Poly is making me right wing

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Which is obviously why social conservatives love him for appointing Scalia. You need to try a different tack.

Why, exactly? Because when he had the chance to make a real difference, he went one out of two? Not that great. Say Harriet Myers went through for Bush II, would conservatives be pleased that they got Roberts and thus Bush did what was promised, or would they be pissed that he could have put 2 conservatives on the bench and picked a moderate for his second one.... exactly.

How can Jefferson be for a policy which wasn't even called Manifest Destiny in his time? All I was arguing is that large land acquisitions and the expansion of the US tend to be associated with classical liberal presidents, such as Polk and Jefferson.

No, you said Manifest Destiny was a classical liberal position. And Jefferson never shared a view that God had ordained the US spread its borders.

Once again, STATISTS do not support states rights, they support expansion of the Federal government. Classical liberals support state rights. You need to get your terminology right.

You need to break out of your narrow mindedness. Classic liberals support lack of tyranny, which can happen in both federal and state level. They support less government in both realms.

Is Milton Freedman a big states rights guy?

I see I am wasting my time.

If anything good is done, it's always the left that is responsible.

Whatever Imran. Why are you here? You obviously aren't interested in constructive discussion.

I was just about to say this about you. You are so utterly deluded on American politics and history one wonders what drugs you've been sniffing.

In the Beniverse, everything bad was the result of liberalism. Everything good was conservative. Conservatives were (somehow) responsible for all sorts of social progress. Anyone religious is conservative, regardless of what they are using religion for. Someone saying social democracy perhaps should be adopted in America is actually a conservative!!! The Beniverse is contrary to the reality we all live in.

Which is why Johnson called his policy an extension of Kennedy's ideals? Names and labels are irrelevant, they were massive expansions of the federal government.

Ignorance of American history again. Why would Johnson call his policies an extension of someone who became massively popular after his assassination. Hmmm....

I also wonder where Kennedy's huge tax cuts fits in with that narrative as well?

You know it gets very tiresome listening to your bull****. "Ignorance of American history", bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla.

Because its true. You have absolutely no clue about American history in the slightest. You make the dumbest, most ignorant, least fact-checked arguments about American politics in the history of this entire site. It's like the ****ing internet or American history books have never been invented in your house!

I know lots of Americans that disagree. Why don't you show some respect and admit that your disagreement is solely on partisan grounds?

Because they aren't. They are based on historical grounds and objections to your butchering of MY COUNTRY'S history. And I'm not going to sit around while you blatantly lie about what happened in the history of my country.

Which partisan differences arise when moderate Republicans (like Arrian) call you bat**** crazy on American history.

Centre left.

Milton Friedman is center left to you?

What in the Hell does one have to do to be put on the right to you? Declare themselves a Fascist?!

Materialism is a huge difference between Marxist communism and Christianity, and is gee I dunno, the POINT that I've been trying to say over and over and over again.

Using the same term for both is misleading, and false, and is a clear sign that your agenda is to deny that there are any changes, which is exactly what you said. There are significant differences, some of which I've highlighted 4 or 5 times already.

It actually isn't that big of a difference between Christian socialism and materialist socialism. I mean, you have people like Jon Miller, an ACTUAL Christian lefty telling you this and yet you bat him aside, claiming that either he isn't a real Christian or a real socialist (iirc, he's just a leftist, but even that presents you with some irrational problems).

The ONLY reason you want there to be "significant differences" is because you want to pretend that Christian Socialism can't exist.

The differences are less than Wall Street Republicans and Christian Conservative Republicans, but no one is saying we can't call them both Republicans. No one is saying one term for both is false and misleading.

I don't get you Imran. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Quakers and Communists have some serious differences and their respective ideologies are so different that you should not use the same catchall bin for both of them.

Well then, stop calling Christian Conservatives, Republicans. They have serious differences with Wall Street Republicans (the "real" Republicans) and so one catchall can't be used for both of them.

How did "Socialist" become "Communists" btw? You are so ****ing stupid and unaware of political ideologies that you have absolutely no clue that Socialism and Communism are very different ideologies.

Seriously, this entire forum gets dumber every time someone reads the scrabbling nonsense you call your posts.

