Bill O'Reilly says Iraq war a mistake
-
led mike wrote:
They are therefore not a Capitalist form of government but rather have a Socialist ideology at the core of their government, yes?
I believe that the socialistic components will eventually eat the capitalistic ones. I think the process is inevitable and insidious.
led mike wrote:
So where is that middle ground?
Where it has always been - in the Jeffersonian ideal, unadulterated by Marx. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Where it has always been - in the Jeffersonian ideal, unadulterated by Marx.
Is that where you are, where the right is? If it is then how is that the middle?
led mike wrote:
Is that where you are, where the right is?
Jeffersonianism is the "far right". I didn't mean the political "middle", I meant the 'middle ground' in the sense that it is the one philosophy which purposefully adapts capitalism to democratci processess, its most sacred principle is private ownership of property and personal responsibility, both of which are only possible in capitalistic systems. The middle ground is not surrendering capitalism to socialism, it is simply having laws that gently manage capitalistic processess in order to support individualism, independence and self-determination. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The current divisions between left and right are unresolveable by democratic processes. They have become too extreme.
What sort of resolution are you looking for? For everyone to agree? For as long as both sides seek power through elections rather than through violence, the democratic processes are coping just fine.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No one on the right is opposed to the invasion of Iraq.
Bollocks. If you mean that almost everyone on the right would have been happy if the war had gone well and a stable more-or-less democratic government had been established, then you are probably correct. The majority of the left would also have been happy --- on balance --- in the same circumstances. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
For as long as both sides seek power through elections rather than through violence, the democratic processes are coping just fine.
You seem to actually believe that the goals and objectives of the democratic party are somehow compatible with what the United States of America has ever been as a nation and as a people. The agenda of the left is to throughly overhaul the American way of life, to turn us into a European style Secular state, with Christianity driven from public view and Capitalism chained to socialistic principles. There is absolutely nothing promoted by the left that is compatible with the goals and objectives of the "right". There is nothing to resolve between them. Their goals are diametrically opposed on every single principle.
John Carson wrote:
The majority of the left would also have been happy --- on balance --- in the same circumstances.
The left has been doing everything possible to ensure that doesn't happen. Their greatest desire is for the US to lose in Iraq and elsewhere. Their greatest fear is an increase in the success and hegemony of America controlled by a "conservative" administration. Their goal is to do everything possible to limit the success of the current administration regardless of the cost. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
led mike wrote:
Is that where you are, where the right is?
Jeffersonianism is the "far right". I didn't mean the political "middle", I meant the 'middle ground' in the sense that it is the one philosophy which purposefully adapts capitalism to democratci processess, its most sacred principle is private ownership of property and personal responsibility, both of which are only possible in capitalistic systems. The middle ground is not surrendering capitalism to socialism, it is simply having laws that gently manage capitalistic processess in order to support individualism, independence and self-determination. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
I didn't mean the political "middle"
Oh, ok. I misunderstood that.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The middle ground is not surrendering capitalism to socialism, it is simply having laws that gently manage capitalistic processess in order to support individualism, independence and self-determination.
Now I assume you would consider me a leftist correct? If so since I am in full agreement with your statement as quoted how does that address the divisiveness issue?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I didn't mean the political "middle"
Oh, ok. I misunderstood that.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The middle ground is not surrendering capitalism to socialism, it is simply having laws that gently manage capitalistic processess in order to support individualism, independence and self-determination.
Now I assume you would consider me a leftist correct? If so since I am in full agreement with your statement as quoted how does that address the divisiveness issue?
led mike wrote:
I am in full agreement with your statement
If so, than you should already know the answer to ... You don't believe that a country can have specific socialized programs and still have Capitalism at the core of its government. So for example Canada has Socialized medicine right? They are therefore not a Capitalist form of government but rather have a Socialist ideology at the core of their government, yes? You simply cannot mix Jefferson and Marx. Their philosophies are complete opposites and represent the opposing extremes of the political spectrum. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
John Carson wrote:
For as long as both sides seek power through elections rather than through violence, the democratic processes are coping just fine.
