The U.S. is in a road which can ONLY end in eventual despotism...... - Page 4

Saint Marcus · May 21, 2003, 06:43

Quote:

The Democrats seem increasingly to be far left liberals, way out of step with the average American.

:

:

only in America...

The Democrats in the US are as far left as Pim Fortuyn was.

Face it, besides the Greens and perhaps some other insignificant parties...you don't have left wing parties. None. Let alone "far left". You have right (democrats) and far right (republicans).

oedo · May 21, 2003, 07:37

I still don´t understand it. you believe Michael Moore is a liar because he is (said to be) a socialist and he is fat?

is this what you call substantial arguing?

oh, and I haven´t the slightest idea, who Rush Limbaugh is or who he was. I read this name several times here already, maybe someone can explain, who this infamous person was.

Al B. Sure! · May 21, 2003, 07:37

Marcus:

America was colonized by Puritans and gained its independence following a major protestant religious revival in the 1750's and 60's. Also, from the second half the 1800's until the first half of this century is generally considered by historians to be another religious revival and the emergence of Mormons, Pentacostalists, a born-again Christian movement, etc. Since the 80's with the Christian Coalition, some think the American tendency to have religious revivals constantly is being repeated.

The thing is that the groups that are 'leftists' in America (aside from wealthy liberals) are union members who consistently are very religious and conservative on everything that don't involve their wages hence union members voted in huge numbers for Reagan and probably had a fairly good showing for Republicans in the past few years.

thanks

VJ · May 21, 2003, 07:45

Quote:

I'm watched as you emotionally lost it.
Have you considered a counselor of some kind ?

I agree with Slow, you've been 'losing it' during the last few weeks.

Cyclotron · May 21, 2003, 12:57

Quote:

Originally posted by oedo
I still don´t understand it. you believe Michael Moore is a liar because he is (said to be) a socialist and he is fat?

No, Michael Moore is not what I would call a liar, but he is a slavering, ideologically-driven nutcase who is so concerned with what he wants to be true that he has lost all perspective and ability to objectively analyze. Thus, Michael Moore's opinion on politics is at best comic relief.

On the plus side, he is funny, like when he ran that Ficus tree for US Congress. I couldn't stop laughing for the rest of the day after seeing that one.

Quote:

oh, and I haven´t the slightest idea, who Rush Limbaugh is or who he was. I read this name several times here already, maybe someone can explain, who this infamous person was.

Rush is like Michael, except where Michael is far left, Rush is far right. They are both excellent examples of how dogmatic ideology-worshipping can cause you to lose touch with reality.

Cyclotron · May 21, 2003, 13:39

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
No, the real problem is the increasing nationalism and militarism, coupled with an ever more authoritarion view of government, while corruption and cronyism runs rampant. As Sandman said, you can have a semi-authoritarian regime while formally keeping the constitution in place, and that's the way it is heading.

Nationalism: perhaps, but we've always been that way. The flag-waving after 9/11 that still continues is just a revival, not a real change. Please see the cold war for further reference.

Militarism: So far, I believe Clinton has been part of more military actions than Bush. A single war is hardly proof of militarist sentiment.

Authoritarian: Don't make me laugh.

Corruption: Most of the corruption scandals I hear about are from the Europeans... we don't have it that bad, and the problem of corruption is hardly endemic to America. Please remove your blinders.

Inverse Icarus · May 21, 2003, 14:14

if we're on a road that only leads to despotism, why bother b1tching? after all, we're already on the road.

Al B. Sure! · May 21, 2003, 14:24

frankly, i dont give a damn... despotism is over-rated... Rome went from a republic to an empire and reached the height of its glory and a height in world peace...

hell, make Bush emperor now! why we got to wait til the end of the road?!

but for real though... whats with the use of the word despot? as some people here have said, there could be in the future a wildly popular man who assumes a dictator-like level of power... but his power would come directly from the masses... a despot by definition is one who reached his position my military control or birth, not through his popularity with the people.

Ned · May 21, 2003, 14:25

Quote:

Originally posted by MRT144

compassionate conservatism is also an out and out lie. theres nothing compasionate about being convservative.

Ah! The fox cried to the chickens, "Don't trust the good shepard."

MRT144, the problem with you far left liberals is that you either are the most mendacious liars in history or you actually believe your own propaganda.

Ned · May 21, 2003, 15:05

It is strange that big-government liberals and European socialists who want the government to own and control everything are concerned that the US is heading towards despotism when it elects a Republican who is trying to cut taxes not only to restart the economy, but to reduce the power of the Federal Government.

