Absolutely shocking facts about the GOP

page: 3
87
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Misoir
 

First of all, neither materialism nor internationalism are liberal democratic ideals. Materialism and nationalism are conservative ideals, idealistically opposed to liberalism and egalitarianism.


Materialism is a form of liberal democratic ethos as materialism embraces the core concepts of every socio – economic ideal from Liberalism (Classical and Modern) to Marxism (Communism and Socialism). Materialism bases itself around economic principles rather than political ones as its main focus. For example, Capitalism and Communism are two sides of the same coin to me because I view Communism as merely the inversion of Capitalism. Both hold onto materialistic conceptions of the world.

Internationalism is both a Liberal and Socialist view which first emerged during the French Revolution of 1789 with the main phrase of theirs being ‘citizen of the world’. This is tied into the democratic movement which is fundamentally opposed to a hierarchical or aristocratic socio – political structure.


If you don't support liberalism and egalitarianism than you are diametrically opposed to the very ideals on which the U.S. was founded, as laid forth in the The Declaration of Independence, where they substituted the pursuit of happiness for property.


I believe in the right to private property but that it is fundamentally undermined with a ‘public’ government like that of a democracy or republic. And yes, I know my views are diametrically opposed to those of the founders.


Your problem, like other conservatives singing the same song, isn't that the republican party doesn't represent you, they do, but that the policies and ideals you support, consistently lead to economic failure, and a break down of our society. Tax cuts for the super rich, failure to enforce laws against crooked business activities, big military, and oppression of individual liberties based on religious intolerance consistently fail.


First of all, it saddens me you cannot think of others outside of the political sphere of commonly expressed Conservatism. America does not have any true Conservatism to be fair.

1. I do not believe in Capitalism as it is a materialistic construct developed to subject the governing body to the whims of an imaginary ‘invisible hand’. This ‘hand’ is nothing more than a lie developed to allow speculators, mass investors, and opportunists to control the society.
2. Big business should be smashed, period. A cap placed on the size of all businesses enforced by the government with most of the local branches of corporations turned into worker co – operatives. The closest economic system to my views is Distributism but I will not adhere to it simply because economics is subject to politics, not vice – versa.
3. I do believe in a strong military but am opposed to foreign interventionism abroad. My general views fall in line with that of Ron Paul.
4. My views on modern religion are extremely negative as I feel that it has been perverted by democratic, human rights, and egalitarian ethos. The churches refuse to speak out forcefully against modernity. Freedom of religion I do not agree with, freedom from persecution based on your religion I do agree with. The Roman Catholic Church for example is far too liberalized, especially after Vatican II which I vehemently opposed for its modernizing of liturgical practices.


Now, maybe you don't support a big military or government regulation of individual behavior based on religious intolerance, but most conservative do believe in these things. In addition, tax cuts for the super rich and failure to enforce laws against fraudulent business activities, will always lead to a military police state, where individual liberties are suppressed under religious intolerance, as these things support the power of the super rich, as history has demonstrated over and over again.


The merchant/capitalist class or, bourgeois, should not be the ruling class. Manipulating or making money is not the sole reason for existence nor does it mean one has the ability to properly govern. The masses are far too stupid to govern themselves and should not be treated as though they are anything but that. The rich should be subject to a higher political class which is made up of religious, intellectual, military, and hereditary figures, much as nearly all functioning systems throughout history have been. A Republic can be acceptable but not one founded on democracy, egalitarianism, or secularism.



The republican party was from the beginning, a conservative party, with support of some liberal beliefs, such as the abolition of slavery, and the rights of family farmers over plantation owners. The embrace of the radical religious preferences demonstrated that at its heart, the republicans were conservatives.


Once again you prove the poor grasp you hold of political history. During the 18th through early 20th centuries the Protestant religions were key to advancing Liberal ideas; arguably it was the Calvinist doctrines which began the ‘Enlightenment’ which spawned Liberalism/rationalism/scientism/individualism. The same is true for the 19th century as the social justice aspect of religion was used to advocate many social reforms which they felt went against Christian doctrines. They were wrong of course because they interpreted the religion liberally, not strictly.

This is the same reason as to the current existence of ‘social justice’ in our political debates; it was originally a Christian doctrine but was used by Socialists and Progressive Liberals to advance their cause. Christianity has also been turned into a religion of pacifism from an emphasis on particular texts over other ones; for example, even most fundamentalist Christians begin to squirm when you mention God commanding his subjects to kill entire peoples because it goes against their pacifist values. People now assume they can use their rationalist and secular Christian morality to judge G-d.