You seem to actually believe that the goals and objectives of the democratic party are somehow compatible with what the United States of America has ever been as a nation and as a people. The agenda of the left is to throughly overhaul the American way of life, to turn us into a European style Secular state, with Christianity driven from public view and Capitalism chained to socialistic principles. There is absolutely nothing promoted by the left that is compatible with the goals and objectives of the "right". There is nothing to resolve between them. Their goals are diametrically opposed on every single principle.
John Carson wrote:
The majority of the left would also have been happy --- on balance --- in the same circumstances.
The left has been doing everything possible to ensure that doesn't happen. Their greatest desire is for the US to lose in Iraq and elsewhere. Their greatest fear is an increase in the success and hegemony of America controlled by a "conservative" administration. Their goal is to do everything possible to limit the success of the current administration regardless of the cost. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
You seem to actually believe that the goals and objectives of the democratic party are somehow compatible with what the United States of America has ever been as a nation and as a people. The agenda of the left is to throughly overhaul the American way of life, to turn us into a European style Secular state, with Christianity driven from public view and Capitalism chained to socialistic principles.
You seem to want a theocracy ruled by the ghost of Thomas Jefferson (as interpreted by Pope Stan). If the objective of the left is as you say (though in fact the left is quite heterogeneous), then democracy gives the left the right to attempt to persuade the American people to go down that path. If US voters want to go down that path, they can elect a goverment advocating it. If they don't, then they can decline to elect such a government. Democracy in action.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is absolutely nothing promoted by the left that is compatible with the goals and objectives of the "right". There is nothing to resolve between them. Their goals are diametrically opposed on every single principle.
Uh huh. They disagree on whether women should be allowed to drive, for example. And on whether the President should be elected rather than chosen by some other means.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The left has been doing everything possible to ensure that doesn't happen.
Yeah. Like I said: blowing up bridges, conducting assassinations, poisoning the water supply. To this we can add: funding the Iraqi insurgency, leaking US battle plans, murdering the families of US service personnel, sabotaging military bases... Newsflash. Some of the left are actually serving in Iraq. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You seem to actually believe that the goals and objectives of the democratic party are somehow compatible with what the United States of America has ever been as a nation and as a people. The agenda of the left is to throughly overhaul the American way of life, to turn us into a European style Secular state, with Christianity driven from public view and Capitalism chained to socialistic principles.
You seem to want a theocracy ruled by the ghost of Thomas Jefferson (as interpreted by Pope Stan). If the objective of the left is as you say (though in fact the left is quite heterogeneous), then democracy gives the left the right to attempt to persuade the American people to go down that path. If US voters want to go down that path, they can elect a goverment advocating it. If they don't, then they can decline to elect such a government. Democracy in action.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is absolutely nothing promoted by the left that is compatible with the goals and objectives of the "right". There is nothing to resolve between them. Their goals are diametrically opposed on every single principle.
Uh huh. They disagree on whether women should be allowed to drive, for example. And on whether the President should be elected rather than chosen by some other means.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The left has been doing everything possible to ensure that doesn't happen.
Yeah. Like I said: blowing up bridges, conducting assassinations, poisoning the water supply. To this we can add: funding the Iraqi insurgency, leaking US battle plans, murdering the families of US service personnel, sabotaging military bases... Newsflash. Some of the left are actually serving in Iraq. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
You seem to want a theocracy
That comment proves my point. It is the standard comeback from the secularists who have acquired control of our government and who want all other competing moral philosophies driven from the public arena. No, I don't want a theocracy. What I want is "free exercise of religion" returned to its appropriate Jeffersonian prominence. I want secularism to be required to compete in the market place of ideals openly with all other forms of human philosophy rather than coerced upon an unwilling people by completely non-democratic public institutions.