[MrFun]

I love how Imran has pwned Ben Kenobi.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Anyone religious is conservative, regardless of what they are using religion for. The Beniverse is contrary to the reality we all live in.

Don't forget that this also means that in the Beniverse there is no such thing as gay faithful Christians.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why, exactly? Because when he had the chance to make a real difference, he went one out of two? Not that great. Say Harriet Myers went through for Bush II, would conservatives be pleased that they got Roberts and thus Bush did what was promised, or would they be pissed that he could have put 2 conservatives on the bench and picked a moderate for his second one.... exactly.

They were pissed O'Connor drifted left along with Kennedy. Reagan usually isn't blamed as much as the nominees, since he picked Scalia, and back then it was just Scalia and Rehnquist.

I'm not sure why you are saying they had a chance to overturn R v Wade. Even with Bush going up one it's still only 4 to 5. The Kennedy one in 1988 was the critical one, not so much O'Connors.

No, you said Manifest Destiny was a classical liberal position. And Jefferson never shared a view that God had ordained the US spread its borders.

Yessir, it was a classical liberal position. You have a very strange definition of Manifest Destiny.

Let's try this again. Do you agree that Polk and Jefferson were classical liberals? Were they responsible for the two largest expansions of US Territory? Simple questions, either yes or no.

You need to break out of your narrow mindedness. Classic liberals support lack of tyranny, which can happen in both federal and state level. They support less government in both realms.

Thanks. That's what I'm trying to say. Don't you see that I am making a distinction between statists and classical liberals, in the same way that Milton Freidman does?

Is Milton Freedman a big states rights guy?

He would argue leaving the issue to the states, and that slavery was economically unsound, both classical liberal positions.

In the Beniverse, everything bad was the result of liberalism.

They've done good things. I just think the majority today have become corrupted.

Everything good was conservative. Conservatives were responsible for all sorts of social progress.

Yes they were. Why is this so hard for you to swallow? You seem offended by the idea that conservatives can do good things.

That was all I was trying to say, and then everyone jumped on me. Gosh, it was like lighting a fire on your ass. Why are you so offended bythe simple statement that conservatives were responsible for many of the good changes in the world? I never said they were the only ones responsible.

Anyone religious is conservative, regardless of what they are using religion for.

The majority would be considered conservative, unless they did something that liberals want to take credit for. It's so funny reading biographies of religious people.

Surely you would consider Pope John Paul II to be a liberal too, right?

I'm gonna challenge you Imran, name one conservative who made a positive change to the world.

Ignorance of American history again. Why would Johnson call his policies an extension of someone who became massively popular after his assassination. Hmmm....

Yeah, gee, maybe because it helps him ram the **** through.

I also wonder where Kennedy's huge tax cuts fits in with that narrative as well?

One answer? They don't. I was wondering when you would bring that up.

Because its true. You have absolutely no clue about American history in the slightest. You make the dumbest, most ignorant, least fact-checked arguments about American politics in the history of this entire site. It's like the ****ing internet or American history books have never been invented in your house!

Hmm. Yet I somehow got A's in my american history classes.

I dunno Imran. I think the problem is with you, not me. You are ideologically opposed to what I have to say, therefore you see it all as pure rubbish.

I've seen it throughout my classes. I used to get either A's or C-'s, D's, depending entirely on the profs. Poly is just a reflection of the C- D's that aren't very open to ideas that challenge their own narrow perceptions.

Because they aren't. They are based on historical grounds and objections to your butchering of MY COUNTRY'S history. And I'm not going to sit around while you blatantly lie about what happened in the history of my country.

Which partisan differences arise when moderate Republicans (like Arrian) call you bat**** crazy on American history.

Arrian is a moderate Republican?



Maybe in the land of Imran perhaps.

Milton Friedman is center left to you?

On a single axis scale? Yes he is.

What in the Hell does one have to do to be put on the right to you? Declare themselves a Fascist?!

Oh I dunno. Maggie Thatcher would be on the right, as are Reagan and Nixon and Dubya and HW Bush, and Coolidge.

It's actually quite a few folks out that way that aren't fascist.

Why do you think anyone right of Milton Friedman is fascist?