The Democratic-Republican party started by Jefferson, which changed to the Democratic party under Jackson, was always liberal, and believed in liberal democracy and egalitarianism. They were moved towards conservative beliefs by conservative Southerners, who had always been conservative, where most of the loyalists during the Revolutionary War were located, and who are very religious.


Actually the South was the hotbed for much of the Classical Liberalism in America. The only ‘Conservatism’ was actually expressed in the Federalist Party and some of it transferred over into the Whig Party. Alexander Hamilton was the closest to Conservative we have ever had in America. Unlike what others may tell you, Classical Liberalism fused with religious fundamentalism does not a conservative make. The best example of this is that the Federalist believed vox populi to hardly ever be vox Dei, while the Democratic – Republicans disagreed.


Today's Democratic party fails to represent the working class, possibly more than any time in our nations history. They have become elites who look down upon workers as inferior people.


This I will not disagree with.


What we need is a party that recognizes the importance of the democratic process, which actually supports the common citizen against the tyranny of giant institutions.


Well I agree with opposing large corporations as you should by now know my feelings towards them and towards the wealthy capitalists, but I staunchly disagree with your evaluation of the democratic process. But my views are largely academic and will presumably never be implemented without a serious change of beliefs in the West. I am an ardent reactionary in all definitions of the word and do not apologize for it.

edit on 1/15/2012 by Misoir because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


I hear what you are saying.


What is interesting to me is that there are some people in this phony fiat money system who can make money and these parasites want to take from them/penalize them for being successful.


Those people making money from this fiat money system are the ones who control our government to far too greatly. They preach small government, but they will always increase the size of government, because it continues to make them rich.

Hike taxes up the wazoo on the super rich, and make them pay for government, and only then will they work to reduce government.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Good post. Of course their is much more to it and both parties have shady origins and the bosses behind the scenes are the same for both. Which is why it doesn't matter who gets in they continue to advance the same agenda and the only thing that changes is the propaganda to the sheeple to keep them distracted. You have to hand it to them they are masters of deception and have been in power now for nearly two centuries because of it



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   


You have discovered something here most middle class American conservatives have no clue about


Discovered? Please, average American Conservatives have no clue about anything.

I completely disagree however that the roots of our current parties are still influencing their policies today. Cultures change, societies change, and organizations change over time, and while the old establishment figures in both parties may seem to be archaic, the parties overall have little resemblance to the parties of the 19th century.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



Hike taxes up the wazoo on the super rich, and make them pay for government, and only then will they work to reduce government.


From "TEN PLANKS OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO"



Second Plank: A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Sound familiar???

Good guy/Bad guy. This gets to tacky after awhile. Good cop/Bad cop. Very few realize that they are all bad cops..or bad guys.

Bad guys is what is fed to us so that we don't notice the nature of the baddest of them all...the guys who can create monies unlimited.


They will not work to reduce government. When they get rid of what they call rich folks...then they will work on the rest of us. We will be the rich. No brain power needed here to figure this out.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
reply to post by poet1b
 



Hike taxes up the wazoo on the super rich, and make them pay for government, and only then will they work to reduce government.


From "TEN PLANKS OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO"



Second Plank: A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Sound familiar???

Good guy/Bad guy. This gets to tacky after awhile. Good cop/Bad cop. Very few realize that they are all bad cops..or bad guys.

Bad guys is what is fed to us so that we don't notice the nature of the baddest of them all...the guys who can create monies unlimited.


They will not work to reduce government. When they get rid of what they call rich folks...then they will work on the rest of us. We will be the rich. No brain power needed here to figure this out.

Thanks,
Orangetom





THEY are the same rich folks you are defending by proxy, hell of a cognitive situation you have on
your hands...



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Will you hate me if I say I knew a lot of this already and its why I want to be a republican?


Please do not mix socialism with communism.

America, as a nation, was founded in principal to be a socialist republic with high respect for the individual (communism is a social republic without care for the individual). capitalism is not contrary to this. Socialism with individualism essentially is free enterprise.

The Neocons, however, are not these republicans. The neocons are their own breed of big government social conservationism, which in time has become more liberal and thus has essentially become what can be called corporate feudalism.

That's what the neocons are.

Corporate feudal lords.