Al B. Sure! · May 21, 2003, 15:33

Ned:

nah it is generally true that Republicans try to shrink bureaucracies but they do increase the size of the military... i think big gov't liberals are disturbed that the military is growing causing some supposedly dictator-like problems... it could make sense. a huge bureaucracy does not directly destroy people's rights in the same way a huge army could potentially do.

thanks

Sandman · May 21, 2003, 15:36

Since there's no clear line where big business ends and government begins in America, cutting taxes to big business will have no effect on the size of the real government.

Nubclear · May 21, 2003, 15:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
It is strange that big-government liberals and European socialists who want the government to own and control everything are concerned that the US is heading towards despotism when it elects a Republican who is trying to cut taxes not only to restart the economy, but to reduce the power of the Federal Government.

Try searching up TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS, a new program introduced by the Department of Homeland Secuirty.

OH! Speaking of which......The Department of Homeland Secuirty actually made the government BIGGER (and consequently, less efficent)!!!!

Quote:

MRT144, the problem with you far left liberals is that you either are the most medacious liars in history or you actually believe your own propaganda.

An ad hominem which has no supporting statements or argumentive evidence.

How typical of you, Ned

Sava · May 21, 2003, 15:40

Ned...

Ned · May 21, 2003, 15:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

Try searching up TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS, a new program introduced by the Department of Homeland Secuirty.

OH! Speaking of which......The Department of Homeland Secuirty actually made the government BIGGER (and consequently, less efficent)!!!!

An ad hominem which has no supporting statements or argumentive evidence.

How typical of you, Ned

Tass, Last point first. I was responding to a bald statement from MRT that Bush was lying about compassionate conservatism. He did not support his statement. I did not support mine - for the same reason.

On the second point, how consolidating disparate, uncoordinated government agencies under one department so that they can better coordinate makes the US government inefficient is hard to understand. I need some concrete examples or anecdotes. Do you have any.

Ned · May 21, 2003, 15:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman
Since there's no clear line where big business ends and government begins in America, cutting taxes to big business will have no effect on the size of the real government.

Spoken like a lunatic fringe leftist.

Chris 62 · May 21, 2003, 15:50

Wait a few turns, and you can pick a different form of gov.

oedo · May 21, 2003, 15:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris 62
Wait a few turns, and you can pick a different form of gov.

yep, for further details just pm me.

I wonder how this thread would look like in the civ2 strategy section.

Ned · May 21, 2003, 15:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Saint Marcus

:

:

only in America...

The Democrats in the US are as far left as Pim Fortuyn was.

Face it, besides the Greens and perhaps some other insignificant parties...you don't have left wing parties. None. Let alone "far left". You have right (democrats) and far right (republicans).

All this shows is how far left the center of European politics is. While we have discussed this before, I remained convinced that this phenomenon is a severe reaction to Nazism and Fascism which tore Europe, but not the US, apart. It appears that the freed East Block countries have a similar hate of communism. This hatred should move their pendulum to the center.

IIRC, European countries may actually be moving towards the center again. Is it not true that many countries are denationalizing as much of industry as they can?

Sandman · May 21, 2003, 15:54

Quote:

Spoken like a lunatic fringe leftist.

Ok, what is the clear line that divides big business and government?

Chris 62 · May 21, 2003, 15:58

Quote:

Originally posted by oedo

yep, for further details just pm me.

I wonder how this thread would look like in the civ2 strategy section.

I still can't believe you actually sat there and figured out all those years.

BTW, Micheal Moore is a Green, and a moron, just so you know.

Nubclear · May 21, 2003, 16:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
On the second point, how consolidating disparate, uncoordinated government agencies under one department so that they can better coordinate makes the US government inefficient is hard to understand.

I dunno, because if theyre already uncoordinated, the move will make them even MORE uncoordinated

And then, it all being under one man.......Thats just despotic.

And again, you haven't addressed....Arent republicans for smaller governments?

Quote:

I need some concrete examples or anecdotes. Do you have any.

Of what? That government organizxations that have 10+ departments under them are inefficent?!

GePap · May 21, 2003, 16:05

Ah, just to clarify some things: there are 5 billion human beings who don't live in the Us or the EU, so when discussing where the US lies in the ideological spectrum, lets not forget that. Politically, the US is left on many social issue, center in some, and center-right economically.

As fpor the question: I do think we have had an errosion of variuous democratic ideals in the US over the last 50 years, some, but not immense, and there have been some counter-gains. as I said, I still think the shift in power towards the executive is a bad deal. But we should give the US time. It took several centuries for the Roman republic to end being one, the US only has had 227 years on it's meter.