It actually isn't that big of a difference between Christian socialism and materialist socialism.

Christianity teaches that there is a spiritual and material world, and that we could not exist if God were not sustaining us spiritually.

Marxism teaches that the world is controlled by a mechanical process, that we cannot change or understand that is continuously improving things.

Those are pretty fundamental differences?

I mean, you have people like Jon Miller, an ACTUAL Christian lefty telling you this and yet you bat him aside, claiming that either he isn't a real Christian or a real socialist

I never said that at all. You have a quote where I say that here.

If you ask me, I don't believe he is a real socialist, at least not in the terms I am saying. He is a Christian, but he isn't a materialist at all.

The ONLY reason you want there to be "significant differences" is because you want to pretend that Christian Socialism can't exist.

I believe Christian Socialism to be like Jumbo shrimp. Most folks who call themselves that are one or the other, and have reasons to call themselves both that have nothing to do with agreeing with both.

The differences are less than Wall Street Republicans and Christian Conservative Republicans, but no one is saying we can't call them both Republicans. No one is saying one term for both is false and misleading.

That's because Christian republicans don't go and murder wall street republicans. Forgive Christians for finding it offensive that you are conflating them with communists because their viewpoints are oh so similar.

How did "Socialist" become "Communists" btw? You are so ****ing stupid and unaware of political ideologies that you have absolutely no clue that Socialism and Communism are very different ideologies.

Oh, ok. Explain to a stupid person why Marxism is not considered to be socialism, and we have grounds for actual discussion here.

[Ben Kenobi]

Don't forget that this also means that in the Beniverse there is no such thing as gay faithful Christians.

Sure there can. Plenty of them.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Christianity teaches that there is a spiritual and material world, and that we could not exist if God were not sustaining us spiritually.

Marxism teaches that the world is controlled by a mechanical process, that we cannot change or understand that is continuously improving things.

Those are pretty fundamental differences?

Dunno, the way you phrase it there makes it sound like the difference is mostly one of naming conventions.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I'm not ignoring him. I already stated there were Whigs involved. You seem to believe that it had nothing to do with the conservatives.

Weak, Ben. Weak. Only one person in this thread has ever suggested that abolition was a one-party issue. Remember this?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Wilberforce was a Liberal?

He was a Tory. Where were all the liberals and why weren't they calling for the abolition of slavery?

The phrase is "Whoops. I was wrong". How many times are we going to go through this until you accept that?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes, it took his entire career to get it passed. I've read the books.

If you've read all the books, why did you come out with this extraordinary quote?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Wilberforce was a Liberal?

He was a Tory. Where were all the liberals and why weren't they calling for the abolition of slavery?

Didn't the book have enough pictures in?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why, if the bill was a Whiggish invention, did it not get passed prior to Wilberforce's campaign? That's my question for you.

It wasn't a Whiggish invention, Ben. I wouldn't dream of claiming it was. Abolition was a cross-party issue, spearheaded by an independent MP.

Which, once again, begs the question of why you you posted....

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

He was a Tory. Where were all the liberals and why weren't they calling for the abolition of slavery?

Are you ready to admit you were wrong yet, or would you like to fail some more first?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I'm still not sure what you are looking for here.

Something along the lines of this:

Libertarians believe that the fundamental principle of value is liberty. From this they derive the freedom of expression and the right to own property. Consequently, they endorse a political system that exists solely to protect these rights (different Libertarians might disagree over how much the government has to do, depending on their views on the way the world works, but they'll all agree to the axiology).

So there you have it: a political ideology that has a straightforward axiology and a set of (sometimes variable) beliefs about the way the world works that will determine the way these principles are applied in practice.

This means that if you asked a Libertarian, like Berz, how well a political system measures up to what Libertarians think is a justifiable political system, he would be able to tell you pretty clearly.

I've been asking conservatives to do the same for years, and all they ever come up with is the idiotic statement that conservatives stand either for gradual change or for tradition. The second is patently moronic, since traditions have changed over time. The first is also patently moronic, since it's as absurd as a political system that valued rapid change as an intrinsic good.

