Establishing a U.S. State Religion [Archive]

Agravan

01-12-2014, 08:57 PM

January 10, 2014 Establishing a U.S. State ReligionBy Fay Voshell (http://www.americanthinker.com/fay_voshell/)

In direct contradiction of the First Amendment, which forbids the establishing of a state religion, the Obama administration is busily doing just that. Meanwhile, it is attempting forced conversion of the reluctant, all the while targeting Christians and Orthodox Jews as people who are continually violating the establishment of religion clause.
Just what religion is our current administration establishing in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States?
It is establishing the faith of secular statism, a religion currently characterized by the tenets of radical progressivism. Statism is rapidly becoming the only faith in America allowed to operate with complete freedom.
Remember the announcement at the 2012 Democrat National Convention that "government is the only thing we all belong to?"
Even when listened to in context (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gLa9Te8Blw), it is an alarming statement, as it implies the State has ultimate power over the individual, who becomes merely part of the collective. In fact, the phrase can be seen as a short creedal statement summarizing the beliefs of an American state religion. It is but a short step from you all belong to the government to you all must do what the government decrees to you must, forsaking your own faith, bow before the god of the State.
Government enforcement of the religion of statism, which includes the belief in the supreme higher power and authority of an absolute State, is nowhere more apparent than in the case of the Little Sisters of the Poor. Whatever the eventual fate of the sisters, their case is an example of our administration trying to force state religion down the throats of Christians.
The group of nuns has devoted itself to the care of the elderly for the last 175 years -- a generally thankless task, as they are dealing with human beings who are physically debilitated and most often mentally frail as they come to the end of their earthly existence.
The nuns have preferred to do their works of mercy unheralded, as Christ commands.
But now the quiet sisters have taken a stand, refusing to obey the Affordable Health Care mandate to include abortion-inducing drugs as part of the insurance policies offered to the orders' employees. Such provisions violate the nuns' religious beliefs concerning the sacredness of life from conception to death. In fact, the order would not exist if the sisters did not believe in the sanctity of life from conception until old age and death.
According to Beverly Monk's report on Citizen Link (http://www.citizenlink.com/2014/01/03/doj-little-sisters-of-the-poor-must-violate-faith-or-pay-fines/), the nuns have been told they themselves or their order won't have to offer abortion-inducing drugs in health care plans, but they must sign "a government form that delegates the action to a third party."
In other words, HHS and the DOJ are essentially saying to the nuns, "You yourselves don't have to do it, but you have to allow someone else to do it on behalf of your order." That's legal casuistry at its most serpentine. Monk also reports the DOJ demands [...] "the Little Sisters must sign a 'self-certification' form claiming eligibility for an exemption from the mandate, or pay millions in fines [...]."

More:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2014/01/establishing_a_us_state_religion.html

Chris

01-12-2014, 09:01 PM

Statism is indeed a religion.

Germanicus

01-12-2014, 09:50 PM

alarming statement, as it implies the State has ultimate power over the individual,

This is not alarming to me. The state does have ultimate power. This is fact. Not alarming.

And we see Egyptians banning religious political parties. This is the way of the future. Religion breeds fanatics.

In my opinion the conservatives of America are religious fanatics because they always want to use religion in politics. Conservatives especially use the topics of abortion/gay rights to bring religion into politics. I think this should be illegal. If American conservatives cant make an argument without resorting to using religion then these people should be considered to be fanatics.

Religious types are unreasonable and refuse to compromise. It is ridiculous to allow religious political parties or religious influenced parties to have a public voice.

America is the worst of advanced nations for allowing religion to influence politics and sound policy. America should ban religion from politics just like Egypt has done. Religious types are fanatics and enemies of the state. They should be treated as enemies of the state.

The Tea Party is an international punchline and a joke. World leaders often use the group to make fun of American politics and refer to them as "fanatics". Religion has a lot to do with why the Tea Party Patriots are seen as fanatical lunatics by the global community.

So sayeth the shepherd.

Chris

01-12-2014, 09:52 PM

This is not alarming to me. The state does have ultimate power. This is fact. Not alarming.

And we see Egyptians banning religious political parties. This is the way of the future. Religion breeds fanatics.

In my opinion the conservatives of America are religious fanatics because they always want to use religion in politics. Conservatives especially use the topic of abortion to bring religion into politics. I think this should be illegal. If American conservatives cant make an argument without resorting to using religion then these people should be considered to be fanatics.

Religious types are unreasonable and refuse to compromise. It is ridiculous to allow religious political parties or religious influenced parties to have a public voice.

America is the worst of advanced nations for allowing religion to influence politics and sound policy. America should ban religion from politics just like Egypt has done. Religious types are fanatics and enemies of the state. They should be treated as enemies of the state.

So sayeth the shepherd.

The might of the state rests on the rights of the people.

Germanicus

01-12-2014, 09:54 PM

I disagree. It rests on the might of the military. And its loyalty.

The people are nothing. What are they gonna do? Nothing.

Mister D

01-12-2014, 10:01 PM

I disagree. It rests on the might of the military. And its loyalty.

The people are nothing. What are they gonna do? Nothing.

"You can do everything with bayonets except sit on them."

Thomas Hardy

Chris

01-12-2014, 10:09 PM

I disagree. It rests on the might of the military. And its loyalty.

The people are nothing. What are they gonna do? Nothing.

The bulk of any military comes from the people.

Mister D

01-12-2014, 10:17 PM

The bulk of any military comes from the people.

It does but at the time of the founding that wasn't exactly true. The armies were professional and in some respects estranged from the larger society. That's what inspired the fear of a standing army. The character of western militaries would change with the French Revolution and the rise of nationalist sentiment. by the late 19th Century you could day "a military comes from the people" for most of Europe.

sachem

01-12-2014, 11:29 PM

We've had one for years. Christianity.

Mini Me

01-13-2014, 12:44 AM

I disagree. It rests on the might of the military. And its loyalty.

The people are nothing. What are they gonna do? Nothing.

The people are POWERLESS today!

The corporate fascists have taken over the machine, and care not a whit about you and I!

Mini Me

01-13-2014, 12:46 AM

January 10, 2014 Establishing a U.S. State Religion

By Fay Voshell (http://www.americanthinker.com/fay_voshell/)

In direct contradiction of the First Amendment, which forbids the establishing of a state religion, the Obama administration is busily doing just that. Meanwhile, it is attempting forced conversion of the reluctant, all the while targeting Christians and Orthodox Jews as people who are continually violating the establishment of religion clause.
Just what religion is our current administration establishing in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States?
It is establishing the faith of secular statism, a religion currently characterized by the tenets of radical progressivism. Statism is rapidly becoming the only faith in America allowed to operate with complete freedom.
Remember the announcement at the 2012 Democrat National Convention that "government is the only thing we all belong to?"
Even when listened to in context (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gLa9Te8Blw), it is an alarming statement, as it implies the State has ultimate power over the individual, who becomes merely part of the collective. In fact, the phrase can be seen as a short creedal statement summarizing the beliefs of an American state religion. It is but a short step from you all belong to the government to you all must do what the government decrees to you must, forsaking your own faith, bow before the god of the State.
Government enforcement of the religion of statism, which includes the belief in the supreme higher power and authority of an absolute State, is nowhere more apparent than in the case of the Little Sisters of the Poor. Whatever the eventual fate of the sisters, their case is an example of our administration trying to force state religion down the throats of Christians.
The group of nuns has devoted itself to the care of the elderly for the last 175 years -- a generally thankless task, as they are dealing with human beings who are physically debilitated and most often mentally frail as they come to the end of their earthly existence.
The nuns have preferred to do their works of mercy unheralded, as Christ commands.
But now the quiet sisters have taken a stand, refusing to obey the Affordable Health Care mandate to include abortion-inducing drugs as part of the insurance policies offered to the orders' employees. Such provisions violate the nuns' religious beliefs concerning the sacredness of life from conception to death. In fact, the order would not exist if the sisters did not believe in the sanctity of life from conception until old age and death.
According to Beverly Monk's report on Citizen Link (http://www.citizenlink.com/2014/01/03/doj-little-sisters-of-the-poor-must-violate-faith-or-pay-fines/), the nuns have been told they themselves or their order won't have to offer abortion-inducing drugs in health care plans, but they must sign "a government form that delegates the action to a third party."
In other words, HHS and the DOJ are essentially saying to the nuns, "You yourselves don't have to do it, but you have to allow someone else to do it on behalf of your order." That's legal casuistry at its most serpentine. Monk also reports the DOJ demands [...] "the Little Sisters must sign a 'self-certification' form claiming eligibility for an exemption from the mandate, or pay millions in fines [...]."

More:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2014/01/establishing_a_us_state_religion.html

Sheer paranoid RW nonsense!

Mr Happy

01-13-2014, 01:19 AM

Statism doesn't even meet the minimal criteria of a religion.

kilgram

01-13-2014, 05:02 AM

Secularism is no religion. Screw you with your nonsense.

Seriously, and USA has a state religion, The Believer. If you are not a believer in many states you cannot run for the office. It is pure discrimination. It goes against the constitution. But you don't protest about that.

iustitia

01-13-2014, 06:07 AM

If religion is the attitude and feeling of one who believes in a transcendent controlling power or powers... statism is a religion.

jillian

01-13-2014, 06:10 AM

If religion is the attitude and feeling of one who believes in a transcendent controlling power or powers... statism is a religion.

only in a very vivid fantasy world...

words have meaning…

re·li·gion noun \ri-ˈli-jən\: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

not being rabidly anti-government does not mean one defies government.

iustitia

01-13-2014, 06:24 AM

only in a very vivid fantasy world...

words have meaning…

re·li·gion

noun\ri-ˈli-jən\: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

not being rabidly anti-government does not mean one defies government.

religion- an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

god- one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs

deity- divine character or nature, especially that of a supreme being

So basically the Supreme Court.

jillian

01-13-2014, 06:25 AM

religion- an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

god- one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs

deity- divine character or nature, especially that of a supreme being

So basically the Supreme Court.

no. the supreme court is a constutionally established governmental entity.

it is not a religion because you don't like the court and think you should substitute your judgement for that court.

iustitia

01-13-2014, 06:31 AM

no. The supreme court is a constutionally established governmental entity.

It is not a religion because you don't like the court and think you should substitute your judgement for that court.

Their word is the word of god. Unchallengeable. Infallible. Inerrant. Follow, obey.

Mr Happy

01-13-2014, 06:38 AM

Their word is the word of god. Unchallengeable. Infallible. Inerrant. Follow, obey.

Nope. Try again...

jillian

01-13-2014, 06:38 AM

Their word is the word of god. Unchallengeable. Infallible. Inerrant. Follow, obey.

actually? in terms of our legal system?

until whatever decision the court makes is reversed by a later supreme court or modified in later cases… yes, you do follow. that is the legal system we have.

you don't get to wake up in the morning and decide not to follow the law. neither can i. well, you can, but you'll be violating the law and subject to whatever penalty (civil or criminal) exists for the law you violated.

patrickt

01-13-2014, 07:00 AM

It's fun watching true believers bicker with true believers. Is anyone on the forum more of a true believer than Kilgram and his blind devotion? Jillian believes totally and refuses to consider anything that challenges her faith. And, Cigar? Actually, I don't think he is a true believer. He's a Jim Bakker who makes money on the deal.

My favorite day is May 1st when the communist all gather in the town square in Oaxaca to proselytize but since no one is really interested it devolves into the Stalinists bickering with the Maoists with the Trotskyites with the Leninists and other splinter groups thrown in. You'd think it was Baptist bickering with Methodists with Church of Christ faithful with Lutheran with Jehovah's Witnesses.

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 07:38 AM

Remember the announcement at the 2012 Democrat National Convention that "government is the only thing we all belong to?"
Even when listened to in context, it is an alarming statement, as it implies the State has ultimate power over the individual, who becomes merely part of the collective.

Fay needs to pull her head out of her ass. If that's not the problem, then she is simply bomb-throwing because that's not what the video implies at all in context.

Here is the statement in context (http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/article/2012/oct/10/context-governments-only-thing-we-all-belong/):

"We are committed to all people. We do believe you could use government in a good way. Government’s the only thing that we all belong to. We have different churches, different clubs, but we’re together as a part of our city, or our county, or our state and our nation."

The 5 minute video was titled "Welcome to Charlotte" and the quote was part of the narration by former NC governor Jim Hunt. The United States is a Federal Constitutional Republic. "We, the People" are the government since it's our representatives that we send to Congress and it's our elected officials we designate to carry out the will of "We, the People". In that context, our government, indeed, "the only thing that we all belong to". Everything else is a sub-category; States, cities, jobs, etc.

If Ms. Voshell simply misread the statement, I can forgive an error. If she is intentionally slanting this for political reasons, then she is deliberately attempting to deceive her fellow Americans.....if she's an American at all.

zelmo1234

01-13-2014, 07:49 AM

I disagree. It rests on the might of the military. And its loyalty.

The people are nothing. What are they gonna do? Nothing.

That is what the king of England thought! but the people in the USA are getting fed up. Hopefully they will be able to vote for people that will change the system.

But also in America the Military is sworn to the constitution and not the Government, and many as you can see by the former members on our board would side against the government and for the constitution.

So unlike many states the government can't count on the military murdering it's opponates

Chris

01-13-2014, 07:51 AM

Statism doesn't even meet the minimal criteria of a religion.