Ned · May 21, 2003, 16:14

Sandman, Your question reflects an incredible bias. Business has nothing to do with government except to the extent business is regulated by government authorities. Businesses, except in the case of certain utilities, face massive competition and must constantly scramble just to survive. They cannot tell people that you will buy my product at this price as suggested by Galbraith back in the late '60s.

If a business lies to keep its stock prices up, it is subject to all sorts of civil actions not to mention government actions. Corruption in business does not go undiscovered for long and never goes unpunished.

The primary function of the US government is security, both socially and militarily. It also regulates business through agencies such as the SEC, the FCC and the FDA. The agencies protect the public against abuses that can and have occurred in the past. They also bring order to an otherwise chaotic process (thinking of the FCC).

If a business becomes too powerful so that it prevents competition, the government intervenes. The government broke up Standard Oil and AT&T, and placed severe restrictions on IBM, Microsoft and Xerox.

The bottom line, in the US, businesses must compete and compete fairly. They are not part of the government.

Sava · May 21, 2003, 17:06

Quote:

Micheal Moore is a Green

nope... he endorsed Nader in 2000, but realized the futility in trying to support a 3rd party candidate. As for the moron part... well... he's making tons of money... you're not... connect the dots.

Ned · May 21, 2003, 17:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

And again, you haven't addressed....Arent republicans for smaller governments?

Most Republicans believe that government wastes money, expands bureauracies, and undermines initiative and that where the private sector can provide goods or services, the government should stay out.
"
Most Republicans "nominally" believe in states rights. However, I personally am in favor treating America as one common market, not 50. For example, today we have uniform laws on commercial transactions that are state laws based on model codes. I think it really would be better to enact such legislation at the Federal level and prohibit states from enacting laws in this area.

However a glaring exception the general rule that Republicans believe that least government is the best government is Richard Nixon. He imposed wage price controls that threw the economy until loop until Ronald Reagan was elected president.

He also created "revenue-sharing" which enormously expanded Federal power at the expense of states rights. Federal tax authority was used raise revenue that was then given to the states, but with strings attached. For example, revenue sharing was used expand the welfare state through US government funding of state administered programs such as Medicare.

Democrats and Republicans today differ on three major issues: national security, the relationship of government to business and the Democrat belief that taxation should be used for implementing redistributionism. I think we all understand the first and third points. However, the second point needs some discussion.

Democrats see business as the enemy. As a result, Democrats tend to overregulate and overtax business. The former leads to less competition and higher prices for less, especially where prices are controlled as they once were in the transportation industries. The latter not only leads to higher prices, but it also reduces US corporations' ability to compete with offshore manufacturers. Taxes are much more of a factor for the lost of US manufacturing jobs than are wage rates.

In my view, Democrats really hurt the US economy through their anti-business dogma.

Kidicious · May 21, 2003, 17:22

So. You don't like totalitarian govts? What about Nazi Germany? If it weren't for that totalitarian govt Europe would be part of the USSR to this very day. Do you think a democratic Germany would have taken a path like that against the communists?

HershOstropoler · May 21, 2003, 18:11

Quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Corruption: Most of the corruption scandals I hear about are from the Europeans... we don't have it that bad, and the problem of corruption is hardly endemic to America. Please remove your blinders.

A propos blinders... what are the corruption scandals you hear about? What you hear is filtered heavily through a chauvinistic bias of the US media.

And hardly endemic to America? Jokester. The whole campaign financing system is legalised corruption.

DinoDoc · May 21, 2003, 18:19

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
And hardly endemic to America? Jokester. The whole campaign financing system is legalised corruption.

The evidence doesn't appear to bear this conclusion out. Perhaps you're letting your own prejudices cloud your judgement on this point.

Cyclotron · May 21, 2003, 18:23

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
A propos blinders... what are the corruption scandals you hear about? What you hear is filtered heavily through a chauvinistic bias of the US media.

Well, for one, people didn't campaign for George Bush under the slogan "vote for the crook, not for the fascist."

I also admire how you dismiss the point by referring to the ubiquitous, yet ever so nebulous "chauvanistic bias" of our media. Surely, somebody as seemingly intelligent as you doesn't think Fox News is my only source of information...

Quote:

And hardly endemic to America? Jokester. The whole campaign financing system is legalised corruption.

Spare me. Sheesh, I thought you were talking about the recent corporate collapses here. Unless you consider campaign contributions to be generally corruption (in which case, you don't have a clue what corruption is), there really isn't much government corruption to speak of. Campaign finance reform is valid and legal expression; I don't see why it is immoral for them to give money, just like I do, to the candidate that stands for what they stand for.

Oh, I forgot, all business is evil.