John Carson wrote:
If they don't, then they can decline to elect such a government. Democracy in action.
The left has lost virtually every important election in this nation for the last 26 years. Yet they and their media allies continue to undermine the democratic will of the people at every turn. Every time the left loses democratically they turn to the courts to implement their agenda, they never take no for an answer. In addition, if the left has been correct about Bush, than there is no way that the problems in this country can be fixed democratically. The institutions are not fixable by simply putting some really nice liberal guy in power. If the entire system can be so easily manipulated to promote a given conspiratorial plan, than I sure as hell don't want a lefty to reacquire that power.
John Carson wrote:
They disagree on whether women should be allowed to drive, for example. And on whether the President should be elected rather than chosen by some other means.
No, they disagree on the very underlieing mechanisms by which the nation's political processes are supposed to work. You simple cannot mix Jefferson and Marx any more than you could mix slavery with a free market economy. Slavery was not fixable by democratic processes, and neither is the current conflict between Jefferson and Marx in our society. We have to be one thing or the other, we cannot be both.
John Carson wrote:
Yeah. Like I said: blowing up bridges, conducting assassinations, poisoning the water supply. To this we can add: funding the Iraqi insurgency, leaking US battle plans, murdering the families of US service personnel, sabotaging military bases... Newsflash. Some of the left are actually serving
-
John Carson wrote:
You seem to want a theocracy
That comment proves my point. It is the standard comeback from the secularists who have acquired control of our government and who want all other competing moral philosophies driven from the public arena. No, I don't want a theocracy. What I want is "free exercise of religion" returned to its appropriate Jeffersonian prominence. I want secularism to be required to compete in the market place of ideals openly with all other forms of human philosophy rather than coerced upon an unwilling people by completely non-democratic public institutions.
John Carson wrote:
If they don't, then they can decline to elect such a government. Democracy in action.
The left has lost virtually every important election in this nation for the last 26 years. Yet they and their media allies continue to undermine the democratic will of the people at every turn. Every time the left loses democratically they turn to the courts to implement their agenda, they never take no for an answer. In addition, if the left has been correct about Bush, than there is no way that the problems in this country can be fixed democratically. The institutions are not fixable by simply putting some really nice liberal guy in power. If the entire system can be so easily manipulated to promote a given conspiratorial plan, than I sure as hell don't want a lefty to reacquire that power.
John Carson wrote:
They disagree on whether women should be allowed to drive, for example. And on whether the President should be elected rather than chosen by some other means.
No, they disagree on the very underlieing mechanisms by which the nation's political processes are supposed to work. You simple cannot mix Jefferson and Marx any more than you could mix slavery with a free market economy. Slavery was not fixable by democratic processes, and neither is the current conflict between Jefferson and Marx in our society. We have to be one thing or the other, we cannot be both.
John Carson wrote:
Yeah. Like I said: blowing up bridges, conducting assassinations, poisoning the water supply. To this we can add: funding the Iraqi insurgency, leaking US battle plans, murdering the families of US service personnel, sabotaging military bases... Newsflash. Some of the left are actually serving
Stan Shannon wrote:
That comment proves my point. It is the standard comeback from the secularists who have acquired control of our government and who want all other competing moral philosophies driven from the public arena.
You have completely missed the point of my theocracy reference, which wasn't specifically about support for religion at all (Thomas Jefferson isn't actually a God, so rule by "Thomas Jefferson's ghost" is not a theocracy in the usual sense). The point of my reference to theocracy is that you seem to consider it illegitimate for people who disagree with you to seek power through democratic means, e.g., you seem to think it illegitimate to seek to establish a European-style welfare state. The point of the theocracy reference was simply to suggest that you are anti-democratic; you think it is illegitimate to have a democracy with voter preferences shaping outcomes in directions you don't like.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The left has lost virtually every important election in this nation for the last 26 years.
