User Tag List

First 848565758596068 Last

Results 571 to 580 of 798

  1. #571
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Great way to miss the point. Have a nice day.
    Have a nice day? lol..Conversation over already? I said "maybe there's some philosophical background I'm failing to recognize here.."

    That's called an invitation for you to clue me in. Exactly what do you expect someone to "see" when you mention Mussolini?

  2. #572
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    I've already provided the basic philosophical background here, namely there are conservatives or elements on the "Right" that are opposed to laisse-faire. Mussolini is often classified as being on the "Right", yet his economic policies were vastly different than that of say Reagen or Thatcher. If that's the case, then how can one argue supporting laisse-faire is the common denominator for the Right? That's the point. You decide to respond by presuming I'm arguing in favor of Mussolini(I'm not), as well as trying to bring Pius XII into this; all of which does nothing to address the basic point that there are elements of the "Right" with economic views different than laisse-faire. Which furthermore is a derailment from the discussion about the potential future role of social conservatism in the GOP.

    The closest I came to endorsing any view in this discussion is relating the article I linked to with "One-Nation conservatism" which is built on the premise that the rich and powerful have social obligations to help the poor and care for the common good, and certain regulations of the economy are needed to help avoid gross inequality. So no, Mussolini is not the only alternative to laisse-faire(where you got that argument I have no idea).

    So yeah, if this is your chosen modus operandi in this discussion; and yes I'm done with you.
    Last edited by Sniffles; 03-06-2013 at 06:14 PM. Reason: cleared up a few typos

  3. #573
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    I've already provided the basic philosophical background here, namely there are conservatives or elements on the "Right" that are opposed to laisse-faire. Mussolini is often classified as being on the "Right", yet his economic policies were vastly different than that of say Reagen or Thatcher. If that's the case, then how can one argue supporting laisse-faire is the common denominator for the Right? That's the point. You decide to respond by presuming I'm arguing in favor of Mussolini(I'm not), as well as trying to bring Pius XII into this; all of which does nothing to address the basic point that there are elements of the "Right" with economic views different than laisse-faire. Which furthermore is a derailment from the discussion about the potential future role of social conservatism in the GOP.
    I didn't say you were arguing in favor of Mussolini. I'm just confused why you'd even think he'd classify as some kind of productive counter-example. Laissez Faire is the crazy uncle at the dinner table making everyone uncomfortable, and you're dragging out the even worse uncle who was tied in the basement, as a way to distract from the first uncle.

    And now you want to blame it on me. Waaah.

  4. #574
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    I didn't say you were arguing in favor of Mussolini. I'm just confused why you'd even think he'd classify as some kind of productive counter-example. Laissez Faire is the crazy uncle at the dinner table making everyone uncomfortable, and you're dragging out the even worse uncle who was tied in the basement, as a way to distract from the first uncle.

    And now you want to blame it on me. Waaah.
    The reference to Mussolini(which was made by Storck,not me) was part of a larger piece demonstrating how pointless the labels "Left" and "Right" are, which was part of my answer to your classification of Distributists as being of the "Left", despite the fact(as I explained) Distributists reject those labels altogether.

    So what is there to say but there you go again.

  5. #575
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    The reference to Mussolini(which was made by Storck,not me) was part of a larger piece demonstrating how pointless the labels "Left" and "Right" are, which was part of my answer to your classification of Distributists as being of the "Left", despite the fact(as I explained) Distributists reject those labels altogether.

    So what is there to say but there you go again.
    The problem with using Mussolini (or any fascists) is still a matter of lopsided class distinctions. In their case, it's nationalistic privilege or superiority, while anyone else falls by the wayside (or much worse). Sure, the native citizens benefit from improvements (happened in Germany too), but no one else does. Any social conservatives tied with these movements end up demonizing the same people as the governments as well. The line becomes blurred between nationalism and morality. Rather, nationalism is the morality.

  6. #576
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Hey @DiscoBiscuit, thought this would interest you and be relevant to this thread, from the Wall Street Journal:

    Republicans and Their Faulty Moral Arithmetic.

    IMO, this would help demonstrate a potential role social conservatism could play in the GOP's platform; for example how the promotion of strong families and communities can be an alternative way of helping the poor than what the Democrats propose in that field. Strong families and communities tend to look after one another, under the teaching of "love thy neighbor"(to use a religious foundation here).
    You don't resent having to ask whether it is okay for the view of your subset of republicanism to be expressed? It seems like the "moral wing" of the party is relegated to a position of prostration to that of the "economists." Not trying to start a "shitfest" but I'm curious because it seems both parties can see which elements of THE OTHER party are being used and why, but not themselves and this fascinates me.
    For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

  7. #577
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    Not trying to start a "shitfest"

  8. #578
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    Yes, I know you believe I am only a trouble maker or whatever. I don't really see the Republican party as that consequential though in the grand scheme of things. I mean it is and I am being generous here a belief system that only applies to about 2%-3% of humanity after all. So it is interesting to me more as a social phenomenon.
    For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

  9. #579
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Well now I've heard everything. Goodnight everybody!

  10. #580
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    It seems like the "moral wing" of the party is relegated to a position of prostration to that of the "economists." Not trying to start a "shitfest" but I'm curious because it seems both parties can see which elements of THE OTHER party are being used and why, but not themselves and this fascinates me.
    I don't find it fascinating. It's kind of disturbing.. and few things disturb me. A good example is the current mess in Alaska, with the Pebble mining project (a dispute over copper rich land which also contains salmon hatcheries). Some conservatives have been so warped by industrialist talking points in their own party that anyone who wants to protect the habitat is mocked as a "liberal tree hugger" or they fall back on the usual talking point of "government regulation is bad". They haven't claimed the environmental message for themselves - which is the actual responsible and conservative message. They end up preaching a Capitalist message. The message of quick profits that will only aid a few dynastic families in the long run, and destroy a habitat and fishing economy that renews itself year after year for millions of years. That's gold for everyone traded for gold for a few. It's a Faustian deal. And a deal right wing moralists have blinded themselves to.

    Sarah Palin is one of these staunch moralists and a native of Alaska, but also for drilling those mines. On general environmental issues, the message is similar. Or downright kooky. "Climate change is Satan's attempt to redirect the church's primary focus from evangelism to environmentalism". - Jerry Falwell. "God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours." - Ann Coulter

    As far as I'm concerned, changing this stance is a hundred times more important than trying to bridge gaps with "gay marriage". But it's a stance that would fly in the face of Capitalist pressures in the party. Gay marriage doesn't.

Similar Threads

  1. Former Republican staffer's extremely scathing critique of the Republican party.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-23-2011, 07:29 PM
  2. The Future of Microprocessors
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-15-2011, 04:23 AM
  3. Unity within the upper echelons of the Republican Party begins to crack.
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-26-2009, 12:18 PM
  4. The Death of the Republican Party, Stardate Unknown
    By Wind Up Rex in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-08-2009, 01:58 PM
  5. Your Predictions About the Future of Psychotherapy
    By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 07:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO