole country down rather than give in to the other side even if they were right.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-01-2017, 02:19 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: It's telling because it shows how much some of you have drank the party koolaid. Some of the first responses circulate around Democrats and the left instead of just simply saying its wrong.

Somehow Kathy Griffith represent all democrats and we just start talking about the left when the subject is really about human decency. The arguing is so blind that it literally does not matter that the same thing happened to Obama to some. It's still a reason to get all riled up and paint the left badly. If it doesn't work out the way you want ignore the facts and focus on some new reason to hate the opposing party. There is no endgame.

When something equally bad has happened to the president before and it doesn't factor into you opinion and it's just an opportunity to try to score points it's hard to respect that. When you come up with an excuse not to absorb facts that make your party look worse that means you drank too much koolaid. It makes me wonder are these people American first or their party allegiance first? Sometimes I wonder if people would rather burn this whole country down rather than give in to the other side even if they were right.

Yes we know things happened to Obama, and we remember the response from the left.  Do you not?  A rodeo clown with an Obama mask was worldwide news.  People still remember some random dude in a crowd had an Obama doll or something with a noose, so what is it you are trying to say?  That conservatives are reacting in the exact same way as liberals did?  

[CageTheBengal]

(06-01-2017, 02:24 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yes we know things happened to Obama, and we remember the response from the left.  Do you not?  A rodeo clown with an Obama mask was worldwide news.  People still remember some random dude in a crowd had an Obama doll or something with a noose, so what is it you are trying to say?  That conservatives are reacting in the exact same way as liberals did?  

What I'm saying is human decency should take priority over left vs right. I think it would go a long way to making political discussions more meaningful and tone down the hate.

What are you trying to say? More left vs right?

If I drank a shot for everytime a Trump defender (supporter) stated their opinion and the words left or dems were involved I'd be a raging alcoholic.

[CageTheBengal]

(06-01-2017, 02:24 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yes we know things happened to Obama, and we remember the response from the left.  Do you not?  A rodeo clown with an Obama mask was worldwide news.  People still remember some random dude in a crowd had an Obama doll or something with a noose, so what is it you are trying to say?  That conservatives are reacting in the exact same way as liberals did?  

Do you literally only read the part of my post that was bolded?

[*michaelsean*]

(06-01-2017, 02:37 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: Do you literally only read the part of my post that was bolded?

No your whole post was the same thing of, ironically, how bad the right is for pointing out something someone on the left did.  A two way street that seems to  only enrage you and compel you to wax philosophically one way.  

[*michaelsean*]

(06-01-2017, 02:28 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: What I'm saying is human decency should take priority over left vs right. I think it would go a long way to making political discussions more meaningful and tone down the hate.

What are you trying to say? More left vs right?

If I drank a shot for everytime a Trump defender (supporter) stated their opinion and the words left or dems were involved I'd be a raging alcoholic.

I'm not trying to do left vs right, but it's what happens and getting mad on one of the few times a liberal is called out on these boards seems a bit hypocritical.  

When some Republican state representative in Alabama says something stupid, and it gets posted here, why do you think that is? To point out that this guy nobody has ever heard of says stupid things?

[CageTheBengal]

(06-01-2017, 02:48 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No your whole post was the same thing of, ironically, how bad the right is for pointing out something someone on the left did.  A two way street that seems to  only enrage you and compel you to wax philosophically one way.  

How is it ironic when the discussion was instantly steered toward that direction in the third post?

You obviously have selective hearing/reading you proved it just about every time you quote me. It'd be amazing if I could write a post without you cherry picking a sentence or two out of it and getting hung up on it. Whatever you gotta do to not talk about the actual point right? It's a waste of time.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-01-2017, 03:21 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: How is it ironic when the discussion was instantly steered toward that direction in the third post?

You obviously have selective hearing/reading you proved it just about every time you quote me. It'd be amazing if I could write a post without you cherry picking a sentence or two out of it and getting hung up on it. Whatever you gotta do to not talk about the actual point right? It's a waste of time.

Let's see, selective reading when you list incorrect examples as proof and then tell me to ignore those because there are others.  What you failed to realize is I never argues that he wasn't a hypocrite, because he is, so had you not used poor examples I wouldn't have commented at all. Aren't you still in school or just out? Do you think you could hand in a paper, and give incorrect examples to support your thesis then tell the professor It's OK there are other examples. You never even bothered to post the other examples, 5 of which I can list off the top of my head.

In the next post where I quote you I highlight a sentence that summarized your whole post which said the same thing over and over.  

I did comment on your actual point when I called you a hypocrite.  Your ability to pretend that this kind of the thread is the sole dominion of Republicans is quite humorous.    

Quote:It makes me wonder are these people American first or their party allegiance first?

This is your most telling line.  Unfortunately it is an exact representation of your posts in this thread.