Read you some Hegel. Here's some highlights from Hegel: The State as God's Will (http://mises.org/daily/6213/):

...Armed with such a philosophy and with such a philosopher, the modern state would take its divinely appointed stand at the height of history and civilization, as God on earth. Thus, "The modern State, proving the reality of political community, when comprehended philosophically, could therefore be seen as the highest articulation of Spirit, or God in the contemporary world." The state, then, is "a supreme manifestation of the activity of God in the world," and, "the State stands above all; it is Spirit which knows itself as the universal essence and reality"; and, "The State is the reality of the kingdom of heaven." And finally, "The State is God's Will."

...As Karl Popper puts it,

Hegel was appointed to meet this demand, and he did so by reviving the ideas of the first great enemies of the open society [especially Heraclitus and Plato] … Hegel rediscovered the Platonic Ideas which lie behind the perennial revolt against freedom and reason. Hegelianism is the renaissance of tribalism … [Hegel] is the "missing link," as it were, between Plato and the modern forms of totalitarianism. Most of the modern totalitarians, … know of their indebtedness to Hegel, and all of them have been brought up in the close atmosphere of Hegelianism. They have been taught to worship the state, history, and the nation.[6]

On Hegel's worship of the state, Popper cites chilling and revealing passages:

The State is the Divine Idea as it exists on earth … We must therefore worship the State as the manifestation of the Divine on earth … The State is the march of God through the world … The State must be comprehended as an organism … To the complete State belongs, essentially, consciousness and thought. The State knows what it wills … The State … exists for its own sake … The State is the actually existing, realized moral life.

All this rant is well characterized by Popper as "bombastic and hysterical Platonism."

kilgram

01-13-2014, 07:52 AM

Chris

01-13-2014, 07:53 AM

zelmo1234

01-13-2014, 07:54 AM

The people are POWERLESS today!

The corporate fascists have taken over the machine, and care not a whit about you and I!

actually they have a lot of power we have witnessed it on the state levels

For example MI and WI elected state wide physically conservative governments and they have turned the deficits into surpluses and MI for the first time Since the First term of Gov Engler? Had more people move into the state than move out, and that is saying something because we are loosing a lot of our life time welfare recipients as they hit there 48 month lifetime maximums

Like always it starts local and moves national.

On the other side look at NYC they have elected a socialist Mayor and are moving in the direction that they want

Chris

01-13-2014, 07:57 AM

actually? in terms of our legal system?

until whatever decision the court makes is reversed by a later supreme court or modified in later cases… yes, you do follow. that is the legal system we have.

you don't get to wake up in the morning and decide not to follow the law. neither can i. well, you can, but you'll be violating the law and subject to whatever penalty (civil or criminal) exists for the law you violated.

And there you have it, full out admission of worship of the state as God. The progeny of Plato, Hegel and Marx.

Note she forgets:

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, 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.

Chris

01-13-2014, 08:01 AM

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 08:02 AM

And the forum statist can do no more than pull out a common dictionary and ad hom.

Anyone can criticize those who seek to clarify a discussion by including definitions and make up accusations where none exist.

Saying "not being rabidly anti-government does not mean one defies government" is not an ad hominem. If she said you were "a pompous moron" that would have been an ad hominem, but she did not.

iustitia

01-13-2014, 08:09 AM

And there you have it, full out admission of worship of the state as God. The progeny of Plato, Hegel and Marx.

Note she forgets:

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, 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.

Jillian will just respond, as she has in the past, that the Declaration of Independence doesn't matter because it's not enforceable law.

Chris

01-13-2014, 08:14 AM

Anyone can criticize those who seek to clarify a discussion by including definitions and make up accusations where none exist.

Saying "not being rabidly anti-government does not mean one defies government" is not an ad hominem. If she said you were "a pompous moron" that would have been an ad hominem, but she did not.

When one discusses political philosophy, one does not use common vernacular dictionary definitions to prove an argument. It's nonsense to try.

Implying that iustitia is "rabidly anti-government" is indeed ad hom. For clarification, pull out a dictionary and look up rabid. --And the anti-government bit, while not ad hom, is just plain wrong, he's not an anarchist, an anarchist doesn't start a thread defining positions on government.

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 08:16 AM

Jillian will just respond, as she has in the past, that the Declaration of Independence doesn't matter because it's not enforceable law.

Then she would be wrong just as those who ignore the Declaration when discussing gay or any other rights are wrong to do so.

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 08:20 AM

When one discusses political philosophy, one does not use common vernacular dictionary definitions to prove an argument. It's nonsense to try.
In your opinion. In my opinion it's important that everyone in a discussion use a common lexicon and use the same definitions for words.

For example, if I said you were gay, meaning happy, but you took it to mean homosexual, you would be insulted and tell me to fuck off and I'd be left confused and thinking you were insane. Ergo, it might be appropriate for me to post a definition of the word "gay" to clarify our discussion.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gay
1
a : happily excited : merry (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/merry) <in a gay mood>
b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits <a bird's gay spring song>

2
a : bright (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bright), lively (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lively) <gay sunny meadows>
b : brilliant in color

Chris

01-13-2014, 08:21 AM

Jillian will just respond, as she has in the past, that the Declaration of Independence doesn't matter because it's not enforceable law.

And she would by her own legal positivism be wrong:

"And the Declaration of Independence was upheld by the SCOTUS multiple times as having constitutional weight, most poetically in the Amistad case."

Alyosha @ http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/21070-I-missed-out-on-that-burning-question-quot-Can-t-I-get-Married-too-quot?p=485511&viewfull=1#post485511

Chris

01-13-2014, 08:24 AM

In your opinion. In my opinion it's important that everyone in a discussion use a common lexicon and use the same definitions for words.

For example, if I said you were gay, meaning happy, but you took it to mean homosexual, you would be insulted and tell me to fuck off and I'd be left confused and thinking you were insane. Ergo, it might be appropriate for me to post a definition of the word "gay" to clarify our discussion.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gay
1
a : happily excited : merry (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/merry) <in a gay mood>
b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits <a bird's gay spring song>

2
a : bright (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bright), lively (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lively) <gay sunny meadows>
b : brilliant in color

Nice twisting of what I said. Did I say anything against using dictionaries to clarify meaning? No. What I criticized was the notion you can use a dictionary to prove your point.

Why? Simple. Dictionaries are not prescriptive, they are descriptive of what a people happen to mean by a word at a particular time.

Clarification, fine, proof, BS.

What does this sidling have to do with the topic?

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 08:50 AM

Nice twisting of what I said. Did I say anything against using dictionaries to clarify meaning? No. What I criticized was the notion you can use a dictionary to prove your point.

Not a twist as you falsely accused, and you're still wrong about using dictionaries to prove points. Jillian responded to the comment "statism is a religion" with both a definition and the comment, which you quoted, "not being rabidly anti-government does not mean one defies government.". Whether or not you agree with her argument (since you seem to agree "statism is a religion") doesn't mean the point isn't a valid part of the debate.

As it is, I think anyone who consistently misuses the term "statist" is either ignorant of the definition or deliberately seeking use ad hominem attacks and deceive others. Just because a people, like our Founders, see a purpose for government doesn't mean they are "statists" who believe everything should be handed over to said government.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statism
concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry

nic34

01-13-2014, 09:15 AM

January 10, 2014 Establishing a U.S. State Religion

By Fay Voshell (http://www.americanthinker.com/fay_voshell/)

In direct contradiction of the First Amendment, which forbids the establishing of a state religion, the Obama administration is busily doing just that. Meanwhile, it is attempting forced conversion of the reluctant, all the while targeting Christians and Orthodox Jews as people who are continually violating the establishment of religion clause.
Just what religion is our current administration establishing in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States?
It is establishing the faith of secular statism, a religion currently characterized by the tenets of radical progressivism. Statism is rapidly becoming the only faith in America allowed to operate with complete freedom.
Remember the announcement at the 2012 Democrat National Convention that "government is the only thing we all belong to?"
Even when listened to in context (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gLa9Te8Blw), it is an alarming statement, as it implies the State has ultimate power over the individual, who becomes merely part of the collective. In fact, the phrase can be seen as a short creedal statement summarizing the beliefs of an American state religion. It is but a short step from you all belong to the government to you all must do what the government decrees to you must, forsaking your own faith, bow before the god of the State.
Government enforcement of the religion of statism, which includes the belief in the supreme higher power and authority of an absolute State, is nowhere more apparent than in the case of the Little Sisters of the Poor. Whatever the eventual fate of the sisters, their case is an example of our administration trying to force state religion down the throats of Christians.
The group of nuns has devoted itself to the care of the elderly for the last 175 years -- a generally thankless task, as they are dealing with human beings who are physically debilitated and most often mentally frail as they come to the end of their earthly existence.
The nuns have preferred to do their works of mercy unheralded, as Christ commands.
But now the quiet sisters have taken a stand, refusing to obey the Affordable Health Care mandate to include abortion-inducing drugs as part of the insurance policies offered to the orders' employees. Such provisions violate the nuns' religious beliefs concerning the sacredness of life from conception to death. In fact, the order would not exist if the sisters did not believe in the sanctity of life from conception until old age and death.
According to Beverly Monk's report on Citizen Link (http://www.citizenlink.com/2014/01/03/doj-little-sisters-of-the-poor-must-violate-faith-or-pay-fines/), the nuns have been told they themselves or their order won't have to offer abortion-inducing drugs in health care plans, but they must sign "a government form that delegates the action to a third party."
In other words, HHS and the DOJ are essentially saying to the nuns, "You yourselves don't have to do it, but you have to allow someone else to do it on behalf of your order." That's legal casuistry at its most serpentine. Monk also reports the DOJ demands [...] "the Little Sisters must sign a 'self-certification' form claiming eligibility for an exemption from the mandate, or pay millions in fines [...]."

More:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2014/01/establishing_a_us_state_religion.html

Repubs are really running out of material.

But they are just as guilty of this when they push christianity down out throats at every turn...

Codename Section

01-13-2014, 09:17 AM

Christians haven't arrested or killed anyone for heresy in the US since the Salem witch trials. Government on the other hand...

Chris

01-13-2014, 09:19 AM

Not a twist as you falsely accused, and you're still wrong about using dictionaries to prove points. Jillian responded to the comment "statism is a religion" with both a definition and the comment, which you quoted, "not being rabidly anti-government does not mean one defies government.". Whether or not you agree with her argument (since you seem to agree "statism is a religion") doesn't mean the point isn't a valid part of the debate.

As it is, I think anyone who consistently misuses the term "statist" is either ignorant of the definition or deliberately seeking use ad hominem attacks and deceive others. Just because a people, like our Founders, see a purpose for government doesn't mean they are "statists" who believe everything should be handed over to said government.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statism
concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry

Baloney, road, here is what I posted:

"When one discusses political philosophy, one does not use common vernacular dictionary definitions to prove an argument."

This is your straw man:

"In my opinion it's important that everyone in a discussion use a common lexicon and use the same definitions for words."

Now where did I say anything at all about not using dictionaries for clarification? No where. I specifically said using them to prove something is bullshit.

nic34

01-13-2014, 09:19 AM

Government is not religion.

kilgram

01-13-2014, 09:24 AM

Well, he is an anarchist, but, then again, I don't know how he can achieve a communist state of no private property (capital) without force.
Well. I am not Green Arrow. I don't believe it is achievable by absolutely happy flower methods. Neither, the Libertarian goal.

The state will resist and use all the force to prevent change. And even if they see any possibility of revolution, they will arm themselves even more than now.

Chris

01-13-2014, 09:28 AM

Repubs are really running out of material.

But they are just as guilty of this when they push christianity down out throats at every turn...

Why degenerate the topic into a partisan one?

Chris

01-13-2014, 09:30 AM

Well. I am not Green Arrow. I don't believe it is achievable by absolutely happy flower methods. Neither, the Libertarian goal.

The state will resist and use all the force to prevent change. And even if they see any possibility of revolution, they will arm themselves even more than now.

I'm not talking the change from statism to anarchy, I'm talking the change from private ownership to public when, because the state is gone, under anarchy, there is no public body to manage it or settle disputes about it.

Chris

01-13-2014, 09:31 AM

Government is not religion.

