Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2008 - 04:50pm PT
|
Dirt, my intent was to point out that if someone who has lived through totalitarianism says that we could be on the same track, we should probably give them a listen.
You can choose to ignore it. I knew the SA lady would get you going. I don't know enough about the details of the SA gov't change to know whether she is completely racist or not.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2008 - 05:05pm PT
|
Jesus Bluering, wake-up, it's what the right wing in America has been doing for years. The conservatives play with and feed this stuff to the masses. Nixon did it, Wallace did it...even Reagan. Michael Savage makes his living from it.
And before them, it was the conservative Dems doing it.
What do you think the Southern Strategy is all about?
Liberal rule = racial disorder. They've spewed this garbage for years, though usually more coded then this clown.
You can bet that columinist knew exactly why she posted a pro-Apartheid racist along side the Nazi warning. She was saying, "See? With the liberals in charge, disorder will come like in the days before Hitler, except this time the niggers and the spics and everyone else will take over the white people, just like in South Africa. The white people are the ones who truly want order, which is what we gave up with Apartheid." That's the point of the column!
And again, it's no coincidence it is happening when a half-African man is about to become president.
It's a racist sh#t piece Bluering. The whole thing is the worst kind of vile garbage. Awful, hateful stuff.
And you are really wondering how to restore conservatism?
And if this what is left of conservatism, then pull the plug on this beast.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2008 - 05:09pm PT
|
I would agree that that article seems to employ the same old fear strategy that the GOP has used for way too long, and is largely responsible for where they are now. I don't see how an extremist position like that has any hope in re-creating conservatism as an effective political movement in the US.
Rather than bashing opposing political beliefs, I'd like to see more posts & articles on this thread about the changes that may be occurring within the GOP. The redesign of the Republican party is very much in the media right now (usually in between spots about Henry Paulson & the auto industry), and I wonder how much of a re-design will actually occur. Many seem to agree that when the GOP 'married' with the religious right & their social issues, their fate led them to where they are now. As much as many agree that many of these social views are not part of true conservatism, it is hard to imagine the GOP leaving the humongous voter potential that this group brings.
Besides this thread, what dialogues are you hearing in the media these days about re-creating conservatism & the Republican party? Do you genuinely believe there will be significant change? What parts of the GOP platform will be modified or dropped?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2008 - 05:11pm PT
|
"And again, it's no coincidence it is happening when a half-African man is about to become president. "
I disagree with that. Most conservatives don't like Obama because he appears way too liberal, not because he's half-black. You've even fallen into the trap that any dissent about a 'minority' doing something you disagree with makes you a racist (or a homophobe or a sexist, depending on the issue).
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2008 - 05:15pm PT
|
Look, I said I was going to start a different thread regarding 'totalitarianism' but when searching the existing threads for Socialism and what not, this one popped up.
Maybe I should have posted a new thread so DB could holler at me there instead of distracting from this thread's original intent.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2008 - 05:16pm PT
|
Actually, I've never equated conservative objections to Obama with racism. I'm not going to step into that box.
But that piece, by that author, is a softball. She even quoted someone who did not believe that non westerners (meaning, black Africans) appreciated order.
That's racist!
And guess what Obama is?
But is that the only thing you take issue with?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2008 - 05:18pm PT
|
"Maybe I should have posted a new thread so DB could holler at me there instead of distracting from this thread's original intent. "
No bluering, I think you've just shown what the problem with modern conservatism is.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2008 - 05:20pm PT
|
I'm sorry Bluering, but most of that article is racist fearmongering. An Obama administration has nothing in common with Robert Mugabe or Idi Amin.
In fact, seems to me there have been more rights infringements under Bush (a conservative white guy), then there are likely to be under an Obama administration.
But this is maybe directly responsive to the title of this thread. Do those of you who are fiscal and libertarian type conservatives really want to be associated with someone that could even consider this to be serious commentary?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2008 - 07:51pm PT
|
Alright, I'm back. Everyone is complaining about the SA lady's quotes and it's very possible she's a racist, I'll admit that. No one really mentions the Hitler Youth guy and what he said.
One such witness, Hilmar von Campe, a former German Hitler Youth member, sounds the alarm. An article by WorldNetDaily dated November 13, 2008, quotes von Campe:
“Every day brings this nation closer to a Nazi-style totalitarian abyss,” writes Hilmar von Campe, now a U.S. citizen, and author of ‘Defeating the Totalitarian Lie: A Former Hitler Youth Warms America’".