What I want to know is whether they are really consequentialists with certain beliefs about the way the world works. I suspect they are, although they would be loath to admit it, since this would effectively open them up to several obvious broadsides.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by aneeshm

Maybe you were trying to be humorous and ignored the science behind it, but the assumptions behind this attempted joke contain a scientific flaw which I cannot let pass.

Evolution is not a directed or ordered process. It has no "direction", so it's not really possible to call one organism "more evolved" and another "less evolved". So the word "evolutionary throwback" is meaningless in any real sense.

I'm using it in the colloquial sense. In my experience, most Social Darwinists (and I consider it to be a crazy, immoral and unscientific ideology) tend to be what psychologists call "social dominators". Those people tend to be a social nuisance and an impediment to solving our many problems.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Tuberski


So you prefer it?

ACK!

Your wife could have done much better.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
I've been asking conservatives to do the same for years, and all they ever come up with is the idiotic statement that conservatives stand either for gradual change or for tradition. The second is patently moronic, since traditions have changed over time. The first is also patently moronic, since it's as absurd as a political system that valued rapid change as an intrinsic good.

Actually, the latter could make sense if justified properly.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Actually, the latter could make sense if justified properly.

OK then. You tell me how wanting to change everything as rapidly as possible makes sense, where your aim is solely guided by wanting to change as rapidly as possible (it doesn't matter what the change is, as long as it is as rapid as possible).

A similar problem afflicts people who prefer slow change without explaining why in terms of other values.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
They were pissed O'Connor drifted left along with Kennedy. Reagan usually isn't blamed as much as the nominees, since he picked Scalia, and back then it was just Scalia and Rehnquist.

I'm not sure why you are saying they had a chance to overturn R v Wade. Even with Bush going up one it's still only 4 to 5. The Kennedy one in 1988 was the critical one, not so much O'Connors.

Oh, I almost forgot Kennedy. That's a Reagan one too. Isn't it a harder to overturn things if you put moderates instead of conservatives on the bench? O'Connor never, never drifted left. Pro Life groups knew how she'd vote on abortion back in 1982. So, I'd argue, did Reagan. Reagan just wanted to put a woman on the Supreme Court and he didn't give a flying **** about the Christian Right on it.

Yessir, it was a classical liberal position. You have a very strange definition of Manifest Destiny.

Let's try this again. Do you agree that Polk and Jefferson were classical liberals? Were they responsible for the two largest expansions of US Territory? Simple questions, either yes or no.

My "strange" definition of Manifest Destiny comes from the words *gasp*. I know, so strange to believe a term like "Manifest Destiny" indicates a divine destiny to rule the continent.

Jefferson was a classic liberal. Polk maybe leaned that way, but isn't really someone today's libertarians would call their own. And yes, they were responsible for two great land expansions. Of course the administration of Andrew Johnson was responsible for the Alaskan Purchase and the administration of William McKinley took the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico after the Spanish-American War. Are they responsible for Manifest Destiny too?

Thanks. That's what I'm trying to say. Don't you see that I am making a distinction between statists and classical liberals, in the same way that Milton Freidman does?

You aren't. You are trying to make a distinction between Christians and socialists and brought statism vs. classic liberalism in. I assume you are going to say that conservatives are statists next?

He would argue leaving the issue to the states, and that slavery was economically unsound, both classical liberal positions.

He'd probably argue that slavery was morally unsound. Another classical liberal position.

Yes they were. Why is this so hard for you to swallow? You seem offended by the idea that conservatives can do good things.

That was all I was trying to say, and then everyone jumped on me. Gosh, it was like lighting a fire on your ass. Why are you so offended bythe simple statement that conservatives were responsible for many of the good changes in the world? I never said they were the only ones responsible.

Not offended by conservatives can do good things. I'm offended by your rewriting of American history so you can have conservatives be responsible for ever social ****ing change!

You called Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. a conservative! I mean really, come on. Jesse Jackson was a close disciple. And Jackson didn't "go farther left" than Dr. King.

The majority would be considered conservative, unless they did something that liberals want to take credit for. It's so funny reading biographies of religious people.

Surely you would consider Pope John Paul II to be a liberal too, right?

No, he's a conservative overall. It is also funny to see conservatives try to claim every religious person as their own, as if they aren't allowed to be liberals if they are religious.

I'm gonna challenge you Imran, name one conservative who made a positive change to the world.

Reagan.

Yeah, gee, maybe because it helps him ram the **** through.

Ben has seen the light! It helped Johnson ram his own program through by claiming it was really Kennedy's!

Hmm. Yet I somehow got A's in my american history classes.

OMG! High school history class A's... oh, too funny!!

If I say I got A's (I did, plus a 5 out of 5 on the AP American History test and then A's in my college American history classes too) does that mean I'm right too?

I dunno Imran. I think the problem is with you, not me. You are ideologically opposed to what I have to say, therefore you see it all as pure rubbish.

IIRC, I was head of the college Republicans in my time at college. I've been the one who has supported Senator Clinton and have been flirting with backing Senator McCain for the general.

And I'm the ideological one here? Pffft... don't think so.

Arrian is a moderate Republican?



Maybe in the land of Imran perhaps.

And this is where you lose all credibility (not that you had any with me anyway). He's the prototype of a moderate Republican. What, you think he's more liberal than Senator Olympia Snowe? Or Governor George Pataki?

On a single axis scale? Yes he is.

Oh I dunno. Maggie Thatcher would be on the right, as are Reagan and Nixon and Dubya and HW Bush, and Coolidge.

You realize, of course, that Friedman was one of Reagan's closest economic advisers, right? And Nixon spent a lot of his domestic policy increasing welfare benefits. And Dubya has been spending on welfare programs (Medicare) through the roof.

Why do you think anyone right of Milton Friedman is fascist?

Because Friedman is very much on the right.

Christianity teaches that there is a spiritual and material world, and that we could not exist if God were not sustaining us spiritually.

Marxism teaches that the world is controlled by a mechanical process, that we cannot change or understand that is continuously improving things.

Those are pretty fundamental differences?

Have you ever been in a political party and seen the different factions? Seriously, those differences are hardly anything, especially when the end result ends up being the same.

I believe Christian Socialism to be like Jumbo shrimp. Most folks who call themselves that are one or the other, and have reasons to call themselves both that have nothing to do with agreeing with both.

Because your little brain can't accept it. Especially since socialists existed prior to Marxism. And a good number of socialists today aren't Marxist... and that's not even counting the Christian Socialists.

That's because Christian republicans don't go and murder wall street republicans. Forgive Christians for finding it offensive that you are conflating them with communists because their viewpoints are oh so similar.

When's the last time "socialists" (focus here Ben) have killed Christians?

Btw, Communists have killed Socialists throughout history as well. Socialists have been considered traitors to the cause, especially Democratic Socialists, who Communists feel have sold out to the system.

Oh, ok. Explain to a stupid person why Marxism is not considered to be socialism, and we have grounds for actual discussion here.

Marx advocated Communism. A revolution followed by a totally restructuring of society (and in the end the state withers away... yes, its very Utopian).

Socialism, especially democratic socialism, believes in working with the system and, IMO, is far less utopian. Marx's ideals can influence socialist groups, no doubt, but many have moved well beyond Marx. Basically, "Socialism" is like a political party. It is a big tent where the end result of economic and social equality for everyone in society by tempering the excesses of capitalism is shared by all. Christian socialists are just as "socialist" are Marx influenced socialists.

[MOBIUS]

Hands up who's on Ben Kenobi's side...

[falcon41]

Originally posted by Agathon


It's funny how Social Darwinism tends to be the preferred position of evolutionary throwbacks.

It is yes. There are many instances of people earning sums of money and still asking you, why am I not as good as you, why???!!

Evolutionary throwbacks are the ones with the SUV, the house in the northern suburbs and with the 0 inside. Empty.

If you think money is all that matters then nothing matters and most of all you.

OTOH one can stipulate, that's what's great about free markets. The right for everyone to have books, a car, a house, the freedom to be what he wants to be.


Why be a soviet supreme ballet dancer if you have no freedom? And parallely in free markets you have the freedom to be a nobody real estate agent or someone who pursues his own way of living. The freedom that free markets offer is often looked down on because of the stupidity of the earn more and more money question.

Then again of course free markets must be harvested.