|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Aug 8, 2010 19:18:47 GMT -8
Yoda speaks the truth.... I like him, but I think he chases an ideal that can not be realized in the present. The United States will have to drastically change if it were to shift to Goldwater style conservatism. Why? Most Americans are not smart enough in the first place. It takes some degree of intelligence to be able to focus in on the ideals on conservatives like Barry Goldwater AU H20 64! I was in high school in 64, and my relatives who were for the most part conservative were afraid of Barry. My Uncle Jack, a man I deeply admired used to respond when he heard the Goldwater commercial that went, "In your heart, you know he is right." The response was, "But in your mind, you know he is wrong." Barry was not fully appreciated in the conservative ranks. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 8, 2010 20:38:26 GMT -8
I understand that Goldwater supported both abortion rights and gay rights. Are there any current GOP stars that support rights and abortion? I can't think of any. I guess the question is, would the current GOP accept Goldwater. I don't know what Goldwater thought about "abortion rights", but I think it's a good idea that should be encouraged. Especially among liberals. As for the " gay homosexual rights" issue, as I recall, he supported allowing them to be able to serve in the military. I don't recall him expressing an opinion on "marriage", though. I know, you didn't specifically say that, you just seem to be trying to create some kind of penumbra under which you can say, "see, see! good conservatives are like this, they can be rolled by the liberals . Did he support homosexual marriage? Maybe he did....Got a cite? If he did, he would be to the left of Obama and Clinton, both of whom are on record of opposing it. I imagine Goldwater would have been faithful to the Constitution, and would not have believed that when the 14th amendment was ratified by the states in 1868, that all those legislatures understood and intended that the equal protection clause extended to approving of homosexual marriage getting the imprimatur of the state. Of course we have at least one queer judge who disagrees with the public. It really is easy to know what Goldwater thought about abortion. Put "Goldwater and abortion rights" into your search engine and learn. I never said that gay rights was only the right to marry. Got a cite for that? You are correct about his support for homosexuals in the military. What is the current position of the GOP? That is a rhetorical question. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Aug 8, 2010 20:41:48 GMT -8
I like him, but I think he chases an ideal that can not be realized in the present. The United States will have to drastically change if it were to shift to Goldwater style conservatism. Why? Most Americans are not smart enough in the first place. It takes some degree of intelligence to be able to focus in on the ideals on conservatives like Barry Goldwater AU H20 64! I was in high school in 64, and my relatives who were for the most part conservative were afraid of Barry. My Uncle Jack, a man I deeply admired used to respond when he heard the Goldwater commercial that went, "In your heart, you know he is right." The response was, "But in your mind, you know he is wrong." Barry was not fully appreciated in the conservative ranks. I had a great deal of respect for Goldwater but I'm not really a Goldwater disciple. There are areas where I suspect we would strongly agree -- but others where we would disagree. Mostly, I'd like to have the conversation with him. I usually quote Goldwater to show how far from "conservative" today's so-called "conservatives" have moved -- in fact, before he died, Goldwater said to the right wing, "Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have."(Damn. There's that "extremist" word again -- applied to the right and by no less than Mr. Conservative himself.) I don't think that understanding Goldwater requires a higher level of intelligence than does understanding any other political view. But what all views -- critically considered views (as opposed to regurgitated dogma) do require is a level of participation that doesn't widely exist. We are a nation where ten times the viewers watch Homer Simpson, Glen Beck or other cartoon characters as watch Meet the Press -- and other serious news analysis shows. In my view, Glen Beck could not exist without Homer Simpson because watching Homer Simpson instead of legitimate news analysis like Meet the Press makes people gullible and leaves them ripe for manipulation. In another thread on another board I said the following: "I wasn't kidding when I said, 'In my estimation, the Faux News crowd -- and I use the term broadly -- engages in a sort of soft core treason. They have done more to tear down the institutions of this country than have all the Communists in history put together. But hey, good capitalists that they are, at least they did it for the money.' "I think that generally, those on the far left and the far right both are good people who are easily manipulated because they never learned to think critically and so are forced to adopt the dogma of others." In other words, if people learned to think and evaluate critically, I don't think that extreme positions could even exist. That said, expecting America to turn off the Simipsons and to turn on Meet the Press very much "chases an ideal that can not be realized in the present". Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 9, 2010 12:49:52 GMT -8
