OWS Echoes The French Revolution.

[PoliticalChic]

I guess the people of France should have been satisfied with being poor, and just accepted that the lower classes faced most of the tax burden.

I guess our own founding fathers should have just been satisfied with what Great Britain was throwing at us too.

Unfortunately people will never be satisfied with the conservative forms of goverment like Fascism, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Theocracy and Dictatorships.

Why?

Because they suck.

This is the Nth time I've had to correct you on this definition...but I don't mind.

“The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” War Is the Health of the State


"referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power"
That's very different from "conservative forms of goverment like Fascism, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Theocracy and Dictatorships," isn't it?
In fact the opposite.


But I fully understand your need to obfuscate.
I almost sympathize with your plight.

Almost, loser.

 

[SAT]

But I fully understand your need to obfuscate.
I almost sympathize with your plight.

Almost, loser.

Conservatism is about maintaining established power.

 

[Truthmatters]

I guess the people of France should have been satisfied with being poor, and just accepted that the lower classes faced most of the tax burden.

I guess our own founding fathers should have just been satisfied with what Great Britain was throwing at us too.

Unfortunately people will never be satisfied with the conservative forms of goverment like Fascism, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Theocracy and Dictatorships.

Why?

Because they suck.

This is the Nth time I've had to correct you on this definition...but I don't mind.

“The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” War Is the Health of the State


"referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power"
That's very different from "conservative forms of goverment like Fascism, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Theocracy and Dictatorships," isn't it?
In fact the opposite.


But I fully understand your need to obfuscate.
I almost sympathize with your plight.

Almost, loser.

Sheldon Richman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


the guy who wrote that crap is a partisan hack

 

[Sallow]

Sallow, grow up. Totalitarianism under any brand sucks and you know it. The concept of Unalienable Rights, including Private Property Rights, foe Each of us, both Rich and Poor, a cornerstone in the Defense against Tyranny. You abandon Property Rights, and it's end game.

Grow up? I am quite on track here. Conservatism favors Totalitarism. Always. This whole "indivdual" liberty crap you guys spew falls apart when examined up close and personal. From torture, to suspending rights of those that are incarcerated, to women's reproductive rights, to the rights of regular citizens to advocate for their interests and a plethora of other issues.

I have no problem with "some" conservativism in a system of government. It empathizes careful consideration of implementing new things and it really does know how to profit from ideas..but like anything else..to much of it..really sucks.

I feel sorry for you that you actually believe that Bullshit, Sallow. Bullshit to the Point that you Dictate what You think I believe, as if you even had a clue. Do you want to buy a Vowel?

Think on what you are doing here in your march to a Totalitarian Utopia. You are trying to deny me my own Principles, my own Conscience, which you will never have any Right to, nor the Right to speak for, without my consent. Separate yourself from what has you ensnared. I am not your enemy, nor do I seek to control, manipulate, or do you harm.

I don't want to deny you of anything..quite the opposite.

It's not me standing in the way of people building houses of worship where they wish. It's not me denying women, that I don't know, options, on what medical procedures they can have. It's not me advocating for denying people a competent attorney and the right to a speedy trial with a fair and impartial jury. It's not me shoveling a crapload of tax payer money to make private businesses successful, yet demanding nothing in return.

That would be the people you support.

 

[Sallow]

I guess the people of France should have been satisfied with being poor, and just accepted that the lower classes faced most of the tax burden.

I guess our own founding fathers should have just been satisfied with what Great Britain was throwing at us too.

Unfortunately people will never be satisfied with the conservative forms of goverment like Fascism, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Theocracy and Dictatorships.

Why?

Because they suck.

This is the Nth time I've had to correct you on this definition...but I don't mind.

“The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” War Is the Health of the State


"referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power"
That's very different from "conservative forms of goverment like Fascism, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Theocracy and Dictatorships," isn't it?
In fact the opposite.


But I fully understand your need to obfuscate.
I almost sympathize with your plight.

Almost, loser.

The "indivduals" you guys are looking to protect in terms of "private property" and "limits on power" are corporations.

And no..sorry..I don't consider them people.

Hence the schism.