There seems to be a pattern here; the more sweeping your statement, the more likely it is to be nonsense. Clinton was president for 8 of those years, the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives for the majority of those 26 years (i.e., up until 1995), and they controlled the Senate for at least 8 of those years. Moreover, as a Jeffersonian, you presumably think that State and Local elections are important, and the left has won plenty of them.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet they and their media allies continue to undermine the democratic will of the people at every turn. Every time the left loses democratically they turn to the courts to implement their agenda, they never take no for an answer.
The left pursues its agenda in the courts whether it wins or loses and so does the right. The US is unusual in being exceptionally litigious and in having courts that are more inclined toward creative interpretations of the law than courts in other countries tend to be. That is a peculiarity of the US legal system, rather than something specific to the left-side of politics.
Stan Shannon wrote:
In addition, if the left has been correct about Bush, than there is no way that the problems in this country can be fixed democratically. The institutions are not fixable by simply p
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
That comment proves my point. It is the standard comeback from the secularists who have acquired control of our government and who want all other competing moral philosophies driven from the public arena.
You have completely missed the point of my theocracy reference, which wasn't specifically about support for religion at all (Thomas Jefferson isn't actually a God, so rule by "Thomas Jefferson's ghost" is not a theocracy in the usual sense). The point of my reference to theocracy is that you seem to consider it illegitimate for people who disagree with you to seek power through democratic means, e.g., you seem to think it illegitimate to seek to establish a European-style welfare state. The point of the theocracy reference was simply to suggest that you are anti-democratic; you think it is illegitimate to have a democracy with voter preferences shaping outcomes in directions you don't like.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The left has lost virtually every important election in this nation for the last 26 years.
There seems to be a pattern here; the more sweeping your statement, the more likely it is to be nonsense. Clinton was president for 8 of those years, the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives for the majority of those 26 years (i.e., up until 1995), and they controlled the Senate for at least 8 of those years. Moreover, as a Jeffersonian, you presumably think that State and Local elections are important, and the left has won plenty of them.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet they and their media allies continue to undermine the democratic will of the people at every turn. Every time the left loses democratically they turn to the courts to implement their agenda, they never take no for an answer.
The left pursues its agenda in the courts whether it wins or loses and so does the right. The US is unusual in being exceptionally litigious and in having courts that are more inclined toward creative interpretations of the law than courts in other countries tend to be. That is a peculiarity of the US legal system, rather than something specific to the left-side of politics.
Stan Shannon wrote:
In addition, if the left has been correct about Bush, than there is no way that the problems in this country can be fixed democratically. The institutions are not fixable by simply p
I never said that I think people should not be allowed to act democratically and vote for what ever they want to. My point is that it makes no difference. The left has been losing elections in the US actually since 1972. The only democrats that have won major national offices have been those, like Carter and Clinton, who were able to promote themselves as centrist candidates against weak conservative candidates. No one in this country who has actually ran on a left leaning ticket has won for a hell of a long time now at the national level. Yet, somehow, magically, our culture continues becoming ever more secular and leftist in nature. As an intrinsically Jeffersonian society there is only so much more of having Marxism shoved down our throats, even if done so democratically, that we are going to be willing to take. The left would not tolerate a religious theocracy taking over the government even if it were done democratically, and the right will not tolerate (for much longer) a secualar theocracy established democratically or otherwise. Some principles are so loathsome that they are inherently tyrannical regardless of the means by which they are instituted and cannot be tolerated. The situation is precisely the same as that which caused our first civil war - that at some point the democratic will of one group becomes unbearable tyranny for another. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
I never said that I think people should not be allowed to act democratically and vote for what ever they want to. My point is that it makes no difference. The left has been losing elections in the US actually since 1972. The only democrats that have won major national offices have been those, like Carter and Clinton, who were able to promote themselves as centrist candidates against weak conservative candidates. No one in this country who has actually ran on a left leaning ticket has won for a hell of a long time now at the national level. Yet, somehow, magically, our culture continues becoming ever more secular and leftist in nature. As an intrinsically Jeffersonian society there is only so much more of having Marxism shoved down our throats, even if done so democratically, that we are going to be willing to take. The left would not tolerate a religious theocracy taking over the government even if it were done democratically, and the right will not tolerate (for much longer) a secualar theocracy established democratically or otherwise. Some principles are so loathsome that they are inherently tyrannical regardless of the means by which they are instituted and cannot be tolerated. The situation is precisely the same as that which caused our first civil war - that at some point the democratic will of one group becomes unbearable tyranny for another. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
I never said that I think people should not be allowed to act democratically and vote for what ever they want to.