Agreed, it shouldn't be. But some people do indeed worship the state as if it were God.

undine

01-13-2014, 09:36 AM

January 10, 2014 Establishing a U.S. State Religion

By Fay Voshell (http://www.americanthinker.com/fay_voshell/)

In direct contradiction of the First Amendment, which forbids the establishing of a state religion, the Obama administration is busily doing just that. Meanwhile, it is attempting forced conversion of the reluctant, all the while targeting Christians and Orthodox Jews as people who are continually violating the establishment of religion clause.
Just what religion is our current administration establishing in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States?
It is establishing the faith of secular statism, a religion currently characterized by the tenets of radical progressivism. Statism is rapidly becoming the only faith in America allowed to operate with complete freedom.
Remember the announcement at the 2012 Democrat National Convention that "government is the only thing we all belong to?"
Even when listened to in context (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gLa9Te8Blw), it is an alarming statement, as it implies the State has ultimate power over the individual, who becomes merely part of the collective. In fact, the phrase can be seen as a short creedal statement summarizing the beliefs of an American state religion. It is but a short step from you all belong to the government to you all must do what the government decrees to you must, forsaking your own faith, bow before the god of the State.
Government enforcement of the religion of statism, which includes the belief in the supreme higher power and authority of an absolute State, is nowhere more apparent than in the case of the Little Sisters of the Poor. Whatever the eventual fate of the sisters, their case is an example of our administration trying to force state religion down the throats of Christians.
The group of nuns has devoted itself to the care of the elderly for the last 175 years -- a generally thankless task, as they are dealing with human beings who are physically debilitated and most often mentally frail as they come to the end of their earthly existence.
The nuns have preferred to do their works of mercy unheralded, as Christ commands.
But now the quiet sisters have taken a stand, refusing to obey the Affordable Health Care mandate to include abortion-inducing drugs as part of the insurance policies offered to the orders' employees. Such provisions violate the nuns' religious beliefs concerning the sacredness of life from conception to death. In fact, the order would not exist if the sisters did not believe in the sanctity of life from conception until old age and death.
According to Beverly Monk's report on Citizen Link (http://www.citizenlink.com/2014/01/03/doj-little-sisters-of-the-poor-must-violate-faith-or-pay-fines/), the nuns have been told they themselves or their order won't have to offer abortion-inducing drugs in health care plans, but they must sign "a government form that delegates the action to a third party."
In other words, HHS and the DOJ are essentially saying to the nuns, "You yourselves don't have to do it, but you have to allow someone else to do it on behalf of your order." That's legal casuistry at its most serpentine. Monk also reports the DOJ demands [...] "the Little Sisters must sign a 'self-certification' form claiming eligibility for an exemption from the mandate, or pay millions in fines [...]."

More:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2014/01/establishing_a_us_state_religion.html

The roughly five-minute video in question was produced and paid for by the Charlotte in 2012 Convention Host Committee, officials said. Dan Murrey, executive director of the host committee, has said the video is "completely unaffiliated with the Obama campaign or the Democratic National Committee," according to a Politico article.

http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/article/2012/oct/10/context-governments-only-thing-we-all-belong/

What is the point of this misinformation? It didn't work at the time, it won't work now, and in fact it merely makes Republicans look like craven idiots.

kilgram

01-13-2014, 09:43 AM

I'm not talking the change from statism to anarchy, I'm talking the change from private ownership to public when, because the state is gone, under anarchy, there is no public body to manage it or settle disputes about it.
With the revolution people will see what is best for them. And obviously they will see that capitalism is slavery and they will adopt more communist solutions.

Chris

01-13-2014, 09:53 AM

With the revolution people will see what is best for them. And obviously they will see that capitalism is slavery and they will adopt more communist solutions.

Why would they do that? You as a socialist provide no moral justification as motivation to change.

In many respects you argue like Marx and Lenin. You offer no moral justification, probably reject it, because by so-called scientific metaphysics and dialectic, you believe history makes it inevitable. It will just happen. Moral justification be dammed.

Mainecoons

01-13-2014, 09:54 AM

With the revolution people will see what is best for them. And obviously they will see that capitalism is slavery and they will adopt more communist solutions.

Oh yeah, and that has worked so well in the past.

You really need to read "Animal Farm" repeatedly until you get it.

:rofl:

Common

01-13-2014, 10:03 AM

The people are POWERLESS today!

The corporate fascists have taken over the machine, and care not a whit about you and I!

HEAR HEAR greed rules

nic34

01-13-2014, 10:05 AM

Why degenerate the topic into a partisan one?

Because the op started out that way?

Remember the announcement at the 2012 Democrat National Convention

kilgram

01-13-2014, 10:22 AM

Why would they do that? You as a socialist provide no moral justification as motivation to change.

In many respects you argue like Marx and Lenin. You offer no moral justification, probably reject it, because by so-called scientific metaphysics and dialectic, you believe history makes it inevitable. It will just happen. Moral justification be dammed.
Moral justification?

Like for example workers being absolutely independent, not depending to anyone. Being absolutely free to do whatever they want. Being free to access to all the resources available in the moment and time...

The moral reason is the absolute emancipation. Freedom against any kind of authority. Authority coming from the state or the corporations, for example a boss. Being in a pure horizontal system.

Ivan88

01-13-2014, 10:39 AM

We have adopted the Talmudic Noahide Laws and apply them domestically and internationally. We spend billions and trillions of dollars and millions of lives supporting the power schemes & dialectical maneuvers of Talmudic elites of all types, including our current love affair with Talmu-"Islamic" terrorists.
5355

Chris

01-13-2014, 10:55 AM

Because the op started out that way?

It doesn't start off there, that is just an example used later.

Chris

01-13-2014, 11:14 AM

Moral justification?

Like for example workers being absolutely independent, not depending to anyone. Being absolutely free to do whatever they want. Being free to access to all the resources available in the moment and time...

The moral reason is the absolute emancipation. Freedom against any kind of authority. Authority coming from the state or the corporations, for example a boss. Being in a pure horizontal system.

Uh, yes, moral justification.

No one is independent, we all rely on each other if not directly then indirectly. So that can't be the source of exploitation, it's the human condition, we are social animals.

Authority is political. I am not questioning that. Corporations have no authority but through the state. In an anarchist system, where would corporations get power?

You will need moral justification for not only taking away the right to private property but taking away property.

Captain Obvious

01-13-2014, 11:23 AM

There are two things politically that I would be willing to risk my life for. The right to bear arms and preventing a theocracy.

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 02:06 PM

Agreed, it shouldn't be. But some people do indeed worship the state as if it were God.
Anyone in this forum or in public life that worships government as God, Chris? Please name them so people can be clear of what and whom you are accusing.

nic34

01-13-2014, 02:17 PM

It doesn't start off there, that is just an example used later.

Right. It "degenerated" there, not with my comment...

nic34

01-13-2014, 02:20 PM

Anyone in this forum or in public life that worships government as God, @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128)? Please name them so people can be clear of what and whom you are accusing.

I think most of us are for the least government possible, one that works for the people, but we don't friggin want to worship such a thing...

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 02:20 PM

Because the op started out that way?

Good point. In fact, exactly the point. It was a partisan attack by a partisan author (http://www.blogger.com/profile/05806731178603721453) who writes for a partisan website. Although American Thinker is often posted by conservatives as a source just like liberals use the Daily Kos, it didn't rate in the top 5 list of conservative, liberal and nonpartisan websites by CNET: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10151227-2.html

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 02:21 PM

I think most of us are for the least government possible, one that works for the people, but we don't friggin want to worship such a thing...

Agreed. Given that our government is simply a function of "We, the People", wouldn't that be rather narcissistic?

Chris

01-13-2014, 02:26 PM

Anyone in this forum or in public life that worships government as God, Chris? Please name them so people can be clear of what and whom you are accusing.

Jillian is one, germanicus is another, cigar. Those are noticeable. Most are somewhere between that and anarchists. But I was stating it more generically.

Chris

01-13-2014, 02:28 PM

I think most of us are for the least government possible, one that works for the people, but we don't friggin want to worship such a thing...

I don't get the impression you worship the state. We can debate what works best for the people. Statists generally argue they know what's best for the people rather than trusting the people to decide for themselves.

nic34

01-13-2014, 02:31 PM

Agreed. Given that our government is simply a function of "We, the People", wouldn't that be rather narcissistic?

Very...

nathanbforrest45

01-13-2014, 02:31 PM

Government is not religion.

No, its not but it acts like one.

Belief in a supreme being - the state
Belief in sins and punishment - making too much money, taxes
Belief in saints - government bureaucrats
Belief in prayer - Petitions to the government
Not unlike Christianity's belief that the power of Christ will be your salvation the government believes the power of the state will provide all your needs.

It may not be a "religion" but it certainly could pass for one.

nathanbforrest45

01-13-2014, 02:33 PM

I think most of us are for the least government possible, one that works for the people, but we don't friggin want to worship such a thing...

I think most of the posters are not for the least government possible but one that will take the most away from you and give to them

nic34

01-13-2014, 02:35 PM

I don't get the impression you worship the state. We can debate what works best for the people. Statists generally argue they know what's best for the people rather than trusting the people to decide for themselves.

But isn't it the fate of anti-statism to go off and create your own laws, regulations, government and such... until it all gets too big once again?

kilgram

01-13-2014, 02:36 PM

Uh, yes, moral justification.

No one is independent, we all rely on each other if not directly then indirectly. So that can't be the source of exploitation, it's the human condition, we are social animals.

Authority is political. I am not questioning that. Corporations have no authority but through the state. In an anarchist system, where would corporations get power?

You will need moral justification for not only taking away the right to private property but taking away property.
We are offtopic.

But, basically there is a justification. Property, private property is theft as Proudhon said. Property means that I have to stole the rights of use from someone else.

The justification is that the means of production will be of the ones who use it, the workers. It is what means the Communism. The workers will have the absolute control of them, and it means also the emancipation from the corporations. Independence. You won't have no one over you. You will have the same rights.

The example of corporations you have it in the other discussion in the other thread. Obviously you don't see anything wrong in that examples, but for me are a clear example of abuse of power, of a higher position.

Mainecoons

01-13-2014, 02:38 PM

The good news is that we don't need to go off and create all that, all we have to do is use the perfectly good blueprint for a federal democracy based on the primacy of the states. Just doing that would result in a Federal government that is about half the size of the current one.

It's called the Constitution and it isn't a living document. It is a concisely worded blueprint for limited government that stresses rule at the local and state level.

undine

01-13-2014, 02:40 PM

Good point. In fact, exactly the point. It was a partisan attack by a partisan author (http://www.blogger.com/profile/05806731178603721453) who writes for a partisan website. Although American Thinker is often posted by conservatives as a source just like liberals use the Daily Kos, it didn't rate in the top 5 list of conservative, liberal and nonpartisan websites by CNET: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10151227-2.html

Interesting list. I'd say those sites should be label RWNJ or LWNJ, though maybe the left ones aren't quite so out there. Townhall? Michelle Malkin???

undine

01-13-2014, 02:41 PM

Jillian is one, germanicus is another, cigar. Those are noticeable. Most are somewhere between that and anarchists. But I was stating it more generically.
Can you give some examples? I don't read everything here, but I've not seen any of them "worshiping the government as God."

Chris

01-13-2014, 02:47 PM

Can you give some examples? I don't read everything here, but I've not seen any of them "worshiping the government as God."

It's implied in pretty much all they say. You're perhaps being too literal. I'll mention you next time I see it.

Chris

01-13-2014, 02:52 PM

But isn't it the fate of anti-statism to go off and create your own laws, regulations, government and such... until it all gets too big once again?

No, it's not. Not even the Articles of Confederation were anti-statist. The Constitution is not. Those were based on limited government, not no government. Anarchy removes government but leaves the norms, traditions and institutions--the social order--in place.

undine

01-13-2014, 02:55 PM

It's implied in pretty much all they say. You're perhaps being too literal. I'll mention you next time I see it.

Okay. Maybe it will turn out that instead of me being too literal it will be that you are painting with too broad a brush.

nathanbforrest45

01-13-2014, 03:06 PM

Okay. Maybe it will turn out that instead of me being too literal it will be that you are painting with too broad a brush.

Chris

01-13-2014, 03:11 PM

Okay. Maybe it will turn out that instead of me being too literal it will be that you are painting with too broad a brush.

Perhaps, it's just an opinion.

Chris

01-13-2014, 03:19 PM

undine

01-13-2014, 03:24 PM

@undine (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=980), there you go.
Not seeing it. Maybe if I believed that the government is destructive to the point that it needs overthrowing. Stating that laws should be followed until ruled invalid isn't what I would call worshiping the government as God. It's just basic civics.

Chris

01-13-2014, 03:29 PM

actually? in terms of our legal system?

until whatever decision the court makes is reversed by a later supreme court or modified in later cases… yes, you do follow. that is the legal system we have.

you don't get to wake up in the morning and decide not to follow the law. neither can i. well, you can, but you'll be violating the law and subject to whatever penalty (civil or criminal) exists for the law you violated.

Not seeing it. Maybe if I believed that the government is destructive to the point that it needs overthrowing. Stating that laws should be followed until ruled invalid isn't what I would call worshiping the government as God. It's just basic civics.

Nah, doesn't require seeing government as destructive, in fact it requires seeing government as the salvation of man, seeing government as the solution to everything.

"until whatever decision the court makes is reversed by a later supreme court or modified in later cases… yes, you do follow. that is the legal system we have" says plain and simple government, specifically the court, is the final arbitrator of everything, the end-all, the be-all.

It leaves out the people, undine, it says you, even you are nothing, and me and everyone else are nothing.

But the founding principles, as I cited above, say the opposite.

The Sage of Main Street

01-13-2014, 03:32 PM

Republican'ts want a theocracy too, based on the belief that Greed Is God.

undine

01-13-2014, 03:39 PM

Nah, doesn't require seeing government as destructive, in fact it requires seeing government as the salvation of man, seeing government as the solution to everything.

"until whatever decision the court makes is reversed by a later supreme court or modified in later cases… yes, you do follow. that is the legal system we have" says plain and simple government, specifically the court, is the final arbitrator of everything, the end-all, the be-all.

It leaves out the people, undine, it says you, even you are nothing, and me and everyone else are nothing.

