wrightme
Regular Member
Odd response, and not even a response.
Do you disagree with that statement? Does not socialism take from those who produce, and provide it to those that do not produce?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Republican candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on the table' DallasNew
- Thread starter Doug Huffman
- Start date
- Status
Do you disagree with that statement? Does not socialism take from those who produce, and provide it to those that do not produce?
eye95
Well-known member
I have seen that model many times. I think it is an attempt to explain how the fascists are on the right, despite having much more in common with communists on the left than American conservatives on the right.
Some historical perspective will explain why many place the fascists on the right.
Fascists were placed on the right side of the political spectrum when the progressives of the early part of the century, who originally embraced fascism, became disenchanted with the reality of the Italian fascists and the Nazis. They started referring to these movements as "right wing" to distance themselves from an ideology that was in actuality the natural culmination of what they believed, but now knew they could not sell to the masses.
Let me propose an alternative model.
If you draw a political axis, representing the levels of Liberty, with absolute Liberty with no restrictions on any activity whatsoever on the right and the total absence of Liberty, a tyrannical state controlling all aspects of life on the left, both fascism and communism are far to the left. Progressivism (modern American liberalism) is on the left just not as far. Socialism, where progressives are trying to take us, is further to the left than that, but not as far as fascism and communism. On the farthest right we have anarchy (not how anarchists might define anarchy, but actual anarchy). Still to the right, but not as far, we have classical liberals, such as the Founding Fathers. Conservatives and Libertarians may argue the small differences in where each other is relative to the Founding Fathers, but both are incredibly close.
That is a useful model. There are other models, and those models could be useful.
Now, someone will say that this model is "wrong." Models are neither right nor wrong. They have use, or they don't. As this model measures Liberty, clearly it has use. Feel free to dismiss it and not use it.
Last edited:
oak1971
Regular Member
Want to be a commie? Fine, go ahead. But don't expect us to high five you. Seriously, did you expect hugs and kisses? :banghead:
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
I find it odd how the "ridiculous-right" takes freedom and liberty seriously, with the "lunatic-left" tries to crack a joke about it every other post/comment.
I wonder which one is using a coping mechanism...?
Hrmmm
I wonder which one is using a coping mechanism...?
Hrmmm
Last edited:
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
I find it odd how the "ridiculous-right" takes freedom and liberty seriously, with the "lunatic-left" tries to crack a joke about it every other post/comment.
I wonder which one is using a coping mechanism...?
Hrmmm
I didn't realize this was an actual discussion. I read(e) through the last three pages and it seems that there is a lot of name calling and mudslinging going on. It's not my fault you actually believed that this was a constructive discussion, and that it hadn't descended into people calling other people "Commies" or "Socialist."
I wouldn't say the right are completely ridiculous, they have some good points. I wouldn't deny that there aren't complete lunatics on the left, there are.
Personally, being the left-leaner that I am, I do not care much for Communism. I think there are good things about some aspects of Socialism. America is headed for a greater degree of Socialism. It doesn't matter who is in office.
I will keep it on topic though: If Republicans want a violent overthrow, than bring it on. There is nothing unhealthy about a revolt or whatever you might want to call it...maybe "the overthrow of tyranny?" Government is way to big, I agree...but in what areas, that's where we all begin to merge from one another.
Dreamer
Regular Member
Am I the ONLY person who finds his beliefs about health care and his last name to be more than a little ironic?...
Reich?
Really? REALLY?
You can't make this stuff up...
So you think someone being called a socialist is mudslinging, but yet you think socialism is ok? At least one of us is confused. I don't think of calling someone a socialist as the same as calling them a jerk. At least if I claim someone is a socialist, I am simply not letting them proverbially sneak around the issue and try to call what they believe in something else, I am simply letting people know that the person in question has shown that they believe in or like the ideals of socialism. I go with Marx's definition of socialism, a government controlling people so that people will learn how to properly behave and make redistribute wealth from those who create much wealth to those who create less. If you want to call me a libertarian, I'm fine with that because it is a description not name calling, the same for constitutional conservative.
eye95
Well-known member
Did you just call me a constitutional conservative???
I am insulted.
I am insulted.
Did you just call me a constitutional conservative???