You strongly implied it and the second and third paragraphs of your current post confirm it, so I don't know why you engage in this pretence.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only democrats that have won major national offices have been those, like Carter and Clinton, who were able to promote themselves as centrist candidates against weak conservative candidates.
Ah, so they are centrists now. And Marxists when it suits your purposes. Didn't you say: "Slavery was not fixable by democratic processes, and neither is the current conflict between Jefferson and Marx in our society. We have to be one thing or the other, we cannot be both." That would seem to deny the possibility of centrists.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet, somehow, magically, our culture continues becoming ever more secular and leftist in nature.
Economically, the culture is becoming more right-wing, not more left-wing. Industry is being deregulated, taxes are being cut. This is true throughout most of the Western world. On social issues (gay rights, non-marital sex etc.), the culture is becoming more liberal --- again throughout the Western world. As I have stated in a previous thread, the decline of religious culture is a product of consumerism, with the associated emphasis on self-gratification. The same tendency is seen throughout the Western world, less in the US than anywhere else. Religion is not being driven from public places. What has changed is that the religious right has become more intent on ramming it down people's throats, disregarding the rights of people who don't share their beliefs. Accordingly, they run dishonest scare campaigns suggesting that religion is being driven from the public sphere, when in fact it is not. The following link on religion in schools is illustrative: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_pra8.htm[^]
Stan Shannon wrote:
Some principles are so loathsome that they are inherently tyrannical regardless of the means by which they are instituted and cannot be tolerated.
-
led mike wrote:
I am in full agreement with your statement
If so, than you should already know the answer to ... You don't believe that a country can have specific socialized programs and still have Capitalism at the core of its government. So for example Canada has Socialized medicine right? They are therefore not a Capitalist form of government but rather have a Socialist ideology at the core of their government, yes? You simply cannot mix Jefferson and Marx. Their philosophies are complete opposites and represent the opposing extremes of the political spectrum. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
You simply cannot mix Jefferson and Marx. Their philosophies are complete opposites and represent the opposing extremes of the political spectrum.
So you believe that it is inevitable that attempt would fail. I believe having the country so divided invites calamity greater than attempting to mix the two philosophies. In a perfect world the country would come together as we have historically, to overcome the economic theory and the history of mixing the two philosophies. We would never give up until we have innovated and accomplished that which today seems impossible. At worst we fail, but not for the lack of trying. To not try is by far the greater sin. Our country may currently be facing the greatest challenge ever. If we do not put aside our differences and unite as in the past it does seem inevitable that we will destroy ourselves. We are facing a three pronged attack that will be devastating, The Left, The Right, and the NoMeWe tribe. The NoMeWe tribe was founded by corporate America and special interest groups. The tribe has grown to include most politicians. Their name means "There is No Me in We". We currently suffer from decades of political depravity where everyone involved was racing to get their piece of the greed pie regardless of the cost to the American people or our future. Now the future is here and the stage is set for us to reap the rewards of our past greed. The NoMeWe tribe must be eradicated and the Left and Right must come together to find our country once more. Now I will go climb back into my hole of ignorance where I came from. Thanks for listening Stan.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You simply cannot mix Jefferson and Marx. Their philosophies are complete opposites and represent the opposing extremes of the political spectrum.
So you believe that it is inevitable that attempt would fail. I believe having the country so divided invites calamity greater than attempting to mix the two philosophies. In a perfect world the country would come together as we have historically, to overcome the economic theory and the history of mixing the two philosophies. We would never give up until we have innovated and accomplished that which today seems impossible. At worst we fail, but not for the lack of trying. To not try is by far the greater sin. Our country may currently be facing the greatest challenge ever. If we do not put aside our differences and unite as in the past it does seem inevitable that we will destroy ourselves. We are facing a three pronged attack that will be devastating, The Left, The Right, and the NoMeWe tribe. The NoMeWe tribe was founded by corporate America and special interest groups. The tribe has grown to include most politicians. Their name means "There is No Me in We". We currently suffer from decades of political depravity where everyone involved was racing to get their piece of the greed pie regardless of the cost to the American people or our future. Now the future is here and the stage is set for us to reap the rewards of our past greed. The NoMeWe tribe must be eradicated and the Left and Right must come together to find our country once more. Now I will go climb back into my hole of ignorance where I came from. Thanks for listening Stan.
led mike wrote:
So you believe that it is inevitable that attempt would fail.
Absolutely. We are in the same situation the nation was in circa 1860. We will become all of one thing or all of the other.
led mike wrote:
If we do not put aside our differences and unite as in the past it does seem inevitable that we will destroy ourselves.
The problem is though is that (IMO) the left defines "uniting" as the right utterly abandoning its political ideals. As a society I think we have bent over backwards to accomodate the left, yet there seems to be no bottom. Once we have established one little collectivist goal we are immediately fighting over the next one. For my part, there is no part of leftist idealogy or the democratic party platform that I am agree with. I want nothing to with any of it, and consider any further implementation of that agenda to be little less than total subjegation to a completely foreign political system. Short of terrorism, I intend to oppose in every way that I can.
led mike wrote:
We currently suffer from decades of political depravity where everyone involved was racing to get their piece of the greed pie ...
Try several centuries. The truth is that, as bad as it may remain, American politics have never been cleaner and more open than they are today. I fail to understand how a system that nails a guy like Abramoff could possibly be considered overly corrupt. It seems to be working as well as one could hope for given the nature of politics. I think this very criticism is itself an indication of leftist propagands. When the right is in power, we are feed far many more stories about the corruption of government than when the left is in power. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
led mike wrote:
So you believe that it is inevitable that attempt would fail.
Absolutely. We are in the same situation the nation was in circa 1860. We will become all of one thing or all of the other.
led mike wrote:
If we do not put aside our differences and unite as in the past it does seem inevitable that we will destroy ourselves.
The problem is though is that (IMO) the left defines "uniting" as the right utterly abandoning its political ideals. As a society I think we have bent over backwards to accomodate the left, yet there seems to be no bottom. Once we have established one little collectivist goal we are immediately fighting over the next one. For my part, there is no part of leftist idealogy or the democratic party platform that I am agree with. I want nothing to with any of it, and consider any further implementation of that agenda to be little less than total subjegation to a completely foreign political system. Short of terrorism, I intend to oppose in every way that I can.
led mike wrote:
We currently suffer from decades of political depravity where everyone involved was racing to get their piece of the greed pie ...
Try several centuries. The truth is that, as bad as it may remain, American politics have never been cleaner and more open than they are today. I fail to understand how a system that nails a guy like Abramoff could possibly be considered overly corrupt. It seems to be working as well as one could hope for given the nature of politics. I think this very criticism is itself an indication of leftist propagands. When the right is in power, we are feed far many more stories about the corruption of government than when the left is in power. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
I fail to understand how a system that nails a guy like Abramoff could possibly be considered overly corrupt.
That would be "if" there are thousands more just like him that will never be brought to justice. Stan, I have enjoyed this conversation more so than most in Soapbox. I did not expect you would change your views, rather I was seeking a clearer understanding of them. I believe I have succeeded and I hope you have come to understand my views better as well, even though they differ.