But the founding principles, as I cited above, say the opposite.
In terms of our legal system, as she stated, she is correct. That isn't to say that things can't be changed, made better, or discarded. I'd say she is being pragmatic, and not worshiping the government as God. I would even guess that there are legal rulings that she disagrees with but she understands how our legal system works.

The Sage of Main Street

01-13-2014, 03:49 PM

Religious types are fanatics and enemies of the state.

The Tea Party is an international punchline and a joke. World leaders often use the group to make fun of American politics and refer to them as "fanatics".

So sayeth the shepherd.

The BagHead denomination even has a hymn:

I'm a little teapot, short and stout,
Here is my handle, here is my spout.

When I get all steamed up,
Hear me shout.
Just tip me over
And pour me out.

They use Koch as their sacramental wine. The 18th Century anti-democratic manifesto, the Constitution, is their omniscient Bible. The agents of the Colonial 1%, the Founding Fodder, are their Twelve Apostles. The Libretardian pope, Paul II, is their infallible representative on earth of the Great God Greed. "RINOs" are heretics. Getting a blowjob from an intern is the ultimate mortal sin. Blessed Virgin Mother Mary Cheney of the Turkey Baster, is proof that an Immaculate Conception is possible.

Chris

01-13-2014, 03:52 PM

In terms of our legal system, as she stated, she is correct. That isn't to say that things can't be changed, made better, or discarded. I'd say she is being pragmatic, and not worshiping the government as God. I would even guess that there are legal rulings that she disagrees with but she understands how our legal system works.

Give us more than opinion, give us an argument. Adjectives like correct, pragmatic, etc, say nothing more than you opine that. What's your reasoning? Is it pragmatic to say the court is the entirety of our legal system?

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 04:01 PM

Jillian is one, germanicus is another, cigar. Those are noticeable. Most are somewhere between that and anarchists. But I was stating it more generically.Thanks for the names.

Germanicus strikes me as a right-wing fascist, but even he doesn't worship the State nor Der Fuhrer as a God. As for the ultra-Left Liberals, yes they think Big Government is a Godsend but hardly God himself. Therefore, I disagree that any of them worship "the State" as God.

Now, if you have pix of them sacrificing children on the steps of Congress or prancing around naked in the Moonlight as part of a religious festival for government, then I might change my mind.

iustitia

01-13-2014, 04:06 PM

Thanks for the names.

Germanicus strikes me as a right-wing fascist, but even he doesn't worship the State nor Der Fuhrer as a God. As for the ultra-Left Liberals, yes they think Big Government is a Godsend but hardly God himself. Therefore, I disagree that any of them worship "the State" as God.

Now, if you have pix of them sacrificing children on the steps of Congress or prancing around naked in the Moonlight as part of a religious festival for government, then I might change my mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1DgYMYVaUE

5363

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 04:07 PM

Interesting list. I'd say those sites should be label RWNJ or LWNJ, though maybe the left ones aren't quite so out there. Townhall? Michelle Malkin???

Agreed on the RWNJ and LWNJ labels, but disagreed that the Left ones are as far out there as the Right ones are. All are pretty Looney Tunes and so is American Thinker. The distortion by Fay Voshell is but one example of what I mean by Looney Tunes.

It's one thing to have an opinion such as "Liberals place far too much confidence in Big Government to resolve the many issues facing our nation". That's just an opinion on the Goldilocks formula of what is too little, too much and just right. It's a completely different matter to totally fabricate an issue, such as declaring the video was an example of turning government into a secular religion. Anyone who isn't completely blinded by partisan ideology can see that isn't what the "Welcome to Charlotte" video was about.

jillian

01-13-2014, 04:11 PM

Jillian is one, germanicus is another, cigar. Those are noticeable. Most are somewhere between that and anarchists. But I was stating it more generically.

you need to discern the difference between having views that respect the good that government can do and "worshipping" government.

here's a hint: thinking your politics are ill-conceived is not worship of government. it means nothing more than that your politics are ill-conceived.

have a good day. now please stop making things up. it's unseemly.

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 04:15 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1DgYMYVaUE

5363

While funny, this is another example of the far Right fabricating things and passing them off as truth. Doug Giles wrote this and the video is from his RW website clashdaily.com

http://clashdaily.com/2012/11/progressives-the-state-is-my-shepherd-i-shall-not-want/

Chris

01-13-2014, 04:17 PM

you need to discern the difference between having views that respect the good that government can do and "worshipping" government.

here's a hint: thinking your politics are ill-conceived is not worship of government. it means nothing more than that your politics are ill-conceived.

have a good day. now please stop making things up. it's unseemly.

Those are all things you know you need to stop doing, jillian. Too bad you need to take political criticism personally. That's unseemly.

I would certainly love to hear your views on good government. But won't hold my breath. That would require you to question your statist views.

Chris

01-13-2014, 04:19 PM

Heyduke

01-13-2014, 04:28 PM

The American religion is consumerism. And our national religion, at a political level, is Voodoo Economics; economic growth by any means necessary and we'll worry about the future later.

Personally, I'm for economic shrinkage. "The more you know, the less you need." Yvon Chouinard

iustitia

01-13-2014, 04:41 PM

While funny, this is another example of the far Right fabricating things and passing them off as truth. Doug Giles wrote this and the video is from his RW website clashdaily.com

http://clashdaily.com/2012/11/progressives-the-state-is-my-shepherd-i-shall-not-want/

5365

I figured the trollface was enough to show that it wasn't a serious post.

The Sage of Main Street

01-13-2014, 05:02 PM

Their word is the word of god. Unchallengeable. Infallible. Inerrant. Follow, obey.

The SCROTUS comprises nine clowns with gavels and gowns. Long ago, these political appointees gave themselves the power to cancel any law they want, interpreting the vague Constitution any way they wanted to. They can also do that to Amendments, so that path to freedom is a booby trap. The Constitution itself is an anti-democratic manifesto that squelches the voice of the people. Even so, it does not give the judicial dictatorship its authority. To usurp that they committed the logical fallacy of interpreting the Constitution as giving them the right to interpret the Constitution.

undine

01-13-2014, 06:14 PM

Give us more than opinion, give us an argument. Adjectives like correct, pragmatic, etc, say nothing more than you opine that. What's your reasoning? Is it pragmatic to say the court is the entirety of our legal system?
I don't recall saying the court is the entirety of our legal system. In fact, I said the opposite.

Why is your opinion more valid than mine? Before we went down this road you said it was your opinion that some worshiped the government as God and I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate what you are basing your opinion on. Because so far, you are not convincing me.

BB-35

01-13-2014, 06:18 PM

Repubs are really running out of material.

But they are just as guilty of this when they push christianity down out throats at every turn...

Yeah,that gun at your head must leave a mark..

Chris

01-13-2014, 06:23 PM

I don't recall saying the court is the entirety of our legal system. In fact, I said the opposite.

Why is your opinion more valid than mine? Before we went down this road you said it was your opinion that some worshiped the government as God and I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate what you are basing your opinion on. Because so far, you are not convincing me.

Didn't say you said it, in the context o our discussion however it is what jillian argued.

I've demonstrated it.

You've said nothing but string adjectives together.

undine

01-13-2014, 06:23 PM

Chris

01-13-2014, 06:25 PM

LOL! You kind of read my mind. I was more thinking of a bedroom altar where they were sacrificing chickens to the government.

It's easy to stretch metaphors to the breaking point, and then celebrate your effort.

undine

01-13-2014, 06:26 PM

Agreed on the RWNJ and LWNJ labels, but disagreed that the Left ones are as far out there as the Right ones are. All are pretty Looney Tunes and so is American Thinker. The distortion by Fay Voshell is but one example of what I mean by Looney Tunes.

It's one thing to have an opinion such as "Liberals place far too much confidence in Big Government to resolve the many issues facing our nation". That's just an opinion on the Goldilocks formula of what is too little, too much and just right. It's a completely different matter to totally fabricate an issue, such as declaring the video was an example of turning government into a secular religion. Anyone who isn't completely blinded by partisan ideology can see that isn't what the "Welcome to Charlotte" video was about.
I just want to say that I don't respect most conservatives as most conservatives are anything but. But I like your style.

Hopefully that isn't too sappy and emotional, coming from a liberal such as myself.

jillian

01-13-2014, 06:27 PM

It's easy to stretch metaphors to the breaking point, and then celebrate your effort.

you mean like claiming that not being anti-government is a religion?

like that?

Chris

01-13-2014, 06:28 PM

you mean like claiming that not being anti-government is a religion?

like that?

In what way is being anti-government religious, jillian. Say something substantial.

undine

01-13-2014, 06:28 PM

Facism is left wing statism.
Oh, dear God. You are one of those.

Chris

01-13-2014, 06:29 PM

Oh, dear God. You are one of those.

Nothing of substance to offer either?

undine

01-13-2014, 06:29 PM

Didn't say you said it, in the context o our discussion however it is what jillian argued.

I've demonstrated it.

You've said nothing but string adjectives together.No, she did not.

Chris

01-13-2014, 06:30 PM

No, she did not.

Is that you, ravi?

undine

01-13-2014, 06:36 PM

I wish. You seem to be attacking the messenger, when you should be proving your point.

Chris

01-13-2014, 06:38 PM

I wish. You seem to be attacking the messenger, when you should be proving your point.

Where'd I attack the messenger, ravi?

I made my point, you have yet to say anything more than you disagree. That's not discussion.

undine

01-13-2014, 06:50 PM

Where'd I attack the messenger, ravi?

I made my point, you have yet to say anything more than you disagree. That's not discussion.

You have not made your point that certain posters worship government as God. Instead you fall back on calling me names.

Mister D

01-13-2014, 07:03 PM

Where'd I attack the messenger, ravi?

I made my point, you have yet to say anything more than you disagree. That's not discussion.

:laugh: That explains it.

Chris

01-13-2014, 07:10 PM

So back to the political notion of statism as religion. Here's a more leftist view of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIIWrbumtiI

iustitia

01-13-2014, 07:17 PM

So back to the political notion of statism as religion. Here's a more leftist view of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIIWrbumtiI

Great answer by Noam, though I wish the questioner could've gotten the shit out his mouth quicker. And too bad he's a socialist but can't expect perfection even from revisionists.

Mister D

01-13-2014, 07:32 PM

Chris You may like this. I thought it was excellent.

http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Causes-Michael-Burleigh-ebook/dp/B000W94DFC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1389659415&sr=8-1&keywords=sacred+causes

Chris

01-13-2014, 07:38 PM

Chris You may like this. I thought it was excellent.

http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Causes-Michael-Burleigh-ebook/dp/B000W94DFC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1389659415&sr=8-1&keywords=sacred+causes

Blurb: "Beginning with the chaotic post-World War I landscape, in which religious belief was one way of reordering a world knocked off its axis, Sacred Causes is a penetrating critique of how religion has often been camouflaged by politics. All the bloody regimes and movements of the twentieth century are masterfully captured here, from Stalin's Soviet Union, Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and Franco's Spain through to the modern scourge of terrorism. Eloquently and persuasively combining an authoritative survey of history with a timely reminder of the dangers of radical secularism, Burleigh asks why no one foresaw the religious implications of massive Third World immigration, and he deftly investigates what are now driving calls for a civic religion to counter the terrorist threats that have so shocked the West."

Looks interesting. Thanks!

Chris

01-13-2014, 07:40 PM

Great answer by Noam, though I wish the questioner could've gotten the shit out his mouth quicker. And too bad he's a socialist but can't expect perfection even from revisionists.

True about the sputtering questioner.

As long as it's voluntary and not coerced, anarchist and not statist, I have little problem with socialism.

Mister D

01-13-2014, 07:44 PM

I still can't bring myself to read Noam's work.

iustitia

01-13-2014, 07:47 PM

Mister D

01-13-2014, 07:49 PM

Blurb: "Beginning with the chaotic post-World War I landscape, in which religious belief was one way of reordering a world knocked off its axis, Sacred Causes is a penetrating critique of how religion has often been camouflaged by politics. All the bloody regimes and movements of the twentieth century are masterfully captured here, from Stalin's Soviet Union, Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and Franco's Spain through to the modern scourge of terrorism. Eloquently and persuasively combining an authoritative survey of history with a timely reminder of the dangers of radical secularism, Burleigh asks why no one foresaw the religious implications of massive Third World immigration, and he deftly investigates what are now driving calls for a civic religion to counter the terrorist threats that have so shocked the West."

Looks interesting. Thanks!

My favorite section dealt with Pius XII but his overall theme is how modern politics, particularly those of the 20th Century, played a role that was functionally the same as religious faith.

Chris

01-13-2014, 07:52 PM

The socialist bent is more tolerable when you accept the socialist critique of capitalism is really about a revival of mercantilism or corporatism. Socialists had understandable reactions to industrialism but their conclusions were wrong.

In Marx that's true. But not all socialists. Some were/are aware of the tendencies toward statism. But so too should capitalists be leary of a tendency to use political means and rent seek the state.

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 07:54 PM

LOL! You kind of read my mind. I was more thinking of a bedroom altar where they were sacrificing chickens to the government.

Careful. Say something like that and it will end up as "proof" on a RWNJ website along with the "fact" Nazis are Liberals.

Think these guys are getting ready for an Obama rally?

http://www.desdeabajo.org.mx/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/PNA.jpg

Mister D

01-13-2014, 08:02 PM

Careful. Say something like that and it will end up as "proof" on a RWNJ website along with the "fact" Nazis are Liberals.

Think these guys are getting ready for an Obama rally?

http://www.desdeabajo.org.mx/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/PNA.jpg

Who says the were liberals?

Mr Happy

01-13-2014, 08:10 PM

Agreed, it shouldn't be. But some people do indeed worship the state as if it were God.

No they don't.

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 08:10 PM

I just want to say that I don't respect most conservatives as most conservatives are anything but. But I like your style.

Hopefully that isn't too sappy and emotional, coming from a liberal such as myself.

Not too sappy or emotional, but it's certain to cost me a few demerits, my parking space at the country club and some ribbing in the locker room.

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 08:12 PM

Who says the were liberals?

Those that insist Fascists are Left-Wingers.

iustitia

01-13-2014, 08:15 PM

I don't subscribe to the left-right paradigm, but since when are all "left-wingers" liberals?

Mister D

01-13-2014, 08:15 PM

Those that insist Fascists are Left-Wingers.

What similarities does a totalitarian movement share with American conservatives who dislike big government?

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 08:32 PM

What similarities does a totalitarian movement share with American conservatives who dislike big government?

It's not about control or not. It's about who's in control or not.

Mister D

01-13-2014, 08:48 PM

It's not about control or not. It's about who's in control or not.

What?

Again, what similarities does a totalitarian movement share with American conservatives who dislike big government? Few if any, right?

Chris

01-13-2014, 08:55 PM

It's not about control or not. It's about who's in control or not.

^^Statist thinking that.

Chris

01-13-2014, 08:56 PM

No they don't.

Oh boy another post of substance.

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 09:23 PM

What?

Again, what similarities does a totalitarian movement share with American conservatives who dislike big government? Few if any, right?

So you believe all conservatives are for no government, individual freedom and all the good stuff? Sorry to disappoint you, dude, but the Taliban are conservatives. So are the Nazis. There is more to "conservative" ideals than what is currently on the Tea Party pledge list.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservatism

con·ser·va·tism

: belief in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society
: dislike of change or new ideas in a particular area

Current US political ideologues have twisted a lot of terms, especially what it means to be a "conservative" and what it means to be a "liberal".

Making the differences between modern American conservatives and modern American liberals to be about the size of government is to ignore not only our 237+ year history, but also world history. I guarantee you the liberals who revolted against their King and split from their conservative Tory countrymen were for government, but were themselves split on the best size of government. What I also guarantee is that those liberals, our Founding Fathers, were pro-individual rights and, therefore, pro-gun. My, my how times have changed.

If members of our nation revolted today, who would be the revolutionary "liberals" and who would be the Tory "conservatives"?

Mister D

01-13-2014, 09:24 PM

So you believe all conservatives are for no government, individual freedom and all the good stuff? Sorry to disappoint you, dude, but the Taliban are conservatives. So are the Nazis. There is more to "conservative" ideals than what is currently on the Tea Party pledge list.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservatism

Current US political ideologues have twisted a lot of terms, especially what it means to be a "conservative" and what it means to be a "liberal".

Making the differences between modern American conservatives and modern American liberals to be about the size of government is to ignore not only our 237+ year history, but also world history. I guarantee you the liberals who revolted against their King and split from their conservative Tory countrymen were for government, but were themselves split on the best size of government. What I also guarantee is that those liberals, our Founding Fathers, were pro-individual rights and, therefore, pro-gun. My, my how times have changed.

If members of our nation revolted today, who would be the revolutionary "liberals" and who would be the Tory "conservatives"?

I hope you didn't spend much time on that.

Again, what similarities does a totalitarian movement share with American conservatives who dislike big government? Few if any, right?

Mister D

01-13-2014, 09:25 PM

RW, if you don't know or need to sleep on it that's cool.

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 09:34 PM

^^Statist thinking that.

People who think any form of government is "Statism" are fools or liars, I don't know which. They are definitely ignorant of what "Statism" means.

From the Ayn Rand Lexicon (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/statism.html):

Statism

The political expression of altruism is collectivism or statism, which holds that man’s life and work belong to the state—to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation—and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.

A statist system—whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or “welfare” type—is based on the . . . government’s unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. The differences among statist systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same. Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims.

Nothing can ever justify so monstrously evil a theory. Nothing can justify the horror, the brutality, the plunder, the destruction, the starvation, the slave-labor camps, the torture chambers, the wholesale slaughter of statist dictatorships.

Even Ayn Rand recognizes that there is nothing inherently wrong with government or a "state". The wrongness comes in when such an entity has "unlimited power" and when it "holds that man’s life and work belong to the state". Nothing I have posted or implied comes even close to giving government such powers nor have I seen anyone else do so. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is to believe that anyone who engages in such name-calling is a fool, a liar and is completely ignorant of what they are talking about. Such people are not civil nor do they deserve any respect as equals.

Mister D

01-13-2014, 09:35 PM

Oh, and I'm somewhat sympathetic to fascism. I'm not a liberal in any sense of the term.

iustitia

01-13-2014, 09:41 PM

For the record, the Founders could just as easily be called conservatives as liberals. The 'revolution' was a conservative reaction against royal innovation, based on the Enlightenment but also on preserving America's historical Independence from the crown. Not to mention the sheer level of toleration they showed in prolonging the Declaration of Independence and their constant attempts at reconciliation. I'd say they were both conservative and liberal. We must remember that ideologies and philosophies manifest differently based on the circumstances. Consider the differences in German nationalism and Italian nationalism.

Mr Happy

01-13-2014, 09:42 PM

Oh boy another post of substance.

Like yours was you mean?? ;o)

Mister D

01-13-2014, 09:43 PM

Mister D

01-13-2014, 09:45 PM

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 09:49 PM

RW, if you don't know or need to sleep on it that's cool.

Neither. You don't see it, but it's not you I'm attempting to persuade. It's all the other members of this forum who have the common sense to see things with eyes wide open or who are willing to drop their ideological blinders long enough to see what I am attempting to convey.

Mister D

01-13-2014, 10:01 PM

Neither. You don't see it, but it's not you I'm attempting to persuade. It's all the other members of this forum who have the common sense to see things with eyes wide open or who are willing to drop their ideological blinders long enough to see what I am attempting to convey.

It's not ideological blinders that prevent our progressive friends from understanding why fascism is perceived as left wing in some circles. It's a pitiful ignorance of political and intellectual history. It's a fair point to suggest that fascism really did have more in common with contemporary progressivism than it ever had with the philosophies of American conservatives. Moreover, to suggest that libertarians and fascists inhabit the same ideological universe is an absurdity.

donttread

01-13-2014, 10:06 PM

We already have a state religion as millions worship at the altar of the Donkapahant

iustitia

01-13-2014, 10:13 PM

At the risk of being a right-wing nutjob... there really wasn't anything conservative about the Nazis, even culturally. Unless nationalism is inherently conservative, which I don't accept.

The Nazis opposed monarchist parties and blamed a lot of WWI's outcome on the Kaiser when not blaming Jewry. They supported nationalism but it was more of a pan-germanism or neo-nationalism. Like the Italians who sought to rebuild the Roman Empire, the Germans sought to recapture Germany's history of the past than preserve its contemporary values. Hitler despised Christianity and its effects on Germany. He considered Christianity an invention of Jews and longed for a return to pre-Christian paganism. God got in the way of the state. Hitler preserved the classes, but he replaced marxist class struggle with national class struggle. He supported class collaboration for the sake of cohesion. He supported property rights only insofar as it served the state. He rejected marxist socialism but he also rejected capitalism, an invention of the Jews. Not to mention that, despite the propaganda that came afterwards, the Nazis largely tolerated homosexuality and sexual sadism until Hitler feared the SA. Hitler rejected tradition, religion, law, and the market. He promoted racial collectivism, paganism, statism, and central planning. He was a nationalist, but I wouldn't call him a conservative even by the traditional European definition.

Nazism was national socialism.

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 10:24 PM

Nazism was national socialism.

True. North Korea is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. I'm sure there are those who believe they epitomize the best of Democracy and Republicanism. Like believing Nazis are left-wingers, they are wrong.

iustitia

01-13-2014, 10:41 PM

True. North Korea is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. I'm sure there are those who believe they epitomize the best of Democracy and Republicanism. Like believing Nazis are left-wingers, they are wrong.

There's no such thing as left and right. Secondly, in a twisted way marxists believe communism to be the ultimate expression of democracy, and communism according to marxist thought can only be achieved through a socialist state. And republic and republicanism are two overlapping but different things. Republicanism was a very American concept which advocated individual liberty and Enlightenment values, but a republic by definition really only means a government without a monarch. And while North Korea's leaders have ruled through heredity, they're never claimed to be kings. I'm not suggesting honesty on the part of a Juche dictatorship, but there's a reason behind everything. Further, the Nazis were nationalists and socialists.

You're being intellectually lazy and I don't know why. It's easy to write off nazism as the epitome of evil, but in this kind of discussion it kind of matters where their beliefs fell if you're going to bring them up. I'd like a real argument from you that doesn't rely on misnomers or no true scotsman points. But if you're going to rely on left-right propaganda from the 20th century don't bother.

Max Rockatansky

01-14-2014, 06:41 AM

There's no such thing as left and right. Secondly, in a twisted way marxists believe communism to be the ultimate expression of democracy, and communism according to marxist thought can only be achieved through a socialist state. And republic and republicanism are two overlapping but different things. Republicanism was a very American concept which advocated individual liberty and Enlightenment values, but a republic by definition really only means a government without a monarch. And while North Korea's leaders have ruled through heredity, they're never claimed to be kings. I'm not suggesting honesty on the part of a Juche dictatorship, but there's a reason behind everything. Further, the Nazis were nationalists and socialists.

You're being intellectually lazy and I don't know why. No such thing as "left and right"? Fox News disagrees: http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2013/10/07/celebs-left-right-conservative-liberal-sylvester-stallone/#slide=1

Also disagreed that Republicanism is purely American. Even though modern Americans have a different view on it than the ancient Greeks, the basic concepts remain the same.

Thanks for the insult. It's an admission by you that you are frustrated and running low on ammo.

Chris

01-14-2014, 06:42 AM

People who think any form of government is "Statism" are fools or liars, I don't know which. They are definitely ignorant of what "Statism" means.

From the Ayn Rand Lexicon (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/statism.html):

Statism

The political expression of altruism is collectivism or statism, which holds that man’s life and work belong to the state—to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation—and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.

A statist system—whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or “welfare” type—is based on the . . . government’s unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. The differences among statist systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same. Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims.

Nothing can ever justify so monstrously evil a theory. Nothing can justify the horror, the brutality, the plunder, the destruction, the starvation, the slave-labor camps, the torture chambers, the wholesale slaughter of statist dictatorships.

Even Ayn Rand recognizes that there is nothing inherently wrong with government or a "state". The wrongness comes in when such an entity has "unlimited power" and when it "holds that man’s life and work belong to the state". Nothing I have posted or implied comes even close to giving government such powers nor have I seen anyone else do so. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is to believe that anyone who engages in such name-calling is a fool, a liar and is completely ignorant of what they are talking about. Such people are not civil nor do they deserve any respect as equals.

Nice ad hom. What you'd said was statist politically. No one was calling you names. You posted an opinion on control. Here's Rand, same source, next citation:

"Government control of a country’s economy—any kind or degree of such control, by any group, for any purpose whatsoever—rests on the basic principle of statism, the principle that man’s life belongs to the state."

If nothing else certainly you can see statism is a political principle and not a personal epithet.

Chris

01-14-2014, 06:45 AM

Like yours was you mean?? ;o)

That was but a single post making my case, others explained and exampled and argued the point.

So far you've still said nothing of substance on the topic. I know you're better than that, try harder.

jillian

01-14-2014, 06:48 AM

Nice ad hom. What you'd said was statist politically. No one was calling you names. You posted an opinion on control. Here's Rand, same source, next citation:

"Government control of a country’s economy—any kind or degree of such control, by any group, for any purpose whatsoever—rests on the basic principle of statism, the principle that man’s life belongs to the state."

If nothing else certainly you can see statism is a political principle and not a personal epithet.

how is that any more of an "ad hom" than running around calling everyone who isn't anti-gubmint "statist" which is nothing more than a patronizing term.

Chris

01-14-2014, 06:57 AM

Speaking of dishonesty, why didn't use one of these?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statism

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/statism

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

You don't seriously expect me to believe the Ayn Rand Lexicon was the first in your search did you?

That describes many progressives.

True that, there are many definitions, general about controlling others through government.

I'm sure most are by now familiar with the Nolan Chart:

http://i.snag.gy/PIThe.jpg

I think the problem some have with understanding statism is they want to force it into a one dimensional political spectrum left v right, Dem v Rep, socialist v capitalist etc, when statism is on another spectrum altogether and opposed to liberty.

Chris

01-14-2014, 07:03 AM

True. North Korea is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. I'm sure there are those who believe they epitomize the best of Democracy and Republicanism. Like believing Nazis are left-wingers, they are wrong.

To most economists, the Nazis were left wing, to most politicists right wing. That follows in the same progressive tradition as castigating Marx while adulating his theories. The Nazis did horrid things, so paint them right wing while joining FDR and his fellow travelers in mutual admiration of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin.