A large part of me is a socialist. And it's what makes me a republican.
edit on 15-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 

There has always been a "conflict" between the socialist/progressive/establishment wing of the Republican Party and those who stand for the Constitution and the Republic. Doubt me? You can see it in the Republican Primary process. Why did the media love McCain (until he go the nomination) and love Romney now? Their "progressive" mindset is more acceptable than Perry, Paul, or Santorum.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Misoir
 


Will you hate me if I say I knew a lot of this already and its why I want to be a republican?



No, I would not hate you for that. In fact it would make me like you more, even though our politics are 180°s apart. It is funny to me that Libertarians and Constitutionalist Conservatives scream about Socialism yet they both draw their ideological currents from the same source and share overwhelming number of qualities in common. Actually, from my education into political philosophy and history, even the most evangelical of Americans share more in common with Socialists than genuine Conservatives.

Although that can be argued because some have suggested that in America to be Conservative one should necessarily be a Constitutionalist going by how the philosophy of Conservatism functions. I do not necessarily subscribe to this view but find it a good possibility and one worth further inquiry. Nevertheless my view of Left v. Right can be summed up as this: Left believes in egalitarianism and Right believes in hierarchy. My views are on the Right while the overwhelming majority of Westerners find their views on the Left, regardless of their self – professed ideology.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Well that makes me of the left, because I honestly hate hierarchy. Oh there is a chain of command. Beyond that, nope.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I would say true liberalism embraces the market system, and that is not the same as capitalism. Capitalism is a conservative twist on market economies, where those who control the wealth control the economy, and the government as well, if they can. Ownership of property is, and should be, a right enjoyed by everyone, but property ownership should be limited, and not used as a means of control.

Capitalism and communism are both sides of the same coin, and neither are liberal. They associate themselves with liberalism for various reasons, but both ideologies opposed liberal democratic egalitarianism.

While some who claim to be liberals embrace internationalism, more as a way to combat nationalism, most do not. Most liberals recognize that maintaining our freedom means maintaining a strong democracy, and that internationalism quickly leads to tyranny.

Mainstream conservative beliefs aren't that far outside of your beliefs. Mainstream, and IMO, true conservatism, fully believes in wealth and property rights. Mainstream Conservatism doesn't like their property rights being restricted by representative government any more than you do.

We do agree that big business should be smashed. It is an abomination.

AS far as I am concerned, the separation of Church and State is one of the smartest things the Founders of the U.S. established.

The Protestant movement against the Catholic Church was very important in Europe in throwing off the yoke of the Catholic Church, but it hardly demonstrates that religion was key to advancing liberal idealism. The ancient Europeans were democratic before Catholicism ever gained control, wiping out a great deal of ancient knowledge while they were at it. The real key was the invention of the firearm, which could penetrate armor, and completely erased the advantages nobles enjoyed with armor and castles.

Jonathan Locke is probably the most important philosopher of the era, and one of the least known, which is no accident.

www.iep.utm.edu...


Christianity has also been turned into a religion of pacifism from an emphasis on particular texts over other ones; for example, even most fundamentalist Christians begin to squirm when you mention God commanding his subjects to kill entire peoples because it goes against their pacifist values. People now assume they can use their rationalist and secular Christian morality to judge G-d.


Good one, I agree.

While Virginians were a hot bed of liberalism, the colonies further south certainly were not.

History has clearly shown that representative governments with market style economies, are by far the best system going. Countries ruled by wealthy families are not models of good civilization by any standard.

Those who attain a status that would put them in positions of power are no more intelligent than the masses, only more obsessed with power and control, and therefore less capable of being good Shepherds of society.

The less power is concentrated, the better off we all are.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Yes, a good study of the birth of a modern political party. However the Democrats and Republicans reversed roles after the Civil War when the "Conservatives" of the South rose up and threw off the Carpet Bagger government and re-instituted slavery by forcing the Jim Crow laws to become a form of "States Rights Issues" again, throwing the South backwards into the arms of the Landed Gentry and the super wealthy. Instead of slaves they had Free Blacks who had to "stay in their place" for fear of lynching by the KKK, and poor tenant, truck and subsistence farmers, as well as bootleggers who supplied the drug of choice, grain alcohol to all those who wanted to forget their woes in drink. These people now make up the bulk of what is called the Libertarian Party, people who want NO government restrictions on their freedoms of any kind. Like Paul they want to be able to kill Blacks, Liberals, Commies and Abortion doctors at will, drink bootleg whiskey, fly the Confederate Flag, keep the South all White and Protestant, and basically live in a NasCar world.