 

[martybegan]

The Game is always rigged by players in one way or another. It's a shame you don't see that. You don't want Justice, just control of the game. It's always been that way. Achievement Overcomes obstruction, it's always been that way too. Why is it that you always want to punish the very achievement that overcomes obstruction? Oh right, it challenges your control. Got it, thanks.

No, we want justice.

Which by you mean social justice, which is a code word for wanting what other people have, and using the government to get it from them.

 

[SAT]

The Game is always rigged by players in one way or another. It's a shame you don't see that. You don't want Justice, just control of the game. It's always been that way. Achievement Overcomes obstruction, it's always been that way too. Why is it that you always want to punish the very achievement that overcomes obstruction? Oh right, it challenges your control. Got it, thanks.

No, we want justice.

Which by you mean social justice, which is a code word for wanting what other people have, and using the government to get it from them.

It's God's favorite kind. Social justice, also called distributive justice. Not "does everyone have the same", but, to quote a favorite author,

"the vision derives from the well-run home, household, or family farm. If you walked into one, how would you judge the householder? Are the fields well tended? Are the animals properly provisioned? Are the buildings adequately maintained? Are the children and dependents well-fed, clothed, and adequately housed? Are the sick given special care? Are responsibilities and returns apportioned fairly? Do all have enough? Especially that: Do all have enough? John Dominick Crossan

 

[martybegan]

No, we want justice.

Which by you mean social justice, which is a code word for wanting what other people have, and using the government to get it from them.

It's God's favorite kind. Social justice, also called distributive justice. Not "does everyone have the same", but, to quote a favorite author,

"the vision derives from the well-run home, household, or family farm. If you walked into one, how would you judge the householder? Are the fields well tended? Are the animals properly provisioned? Are the buildings adequately maintained? Are the children and dependents well-fed, clothed, and adequately housed? Are the sick given special care? Are responsibilities and returns apportioned fairly? Do all have enough? Especially that: Do all have enough? John Dominick Crossan

Its fine if you do it with your own money, and your own time. Its when you decide to force others to contribute to it, via taxation, that it goes from justice to nothing more than forced charity.

Nice trying to find a way to get religon into "from each according to thier ability, to each according to thier needs"

 

[SAT]

Which by you mean social justice, which is a code word for wanting what other people have, and using the government to get it from them.

It's God's favorite kind. Social justice, also called distributive justice. Not "does everyone have the same", but, to quote a favorite author,

"the vision derives from the well-run home, household, or family farm. If you walked into one, how would you judge the householder? Are the fields well tended? Are the animals properly provisioned? Are the buildings adequately maintained? Are the children and dependents well-fed, clothed, and adequately housed? Are the sick given special care? Are responsibilities and returns apportioned fairly? Do all have enough? Especially that: Do all have enough? John Dominick Crossan

Its fine if you do it with your own money, and your own time. Its when you decide to force others to contribute to it, via taxation, that it goes from justice to nothing more than forced charity.

Nice trying to find a way to get religon into "from each according to thier ability, to each according to thier needs"

It's fine if we decide, as a society, that it's what we want for ourselves, too. If we want to fund a decent society, we can do that.

I was compelled, though taxation, to support a war in Iraq. This is how democracy works. You don't always get your way.

 

[Truthmatters]

They forget we are supposed to be in this one together

 

[martybegan]

It's God's favorite kind. Social justice, also called distributive justice. Not "does everyone have the same", but, to quote a favorite author,

"the vision derives from the well-run home, household, or family farm. If you walked into one, how would you judge the householder? Are the fields well tended? Are the animals properly provisioned? Are the buildings adequately maintained? Are the children and dependents well-fed, clothed, and adequately housed? Are the sick given special care? Are responsibilities and returns apportioned fairly? Do all have enough? Especially that: Do all have enough? John Dominick Crossan

Its fine if you do it with your own money, and your own time. Its when you decide to force others to contribute to it, via taxation, that it goes from justice to nothing more than forced charity.

Nice trying to find a way to get religon into "from each according to thier ability, to each according to thier needs"

It's fine if we decide, as a society, that it's what we want for ourselves, too. If we want to fund a decent society, we can do that.

I was compelled, though taxation, to support a war in Iraq. This is how democracy works. You don't always get your way.

