Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

On the Armenian GenocideFollow

#727 Mar 02 2018 at 12:54 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,571 posts
gbaji wrote:
The question was whether "The *****", as in "the folks running Germany during the 30s and 40s under that Adolph guy", were socialists. Actually, more broadly, whether the fascist parties of that time period were following branches of socialism. My argument is that they were. I am objectively correct in this assessment.
You are absolutely incorrect.

I'll take it as a given that you still have not read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Berlin Diaries or Mein Kamph. I know how much you conservatives hate facts and education, but c'mon. Your guessing or reading some stupid blog is not a substitute for facts and the truth.

Your authority on this period of history compared to mine is like my authority on, say, programming or network structure compared to yours.

The Nazis were first, foremost and almost totally a nationalist Party.

I know that reading all those big scary books is, like, hard and stuff. Maybe read this at least. The first ten paragraphs are enough to discredit everything you claim to "know" about National Socialism. HINT: They are/were social conservatives to an extreme degree.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#728 Mar 02 2018 at 8:19 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,525 posts
Jophiel wrote:
And people who say that chickens are dinosaurs are objectively correct but it's not actually meaningful when asking whether an island park full of rampaging dinosaurs is a good idea.
How about an island park full of rampaging chickens?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#729 Mar 02 2018 at 6:31 PM Rating: Decent
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,608 posts
Well, I was hoping that Japan would already have that one covered, after all, they do have several cat and rabbit islands, but nope. A quick search only turned up a place in Thailand who's name translates to Chicken Island, but sadly, it does not appear to be covered in hordes of rampaging chickens. It does look like a nice spot for a vacation though, if you're into the whole tropical beach thing.
#730 Mar 03 2018 at 2:30 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
284 posts
angrymnk wrote:
And yet you did. I take it back. You are funny. I am not certain it is intentional. Since that is the case, my position is that nobody cares. My position is also that you do not care as well, based on your performance here. Rebuttal?


Heh, okay. You care more about a fluffy goat's kid than a fluffy penguin's chick. A personality here than a fact anywhere. Good god, word salad, inanity, might as well send this as a resume to All My Children...

Quote:
And yet you did. I take it back. You are funny. I am not certain it is intentional. Since that is the case, my position is that nobody cares.


Since what is the case? "You are funny" is the case? "And yet you did" (you don't refer to what) is the case? You clearly have no desire to debate on 1/0 prop logic or claims since you **** on my very obvious factual claim here. If I weren't drunk a lot I'd take you to a phil/logic shed and beat your *** with a rough piece of Hume and Russell timber.


Keep settlin' in to your condo and private school....<--ad hom (look into it!)



Smiley: drool Smiley: lol Smiley: rolleyes

Feel free to continue to eat oatmeal, as your safe ILK is the sort to do rather than more challenging and factual breakfast fare. (ad hom!)

Seriously dude, the **** is wrong with you and your deal here? Take a break, a couch, a seat. A moment. Not much funny about 2 million dead Armenians at the hands of Turkey. Nor the newly nationalist Turkey under Erdogan. Nor the Syrian situation which I imagine you'd also call me a uh....newt? Tadpole? on. Keep on with your narrative, keep spinning. No facts get in da way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFrGuyw1V8s

Edited, Mar 3rd 2018 3:37am by Palpitus1
#731 Mar 03 2018 at 4:41 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
284 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Rebuttal?
He thinks that as long as the thread is active Obama is eventually going to read it and commit suicide on television for doing the same thing every politician in the history of politics has done before, during, and after him.


Haha, okay.

LAMPREY.

Maybe instead commit a serious thought and contention to your name instead of hanging on.

And uh GOSH no I don't "thinks that as..." blah...

so much oatmeal, where to stand, nowhere....
#732 Mar 03 2018 at 4:49 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
284 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
And Hillary lost in no small reason due to Obama sucking *** at helping poor people, minorities, etc.

Can you back up that claim? Obama is a minority, and he seemed to do pretty well out of the Obama administration.


I guess this is satire? So many ignorant people here that might think Obama aided black wealth and homeowners instead of ******* them over...hard to tell....And his drone bombing weddings and first responders and africom and libya and syria and ukraine....

...and Colin Powell and Condi Rice and Eric Holder helped murder millions of innocent people and ******* poor black Americans. Typical action. Seems you need to do more to rationalize how this happened than I would. **** all corporatists and warmongers and capitalist bank barons who crush poor people, most minorities, neath their heels.


There's no point to back up. Rational skepticism, even of one's own, appears a dead art, for you kool-aid drinkers. Wall Lickers. Frat boys, Sorority Gals, obeying the paddle of your ideological tribe.... Goodbye forever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVTtFjU0T-Y&list=PLMbs5C0TfzPLBMD9HMGOmkT8yiNx7XKoY&index=27

Edited, Mar 3rd 2018 5:52am by Palpitus1
#733 Mar 03 2018 at 9:09 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,722 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
Goodbye forever.

____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#734 Mar 04 2018 at 10:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
CNN, in regards to the Italian elections, wrote:
Based on early vote count, the result looks like a win for the center-right coalition brokered by former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, which collectively is projected to hold the biggest share of the vote — 35.5%.

