Look for a clean sweep.

[Xequat]

Once again, if that is your criteria for "socialist", then institutions like the military, postal office, national guard, public libraries, public education, social security, and welfare are all "socialist", too.

Yeah, they kind of are. Nobody in this thread said that that was necessarily bad, though; just extreme.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Yeah, they kind of are. Nobody in this thread said that that was necessarily bad, though; just extreme.

The post office, public education, and national guard are extreme?

Uh-uh. They are part of our mainstream society.

 

[Xequat]

Sorry, I meant nobody said that socialism is bad in this thread, just that socialism is extreme. Of course the whole thing gets complicated because welfare and social security have some socialist philosophy incorporated in them and Hillary has some socialist ideas, but I guess it is judgmental to say that she is a socialist just because she believes some of the socialists' ideas. But, no, I wasn't saying that those things are extreme; I was saying that those things have socialist qualities, but socialism as a whole is an extreme change from the way the US is now.

 

[heretic888]

"Socialism" is no more "extreme" than "capitalism". There are extremist and moderate versions of both.

Personally, I favor a loosely-regulated socialism or a tightly-regulated capitalism. I think both would work fairly well.

I greatly oppose, however, loosely-regulated capitalism (basically what we have right now) or tightly-regulated socialism (basically what the USSR had).

Its all about the balance.

 

[loki09789]

And you would know who the founding fathers envisioned as 'fit to lead'.... how??

I would seriously question the source of the "your highness" reference.

No offense, Loki, but doing the opposite isn't productive either.

Laterz.

* I would not 'know' but I can conclude from the criteria for eligibility:

First you had to be a fully empowered citizen, therefore white male. After that:

1. someone rich or connected enough to be able to run and fund a campaign. Therefore wealthy land owners in general during an agriculturally based economy of the day.

2. someone rich or connected enough to be able to leave his life work/earnings to participate in a campaign. Again, most likely landed white males.

3. Someone who is articulate, educated enough to read, write, listen and speak effectively enough to potentially win friends and influence people and be administratively affective if elected. Generally that means a person with opportunity/money to participate in higher education (since most of them were from England/Connected to English middle class or nobility that classic education model was the vision.)

That adds up to "white, land owning, wealthy male" to me. That was not a slam, we do the same thing now. We have a vision of 'hero' or 'leader' or what ever based/or as a reaction to how we were educated, raised or learned vicariously or directly. That is what they did.

*I always hate mentioning information when I can't remember the exact source data, but it came from the History Channel website after watching the series "Founding Brothers" so I tend to consider it credible.

*I am not going to the other extreme, just trying to keep it in context. "They" didn't envision many things, didn't have the same vision of 'liberty' that we do (look at the slave issue), nor did they have the same social values about gender or economic/social class.

This is really ironic considering that I was called naive and idealistic during the pre-election Bush/Kerry discussions at times.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Then don't give up the fight!

Never said I was going to, my good man.

 

[Fool Wolf]

Alot of you on the left do not seem to understand that the majority of americans do not agree with you. It is not a suprise that most Americans stand behind the idea of morality, individual rights and capitalism. Democrats will continue to lose elections until they realize that they can't win by putting the interests of our enemies and the world community as defined by the currupt, bribe infested UN ahead of the U.S.. I admit that I truly believed that Kerry was going to win the day prior to the election. The main stream media had that effect on me. The election restored my faith in the american people. I respect people with different beliefs than me, but I am really suprised by what appears to be the preponderance of liberals or at least left leaning individuals on a martial arts bulletin board. I love reading your discussions, it has made me think about my own positions on political issues. In my line of work and social life, I do not often deal with people with drastically different views than mine.


Also, the military is not a socialist organization, it is a rigidly defined hierarchy that promotes on the basis of ability.
FW

 

[PeachMonkey]

Alot of you on the left do not seem to understand that the majority of americans do not agree with you. It is not a suprise that most Americans stand behind the idea of morality, individual rights and capitalism. Democrats will continue to lose elections until they realize that they can't win by putting the interests of our enemies and the world community as defined by the currupt, bribe infested UN ahead of the U.S..

I was going to respond with offense to the idea that leftists are "immoral", don't believe in individual rights, and put the "interests of our enemies ahead of the US".

Then I remembered all the conservatives on the board that don't use insult and invective, but instead try to discuss the points and issues clearly and calmly.

This memory helped me realize that your insults are beneath both any attempt to argue against them, and even contempt itself.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Hear hear, PM.

 

[Fool Wolf]

I did not say that those on the left are immoral. I said that the majority of americans support morality. I should have stated "conventional morality". I did not mean to insult anyone and apologize if I did.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

But you also were saying that most americans disagree with the left. Put such a statement next to the assertion that these same "most americans" believe in morality, and it's pretty understandable how others read that as saying that leftists are against morality. In fact, it's so apparent that I think what you're doing now is commonly known as "backpaddling".

I'd also like to know how Democrats and the UN are corrupt, in comparison to the Republican party, who's right now backing the same administration that sent our military into an unjustified war, and doesn't give two ***** about constitutional rights, international cooperation, or, frankly, our soldiers' lives.

 

[heretic888]

* I would not 'know' but I can conclude from the criteria for eligibility:

First you had to be a fully empowered citizen, therefore white male. After that:

1. someone rich or connected enough to be able to run and fund a campaign. Therefore wealthy land owners in general during an agriculturally based economy of the day.