….”I lived the Nazi nightmare, and, as the saying goes, ‘A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument,’” writes von Campe. “Everything I write is based on my personal experience in Nazi Germany. There is nothing theoretical about my description of what happens when a nation throws God out of government and society, and Christians become religious bystanders.”
…..”It took me a long time to understand and define the nature of National Socialism”, says von Campe. “And, unfortunately, their philosophy continues to flourish under different labels remaining a menace to America and free human society.”
…..”Democratic procedures can be subverted and dishonest politicians are like sand in the gearbox, abundant, everywhere and destructive,” he writes. “What I see in America today is people painting their cabins while the ship goes down. Today in America we are witnessing a repeat performance of the tragedy of 1933 when an entire nation let itself be led like a lamb to the Socialist slaughterhouse. This time, the end of freedom is inevitable unless America rises to her mission and destiny.”
I don't know a lot about this dude but he makes some valid points that even liberals would agree with.
I'm trying to not sound paranoid but the more I look around, the more I can see our gov't and culture is rotting. It can't be healthy for a country.
If you look at countries/societies that turned totalitarian and compare their transformation to us today, I'd say we could easily take the step over the edge, pretty quickly actually.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2008 - 08:03pm PT
|
OK so let me throw caution to the winds and ask if the following is felt to be a principal of the conservatism toward which we wish to go.
The people who vote for any governmental benefit or service should also be the people who pay for it.
Now the problem with this is we don't actually get to vote. Our Congressional representatives do the voting.
So we amend it to: Any time our representatives vote for a benefit for us that we do not actually pay for ourselves, we individually will and must make it our business to make our representatives miserable and out of office to the maximum extent possible.
It all comes down to DILIGENCE.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2008 - 08:14pm PT
|
"The people who vote for any governmental benefit or service should also be the people who pay for it. "
Sounds wacky but maybe I misunderstand the statement. We, the taxpayers, pay for everything anyway to varying degrees based on our tax-rate.
People should be more diligent about understanding how to pay for stuff before they vote approving it. Too many people are just unaware and uninformed and vote with a knee-jerk response to bill titles.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2008 - 08:29pm PT
|
Blue:
No.
A lot of the things we benefit from are paid for by our grandchildren.
When we ask for something new we need to demand our taxes go up.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2008 - 08:45pm PT
|
I hear ya now, John. I agree, with a couple of exceptions.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2008 - 08:53pm PT
|
From your article Blue,
"Today in America we are witnessing a repeat performance of the tragedy of 1933 when an entire nation let itself be led like a lamb to the Socialist slaughterhouse"
I thought the article was about totalitarianism, but he attacks socialism.
This guy is just doing a bunch of fear tricks with you Blue. You are afraid of socialism, and there are a few sound reasons to not have total socialism, but don't let this guy fool you. He obviously is totally biased because he can't see through the crap he writes about South Africa.
For example. In South Africa, once the Blacks regained some power, they held a forgiveness council. They didn't go around butchering people. They asked them to confess their crimes and for the most part they forgave them. No trials if you stood before the forgiveness council. The only people who were held for trials were those accused of the most brutal crimes such as murder and rape. And by the way, blacks and white went before the forgiveness council. Things are so much better in South Africa since the end of apartheid.
So the very fact that this person claims some superior knowledge about totalitarianism is totally debunked by the examples he uses.
Forget what he says about Germany. Its bunk. White people were in power and it was white people who wrecked Germany. It wasn't the fault of the Jews. Germany suffered from too much pride and it was led down the garden path into WW 1. When they lost WW1, Europe punished them by putting all sorts of sanctions against them. These sanctions created conditions, such as extreme poverty, that made it possible for someone such as Hitler to rise. The people were desperate and were looking for someone to lead them out of the mess they were in. Hitler promised them this and they believed because the wanted to believe.
There is some similarities to today in that America is somewhat desperate for change, but we are nowhere near the level of desperation that was going on in Germany, plus we are the ones who have created our desperation in our materialism and by allowing the power elite to control our money system. Since we control our fate, we can change it, which makes it different from Germany just before WW2.
This article is total bunk. He is just playing on your fear of socialism. No one here wants a total socialistic society. We might go a bit too far in that direction, but we will not go all the way because then you would have everyone united against the government. Repubs and dems would not stand for that.
One more thing about the sanctions put on Germany after WW1. We had the same situation with Japan after WW2. Thankfully McCarther understood the ramifications of putting onerous sanctions on Japan and demanded that we treat them decently. Otherwise they likely could have gone down a similar path that Germany did. Instead they are now are friend.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2008 - 09:00pm PT
|
jstan,
I like your concept. The devil will be in defining the "we" who benefit and the "us" whose taxes increase. That has both practical and ethical difficulties.
As an example of an ethical difficulty, I'm within five years of Social Security eligibility. I've paid into the system (between employer's and employee's "contributions") enough that, at a 5% internal rate of return, should have yielded a value of over one million dollars in five years. All of those payments went to pay current Social Security benefits. Is it wrong for me to expect future workers to pay me when my turn comes?
I don't think the answer is all that easy, because I get an unfair result no matter how I answer. If I get the full benefits of current recipients, either the system goes broke or my children's generation will be pauperized paying for it. If I get benefits with less than a present value of one million dollars (of course I won't), I've been cheated. What do we do?
I suggest we begin by looking warily at any entitlement program for some, but not all Americans. The cost to the have-nots increases too fast.
I also have problems figuring out what constitutes an increase to "our" taxes. In California, the income tax affects very few taxpayers to any significant degree. I think any effective raising of "our" taxes must include raising them in a way that affects most of the population. Otherwise, we have such a disconnect between the payors and the payees that we have a sort of slavery by democracy. Who wouldn't want something they don't pay for? Who protects the minority of payors, other than the ability to vote with their feet? Conservatives seem the only ones likely to do so.
I think you've made an excellent contribution. I need to go to a rehearsal right now, so I may add more later, but I think you're on to something.
John
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2008 - 09:16pm PT
|
"I thought the article was about totalitarianism, but he attacks socialism."
Moosie, he's talking about what was billed as Nationalized Socialism (the NAZI party). At the time everyone loved the idea of nationalized socialism, sounded great! Then Hitler kept taking more and more power through social programs and starting justifying taking over countries and expanding the Fatherland.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2008 - 09:36pm PT
|
". If I get benefits with less than a present value of one million dollars (of course I won't), I've been cheated. "
Only if you view SS as a retirement account. It is, but it also acts as an insurance account. We are all trying to insure that no on goes hungry when they retire. Something which I think is noble. Since it is also an insurance account, then you can not expect to get your full money out just as you do not expect to get your full money out from your medical insurance, even if you do not use it in your lifetime.
The main problem with Social Security is we robbed it. It was designed to be fully funded, but we used the funds to finance other things, instead of holding or investing them. Now it is under funded.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2008 - 09:51pm PT
|
Many historians, political scientists and sociologists might, if asked, say that there are many parallels between the European fascist regimes of 1922 - 45, and the US federal government over the last eight years. (Many non-parallels, too.) Authoritarian corporatism. Suppression of individual rights. Aggressive foreign policy, based on exaggerated or imagined threats. Growing state control. Emphasis on supposed "volk" values.
The biggest parallel of all being the double speak rhetoric. Until that is addressed, it may not be possible to have an intelligent discussion about the future of conservatism in the US. For example, the US has been a mixed economy and society since at least World War I, or in political terms a liberal democracy. (John L?) That is to say, one in which government spending at all levels account for 30 - 40% of national spending. A bit more in time of crisis, a bit less during booms. One in which government is recognized as having a significant role in many aspects of society, and a moderating influence on extreme forces.
Apart from ditching the ugly rhetoric, the extremists, the single-issue kooks, and the religious nuts, the conservatives have to ask themselves "What is the proper role of government in our country, and how should it be accomplished?"
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2008 - 10:10pm PT
|
"True, but does that mean we couldn't spend the money better elsewhere, including keeping it in our own pockets to use as we see fit? I know my own answer on the prison deal: nonviolent prisoners should be confined to their homes for certain hours, and required to work and pay taxes the rest of the time, within reason. It would both increase revenue and decrease expense. We may even get more productive members of society. "
A fine Idea John and it's a good point. If conservatism was equally zealous about efficiency and rectitude in programs of spending that they like, I could respect it with pride. The fact that Haliburton and Bechtel got these no bid contracts that they performed so poorly on and fraudulently profiteer on irritates me.
Peace
Karl
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2008 - 10:22pm PT
|
Perhaps what is needed is for the Republicans, at least the honest ones, to admit that Republican is not necessarily synonymous with conservative. Second, that they were badly defeated, and need to change. "More of the same" isn't going to do it - that's been rejected. Third, that some elements of their coalition will either have to compromise or be ejected. Fourth, honesty with themselves, and with the electorate. Enough of the mindless rhetoric. Last, a willingness to seek solutions and compromise, to unite instead of dividing.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!