War is an enumerated power of the federal government. Taxing me to pay someone else for doing nothing is not.

if you want to fund a decent society, use your own money.

 

[martybegan]

They forget we are supposed to be in this one together

And of course, our governmental overlords get to tell us what we have to pay to be in this all together, how we have to live our lives to be in this all together, and sooner or later how we are supposed to think to be in this all together.

How about this? Do your own crap, spend your own money, and use your own time to make this world a better place, and dont force other people to do it and fund it for you.

 

[SAT]

Its fine if you do it with your own money, and your own time. Its when you decide to force others to contribute to it, via taxation, that it goes from justice to nothing more than forced charity.

Nice trying to find a way to get religon into "from each according to thier ability, to each according to thier needs"

It's fine if we decide, as a society, that it's what we want for ourselves, too. If we want to fund a decent society, we can do that.

I was compelled, though taxation, to support a war in Iraq. This is how democracy works. You don't always get your way.

War is an enumerated power of the federal government. Taxing me to pay someone else for doing nothing is not.

if you want to fund a decent society, use your own money.

Taxing you is an enumerated power, period.

And don't distort the discussion with a side track into welfare queens. Are there individuals who abuse the system? Yes. Is that a sufficient reason to abandon any efforts to have a decent society? No.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sallow and Truthmatters, you've done a good job educating on this thread.

The French Revolution is not a model for anyone, PC. It's an object lesson.

You're so busy trying to figure out a way to attack OWS that you completely miss the reasons for revolutions. You seem to believe that they are simply misbehavior by those who ought to know their place. You fail to realize that people reach a tipping point. You fail most spectacularly to realize that people-poor unnamed people-were dying from starvation before the revolution ever started.

The French Revolution, the Russian revolution, Gandhi's movement for India's independence, the Civil Rights movement, all of these have one thing in common-people had been pushed to their limit by tyranny. Real tyranny. Not "I don't want my taxes to pay for museums and schools" Tea Party tyranny. This is not to say that the French Revolution was good. It is to say that it was inevitable.

"The French Revolution, the Russian revolution, Gandhi's movement for India's independence, the Civil Rights movement, all of these have one thing in common-people had been pushed to their limit by tyranny. Real tyranny."

You are wonderfully consistent.....understanding is never a factor in your posts.

And, likewise, this thread is far too nuanced for you.

Probably, the McDonald's Dollar Menu is far too nuanced for you.

But..(sigh)...I admit that I look forward to your posts for the comic relief. Yes, you're beginning to grew on me, like was a colony of E. coli on room-temperature Canadian beef.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The problem with you sweet cheeks is that you really can't be taken all that seriously. Insults, cut and paste and the like..really show a weak and lazy mind.

So...you agree that the post puts you in your place?

That place, of course, being the dumb row.

If you say so sweet cheeks.

I've been saying something like this was going to happen for months on this board. And compared the situation we had..to the situation in France before the French Revolution.

Here it is. Happening now.

What's your solution?

The solution they are using in Syria? Iran?

Go for it.

Once again I find myself lecturing way over your head....
...I find it so difficult to get down to 'goo-goo, gah-gah'...

So here is the best analogy for the OWS 'movement'...

...the one on the Left, fittingly enough:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXnSe7MYPGM]I WANT MY MAYPO COMMERCIAL - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SAT]

"The French Revolution, the Russian revolution, Gandhi's movement for India's independence, the Civil Rights movement, all of these have one thing in common-people had been pushed to their limit by tyranny. Real tyranny."

You are wonderfully consistent.....understanding is never a factor in your posts.

And, likewise, this thread is far too nuanced for you.

Probably, the McDonald's Dollar Menu is far too nuanced for you.

But..(sigh)...I admit that I look forward to your posts for the comic relief. Yes, you're beginning to grew on me, like was a colony of E. coli on room-temperature Canadian beef.

Yes, nuance. When I think of nuance, I think of someone so stupid that they blah, blah, blah about the French Revolution without understanding in the least why the poor revolted in the first place.

 

[martybegan]

It's fine if we decide, as a society, that it's what we want for ourselves, too. If we want to fund a decent society, we can do that.