2. someone rich or connected enough to be able to leave his life work/earnings to participate in a campaign. Again, most likely landed white males.

3. Someone who is articulate, educated enough to read, write, listen and speak effectively enough to potentially win friends and influence people and be administratively affective if elected. Generally that means a person with opportunity/money to participate in higher education (since most of them were from England/Connected to English middle class or nobility that classic education model was the vision.)

That adds up to "white, land owning, wealthy male" to me. That was not a slam, we do the same thing now. We have a vision of 'hero' or 'leader' or what ever based/or as a reaction to how we were educated, raised or learned vicariously or directly. That is what they did.

*I always hate mentioning information when I can't remember the exact source data, but it came from the History Channel website after watching the series "Founding Brothers" so I tend to consider it credible.

*I am not going to the other extreme, just trying to keep it in context. "They" didn't envision many things, didn't have the same vision of 'liberty' that we do (look at the slave issue), nor did they have the same social values about gender or economic/social class.

All very nice. All very much based on unproven assumptions.

The fact of the matter is that you don't actually know what the Founding Fathers did or did not "envision". You're just assuming on the basis of the laws they wrote down.

Do you honestly think for a second that the Founding Father established every change in society that they wanted?? You don't think they were holding certain things back because they would undoubtedly be rejected by the public??

C'mon, now....

 

[Tgace]

Do you honestly think for a second that the Founding Father established every change in society that they wanted?? You don't think they were holding certain things back because they would undoubtedly be rejected by the public?

How is that any less of an assumption than his?

 

[heretic888]

How is that any less of an assumption than his?

Because I will honestly claim I don't know what their intentions are.

 

[Seig]

How about support me for absolute dictator. You will all get comfortable jobs. Then there won't be need to convince anybody of anything. :EG:

Because we already have a dictator, me.

 

[loki09789]

Because I will honestly claim I don't know what their intentions are.

And I did say that I was making interps based on the way the laws were laid out not claiming that I "know."

If this was for a grade or something, I would go back through the stuff from the "founding Brothers" series (if it is available on the Website still, I love how they tease you and then say "BUY THE DVD" on a history website) that was primary source evidence of correspondence, speeches and such from guys like Ben F., G. Wash., Thomas J., Sam A. (he did more than get beer made ) and such that supported the idea that they did have their 'vision' of who would be fit to lead and did make it so that every legal/fully vested citizen had the chance to be president....as long as they met the criteria (and as long as they knew how to work the unwritten 'network' side of EVERY working environment).

But, no, I don't 'know.' I do 'know' that from a credible summary/interp made by learned people who studied the subject in depth who were looking at primary sources, biographic material (Jefferson did own slaves ya know. Ironic for one who talked about liberty 'for all') and trends (like the "lawyer" to politician model that is still pretty common today) that tend to surround the presidents. I don't say these things to 'disillusion' people or to smear the ideals, only to say that the ideals were established by real people who were limited in 'vision' by their historical/cultural/contextual perspective - as we all are going to be.

The points were presented, I watched, tended to find the logic in it, agreed (and yes they did a good job of offering differing interpretations and views). I also watched a PBS special a while ago about T. Jefferson and the restoration of his plantation....it was a pretty dark interp of the man. I didn't agree with the interp for many reasons but basically because of the logic that NOBODY is that narrow or 'flat' in reality. The only place that people will ALWAYS fit into nice neat boxes of 'typing' is in prejudism and fiction....oops they are the same

 

[loki09789]

Do you honestly think for a second that the Founding Father established every change in society that they wanted?? You don't think they were holding certain things back because they would undoubtedly be rejected by the public??

C'mon, now....

And to extend this idea one more step. You don't think that a possible motive for 'holding certain things back' was because there was a spirit of rebellion in the air, and didn't want to be toppled out of authority (no matter how fragile at the time) and lose the sway/influence they had.

There are many layers of motivation that have to be considiered when you are discussing the why's and how of decision making for any person.

 

[heretic888]

And to extend this idea one more step. You don't think that a possible motive for 'holding certain things back' was because there was a spirit of rebellion in the air, and didn't want to be toppled out of authority (no matter how fragile at the time) and lose the sway/influence they had.

There are many layers of motivation that have to be considiered when you are discussing the why's and how of decision making for any person.

Which... uhhh, was kinda the point I was trying to make.

 

[loki09789]

Which... uhhh, was kinda the point I was trying to make.

I undestood that. My point was about mental starting points so to speak. If you start out with a perspective of 'what these guys and their values/ideas were' that is too far into idealism and doesn't take into account the reality of context....expect to be disappointed.

It is about the same as when you first realize that your parents are not perfect and you resent them for that 'fallen idol' affect when the reality is that you were the one putting them on the pedestal to begin with.

Similarly, I love the idea of romance and 'seeing the staple in the belly button' when the whirlwind of romantic beginnings fade and the reality and complexities/contradictions of what your significant other is REALLY like start to peak through and there is the tendency to be angry with him/her because the 'ideal' that you created early on is being recreated and 'realized' as new information is introduced....honeymoons over.

In all those circumstances (dealing only with the issue of perspective here) the person who created the 'ideal' is the source of the 'ideal' not the subject that has been idealized yet the tendency is to be angry with the subject instead of dealing with the reality....akin to one of the stages of mourning because you are becoming 'angry' when your 'ideal dies'.

 

[heretic888]

Viva la contextualism.