Chris

01-14-2014, 07:06 AM

No such thing as "left and right"? Fox News disagrees: http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2013/10/07/celebs-left-right-conservative-liberal-sylvester-stallone/#slide=1

Also disagreed that Republicanism is purely American. Even though modern Americans have a different view on it than the ancient Greeks, the basic concepts remain the same.

Thanks for the insult. It's an admission by you that you are frustrated and running low on ammo.

I think he means along the statist/liberty spectrum there is no such thing as left and right as either can lean toward statism or liberty. See the Nolan Chart.

Chris

01-14-2014, 07:09 AM

how is that any more of an "ad hom" than running around calling everyone who isn't anti-gubmint "statist" which is nothing more than a patronizing term.

The difference is one is personal and the other is political. Now that was simple, wasn't it. --I recocognize there are some incapable of recognizing the difference.

Max Rockatansky

01-14-2014, 07:22 AM

I think he means along the statist/liberty spectrum there is no such thing as left and right as either can lean toward statism or liberty. See the Nolan Chart.One guy? That's the source? So what makes worshipers of David Nolan any different than worshipers of L. Ron Hubbard?

Nolan still used Left and Right as your own chart shows. Thanks for proving the statement "There's no such thing as left and right" to be wrong.

I'm sure most are by now familiar with the Nolan Chart:

http://i.snag.gy/PIThe.jpg

Chris

01-14-2014, 07:33 AM

One guy? That's the source? So what makes worshipers of David Nolan any different than worshipers of L. Ron Hubbard?

Nolan still used Left and Right as your own chart shows. Thanks for proving the statement "There's no such thing as left and right" to be wrong.

Sorry but there was no appeal to authority implied in what I posted. Please reply to the content.

Left and right exist but are insignificant in terms of statism v liberty as both left and right can be for statism or liberty. You can have state socialism or state capitalism or voluntary versions of either.

jillian

01-14-2014, 08:21 AM

The difference is one is personal and the other is political. Now that was simple, wasn't it. --I recocognize there are some incapable of recognizing the difference.

the political is personal. or are people separate from their beliefs?

and, would you say the same if i said anyone who runs around ranting about how much they hate government has their head up their butt, would you still think it isn't personal?

i'd think not.

now wasn't that easy?

Chris

01-14-2014, 08:29 AM

the political is personal. or are people separate from their beliefs?

and, would you say the same if i said anyone who runs around ranting about how much they hate government has their head up their butt, would you still think it isn't personal?

i'd think not.

now wasn't that easy?

Never knew someone who could twist words and obfuscate what's clearly stated more than you. Of course political outcomes affect people personally. But you knew what I meant, that on a political forum, discussing politics and political theories and views, to call someone a statist or libertarian or liberal or conservative is to categorize politically and not personally insult.

What you said is personal, it has not political meaning or bearing. But that is your approach to political discussion, to try and take it and make it personal. That's just where your snarky head is at.

Chris

01-14-2014, 08:33 AM

More from Rand from Road's source:

The statists’ epistemological method consists of endless debates about single, concrete, out-of-context, range-of-the-moment issues, never allowing them to be integrated into a sum, never referring to basic principles or ultimate consequences—and thus inducing a state of intellectual disintegration in their followers. The purpose of that verbal fog is to conceal the evasion of two fundamentals: (a) that production and prosperity are the product of men’s intelligence, and (b) that government power is the power of coercion by physical force.

Once these two facts are acknowledged, the conclusion to be drawn is inevitable: that intelligence does not work under coercion, that man’s mind will not function at the point of a gun.

Max Rockatansky

01-14-2014, 08:40 AM

Sorry but there was no appeal to authority implied in what I posted. Please reply to the content.

Dude, you whip out Nolan's Chart like it was the Ten Commandments from God. You're only fooling yourself if you think that isn't an appeal to authority. Now call me a Statist and mention Nolan's chart again. Those are the main weapons in your arsenal.

Codename Section

01-14-2014, 09:48 AM

the political is personal. or are people separate from their beliefs?

Statist is a term that you choose to be offended by, even tho, sweetums, poopsie-pie, you have no problem saying RWNJ, extremist, anti-gubbermint, etc.

Statist and Antistatist are the terms. There is no insult in them beyond what you read into it, pumpkins.

Codename Section

01-14-2014, 09:51 AM

Dude, you whip out Nolan's Chart like it was the Ten Commandments from God. You're only fooling yourself if you think that isn't an appeal to authority. Now call me a Statist and mention Nolan's chart again. Those are the main weapons in your arsenal.

You are a statist. You believe in a state. Wow, dude, that was a hard one. You're also a guy instead of a girl. You offended by that just because there are two main categories and you fit into one of them? I doubt I'd see you begging to be called "trans" because you want to assert you're special.

It's not an insult. It's just a fact. You want the state or you don't. There are subcategories, but just like you guys say "left" and "right" we say "state" and "antistate".

((shrugs))

Chris

01-14-2014, 09:51 AM

Dude, you whip out Nolan's Chart like it was the Ten Commandments from God. You're only fooling yourself if you think that isn't an appeal to authority. Now call me a Statist and mention Nolan's chart again. Those are the main weapons in your arsenal.

It's a way of looking at politics, statism v liberty. The Nolan Chart depicts clearly how that dimension relates to the left/right dimension.

You were the one interpreted as something else. It's your problem. You can join in discussion, or distract from it, up to you.

undine

01-14-2014, 09:56 AM

Chris

01-14-2014, 09:58 AM

http://i.snag.gy/in0HF.jpg

Codename Section

01-14-2014, 09:59 AM

May I ask why you've posted this personal information about the poster?

What? He's told everyone on here he's a dude. I suspect, yes, he's a dude. Guess what? Shocker. I'm a dude, too.

But I won't get offended if you call me a dude because...I'm a dude. I'm also antistate. Not offended when you say, That guys an antistatist.

Chris

01-14-2014, 09:59 AM

undine

01-14-2014, 10:00 AM

What? He's told everyone on here he's a dude. I suspect, yes, he's a dude. Guess what? Shocker. I'm a dude, too.

But I won't get offended if you call me a dude because...I'm a dude. I'm also antistate. Not offended when you say, That guys an antistatist.
Oh, I misunderstood your post. Sorry. I didn't see him get offended by being called a dude, but whatever.

Codename Section

01-14-2014, 10:02 AM

Oh, I misunderstood your post. Sorry. I didn't see him get offended by being called a dude, but whatever.

Right he's not, but he seemed offended when someone called him a statist. It's an either/or choice just like biological sex is sorta. You want government or you don't. If you do, then wassup? What's the problem with being called a statist?

kilgram

01-14-2014, 10:04 AM

http://i.snag.gy/in0HF.jpg
I am not statist and I believe health care, education, housing and food are rights.

I think charity is always wrong. And if charity is needed is a proof of how corrupted is the system.

I think private property is theft by definition. :)

Well, I think that only the first that I said is shared by me with the statists.

undine

01-14-2014, 10:04 AM

Right he's not, but he seemed offended when someone called him a statist. It's an either/or choice just like biological sex is sorta. You want government or you don't. If you do, then wassup? What's the problem with being called a statist?
If a label doesn't fit it is often considered offensive. "Statist" is the current RWNJ term for anyone they disagree with. In a way, it's demonizing.

And yeah, I said RWNJ :grin:

Mister D

01-14-2014, 10:05 AM

If a label doesn't fit it is often considered offensive. "Statist" is the current RWNJ term for anyone they disagree with. In a way, it's demonizing.

And yeah, I said RWNJ :grin:

Demonizing...yeah, that Ravi. :grin:

Chris

01-14-2014, 10:10 AM

Right he's not, but he seemed offended when someone called him a statist. It's an either/or choice just like biological sex is sorta. You want government or you don't. If you do, then wassup? What's the problem with being called a statist?

Actually I'd argue it's a matter of degree where along the spectrum from statist to antistatist (libertarian, voluntaryist, anarchist, luber of liberty) you fall. It's a matter of which way you lean.

Mister D

01-14-2014, 10:12 AM

So now that we have a more accurate definition of statist what's the problem? Why do our statists bristle?

Chris

01-14-2014, 10:13 AM

I am not statist and I believe health care, education, housing and food are rights.

I think charity is always wrong. And if charity is needed is a proof of how corrupted is the system.

I think private property is theft by definition. :)

Well, I think that only the first that I said is shared by me with the statists.

I am not statist and I believe health care, education, housing and food are rights.

It's not a matter of where you stand on issues, it's a matter of who you want to see solve them, the state or society. A statist looks to the state and force solutions, a nonstatist to society and voluntary solutions.

Chris

01-14-2014, 10:18 AM

If a label doesn't fit it is often considered offensive. "Statist" is the current RWNJ term for anyone they disagree with. In a way, it's demonizing.

And yeah, I said RWNJ :grin:

Oh, baloney, on several levels.

One, if the label/description doesn't fit, argue with it. You're a statist! No, actually I prefer voluntary solutions. To take offense and use that to justify being offensive is meaningless politically. Too much political discussion around here devolves to the personal.

Two, RWNJs can be just as much statists as LWNJs. Again, the Nolan Chart--as a matter of explanation, clarification:

http://i.snag.gy/L8BWY.jpg

Three, demonizing is personal, not political. You really need to stop devolving political discussions into personal demonizations.

Chris

01-14-2014, 10:21 AM

So now that we have a more accurate definition of statist what's the problem? Why do our statists bristle?

Really. If you truly believe government is good, and not, as Paine put it, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."--then defend it as good. That would make a more interesting discussion than this petty personal crap.

Mister D

01-14-2014, 10:23 AM

Really. If you truly believe government is good, and not, as Paine put it, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."--then defend it as good. That would make a more interesting discussion than this petty personal crap.

Agreed.

Codename Section

01-14-2014, 10:26 AM

If a label doesn't fit it is often considered offensive. "Statist" is the current RWNJ term for anyone they disagree with. In a way, it's demonizing.

And yeah, I said RWNJ :grin:

The label fits so if you feel offended maybe you should reconsider your positions.

undine

01-14-2014, 10:29 AM

The label fits so if you feel offended maybe you should reconsider your positions.I didn't say I was offended. I was simply pointing out why some might take offense. Insults don't usually bother me.

Chris

01-14-2014, 10:31 AM

I didn't say I was offended. I was simply pointing out why some might take offense. Insults don't usually bother me.

You whined a lot about that yesterday. So baloney.

So what are you, a statist, nonstatist, to what degree. When you see, say, a social problem, from poverty to gay marriage, do you turn to the state or society for solutions?

undine

01-14-2014, 10:32 AM

Codename Section

01-14-2014, 10:33 AM

I didn't say I was offended. I was simply pointing out why some might take offense. Insults don't usually bother me.

Good job then.

Mister D

01-14-2014, 10:38 AM

The label fits so if you feel offended maybe you should reconsider your positions.

The label fits perfectly. I'm not sure why she finds it insulting.

Chris

01-14-2014, 10:40 AM

You whined a lot about that yesterday. So baloney.

So what are you, a statist, nonstatist, to what degree. When you see, say, a social problem, from poverty to gay marriage, do you turn to the state or society for solutions?

Where did I whine about it?

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/21286-Establishing-a-U-S-State-Religion?p=488984&viewfull=1#post488984

Why did you address that instead of the political question? Is everything personal to you, do you have any political sense about you?

Try again: So what are you, a statist, nonstatist, to what degree. When you see, say, a social problem, from poverty to gay marriage, do you turn to the state or society for solutions?

undine

01-14-2014, 10:44 AM

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/21286-Establishing-a-U-S-State-Religion?p=488984&viewfull=1#post488984

Why did you address that instead of the political question? Is everything personal to you, do you have any political sense about you?

Try again: So what are you, a statist, nonstatist, to what degree. When you see, say, a social problem, from poverty to gay marriage, do you turn to the state or society for solutions?

Pointing out that you failed to make your point and instead fell back on insult isn't whining. It's pointing out that you failed to make your point and fell back on insult.

Chris

01-14-2014, 10:48 AM

You whined a lot about that yesterday. So baloney.

So what are you, a statist, nonstatist, to what degree. When you see, say, a social problem, from poverty to gay marriage, do you turn to the state or society for solutions?

Pointing out that you failed to make your point and instead fell back on insult isn't whining. It's pointing out that you failed to make your point and fell back on insult.

Interpret it anyay satisfies you, that was not the point, the point was to demonstrate you have no political sense about you, no interest in politics. Thank you.

Codename Section

01-14-2014, 10:50 AM

Pointing out that you failed to make your point and instead fell back on insult isn't whining. It's pointing out that you failed to make your point and fell back on insult.

Statist isn't an insult. Calling someone a bitch, a dick, a chodemonger, a turd burglar, a ass muncher, etc is.

undine

01-14-2014, 10:51 AM

Interpret it anyay satisfies you, that was not the point, the point was to demonstrate you have no political sense about you, no interest in politics. Thank you.

I certainly do. When you want to stop making things personal and spitting out misinformation I'd be happy to discuss my views.

jillian

01-14-2014, 10:53 AM

Statist isn't an insult. Calling someone a bitch, a dick, a chodemonger, a turd burglar, a ass muncher, etc is.

statist is patronizing... like "gubmint haters" (which i intentinally use with anyone who uses the silly word statist).

undine

01-14-2014, 10:53 AM

Statist isn't an insult. Calling someone a bitch, a dick, a chodemonger, a turd burglar, a ass muncher, etc is.

