Democratic Congresswoman almost killed in Arizona

[bush_cheney2004]

Nice misunderstanding about what liberals want.....we want equal opportunity for all people...

Except for those who are not yet born.

[Shady]

Nice misunderstanding about what liberals want.....we want equal opportunity for all people...education, health and basic needs...equalizing opportunity does not mean equalizing wealth.

Nope. Liberals are all about equal outcomes, not equal opportunities. That's the biggest problem with them.

[Guest American Woman]

Nope. Liberals are all about equal outcomes, not equal opportunities. That's the biggest problem with them.

It's always a pleasure to have someone else tell us what we're all about.

[Shady]

It's always a pleasure to have someone else tell us what we're all about.

It's what income redistribution is all about. So-called correcting and/or equalling outcomes, not opportunities.

Although to be fair, it isn't all Liberals. It's the far leftwing of their base.

Edited January 21, 2011 by Shady

[pinko]

Shady from London, Ontario sure has neocon talking points down pat.

[Shady]

The truth can be a talking point.

[pinko]

The truth can be a talking point.

It can and you certainly don't have a corner on the truth.

[Shady]

It can and you certainly don't have a corner on the truth.

I've never said I've had a monopoly on anything. But your post sorta sounds like a talking point.

[pinko]

I've never said I've had a monopoly on anything. But your post sorta sounds like a talking point.

My post is to let you know you are fooling no one with your neocon philosophy. Now put your eyes back in your head and try to say something intelligent.

[Shady]

My post is to let you know you are fooling no one with your neocon philosophy.

I'm not exactly sure what that is.

Now put your eyes back in your head and try to say something intelligent.

Once again, another great talking point.

[Bitsy]

Except for those who are not yet born.

Huh?

[dre]

Nope. Liberals are all about equal outcomes, not equal opportunities. That's the biggest problem with them.

Thats just a flat out lie. Liberals in general have absolutely no interest in equal outcomes. Especially the ones living in the US or Canada.

[dre]

As for the silly suggestion that "neo-cons are liberals", Iv heard that before. But if you spend even an hour or two looking at the history of the neo-con movement its plain to see how bogus that is.

The fundamental belief that neo-conservatism is based on is the believe that modern liberalism will destroy western countries, and specifically the United States, in the same way they believe the Weimer Republic brought about the destruction of germany under the Nazis. The people that turned this philosophy into an actual political movement were the Straussians... a bunch of people educated at the University of Chicago, by Leo Strauss, a german political philosopher. They include Allan Bloom, Victor Gourevitch, Werner Dannhauser, Seth Benardete, Stanley Rosen, Harry V. Jaffa, Paul Wolfowitz, Hadley Arkes, Abram Shulsky, Murray Dry, Thomas Pangle, William Galston, Harvey C. Mansfield, William Kristol.

You'll recognize a few of those names.

Straussians political philosophy is based on the belief that liberalism was destroying America from within, and the means to stop it was to galvanize the country around fighting a great and formidable enemy. More importantly it was based on Platos myth of the cave, and the straussians never really cared if the enemy was actually real or not, or whether the threat was exagerated or not.

The most important thing to realize is how the straussians view politics and the heavy influence of Plato and concepts like the myth of the cave, and philosopher king. The idea basically being that only the founders of the neo-conservative movement actually know whats its about, and the followers believe something different.

THAT is why a lot of people incorrectly thing that neo-conservatisms goal is military imperialism. It most definately isnt. The only interest that straussians have in foreign policy is the effect it has on domestic affairs. Their "foreign policy" is wholly and completely a tool to roll back the clock on western liberalism, and stop it.

Edited January 22, 2011 by dre

[Pliny]

Anyone very familar with our politics would surely know that neo-cons are not or were never liberals.

You should familiarize yourself with your politics then.

The forerunners of neoconservatism were most often socialists or sometimes liberals who strongly supported the Allied cause in World War II, and who were influenced by the Great Depression-era ideas of the New Deal, trade unionism, and Trotskyism, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman.

Neoconservatism

[Pliny]

Nice misunderstanding about what liberals want.....we want equal opportunity for all people...education, health and basic needs...equalizing opportunity does not mean equalizing wealth.

Well, since the government cannot and does not produce wealth, it must take it from somewhere in order to provide this "social justice" that is somehow equalizing opportunity. It must take it from where it can get it and spend it on what it considers or deems gets the best votes..er... is the most needy.

The focus has to be on the economics of it. And it seems Liberals like to play the rich against the poor.

What is the job of society? Create a single payer for every need? It certainly can't afford everyone's wants.

I think what liberals want is to offload social responsibilities to an agency where they can then feel self-righteous about themselves when they pay their taxes without having to actually do anything more or mingle with the common masses.

