patrick.net

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

In the end, cannibal neonazis won't ask for party affiliation before they eat your face.

That's right. No bloods, no crips

Just savages infected with madness, cloaked in american flags, hopped up on stimulants, clawing over one another for the first crack at raping your soul.

Liberalism and nihilism (from Wiki)

Strauss taught that liberalism in its modern form contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards extreme relativism, which in turn led to two types of nihilism:[24]
The first was a “brutal” nihilism, expressed in Nazi and Marxist regimes. In On Tyranny, he wrote that these ideologies, both descendants of Enlightenment thought, tried to destroy all traditions, history, ethics, and moral standards and replace them by force under which nature and mankind are subjugated and conquered.[25]

The second type—the "gentle" nihilism expressed in Western liberal democracies—was a kind of value-free aimlessness and a hedonistic "permissive egalitarianism", which he saw as permeating the fabric of contemporary American society.[26][27]

In the belief that 20th century relativism, scientism, historicism, and nihilism were all implicated in the deterioration of modern society and philosophy, Strauss sought to uncover the philosophical pathways that had led to this situation. The resultant study led him to advocate a tentative return to classical political philosophy as a starting point for judging political action.[28]

errc says

The right has moved to the right

The left has moved to the left too.

Entitlemented says

Liberalism and nihilism (from Wiki)

Oh boy. Here we go.
If we're going to play that game, well let's stick to actual American politics. As it is, conservatives in the US have NEVER actually been right. As in ever. Want proof? Here are some facts:

1: Conservatives of the revolutionary war period actually wanted us to stay under the control of the British and King. Aren't we glad that they didn't get their way?

2: An electable representation. Conservatives of the day wanted a king

3: Trans-continental railroad. Conservatives of the day felt it was too costly

4: Louisiana Purchase: Again, conservatives claimed it was too pricey.

5: Entry into WW1: Conservatives were against it.

6: Entry into WW2. Same thing.

7: Unemployment insurance. Same thing

8: 40 hour work week: same

9: Medicare and Medicaid: Same

Notice a pattern here? In each and every pivotal moment of American history, conservatives have been grossly incorrect and wrong. Nothing has changed. History will continue to show that conservatives in the US will continue to be wrong. So it should come as no surprise that many conservatives use the term "Progressive" in a derogatory term: They aren't interested in progress and hence that totally makes sense.

edvard2 says

conservatives in the US have NEVER actually been right... Entry into WW1: Conservatives were against it... In each and every pivotal moment of American history, conservatives have been grossly incorrect and wrong.

Why were conservatives "grossly incorrect and wrong" to oppose entering WW1? Was it wrong to oppose the WW1 draft? Also, is it possible to be "grossly incorrect" without being wrong?

curious2 says

Why were conservatives "grossly incorrect and wrong" to oppose entering WWI?

Uhhh.... that's such an obvious answer that I am almost befuddled. So we shouldn't have entered WW2? Is that what you're suggesting? The premise of my earlier response was that in each and every one of the significant examples I listed above, conservatives chose a path that would have led to a significantly different outcome. Had we not entered WW2, then the war would have quite possibly turned out very differently. I seriously doubt many would claim it was a bad idea that we decided to join.

It's weird the degree to which conservative can mean status quo.

When Kennedy lowered taxes (and back then rates were so high that that the supply side argument would have actually made sense), many conservatives were against it, because of the risk of deficits.

These days with a choice between low taxes and worse deficits or higher taxes with lower deficits, not only do the conservatives prefer the former, they prefer it so much that as a conservative in congress you must sign an oath to never raise taxes.

This is in spite of the fact that fed taxes are at historically low levels.

It's war ! It's as if they think America is over since it soon won't be dominated by WASPs, and they need to help the rich accumulate as much wealth as possible ASAP.

edvard2 says

curious2 says

Why were conservatives "grossly incorrect and wrong" to oppose entering WWI?

Uhhh.... that's such an obvious answer that I am almost befuddled. So we shouldn't have entered WW2? Is that what you're suggesting? The premise of my earlier response was that in each and every one of the significant examples I listed above, conservatives chose a path that would have led to a significantly different outcome. Had we not entered WW2, then the war would have quite possibly turned out very differently. I seriously doubt many would claim it was a bad idea that we decided to join.

You posted a metric shitton of rubbish, without bothering to answer the question(s). How about you take a do over,,,,

edvard2 says

So we shouldn't have entered WW2? Is that what you're suggesting?

I asked you about WW1. Please try again, as errc suggested.

marcus says

It's weird the degree to which conservative can mean status quo.

It isn't weird if you understand language and read what people actually write. But, if you insist on seeing everything from a tribal/racist perspective, then reality can seem weird to you, even incomprehensible.

Sure. Same damned thing. Had we not entered WWI, then the war would have quite possibly turned out very differently. I seriously doubt many would claim it was a bad idea that we decided to join.

errc says

You posted a metric shitton of rubbish

Nope. Sorry. I posted a bunch of inconvenient facts that conservatives would likely like others to forget since its clear that their stances in general have generally been on the wrong side of history.

Ok, so here's a really simple and yet direct question to those who would identify as being conservative: Please inform all of us here exactly why a conservative stance is better than a progressive stance. I am rather curious.

edvard2 says

Same damned thing. Had we not entered WWI, then the war would have quite possibly turned out very differently. I seriously doubt many would claim it was a bad idea that we decided to join.

Wow, your ignorance of history is absolutely stunning. Millions of people were killed, millions more were wounded, millions were conscripted against their will to fight in a war that they opposed, huge amounts of treasure were spent, and for what? Since you say conservatives are always "grossly incorrect and wrong", I assume you'll ignore their views, but try reading Emma Goldman and Eugene Debbs. Try reading All Quiet on the Western Front, and consider where the phrase "the lost generation" originated. You sound like someone who pursued a degree in a narrow field that had nothing to do with history, and since you made $ with that narrow degree you decided you didn't need to learn anything else.

Dude, I know my damned history, had relatives who were in the civil war, WW1, WW2, Vietnam, and desert storm. My Grandfather had a library full of books on not only the Civil War, but WW1 and WW2 as well. I also read All Quite on the Western Front... when I was 12 along with countless other books concerning US history. Yes- you are correct that millions and millions of people were killed in WW1. Something like 70 Million died in WW2. I am in no way advocating war. There is also hardly anything that could cleanly be defined as a "good war". All war is bad.

But in both the cases of WW1 and WW2, the US was in a position of not only being a war materials manufacturing powerhouse, but we also had the manpower to help our allies and thus turn the tide of that war. Now- we could then debate about the mismanagement of WWI's aftermath and the general discontent it generated in Europe. But that's not part of this debate. The fact of the matter is that the US's involvement in WW1 greatly hastened its completion.

So I find it interesting that you feel the need to blurt out broad generalizations about what you "think" I know about history. That was never the point of my response anyway. Correct me if I am wrong, but if you are suggesting we should have stayed our of WWI then that's your own opinion but one that due to my knowledge of that conflict's history will not agree with.

The democrat party of today loves them some war. They're the new sock puppets of the military industrial complex (ducks under cover as drone circles above, policing the homeland)

Women, children, fuck um! So long as obama says its a go, the new american left is unquestioningly supportive. Well, that and so long as they're brown people

Why would anyone question wether or not entering into any war, was "right or wrong"?

Obama won, get over it

errc says

The democrat party of today loves them some war.

How convenient it is to try and twist the topic at hand and duck out of the overall looming proof of historical relevance presented earlier.

errc says

The democrat party of today loves them some war. They're the new sock puppets of the military industrial complex... So long as obama says its a go, the new american left is unquestioningly supportive.

Democrats' enthusiasm for war and conscription goes back a long way, Woodrow Wilson (D) started America's WW1 draft and Lyndon Johnson (D) started the Viet Nam draft (at a time when America's only declared war was in Korea, sort of like W diverting resources from Afghanistan to invade Iraq). To the extent that there is any "left" left in America, it can be found on Democracy Now! but not in the Democratic party.

It is interesting to observe Edvard2's comment above. Evidently, the North Carolina traditional military culture imposes a lasting stamp: every war was right if it made $ for the "war materials manufacturing powerhouse" and might have turned out differently otherwise. Funny who's "conservative". It still amazes me though that he thinks he knows the "damned history" without even being aware of the huge opposition.

curious2 says

It is interesting to observe Edvard2's comment above. Evidently, the North Carolina traditional military culture imposes a lasting stamp: involvement in every war was right if it made $ for the military powerhouse and if it would have turned out differently otherwise. Funny who's conservative.

So you were accusing me of not knowing my history? Your comments seem to indicate that perhaps you should have turned that accusation towards yourself. We were talking specifically about WWI and WWII. Its important to pay attention to the debate at hand and its contents.

So I am going to ask you a very specific and direct question to avoid further overly generalized responses: Do you think that we should have or should have not gotten involved in either of the World wars? Note that my initial list shows pivotal moments in history when conservatives were against the decision we ultimately made, and therefor why I specifically mentioned WWI and WW2.

Oh- and if you are also trying to make some sort of broad comment about my family's "culture" , then you would be mistaken. There was a draft back then. My Great Grandfather, Grandfather and Uncles, and my Dad were all drafted into the wars they fought in. So your cute little comments were totally out of place.

Then again I am not at all surprised given the overall quality of this debate.

edvard2, you keep shifting around, as when you substituted WW2 for WW1 and called them the "same damned thing." Since you seem to count both of those wars as part of "your" personal history ("my history"), I would expect you to be able to tell them apart. As for your knowledge of history in general, and the quality of the debate, your comments show it.

You misunderstood. Yes- I indeed made a typo and for that I profusely apologize. But my response that indicated the "Same damned thing" still stands and if you require me to extrapolate that comment further, its application was in regards to whether the US should have gotten involved with either conflict, of which the answer is similar for both. So I hope that clears things up for you. And I appreciate your compliment. I've always prided myself on the high quality of my debates.

Believe that the US waited a while to enter WWII.

And the UK is here today because of a guy named Churchill.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_Winston_Churchill's_role_in_World_War_2

Entitlemented says

Believe that the US waited a while to enter WWII.

Yes... they did. But that doesn't mean that our involvement in WW2 was anything other than crucial to its outcome. For starters, the US not only built an ENORMOUS amount of planes, tanks, and ships for our own military, but for the UK, France, the USSR, and so on as well. We of course did this for a few years prior to our entry. But that rate of production was rapidly increased once we joined. For example, if you look at any models of cars, radios, refrigerators, appliances, or whatever from the WW2 era there's a good chance you'll find few. Overnight most US factories went into war production and all new cars and consumer goods ceased production. At the time the US was by far the world's largest manufacture and with our immense production rates we were able to make a huge difference just in that area alone.

Likewise by joining this also forced Germany and Japan to refocus their forces. By the US and its joining the war, the Axis powers now had a multi-faceted distribution of their resources which ultimately stretched them very thin.

Had the US not joined the war effort, history would have very likely been very different today. That isn't to say the aftermath along with the cold war that came with it and the start of chasing after "Isms" ( Like communism) and so forth were totally ideal, but that as far as the war itself, the involvement of the US was crucial and most historians both nationally and internationally agree to this point.

On the American Republic, when England ran into financial issues, the king wanted to tax and control the colonies.

The US Constitution set up a Democratic manner of fairer representation that afforded by Monarchies and Fiefdoms.

And it was the slavery by the Monarchies and Fiefdoms that made people leave and take trips to the US on ship, risking their lives to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

Entitlemented says

On the American Republic, when England ran into financial issues, the king wanted to tax and control the colonies.

The US Constitution set up a Democratic manner of fairer representation that afforded by Monarchies and Fiefdoms.

Yes. Very good indeed. Like I mentioned before, the conservatives of the revolutionary war period were in favor of staying under control of the monarchy.

If one were to read about the lives and actions of the founding fathers of the country they would actually find that a great percentage of them were fairly progressive, forward-thinking men. They were the ones who envisioned the constitution. Such insistence that for example- the separation of church and state, and the freedom of the press were all extremely forward thinking for their time.

So then it may be said that American manufacturing first domestic and military helped overcome the Germans attempt to take over Europe, USSR, and the world.

Based upon this experience of WWII, can we make any projections about the loss of manufacturing on our National Security?

Based upon this, can we make any conclusions about the outcome of the New Deal - in terms of Unions and Social Welfare?

edvard2 says

If one were to read about the lives and actions of the founding fathers of the country they would actually find that a great percentage of them were fairly progressive, forward-thinking men. They were the ones who envisioned the constitution. Such insistence that for example- the separation of church and state, and the freedom of the press were all extremely forward thinking for their time.

I agree 100% with that, and it amazes me to see phrases like "original intent" hijacked by people who call themselves "conservative". The founders were armed revolutionaries who constituted a republic with no king and no official religion. They believed in the Enlightenment and natural law (another phrase that's been hijacked), and comprised a coalition of Deists, Christians (of several different denominations), agnostics, atheists, etc. Today the word "conservative" is claimed (falsely) by Christian fundamentalists (it's even debatable whether they should call themselves Christian, but that's another debate) who have hijacked the Republican party including putting a plank in the platform to declare America a "Christian country" and other planks to impose their particular interpretation of that phrase upon everyone. Returning to the OP, I think that's what Dole was talking about, and he's right about that.

If the US had an exemplary military might, and if it was enabled by a strong and broad manufacting and science based, can we reflect on the steps it took to gain that manufacturing.

You can read up on Henry Ford, Howard Hughes, Bill Shockley.

Yes many of the things we drive, fly in, write on, compute on, talk on, watch tv, on were invented by US innovators.

Any guess as to the work ethic and political beliefs of American Innovators in the 1930s - 1980s?

Entitlemented says

So then it may be said that American manufacturing first domestic and military helped overcome the Germans attempt to take over Europe, USSR, and the world.

No, that's not what I was suggesting. It was a combination of outright manpower via not only manufacturing but actual military personnel. That and even though I have mixed feelings about it, nobody can ignore the Manhattan Project, which at the time was the single largest industrial project in the world, which of course was a government-military sponsored program.

Entitlemented says

So then it may be said that American manufacturing first domestic and military helped overcome the Germans attempt to take over Europe, USSR, and the world.

Based upon this experience of WWII, can we make any projections about the loss of manufacturing on our National Security?

The US Military is still around 13 times larger than the next largest global military. Likewise the US Navy is also many magnitudes larger than the next largest navy. We certainly seem to have no issue manufacturing arms and the level of technological sophistication involved makes it clear that our know-how is still top-notch. There is a big difference between domestic manufacturing and production for military purposes.

Entitlemented says

Based upon this, can we make any conclusions about the outcome of the New Deal - in terms of Unions and Social Welfare?

Not really. The New Deal was appropriate for its time. I had relatives who worked in various New Deal programs and for them these saved them from financial ruin. At least in my area where I grew up in brought electrification, which thus brought manufacturing and growth in area infrastructure. The New Deal was basically a band aid to alleviate the ills of the depression. New Deal legislation also brought about various safeguards we now take for granted such as the FDIC whereas before there were no protections if a bank defaulted.

errc says

shitton

OH! A Shit TON! like a fuckload?

Took me a while figure out what a "shit on" was.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

Jesufascist

You need to trademark that.

edvard2 says

The GOP needs to stop being the mouthpiece of corporations and lobbys.

American companies who employ American workers.. you rather Congress was the mouthpiece of Sony, BMW, Hunwei, and Fiat ?

Yes, if I was the President or Senator.. i too would listen to what American run companies have to say.

You think Sony Hunwei or Fiat have on top of their agenda to hire and employ Americans or their own ?

edvard2 says

The US Military is still around 13 times larger than the next largest global military. Likewise the US Navy is also many magnitudes larger than the next largest navy. We certainly seem to have no issue manufacturing arms and the level of technological sophistication involved makes it clear that our know-how is still top-notch.

All of that has changed as Chinese military hackers, as reported this week, have plans to all of our future weapons platforms.

Entitlemented says

You can read up on Henry Ford, Howard Hughes, Bill Shockley.

Yes many of the things we drive, fly in, write on, compute on, talk on, watch tv, on were invented by US innovators.

Any guess as to the work ethic and political beliefs of American Innovators in the 1930s - 1980s?

Crazy ass Blood and Guts, work till you drop, Right wingers !!

I should know.. I worked for one and knew about a few others who came from Bill Shockley.

Today, you look back and see you made a difference because of them. Wow!

edvard2 says

New Deal legislation also brought about various safeguards we now take for granted such as the FDIC whereas before there were no protections if a bank defaulted.

limited protection with limited funding without any order of payouts... where is the protection for balances above the limit.. how much does GE need each day to pay its payroll, vendors and other payments ? How about the small business who employ's say 100 employees needs to meet its weekly payroll..

doesnt go very far !

marcus says

So I guess t.wrong is saying that Bob Dole doesn't know what he's talking about when he says that he doubts that he, Reagan or Nixon could be elected in todays GOP.

thomaswong.1986 says

GOP as moderates

They weren't moderate at the time. It's all relative. The point is that the right has moved to the right. Since you only think about it as your team against the other team, you wouldn't know the difference.