He didn't actually call me a statist that I noticed.

And you are incorrect. Anything can be an attempt at insult. It is just like calling people communists when they aren't. Like I said before, it is nothing more than demonizing the person you are arguing with. It's dismissive and immature.

Codename Section

01-14-2014, 10:54 AM

statist is patronizing... like "gubmint haters" (which i intentinally use with anyone who uses the silly word statist).

If it is then why do you say gubbermint haters?

Codename Section

01-14-2014, 10:56 AM

He didn't actually call me a statist that I noticed.

And you are incorrect. Anything can be an attempt at insult. It is just like calling people communists when they aren't. Like I said before, it is nothing more than demonizing the person you are arguing with. It's dismissive and immature.

Uhhhh, how can you say that you don't mind insults and then placate these dumb ideas that anything can be an insult. It's like giving a toddler ice cream when having a tantrum.

If people present something to the world and others don't get what they are presenting they should either accept it or rethink their presentation. We can only control ourselves.

Chris

01-14-2014, 10:57 AM

I certainly do. When you want to stop making things personal and spitting out misinformation I'd be happy to discuss my views.

You do? then what are you, a statist, nonstatist, to what degree. When you see, say, a social problem, from poverty to gay marriage, do you turn to the state or society for solutions?

You said elsewhere you're a liberal, that positions you on the horizontal axis. What about the vertical?

http://i.snag.gy/yW42Z.jpg

No one's attacking you, dear.

Chris

01-14-2014, 10:59 AM

statist is patronizing... like "gubmint haters" (which i intentinally use with anyone who uses the silly word statist).

OK, so we know you use words to insult. But please don't project and assume others do.

(BTW, you're misusing patronize.)

Chris

01-14-2014, 11:00 AM

He didn't actually call me a statist that I noticed.

And you are incorrect. Anything can be an attempt at insult. It is just like calling people communists when they aren't. Like I said before, it is nothing more than demonizing the person you are arguing with. It's dismissive and immature.

So rather than discuss the topic you prefer arguing about words?

I suspect, like jillian, that you use words that way, but also like jillian, you should not project and assume others do.

Mister D

01-14-2014, 11:07 AM

statist is patronizing... like "gubmint haters" (which i intentinally use with anyone who uses the silly word statist).

Gubmint haters is silly because no one actually speaks that way. What is silly about statist? Please elaborate.

The Sage of Main Street

01-14-2014, 12:37 PM

Oh, dear God. You are one of those.

GOP stands for "Government of the people." Pretty Socialist, don't you think? In order to fit the Chris-correct definition of non-statist, Lincoln should have said, "Government of wise stewards who know what's best for the people, who are a mindless mob."

More proof that the GOP is a bunch of Commies is that their first President went on to say, "Gubmint of the people," letting the mob in to ransack our high-class Country Club on Capitolist Hill. Worst of all, Abraham (Jewish?) finished off with "Gubmint for the people." What kind of moochers want the Gubmint to do everything for them? Let them do it on their own and work their way up from rags to riches, just like Bush and Romney did!

iustitia

01-14-2014, 12:38 PM

No such thing as "left and right"? Fox News disagrees: http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2013/10/07/celebs-left-right-conservative-liberal-sylvester-stallone/#slide=1
Are you trolling me or seriously suggesting Fox News is a serious source for evaluating political spectrums? What's next, MSNBC? Left and right are nonsense terms that came from the French Revolution, referencing where people sat in the government body. Those in support of the system sat to the right, those opposed to the left. Then consider that the 20th century saw these stupid, irrational labels applied to ideologies, philosophies and movements completely unrelated to the French Revolution. Then consider that there's absolutely no reason Americans should be importing culturally and politically isolated terminology into the American lexicon because it doesn't conform to our system.

Europe, even accepting the notion that seating arrangements in revolutionary France are worthy of molding terminology in the 21st century, is vastly different in history, concept and system than the United States. How does one represent federalism on a left-right scale? Or enlightened monarchism? How do new ideas affect such a dogmatic system? Do we retroactively assume the positions of federalists and antifederalists? What about all the systems and beliefs before the French Revolution? It's irrational to hold up a system, based on nothing, that attempts to plot all of human thought and history along arbitrary terms like left and right. Especially when, as you've demonstrated, it's a real pain to convince people of where someone like Hitler would fall in comparison to someone like Stalin.

Theodore Roosevelt was both a socialist and a nationalist, a welfare statist and a militarist. Where does he fall? There is nothing rational or self-evident about the left-right concept. It doesn't accurately represent anything other than personal, social and political bias. So no, there is no left or right.

Also disagreed that Republicanism is purely American. Even though modern Americans have a different view on it than the ancient Greeks, the basic concepts remain the same.
It's not purely American, but it mostly is. Sure it inspired things like the French Revolution, but republicanism is a phenomena of American thinkers utilizing Enlightenment principles. Republics, such as Rome for example, didn't have the same notions of a republic as we do. To defining difference between the Roman Kingdom and Roman Republic was the end of the monarchy. And thus in antiquity a republic was merely a government, usually with limited representation, that was not ruled by a king. That's not to say the Romans didn't believe in concepts such as civic virtue and duty, but I would not claim their guiding principle was republicanism, a principle that really wasn't even a thing until the 1680's or so.

Even into the American age, Adams argued that the British Empire itself was really a kind of republic because the source of its authority was based in lawmaking and not the king himself. The Roman Republic was really more of a democratic oligarchy if you will, not what our conception is. And like the communists, I would argue that the islamists are also not incorrect in their state names. Saudi Arabia is a kingdom because it is a monarchy, whereas say Iran is an Islamic republic because it does not have a monarch. There are many definitions and ideals for what a republic is or should be.

Thanks for the insult. It's an admission by you that you are frustrated and running low on ammo.
It was an accurate description of the line of thinking you demonstrated, not an insult. Don't be such a fucking baby.

Chris

01-14-2014, 12:42 PM

GOP stands for "Government of the people." Pretty Socialist, don't you think? In order to fit the Chris-correct definition of non-statist, Lincoln should have said, "Government of wise stewards who know what's best for the people, who are a mindless mob."

More proof that the GOP is a bunch of Commies is that their first President went on to say, "Gubmint of the people," letting the mob in to ransack our high-class Country Club on Capitolist Hill. Worst of all, Abraham (Jewish?) finished off with "Gubmint for the people." What kind of moochers want the Gubmint to do everything for them? Let them do it on their own and work their way up from rags to riches, just like Bush and Romney did!

You didn't define nonstatist but sratist.

GOP can be just as statist as DNC.

The Sage of Main Street

01-14-2014, 12:51 PM

I still can't bring myself to read Noam's work.

It falls apart because it is based on the obviously untrue equality of races.

The Sage of Main Street

01-14-2014, 12:55 PM

What?

Again, what similarities does a totalitarian movement share with American conservatives who dislike big government? Few if any, right?

Fascism is totalitarian Capitalism, which the Conservatives want to replace government with.

The Sage of Main Street

01-14-2014, 01:00 PM

Max Rockatansky

01-14-2014, 01:41 PM

You are a statist. You believe in a state. Wow, dude, that was a hard one. You're also a guy instead of a girl. You offended by that just because there are two main categories and you fit into one of them? I doubt I'd see you begging to be called "trans" because you want to assert you're special.

It's not an insult. It's just a fact. You want the state or you don't. There are subcategories, but just like you guys say "left" and "right" we say "state" and "antistate".

((shrugs))

It's wrong to label someone something they are not. Chris may like guys but that doesn't make him gay. He might be, but without further evidence it would be wrong to label him gay simply because he as close platonic relationships with men even though some people might see it that way.

The term "statist" was previously defined. It's not simply because someone believes "in a state". Just because you and I see the wisdom of some government, some police and a military for national defense doesn't make us authoritarian assholes who support stripping everyone of their rights, nationalizing everything and running a police state.

Mister D

01-14-2014, 01:43 PM

It's wrong to label something someone is not. The term "statist" was previously defined. It's not simply because someone believes "in a state". Just because you and I see the wisdom of some government, some police and a military for national defense doesn't make us authoritarian assholes who support stripping everyone of their rights, nationalizing everything and running a police state.

Perhaps you are too defensive?

Max Rockatansky

01-14-2014, 01:52 PM

Max Rockatansky

01-14-2014, 01:53 PM

Perhaps you are too defensive?Perhaps not. OTOH, perhaps you have no respect for clarity and truth.

Mister D

01-14-2014, 01:56 PM

Perhaps not. OTOH, perhaps you have no respect for clarity and truth.

You say this after posting a patently dishonest definition from the "Ayn Rand Lexicon"?

The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy

Again, what foul?

Mister D

01-14-2014, 01:57 PM

An excellent assessment.

Are progressive views unpopular even among progressives? :huh:

Max Rockatansky

01-14-2014, 02:01 PM

Speaking of dishonesty, why didn't use one of these?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statism

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/statism

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

You don't seriously expect me to believe the Ayn Rand Lexicon was the first in your search did you?

All those definitions work for me. Since Chris has a well-known record of pitching a hissy fit whenever someone (usually directed at Jillian) uses Merrian-Webster or Wiki, I decided to use a source I thought would be more palatable to him.

Chris

01-14-2014, 02:03 PM

Fascism is totalitarian Capitalism, which the Conservatives want to replace government with.

And where does the totalitarian come from if not the government? Thus in sum you're saying cons want to replace government with government. But that's what libs want to do as well.

Max Rockatansky

01-14-2014, 02:03 PM

You say this after posting a patently dishonest definition from the "Ayn Rand Lexicon"?

Why do you believe the Ayn Rand Lexicon to be dishonest?

Codename Section

01-14-2014, 02:03 PM

Mister D

01-14-2014, 02:04 PM

All those definitions work for me. Since Chris has a well-known record of pitching a hissy fit whenever someone (usually directed at Jillian) uses Merrian-Webster or Wiki, I decided to use a source I thought would be more palatable to him.

It looks like you used a definition more palatable to you, not Chris. Moreover, as far as I know he's not a fan of Rand.

Chris

01-14-2014, 02:04 PM

Under Communism the government owns all businesses; under Capitalism businessmen own the entire government. Same difference, to use what truly educated people call an oxymoron.

How does business come to own government? Instead of wild claims you ought to explain what you mean...if you know.

Chris

01-14-2014, 02:07 PM

It's wrong to label someone something they are not. Chris may like guys but that doesn't make him gay. He might be, but without further evidence it would be wrong to label him gay simply because he as close platonic relationships with men even though some people might see it that way.

The term "statist" was previously defined. It's not simply because someone believes "in a state". Just because you and I see the wisdom of some government, some police and a military for national defense doesn't make us authoritarian assholes who support stripping everyone of their rights, nationalizing everything and running a police state.

I've got an idea. Just because it's a political forum doesn't mean we can use words like statism, libertarian, conservative, liberal, progressive, extremist or any other political word. I think the mods should go to the word filter and add all those words just like certain cuss words so no one can use them. Then we won't have people complaining so much about the use of words.

Codename Section, please implement post haste.

Mister D

01-14-2014, 02:09 PM

Chris

01-14-2014, 02:10 PM

All those definitions work for me. Since Chris has a well-known record of pitching a hissy fit whenever someone (usually directed at Jillian) uses Merrian-Webster or Wiki, I decided to use a source I thought would be more palatable to him.

I have dismissed using common dictionaries to win arguments like you do. It's like rubbing dirt of shoes on a door mat. Does that bother you? You seem to be having a hissy fit over it.

Chris

01-14-2014, 02:12 PM

It is what it is. If that bothers you why hold those views?

Or if it doesn't fit, say so and demonstrate it.

Where did this talking about talking start, because I pointed to some words road posted and called them statist and he took personal offense and had jillian, ravi and happy rush to his defense?

Chris

01-14-2014, 02:13 PM

It looks like you used a definition more palatable to you, not Chris. Moreover, as far as I know he's not a fan of Rand.

She's OK in some respects, too much of a statist for me tho'. :-P

Codename Section

01-14-2014, 02:15 PM

It is what it is. If that bothers you why hold those views?

That's why I'm saying. If you like the state, why be offended over "statist"? I mean, it's not nearly as shitty as saying "right wing nut job" or "libtard".

http://www.objectobot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/statism-is-instanity.jpg

Codename Section

01-14-2014, 02:16 PM

I've got an idea. Just because it's a political forum doesn't mean we can use words like statism, libertarian, conservative, liberal, progressive, extremist or any other political word. I think the mods should go to the word filter and add all those words just like certain cuss words so no one can use them. Then we won't have people complaining so much about the use of words.

@Codename Section (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=866), please implement post haste.

I need to put it through the appropriate regulatory committee first.

monty1

01-14-2014, 02:24 PM

There is only one God and that is the Christian Dog.

Evil demons, go ooooooouuuuuuutttttt of this forum!

Chris

01-14-2014, 02:34 PM

There is only one God and that is the Christian Dog.

Evil demons, go ooooooouuuuuuutttttt of this forum!

That was thoughtful.