Perhaps further donating to some favoured charity will quell any feelings of inadequacy if taxes do not appear to be sufficiently making one feel good about himself.

[Pliny]

As for the silly suggestion that "neo-cons are liberals", Iv heard that before. But if you spend even an hour or two looking at the history of the neo-con movement its plain to see how bogus that is.

Please read the wikipedia description I posted earlier.

Straussians political philosophy is based on the belief that liberalism was destroying America from within, and the means to stop it was to galvanize the country around fighting a great and formidable enemy. More importantly it was based on Platos myth of the cave, and the straussians never really cared if the enemy was actually real or not, or whether the threat was exagerated or not.

The most important thing to realize is how the straussians view politics and the heavy influence of Plato and concepts like the myth of the cave, and philosopher king. The idea basically being that only the founders of the neo-conservative movement actually know whats its about, and the followers believe something different.

THAT is why a lot of people incorrectly thing that neo-conservatisms goal is military imperialism. It most definately isnt. The only interest that straussians have in foreign policy is the effect it has on domestic affairs. Their "foreign policy" is wholly and completely a tool to roll back the clock on western liberalism, and stop it.

The reaons they exist is not because they believed that "liberalism" was destroying America. It was because they did not like the plodding rate of progressivism and wished to speed it up. They were all proponents of "social justice" and equality.

The other things are correct, except for it was William's father Irving Kristol that attended Strauss's lectures.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Pliny

[Bonam]

The common thread of your concern then does not seem to be political but economic. In other words you have already determined the political model you prefer in handling economic equity - basically, the Marxist concept of "from those according to their ability and to those according to their need". This would require, on a voluntary basis, a very high moral standard in a society, on a govenrmental policy basis it would require enforcement.

This is a common thing I see said about communism, but that is utterly wrong. What you are saying here that a communist system would essentially work, if only human beings were moral enough. That the real failing is not with the system, but with the sinful and immoral nature of man.

That could not be more wrong. Human beings ARE moral. Man's morality is determined by man's nature: man is a rational being and must use his capabilities to work towards his own survival and happiness. A system (such as communism) that declares this inborn morality flawed and attempts to reprogram humans with another standard of morality is doomed to failure, but, more importantly, is inherently immoral. A moral system is one that embraces human nature and harnesses it to benefit civilization.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Bonam

[Pliny]

This is a common thing I see said about communism, but that is utterly wrong. What you are saying here that a communist system would essentially work, if only human beings were moral enough. That the real failing is not with the system, but with the sinful and immoral nature of man.

That could not be more wrong. Human beings ARE moral. Man's morality is determined by man's nature: man is a rational being and must use his capabilities to work towards his own survival and happiness. A system (such as communism) that declares this inborn morality flawed and attempts to reprogram humans with another standard of morality is doomed to failure, but, more importantly, is inherently immoral. A moral system is one that embraces human nature and harnesses it to benefit civilization.

The nature of man is of course moral. He is also cabable of sin and immorality.

Communism is a revolutionary, murderous and brutal means to install a totalitarian state. How could communism ever work? Socialism, an end of communism, a totalitarian state that nullifies the individual and operates on the basis of the common good. How does that make a man moral? They corrupt the individual but if the individual could not be corrupted and remained moral he could make it work. The fact is though that they are born out of corrupting and minimizing the individual. How could a man remain moral under those circumstances? On a voluntary basis all individuals would have to agree on the system of socialism and it would work but economically it makes no sense so would never be broadly agreed upon.

How do we ensure man remains moral? By not subduing him or threatening him and allowing him security in his liberty and property. Not to say that there are a few who harbour ill will for reasons of whatever personal demons haunt them - jealousy, lust, power. The fact is we can all be tempted by these things the true test of a moral person is to not succumb to them. it is those few who do fail in that endeavour that create a problem for society.

Economics has a nature as well. It does no good to print paper tokens and say one has created wealth. Economics is the reason that Socialism and communism always fails despite their professed thirst for social justice and equality. Ignoring the natural rules of economics as they relate to human behavior will bear a flimsy structure with a short life span due to the degradation of morality it brings. You only need a few at the top to promote and encourage immorality and unless the argument upon what exactly it is, is settled a susceptibility to immorality will prevail.

Morality has to do more with learned social maxims that further society. Sometimes, over time, the reason for these moral laws are lost and some say they are old and inapplicable today and some may validly be inapplicable.

Perhaps I should be talking about ethics as they are more applicable to the individual and his estimation of right and wrong.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Pliny

[dre]

Please read the wikipedia description I posted earlier.

The reaons they exist is not because they believed that "liberalism" was destroying America. It was because they did not like the plodding rate of progressivism and wished to speed it up. They were all proponents of "social justice" and equality.

The other things are correct, except for it was William's father Irving Kristol that attended Strauss's lectures.