I am insulted.
and a dirty liberty lover!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oMrf6Dq7UA&feature=related seems commonsense to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaE-OQtJkes cool
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaE-OQtJkes cool
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
GLOCK21GB
Campaign Veteran
Well I agree with what that candidate was saying ! It's time. Read below.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[72] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
from the Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[72] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
from the Declaration of Independence
eye95
Well-known member
I am not saying it won't ever be. If it ever is, I don't know how soon that will be.
But it is not time yet, and you will find me fighting to defend the Republic against you. If we remove the current government before we should, we will likely get worse than we have now. A revolution at this time would work out more like the French Revolution than the American Revolution.
But it is not time yet, and you will find me fighting to defend the Republic against you. If we remove the current government before we should, we will likely get worse than we have now. A revolution at this time would work out more like the French Revolution than the American Revolution.
This i can agree with and we still have time to get the country back on course, not a lot of time left but there is still some.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Calling someone a Socialist is name calling if they are not a Socialist. It appears to me that I am the only one on this thread, you can link me to something if I am wrong, that has stated that I see nothing wrong with some aspects of Socialism. Does that make me a Socialist, NOPE! I can see some benefits of Communism, but I do not claim to be nor consider myself to be a Communist.
Then don't let people dance around about what you think they are. If that's the case than any Socialist program that you utilize in your daily life, don't take part in it. You believe taxes are Socialist...don't pay them. You don't like public schools...don't send your kids to them. Definitely don't work for the government.
See, another example of what I see no issue with...taxing the rich more. Yup, I said it. The rich should pay more in taxes. I don't believe in government controlled everything, but I realize that there are a number of things the government has to take care of. If it was left up to the private sector it will not get done.
I believe in Capitalism, Democracy, and some aspects of Socialism. You figure out what that makes me. A belief in some aspect of Socialism does not make a person a Socialist.
Karl Marx wasn't too far off, was he?...Capitalism--Socialism--Communism. He just forgot the dangerous nature of human beings when they have "absolute" power. As I said, we are headed for Socialism, and nothing is going to stop it. We will still have our Constitution (that is and always will be interpretive), and we will still have our fundamental right to bear arms.
It appears all of that hoopla about President Obama taking away our guns is total nonsense. More like fear-mongering, or screaming fire in a theater.
Last edited:
GLOCK21GB
Campaign Veteran
this country is broken BEYOND repair. Gee whiz, where do I start ??? Over taxed by the IRS, no REAL representation in gobernment, the patriot act, the DHS ( the dept of Fatherland Security ) Socialist's in the Black house, our kids being brainwashed in the liberal socialist schools, people that fly the flag are now potential homegrown terrorist's, the police are being militarized, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,etc........NEXT YEAR IT WILL BE WORSE. yet you all think that it can be fixed. LOL
wrightme
Regular Member
"Ahem."
Have you forgotten that he DID have 'permanent renewal of the AWB' as one of his campaign platform items?
Have you forgotten that he WAS a Senator for IL, arguably one of the most restrictive states concerning gun rights?
Have you forgotten that he HAS nominated two anti-gun SCOTUS seats during his term?
Have you forgotten about Eric Holder?
The statement "Obama wants to take our guns" is hyperbole, but it is NOT nonsense. He may not desire to take them all, but he DOES show that he hopes to restrict them into submission.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Big difference between what he wants to do and what he can do. Little pet-projects that have a snowball chance in hell like renewing the AWB...he was keenly aware of that.
Yes, he was a Senator for ILL. You are pointing out what he wants to do, I get it. But what he can do, that's a totally different thing.
He has replaced two liberals on the bench with two liberals on the bench. The exercise of pointing out Obama wants to do something that is not possible, even with a Democrat led government is non-sense. He does want to restrict firearms. "into submission," now that is hyperbole.
wrightme
Regular Member
No, it isn't hyperbole. Do you know anyone who lives in Chicago?
He does "want to take our guns away." He has been attempting to do exactly that, one appointment at a time. Arguing against that requires refusal to understand what has actually happened already. The actions and statements he has made DO indicate that same direction, whether he is capable of accomplishing it or not. Being unable to accomplish it does not negate the desire, attempt, and intent.
- Status