When the Southern Democrats lost all power they were forced to become moderate-conservatives. Many joined the Republican Party in order to not have the stigma of being ultra-conservative. At some point the two parties swapped places and the Republicans became the moderate conservatives and the Democrats became moderate liberals. The new Liberal Democrats rose up after the Abolitionist movement was over, to embrace the Socialist Movement even more. They were often called "Social Democrats." They rallied to the formation of unions and were against child labor, against Jim Crow and cared about the environment, etc. etc. The Old Republicans have nothing to do with the newer Post Civil War Republicans. And the New Democratic party is not the old ultra-conservative party of old.

Ron Paul the Libertarian, does not "scare" anyone. Again, he is a non-candidate. No matter how far ahead he runs in state elections or straw polls, no one in the Republican party will nominate him. Period. Not because they are scared, but because he simply won't bend or compromise in any direction. He isn't a "player." He is a fool, a racist and completely ignorant follower of Ayn Rand's neo-fascistic cult of Individuality. He is also a neoIlluminati, and will do nothing but divide the already divided camps of the foolish Republicans. Because frankly all present day Republicans are fools, they are corrupt, heartless demagogues, who rule through division and greed. They are power mongers, and Ron Paul does NOT have a power base. If he did they would flock to him. But he wants to get rid of ALL governmental power. This won't do for either the Dems or the Repubes. Libertarianism is nothing more than an outcry from the few people in this world who refuse to be a party to any political party. Somethings in the world simply are not effective at all. Ron Paul is a good example of that.
edit on 15-1-2012 by whisperindave because: Needed to be edited for grammar and spelling.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


timetothink, yes I've been to Tea Party rallies and talked with various Tea Partiers. I happen to know someone who traveled with the Tea Party Express. I am disappointed to see them backing Romney at this point, but I know that their focus is on getting the Marxist out of office. People are still afraid of Ron Paul's foreign policy. As long as Paul supporters keep blaming everything on the US and rationalizing Iranian aggression they will not get the support of Tea Party. I have watched arguments literally between Ron Paul supporters and other Tea Party members.
However there will never be real change unless we can address the globalization going on in both parties.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 





Internationalism is both a Liberal and Socialist view which first emerged during the French Revolution of 1789 with the main phrase of theirs being ‘citizen of the world’


And how well we know POTUS campaigned as "citizen of the World" in Berlin.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Doesn't sound familiar, but now that I have looked it up, sounds like the free market ideology to me.

A few examples:


1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.


Corporate control of all property of any value


5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.


Deregulation of the banking and investment industry, so that everyone is always in debt to the bankers, starting with college loans just to get a job, all the way through.


6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State.


Or in the hands of the corporate entity, which is what RP wants to do.

Our current graduated tax system, puts the burden primarily on the middle class, which subsidizes the super rich.

edit on 15-1-2012 by poet1b because: typo



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by whisperindave
 


ummmmm no

second line no again



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Cmon you know that abolition of private property is and has always been the primary goal of communism. Don't blame it on Capitalism.

Where do some of you get your peculiar ideas.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   


but property ownership should be limited, and not used as a means of control.
reply to post by poet1b
 


More Statist balogna. I must go back to Reagan's statement that a communist is someone who reads Marx and Lenin and an anti communist is someone who understands Marx and Lenin.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


By ignoring what they say, and watching what they do.

Property rights have essentially been eliminated for most people.

Most people don't own their homes, their cars, and therefore do not own their property. The banks own it all.

This is a result of free market economics that has forced everyone into cradle to grave debt.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I cannot believe you are trying to convince everyone here it is really the conservatives who are the socialists and the progressives really the classical liberals. No no and no. As much as I appreciate your history lesson, I see an attempt to somehow justify the progressive nature of the Democrats while blaming the conservatives for all the socialist chaos that the Democrat party has wreaked on our society. I am sorry I must object to this treatment of things.
It doesnt't change the Progressive ( Democrat ) origin of eugenics.


Eugenics, the attempt to improve the human species socially through better breeding was a widespread and popular movement in the United States and Europe between 1910 and 1940. Eugenics was an attempt to use science (the newly discovered Mendelian laws of heredity) to solve social problems (crime, alcoholism, prostitution, rebelliousness), using trained experts. Eugenics gained much support from progressive reform thinkers, who sought to plan social development using expert knowledge in both the social and natural sciences. In eugenics, progressive reformers saw the opportunity to attack social problems efficiently by treating the cause (bad heredity) rather than the effect. Much of the impetus for social and economic reform came from class conflict in the period 1880-1930,

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
edit on 15-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
87
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join