The reaons they exist is not because they believed that "liberalism" was destroying America. It was because they did not like the plodding rate of progressivism and wished to speed it up. They were all proponents of "social justice" and equality.

Thats exactly WRONG. Completely backwards actually.

Its very much about opposing and stopping liberalism in its tracks and REVERSING progress if possible. Again this is based in part on the belief that the Wiemer Republic lead to the rise of the Nazis, and that modern liberalism was turning the US into a nation of depravity devoid of values. He thought liberalism would lead to nihilism.

His wiki describes this quite accurately if you dont have time to read any of his stuff.

Strauss taught that liberalism in its modern form contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards extreme relativism, which in turn led to two types of nihilism[12] The first was a brutal nihilism, expressed in Nazi and Marxist regimes. In On Tyranny, he wrote that these ideologies, both descendants of Enlightenment thought, tried to destroy all traditions, history, ethics, and moral standards and replace them by force under which nature and mankind are subjugated and conquered.[13] The second type the "gentle" nihilism expressed in Western liberal democracies was a kind of value-free aimlessness and a hedonistic "permissive egalitarianism", which he saw as permeating the fabric of contemporary American society.[14][15] In the belief that 20th century relativism, scientism, historicism, and nihilism were all implicated in the deterioration of modern society and philosophy, Strauss sought to uncover the philosophical pathways that had led to this situation. The resultant study led him to advocate a tentative return to classical political philosophy as a starting point for judging political action.[16]

The straussians are not about "social justice" at all in fact they despise egalitarianism and basically think that people are bunch of dumb sheep, too stupid to think for themselves, and too stupid to know the truth (that goes back to Plato).

Edited January 22, 2011 by dre

[dre]

This is a common thing I see said about communism, but that is utterly wrong. What you are saying here that a communist system would essentially work, if only human beings were moral enough. That the real failing is not with the system, but with the sinful and immoral nature of man.

That could not be more wrong. Human beings ARE moral. Man's morality is determined by man's nature: man is a rational being and must use his capabilities to work towards his own survival and happiness. A system (such as communism) that declares this inborn morality flawed and attempts to reprogram humans with another standard of morality is doomed to failure, but, more importantly, is inherently immoral. A moral system is one that embraces human nature and harnesses it to benefit civilization.

What you are saying here that a communist system would essentially work, if only human beings were moral enough.

Communism would work if all the people were communists Iv been to communities that were basically structured this way, and it works fine, but only for people that like it and want to stay.

[Shady]

Thats just a flat out lie. Liberals in general have absolutely no interest in equal outcomes.

Wrong. Their ideal of so-called social justice completely depends on equal outcomes.

[Pliny]

Thats exactly WRONG. Completely backwards actually.

Its very much about opposing and stopping liberalism in its tracks and REVERSING progress if possible. Again this is based in part on the belief that the Wiemer Republic lead to the rise of the Nazis, and that modern liberalism was turning the US into a nation of depravity devoid of values. He thought liberalism would lead to nihilism.

His wiki describes this quite accurately if you dont have time to read any of his stuff.

The straussians are not about "social justice" at all in fact they despise egalitarianism and basically think that people are bunch of dumb sheep, too stupid to think for themselves, and too stupid to know the truth (that goes back to Plato).

The point is they were leftists. The movement originated on the left. Your cut and paste citing does not refute anything I have said and I fail to see how it backs your point of view that they weren't about social justice - maybe not for them, being memebers of the elite, but they were the bright light that would ensure social justice for the masses.

Of course you believe taxes are necessary to quell the herd with entitlements so they do not revolt against the rich. In reality they only revolt if there is no hope of achievement or improvement in their lives and their individual efforts to do so are nullified.

[BubberMiley]

The point is they were leftists. The movement originated on the left.

Until the right-wingers in the movement killed al the leftists.

Sometimes reality gets in the way of ideology though, so I can understand why you would want to forget that.

[Jack Weber]

It's what income redistribution is all about. So-called correcting and/or equalling outcomes, not opportunities.

Although to be fair, it isn't all Liberals. It's the far leftwing of their base.

And your free market/neoliberal economic ethos is also "income redistribution"...

Just a different form...

Edited January 22, 2011 by Jack Weber

[Jack Weber]

Until the right-wingers in the movement killed al the leftists.

Sometimes reality gets in the way of ideology though, so I can understand why you would want to forget that.

Is Pliny trying to tell us again that all Totalitarian/Authoritarian movements come from the Left again??

That the Fascism of Adolph Hitler,Benito Mussolini,Francisco Franco,Oliviera Salazar,General Augusto Pinochet were constructs of the political left?

Is he trying this silliness again?

Some people just can't admit they have a few nutbar extremists in their historical political closet I guess?

Edited January 22, 2011 by Jack Weber