Translation :

Its all a bunch of Bull Shit from the Left about some stupid shit...

What you really dont want to talk about is

What happened to the 10 MILLION 2008 Obama Voters who didnt Vote for Obama in 2012

WHAT HAPPENED...

where did they go ?? ... its not the GOP who have an identity crisis.. its actually the LIBERAL where 10 MILLION have left the Party ...

thomaswong.1986 says

Its all a bunch of Bull Shit from the Left about some stupid shit...

Translation: Me no want to understand what you say. Me Republican, you stupid pooh poo head democrat.

'

(note: that's an example of proper use of "translation" in a response)

"SDLR" is banned by the "New Republican Party"

SDLR = "self deportation, legitimate rape"

Maybe now they can get votes and win?

Losing another round of elections will force change. Until then expect the GOP to consider last round an aberration that can be overcome by money and clever tactics.

thomaswong.1986 says

American companies who employ American workers.. you rather Congress was the mouthpiece of Sony, BMW, Hunwei, and Fiat ?

First of all, it'd be a lot easier if you were to reply to one of my posts with a single response. Not five. But in regards to the GOP being the mouthpiece of corporate interests, I have no problem with the idea. What I DO have a problem with is the sneaky, shady, and misleading manner in which they're doing it.

Look up any number of the supposed "Grass roots" political movements across the country, particularly right-leaning ones. A great majority of those were intentionally started by various industry groups and billionaire investors who cleverly simply shoved them all under generic, overly-patriotic sounding organizations whom in turn are then the underwriters of these co-called movements, where well-intentioned citizens simply become the unknowing pawns of corporate interests who get them to think that polluting the air, ground, and regulations are all some sort of "hippie conspiracy and that it has to be stopped to.... Protect... Their FREEDOMS!!!" Its called astroturfing and while the Dems are certainly not innocent in this regard, the GOP has taken this to whole new level.

thomaswong.1986 says

Crazy ass Blood and Guts, work till you drop, Right wingers !!

Many of those people back then had the fore site to enact working conditions that were ahead of their time. Henry Ford paid his workers $5 a day in an era where a good income was $1 a day. Its called business smarts.

thomaswong.1986 says

limited protection with limited funding without any order of payouts... where is the protection for balances above the limit.. how much does GE need each day to pay its payroll, vendors and other payments ? How about the small business who employ's say 100 employees needs to meet its weekly payroll..

I'm not sure what your comments had to do with the new deal. Not much from what I can tell. But let me give you a short history lesson. The New Deal was basically legislation meant to be an emergency fix to the economy, which as we know was in a deep depression. The situation then was many times more dire than the recession we just had. Remember that back then if you were out of work that was that. You had zero income. People were literally starving or freezing in the winter. Homelessness was a major issue. The only charity of the day came from various volunteer and religious organizations, whom provided the now infamous soup kitchens so visually attached to that era.

Some of the earliest pieces of legislation was to simply get people back to work, and off the streets. For example I had relatives who were in the CCC, which went around and built bridges, state parks, cut trails, and paved roads. They got a small salary, a place to sleep and 3 hot meals. That doesn't sound like much but the goal was to get these people off the street. It also meant we got useful national infrastructure as a result.

Secondly, a number of key reforms were enacted that again- many people now totally take for granted. Social Security, fiscal policy, financial reform, the creation of the FDIC, and so on were some of the many things that came to pass during this period.

Many people claim that the New Deal did little to accomplish its goals. Yet by 1937 the US economy was mostly back on a stable footing but still with a heightened level of unemployment. Note that this was a full 4 years before WWII, at which point unemployment issues resolved. The thing is that the New Deal did in fact accomplish its goals: To stabilize the economy and to also put safe guards into place that would prevent future depressions- which we have not had since then.

So I find it amusing that there are some people who would like us to re-write history and to pretend that the New Deal was nothing more than a liberal ploy. It in fact was simply actions taken by a President who had the balls to get shit done and do so in a time when these actions were most needed, not because he was a liberal or conservative, but because he had a job to do, he did it, and as a result many consider the man to be perhaps the best President in US history. My right-leaning Grandmother and most of her generation would also agree.

Bob Dole says Bob Dole doesn't like what the republican party is doing. Bob Dole!