I was compelled, though taxation, to support a war in Iraq. This is how democracy works. You don't always get your way.

War is an enumerated power of the federal government. Taxing me to pay someone else for doing nothing is not.

if you want to fund a decent society, use your own money.

Taxing you is an enumerated power, period.

And don't distort the discussion with a side track into welfare queens. Are there individuals who abuse the system? Yes. Is that a sufficient reason to abandon any efforts to have a decent society? No.

Trying to get to a "decent" society is the excuse statists have been using since Marx came up with the concept. All you end up with is a different ruling class (government burecrats) and and equal level of misery for anyone else.

For statists its less about helping people, and more about power. Once they get a majority dependent on the government, they know they can never be voted out of office.

 

[konradv]

I guess the people of France should have been satisfied with being poor, and just accepted that the lower classes faced most of the tax burden.

I guess our own founding fathers should have just been satisfied with what Great Britain was throwing at us too.

I agree. I don't have much patience for those who would accept injustice, like the old time preachers who would distract their flock with dreams of pie-in-the-sky.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But I fully understand your need to obfuscate.
I almost sympathize with your plight.

Almost, loser.

Conservatism is about maintaining established power.

See, I say "loser" and you think I'm speaking to you....
...how appropriate.

But since you ask:

1) Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

2) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

3) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

4) Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century.

5) Freedom and property are linked. Private property results in a more stable and productive society. Private property and retaining the fruits of one’s labor has been proven successful from the Puritan’s Bradford, to the Stakhanovite Revolution!

6) Conservatives believe in voluntary community and charity, based on duties to each other, with the assumption that each person must do whatever he could to avoid requiring assistance, as opposed to involuntary collectivism, as in “let the government do it..” Burke's understanding that the "little platoon" - family, neighborhood, professional organizations etc - is the "first principle" of society has been consistently identified as providing the necessary inspiration for conservativism. And explains why conservatives give more to charity than liberals.

7) Conservatives view people as both good and bad, and for this reason believe on restraints on power, as in checks and balances, while liberals see power as a force for good, as long as the power is in their hands.

8) Liberals and Conservatives differ in the way to proceed. For Conservatives, data informs policy. (“More Guns, Less Crime” and “Mass murderers apparently can’t read, since they are constantly shooting up ‘gun-free zones.’”- Coulter) We use Conservative principles to the best of our ability, but when confronting new and original venues, we believe in testing, and analysis of the results of the tests. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing; it is based on emotion often to the exclusion of thinking.

9) Conservatives view results differently from Liberals. Liberals respond to success and material wealth with envy and hostility, encourage class warfare and an attempt to obviate any chance that it might happen again. The exception is when it is a Liberal with the wealth. Conservatives see success as the validation and culmination of the application of Conservative principles, most prominently Liberty.

10) Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”


You're welcome, SAP.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, we want justice.

Which by you mean social justice, which is a code word for wanting what other people have, and using the government to get it from them.

It's God's favorite kind. Social justice, also called distributive justice. Not "does everyone have the same", but, to quote a favorite author,

"the vision derives from the well-run home, household, or family farm. If you walked into one, how would you judge the householder? Are the fields well tended? Are the animals properly provisioned? Are the buildings adequately maintained? Are the children and dependents well-fed, clothed, and adequately housed? Are the sick given special care? Are responsibilities and returns apportioned fairly? Do all have enough? Especially that: Do all have enough? John Dominick Crossan

"Social justice" is an entirely arbitrary concept that could only exist in the warped brains of bien-pensant compulsive meddlers. The correct response is "Whose social justice?" An NAACP activist's definition of "social justice" might well differ from that of a KKK member; an eco-campaigner's view of "social justice" will surely be different from that of someone from the Competitive Enterprise Institute. It is entirely typical of the sublime arrogance and blinkered bigotry of liberals that they imagine their version of "social justice" is the correct one. This, in itself, is more than reason enough to show why liberals should never be allowed anywhere near state office.

Next time a liberal talks about "social justice," tell him you'll take your "justice" straight up, without any prefixes, as established in a rule of law based on Christian principles in a democratic state, and see how he gets out of that."
365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy - James Delingpole - Google Books