The result, which is comprised of Berlusconi’s Forza Italia, Matteo Salvini’s far-right League and the neo-fascist Brothers of Italy, means it will have the most seats in parliament, but 4% short of the 40% needed to avoid a hung parliament.

I was going to ask whether they knew that a right-wing coalition is no place for neo-facists, but then what does Italy know about fascism anyway?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#735 Mar 05 2018 at 7:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,322 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
And people who say that chickens are dinosaurs are objectively correct but it's not actually meaningful when asking whether an island park full of rampaging dinosaurs is a good idea.
How about an island park full of rampaging chickens?


If they're fighting ***** with those metal spur things, I would not go to that park.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#736 Mar 05 2018 at 8:23 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,525 posts
Jophiel wrote:
what does Italy know about fascism anyway?
Who knows, we were all on vacation between 1915 and 1945.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#737 Mar 05 2018 at 8:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I bet none of those guys from the Brothers of Italy were in the Italian government in 1940 so they don't count!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#738 Mar 06 2018 at 4:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,370 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're also conflating terms with "modern conservative wing". That's not the GOP, though, is it?
I previously wrote:
But no one says "Man, I like the idea of a flat tax (or nationalized health care).... I think I'll join the Nazis." Likewise, no one says "You know, the real evil was Hitler's views on the federal reserve banking system." Nope, for that it's the headliner issues: racial purity, cultural purity, etc. And when a bunch of "white purity & culture" people are picking between one party whose leader says we need more immigrants from Norway and fewer from "shithole" African & Latin American nations and another party that advocates for universal health care, stopping the darkies from entering the US wins every time. The party that aligns with their English-Only policy wins every time. The party that wants to build a giant wall wins every time. The party that wants to deport however million Hispanics wins every time. The party that launches conspiracy theories and protests about "Ground Zero Mosques" aligns perfectly with a group that says only religions that don't offend white people should be legal. A president who says that the media has too much freedom sounds great to people who want the law to require all newspaper columnists to be English-speaking US citizens. The party that goes balls out to defend monuments to men who died to preserve and enshrine the subjugation of African-Americans wins every time. The guys who believe that homosexuals are degenerates is probably going to pick the party that cheers when its civil servants refuse to follow the law and issue marriage licenses. This is ignoring all of the Trump campaign's race baiting and plausible deniability antics during the campaign.

Yeah. It's the modern GOP.


So what I'm seeing here is that you're ignoring why 99.99% of people who vote GOP support their policies, why those policies actually exist, and why they are good policies, and instead defining everything in the context of identity, to the point of finding some incredibly tiny group of people who are just as obsessed about identity as you are (only in a different direction) and using their ideas as your own rationale for opposing the GOP.

That's... insane. Why a party does things matters. And yeah. Guess what? The party that isn't taking people's skin color or *** or orientation into account when making policy decisions is going to tend to look "bad" to the party that is, when those non-identity based policies oppose their own. That you have to cast out to find opposing identity groups to justify your own bias only speaks to the wrongness of your own decision making process.

You're basically acknowledging that your own ideology is closer in terms of methodology to those of the Neo-*****, than to anything else. You just pick a different direction, but you're still looking at people's skin color when making decision. Silly me, I think both groups are wrong. You just fail to see this.

Edited, Mar 6th 2018 2:37pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#739 Mar 06 2018 at 4:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So what I'm seeing here is that you're ignoring why 99.99% of people who vote GOP support their policies...

No, what I'm doing is pointing out why the Nazis, fascists and nationalists flock to the GOP while you cover your ears and scream about how it's not true and they don't count and go on long screeds about how it's all liberals and socialists and yadda yadda.

But people like you make it easier for them to attain their goals so, uh, I guess they say "thanks"?
Quote:
You're basically acknowledging that your own ideology is closer in terms of methodology to those of the Neo-*****, than to anything else

No matter how many times you chant this to yourself, it's never going to make the Nazis and KKK and fascists vote Democratic instead of Republican or liberal instead of conservative or wave their flags and torches at "Unite the Left" rallies.

Edited, Mar 6th 2018 4:59pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#740 Mar 06 2018 at 4:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,370 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The question was whether "The *****", as in "the folks running Germany during the 30s and 40s under that Adolph guy", were socialists. Actually, more broadly, whether the fascist parties of that time period were following branches of socialism. My argument is that they were. I am objectively correct in this assessment.
You are absolutely incorrect.

I'll take it as a given that you still have not read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Berlin Diaries or Mein Kamph. I know how much you conservatives hate facts and education, but c'mon. Your guessing or reading some stupid blog is not a substitute for facts and the truth.


Sigh. Yeah, I have read those. Well, not the Berlin Diaries, but the other two. And writings by Marx as well. Have you?

Quote:
The Nazis were first, foremost and almost totally a nationalist Party.


Yes. Which is what distinguished them from the opposing socialist movement, which was pan-national. I already mentioned this. Both "sides" were sides of the same core ideology though. That's what I don't think you're getting here.