When you see most polls say that a generic Republican wins just about any race against Obama, don't you think that the folks we are talking about are pretty close to generic? The Republicans could run a head of cabbage on top the ticket with Palin for VP and beat Obama/Biden if the election was today.  That may be today, but the election is a long way off. If you read that full Gallup article, Obama has a higher approval rating than either Reagan or Clinton had at the same point in their first terms -- and they both won re-election. (Reagan by 18.2% of the popular vote and Clinton by 8.5%). So I think it's a little premature for your heads of cabbage to declare victory. I don't think that an extreme candidate from either party can win the Presidency. And even a moderate faces some huge obstacles when running against an incumbent. Economies tend to improve, wars tend to be more successful, budgets tend to come under a little better control, during an election year. So it comes down to who is the nominee and who does a better job of defining the other guy. As it always does, I suppose. Yoda out... "Heads of cabbage"! You are more clever than I thought! Love it! |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 9, 2010 13:34:45 GMT -8
Yeah. I get it. Anyone who disagrees with you is an extremist. That's been your favorite pejorative. Until now. Now, anyone who crosses you is a terrorist. You really are so f****** pathetic. I didn't say that you were a terrorist. I was just noting that you share a common belief with the terrorists -- to wit: that it is perfectly acceptable for the people of this country to suffer economically so long as it advances your dogma. Maybe that's what you call patriotism, but I sure as hell don't call it that. And as for the term extremist, you may not like it but I'm hard pressed to think of anything that provides a more accurate description of your beliefs. ~ You think it is perfectly acceptable for the people of this country to suffer economically so long as it advances your dogma. ~ You think moderate Republicans are those that get rolled by liberals -- so I guess anyone that isn't a true believer in the dogma is weak. ~ I believe that you described a moderately left leaning Democratic President as a Mussolini wannabe. ~ You think liberals should be required to have abortions. Believe it so strongly that you had to say it twice... Sorry, but that isn't conservatism; that's extremism. There is no other word for it. And do read the Goldwater quote downthread... The real problem tho is that you are so filled with anger that you are unable to discuss issues rationally and to reach compromises that serve the common good. It's all about the dogma; you have no interest in compromising. You're an absolutist -- unable to see the gray; only the black and white. My way or the highway. With the obvious exception of the cultural difference that allows violence there but not here, how is that different from the terrorists? Seriously, how is that different? Yoda out... Let's deal with your observation that the President is "moderately left-leaning" for now, and calling him a Mussolini wannabe is extremist. Obama has been doing much of what Il Duce did early in the 20th Century, basically having government take control of private enterprise, even to the extent of having unelected "czars" dictating salaries, and pressuring private companies to drastically reduce dividends to investors. For example, I own stock in a certain financial institution that needed no TARP funds at all, none, but was forced to accept a sum of some $6 Billion in TARP. Yes, Bush and Paulson were just as culpable as the current crowd. The institution didn't need the bailout at all; they didn't spend a penny of it; they sat on it until the current authoritarian regime gave them permission to pay it back. Yet, the dividend payable to investors like me was reduced by 90% because the regime thought it was too much, and would be viewed as "unfair" when compared to those institutions that did need bailout money. This is Fascistic, like Mussolini. And Fascism is really a form of socialism. And if I am "extremist" for calling your "left-leaning" hero that, then it appears I am in the majority. And you are not. www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/230874/55-percent-likely-voters-find-socialist-accurate-label-obama |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 9, 2010 13:45:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 9, 2010 14:01:31 GMT -8
Now I'd like to address the assertion that got me into this discussion.
It was postulated that independents/moderates will be flocking into the open arms of Democrats because of their "panic" over the views of a private citizen (Palin) and an obscure House back-bencher (Bachman).
This is preposterous.
I provided a link to a poll on Obama taken among those "independent/moderates". Yeah, polls are polls, and eighty some days out from an election is not determinative. But right now, Mr. Obama is viewed as toxic to Democratic candidates. By Democratic candidates.
The Republican Governor of Texas will respectfully greet him at the airport in Austin, and the Democratic candidate for Governor can't get far enough away from him.
Like it or not, Obama is the face of the Democratic Party right now, and the Democrat candidates don't want to be seen with him.
I don't make predictions, but if independents flock to the Democrats because of hatred of Palin and Bachman, I'll be very surprised.
What won't surprise me is that the Democrats will try to make those two an issue. It's what they do. They have to.
They can't run on their record.
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 9, 2010 14:05:29 GMT -8
Yeah. This part sure fits with this bunch: ...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.... |
|