Chris

01-14-2014, 02:35 PM

That's why I'm saying. If you like the state, why be offended over "statist"? I mean, it's not nearly as shitty as saying "right wing nut job" or "libtard".

http://www.objectobot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/statism-is-instanity.jpg

Einstein called it insanity.

kilgram

01-14-2014, 02:47 PM

To most economists, the Nazis were left wing, to most politicists right wing. That follows in the same progressive tradition as castigating Marx while adulating his theories. The Nazis did horrid things, so paint them right wing while joining FDR and his fellow travelers in mutual admiration of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin.
Wrong. Nazism is right wing by most of specialists. Only revisionism tries to say they were leftist

Chris

01-14-2014, 02:50 PM

Wrong. Nazism is right wing by most of specialists. Only revisionism tries to say they were leftist

FDR, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin shared a mutual admiration for each other. And you tell me they were right wingers? LOL. What specialists do you speak of, propagandists?

Mister D

01-14-2014, 02:52 PM

In his cultural context kilgram is right, IMO. It's in the American context that right wing fascism doesn't make any sense.

kilgram

01-14-2014, 03:08 PM

FDR, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin shared a mutual admiration for each other. And you tell me they were right wingers? LOL. What specialists do you speak of, propagandists?
Stalin never had good relations with Hitler, and less admiration.

Fuck, if Hitler prosecuted all the communists. Like the fascist branch of Spain, Franco.

HItler, Franco and Mussolini were friends and radical enemies of the Communists. Exactly for this reason, Franco was seen as a possible ally by USA and England, for his anti-communism.

Mister D

01-14-2014, 03:12 PM

Stalin never had good relations with Hitler, and less admiration.

Fuck, if Hitler prosecuted all the communists. Like the fascist branch of Spain, Franco.

HItler, Franco and Mussolini were friends and radical enemies of the Communists. Exactly for this reason, Franco was seen as a possible ally by USA and England, for his anti-communism.

Stalin reportedly said that Hitler was the only man he ever truly respected. That should hardly come as a surprise. Dictators tend to admire one another. Saddam Huessein, for example, also admired Hitler and the fictional Don Corleone.

Don't confuse ideology with personal respect.

Chris

01-14-2014, 03:14 PM

Stalin never had good relations with Hitler, and less admiration.

Fuck, if Hitler prosecuted all the communists. Like the fascist branch of Spain, Franco.

HItler, Franco and Mussolini were friends and radical enemies of the Communists. Exactly for this reason, Franco was seen as a possible ally by USA and England, for his anti-communism.

Sorry, wasn't clear, FDR had a mutual admiration for Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin.

Yes, Hitler and Stalin hated each other. But the each ran totalitarian socialist states.

Max Rockatansky

01-14-2014, 03:22 PM

Wrong. Nazism is right wing by most of specialists. Only revisionism tries to say they were leftist

Agreed. Usually the same revisionists who say Hitler, Stalin and FDR were back-slapping, drinking buddies in the same mutual admiration society.

Captain Obvious

01-14-2014, 03:22 PM

The concept of "state religion" should make anyone with a half ounce of common sense run for the gun cabinet.

Max Rockatansky

01-14-2014, 03:25 PM

It looks like you used a definition more palatable to you, not Chris. Moreover, as far as I know he's not a fan of Rand.

It was a guess. It's always difficult to gauge people who go around making up their own definitions on things. If I'm wrong, it's good information to save for the future. Like your great knowledge of and concern about your buddy Chris.

Max Rockatansky

01-14-2014, 03:26 PM

The concept of "state religion" should make anyone with a half ounce of common sense run for the gun cabinet.

Good idea. A pack of matches and a 5-gallon can of kerosene makes a good statement too.

Codename Section

01-14-2014, 03:27 PM

Wrong. Nazism is right wing by most of specialists. Only revisionism tries to say they were leftist

Howso when "socialist" is a leftist term and "capitalist" is a rightest term? Also women's lib--Hitler was all about promoting women working for the state. His secretaries thought he was awesome. Oh yeh, he patronized the arts and felt the state should support artists, he was against animal cruelty, and all sorts of weird anomalies.

Max Rockatansky

01-14-2014, 03:31 PM

If Chris is giving another dude a blowjob he shouldn't be offended if we said, "That dude Chris is gay."

Gay is not a good or bad term. It's just gay. Statist isn't a good or bad term, either. It's just statin'.

OTOH, if Chris wasn't on his knees blowing some dude then bending over and taking it up the ass with screams of joy, labeling gay would be untrue. A falsehood. It would be wrong to call a person gay who was not. As Undine said, it would simply be an attempt to demonize someone with name-calling. It's an immature action in an adult conversation.

Chris

01-14-2014, 03:32 PM

At the level of statism, ideology seems to mean little.

...“To compare,” Schivelbusch stresses, “is not the same as to equate. America during Roosevelt’s New Deal did not become a one-party state; it had no secret police; the Constitution remained in force, and there were no concentration camps; the New Deal preserved the institutions of the liberal-democratic system that National Socialism abolished.” But throughout the ’30s, intellectuals and journalists noted “areas of convergence among the New Deal, Fascism, and National Socialism.” All three were seen as transcending “classic Anglo-French liberalism”—individualism, free markets, decentralized power.

...The dream of a planned society infected both right and left. Ernst Jünger, an influential right-wing militarist in Germany, reported his reaction to the Soviet Union: “I told myself: granted, they have no constitution, but they do have a plan. This may be an excellent thing.” As early as 1912, FDR himself praised the Prussian-German model: “They passed beyond the liberty of the individual to do as he pleased with his own property and found it necessary to check this liberty for the benefit of the freedom of the whole people,” he said in an address to the People’s Forum of Troy, New York.

American Progressives studied at German universities, Schivelbusch writes, and “came to appreciate the Hegelian theory of a strong state and Prussian militarism as the most efficient way of organizing modern societies that could no longer be ruled by anarchic liberal principles.” The pragmatist philosopher William James’ influential 1910 essay “The Moral Equivalent of War” stressed the importance of order, discipline, and planning.

Intellectuals worried about inequality, the poverty of the working class, and the commercial culture created by mass production. (They didn’t seem to notice the tension between the last complaint and the first two.) Liberalism seemed inadequate to deal with such problems. When economic crisis hit—in Italy and Germany after World War I, in the United States with the Great Depression—the anti-liberals seized the opportunity, arguing that the market had failed and that the time for bold experimentation had arrived.

...In the North American Review in 1934, the progressive writer Roger Shaw described the New Deal as “Fascist means to gain liberal ends.” He wasn’t hallucinating. FDR’s adviser Rexford Tugwell wrote in his diary that Mussolini had done “many of the things which seem to me necessary.” Lorena Hickok, a close confidante of Eleanor Roosevelt who lived in the White House for a spell, wrote approvingly of a local official who had said, “If [President] Roosevelt were actually a dictator, we might get somewhere.” She added that if she were younger, she’d like to lead “the Fascist Movement in the United States.” At the National Recovery Administration (NRA), the cartel-creating agency at the heart of the early New Deal, one report declared forthrightly, “The Fascist Principles are very similar to those we have been evolving here in America.”

Roosevelt himself called Mussolini “admirable” and professed that he was “deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.” The admiration was mutual. In a laudatory review of Roosevelt’s 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, “Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.…Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.” The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, repeatedly praised “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” and “the development toward an authoritarian state” based on the “demand that collective good be put before individual self-interest.”

In Rome, Berlin, and D.C., there was an affinity for military metaphors and military structures. Fascists, National Socialists, and New Dealers...

@ Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt (http://reason.com/archives/2007/09/28/hitler-mussolini-roosevelt)

Little has changed since.

Chris

01-14-2014, 03:35 PM

OTOH, if Chris wasn't on his knees blowing some dude then bending over and taking it up the ass with screams of joy, labeling gay would be untrue. A falsehood. It would be wrong to call a person gay who was not. As Undine said, it would simply be an attempt to demonize someone with name-calling. It's an immature action in an adult conversation.

But because I know it's false it doesn't upset me emotionally the way it seems to others. I don't even need to react to it.

iustitia

01-14-2014, 03:37 PM

"no concentration camps"

Codename Section

01-14-2014, 03:39 PM

OTOH, if Chris wasn't on his knees blowing some dude then bending over and taking it up the ass with screams of joy, labeling gay would be untrue. A falsehood. It would be wrong to call a person gay who was not. As Undine said, it would simply be an attempt to demonize someone with name-calling. It's an immature action in an adult conversation.

Right. If he were not having sexy times it would be unfair to call him gay. It would still be funny tho.

Which statist on here thinks they aren't for a state? :cool2:

Max Rockatansky

01-14-2014, 03:43 PM

Howso when "socialist" is a leftist term and "capitalist" is a rightest term? Also women's lib--Hitler was all about promoting women working for the state. His secretaries thought he was awesome. Oh yeh, he patronized the arts and felt the state should support artists, he was against animal cruelty, and all sorts of weird anomalies.

Socialism and Capitalism are economic systems. That's why a country can be a democracy or republican but have a socialist economic system (which wouldn't work as Greece as shown). European countries are capitalist in nature but also have strong socialist components. We do too but less so with Social Security, Medicare and, now, ACA.

Codename Section

01-14-2014, 03:45 PM

Socialism and Capitalism are economic systems. That's why a country can be a democracy or republican but have a socialist economic system (which wouldn't work as Greece as shown). European countries are capitalist in nature but also have strong socialist components. We do too but less so with Social Security, Medicare and, now, ACA.

Right but how do you say something is "rightist" when it contains socialism, feminism, animal rightsism, environmentalism, and a bunch of other lefty isms?

They just don't want to own Hitler. Who does, really?

Max Rockatansky

01-14-2014, 03:48 PM

But because I know it's false it doesn't upset me emotionally the way it seems to others. I don't even need to react to it.

There are more reasons to question a person's misapplication of terms and labels than emotion.

Seeking truth and clarity would be one. Another is to bring the ignorance up to the person making the false statement so that they might learn from it. If they don't want to learn, then everyone can correctly conclude they are stupid. If they know and understand the mistake but to continue to do it, then everyone can correctly conclude they are liars and not to be trusted as a person of truth and knowledge.

iustitia

01-14-2014, 03:51 PM

It's funny because liberals loved Hitler and Mussolini. American Progressives envisioned Fascism as the future and only stopped supporting it when war came and the Axis embarrassed them. I'm not a fan of neocons but Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism really does a good job of showing the intellectual and philosophical connections between fascism and progressivism in the 20th century .

Mister D

01-14-2014, 03:56 PM

It was a guess. It's always difficult to gauge people who go around making up their own definitions on things. If I'm wrong, it's good information to save for the future. Like your great knowledge of and concern about your buddy Chris.

It wasn't a guess. It's not the first link but, for some reason, you chose it. We both know what that reason was. You're not being honest even with yourself.

Max Rockatansky

01-14-2014, 04:00 PM

Right but how do you say something is "rightist" when it contains socialism, feminism, animal rightsism, environmentalism, and a bunch of other lefty isms?

They just don't want to own Hitler. Who does, really?

Right-wing connotes conservative ideals; traditional values including religion, they seek to keep things the way they are, oppose change or seek a return to the way things were in the good ol' days. It's why the Tories in the American Revolution were conservatives. It was the Liberals who wanted changed and to upset the status quo in the Revolution.

It's also why today's Liberals aren't like the Liberals of 1775 since the only change modern Liberals seek is to grow the status quo bigger or to eliminate certain freedoms for better control. That's not what the liberal Founders wanted. Conversely, it's why today's Conservatives also aren't all about freedom since they often seek to limit the freedom of others such as women, minorities, non-Christian religions (even non-Protestant) and anyone else with whom they disagree.

Max Rockatansky

01-14-2014, 04:00 PM

It wasn't a guess. It's not the first link but, for some reason, you chose it. We both know what that reason was. You're not being honest even with yourself.

It was as I said. If you have an alternate theory, spit it out. I'm curious.

Mister D

01-14-2014, 04:02 PM

It was as I said. If you have an alternate theory, spit it out. I'm curious.

I gave you three. No one cares about Ayn Rand.

Chris

01-14-2014, 04:04 PM

There are more reasons to question a person's misapplication of terms and labels than emotion.

Seeking truth and clarity would be one. Another is to bring the ignorance up to the person making the false statement so that they might learn from it. If they don't want to learn, then everyone can correctly conclude they are stupid. If they know and understand the mistake but to continue to do it, then everyone can correctly conclude they are liars and not to be trusted as a person of truth and knowledge.

Seeking truth and clarity is all good for discussion. Such as what is statism, how is it religious in nature, etc, etc. But all this talking about talking about it serves no purpose but distraction from the topic. And worrying about whether someone is ignorant or stupid or liars or some other personal shit is a complete waste on time...on a political forum...perhaps not on a dating site or in comments to Ann Landers. Address the message, as I did when I addressed your message on who's in control, and leave messengers alone, it violates all discourse ethics.

Codename Section

01-14-2014, 04:05 PM

There are more reasons to question a person's misapplication of terms and labels than emotion.

Seeking truth and clarity would be one. Another is to bring the ignorance up to the person making the false statement so that they might learn from it. If they don't want to learn, then everyone can correctly conclude they are stupid. If they know and understand the mistake but to continue to do it, then everyone can correctly conclude they are liars and not to be trusted as a person of truth and knowledge.

Right but if you're pro-state then it's not inaccurate to call you a state-ist. You can also be a liberal statist, a conservative statist, a gay statist, maybe even a green liberal statist feminist.

Still a statist if you're pro-state.

People who would fight the enormity of that logic I shall diagnose with having a viral case of butthurticus.