Quote:
I know that reading all those big scary books is, like, hard and stuff. Maybe read this at least. The first ten paragraphs are enough to discredit everything you claim to "know" about National Socialism. HINT: They are/were social conservatives to an extreme degree.


Yeah. Again, what you're not getting here is that the labels are relatively minor variations on the same theme. Do you understand what "socialism" means? To "socialize" something is to put it in the hands of "the people". The problem, which has existed as long as there have been socialist movements, is who gets to decide what "the people" want to do with those things. In every single case of actual in practice socialism (as a governing methodology), that tool has been "the government". Heck. I've commented on this in the past on this forum, where several posters have said things like "The government *is* the people". That's not an uncommon thought for many who espouse socialist ideas. To actually implement them, you have to have an authority to do so. That authority is always some form of government.

The only freaking difference is that back in the 30s (late teens really in Russia), the socialist movements who moved from thinking about implementing socialism, to actually doing so, all used government power to do so. They called this "nationalism", and used that label to distinguish themselves from the folks who were dreaming of some kind of naturally occurring workers paradise that would just rise up and take over without any national boundaries or governing authority to run it (which, as you'd know as a student of history, has never actually happened). And when those "national socialist" movements failed (spectacularly, and costing 10s of millions of lives), the rest of Europe scrambled to distance themselves from those movements, latching onto the variation in label to insist that *they* were not the same.

What's amusing is that over the next 5 or so generations, they actually implemented "national socialist" governments. They just dropped the word "national" or "nationalist" from their labels. They most definitely opted into socialism which used the national government as the means of implementation. They most definitely took pride in their "nations" methods of providing for this or that or the other thing. They dropped the whole Eugenics thing, which is good. And they dropped the whole "conquer other nations to force them to adopt our wonderful system" thing, which is also good.

But it's an historical error to suggest that these are not simply branches of the same basic ideology. The key defining point is the use of some form of authority to force the re-allocation of resources to best serve the needs of the people. That is "socialism". It's what defines it. It is completely different from the idea of classical liberalism, in which the government doesn't directly take control of industrial resources in this manner. That is the difference. And guess what? On that axis, the modern socialist governments in Europe, and the Fascist governments in Italy and Germany in the 30s and 40s, and the Communist governments in the USSR and China are all "on the same side".

You want it to not be true, but that doesn't make it so.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#741 Mar 06 2018 at 5:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,370 posts
Jophiel wrote:
CNN, in regards to the Italian elections, wrote:
Based on early vote count, the result looks like a win for the center-right coalition brokered by former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, which collectively is projected to hold the biggest share of the vote — 35.5%.

The result, which is comprised of Berlusconi’s Forza Italia, Matteo Salvini’s far-right League and the neo-fascist Brothers of Italy, means it will have the most seats in parliament, but 4% short of the 40% needed to avoid a hung parliament.

I was going to ask whether they knew that a right-wing coalition is no place for neo-facists, but then what does Italy know about fascism anyway?


Circular argument. You label one "side" as "right" or "left", and then make hay out of whether it's right or left. The problem, as I've mentioned repeatedly, is that (especially in Europe) what is labeled as "right" and "left" is not at all what folks in the US are talking about when they speak about those terms. You've determined "right wing" to be about authority (well, "bad" authority I guess), with "left wing" being "good authority.

I define "left wing" as "any government which holds significant positive authority", versus "right wing" meaning "a government with minimal power over the day to day lives of the citizens". That is the axis on which US politics, especially that between the GOP and Dems is based. But in Europe, almost all the parties are authoritarian, and would thus be defined as "left wing". They make distinctions between leftist governments that want things they want, and those that want things they don't, and believe that this is significant.

I don't believe it is. I think they're all barking up the wrong tree.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#742 Mar 06 2018 at 5:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Circular argument.

Of course it is. Look, your continued and self-imposed ignorance is adorable and all but you're fooling no one here. I guess you're trying to convince yourself? Because I doubt anyone else is buying the "Right wing fascists aren't REALLY right wing!" thing so it has to be for your own benefit. I mean, it makes sense that you'd be trying to convince yourself because you're the one with a political ideology that acts like a candle for Nazis and fascists and KKK members.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#743 Mar 06 2018 at 5:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,370 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So what I'm seeing here is that you're ignoring why 99.99% of people who vote GOP support their policies...

No, what I'm doing is pointing out why the Nazis, fascists and nationalists flock to the GOP while you cover your ears and scream about how it's not true and they don't count and go on long screeds about how it's all liberals and socialists and yadda yadda.


Because they view things through the same lens you do. I thought I made that clear several times already.

Hence my point that your "side" and their "side" are really on the "same side". You're all starting with the assumption that government should have the power to decide who gets which resources and benefits of the whole and fighting over which groups should get the bigger share of that government sliced pie.

My "side" says that government should not be involved in doing that in the first place. This is what you are not getting.

Quote:
Quote:
You're basically acknowledging that your own ideology is closer in terms of methodology to those of the Neo-*****, than to anything else

No matter how many times you chant this to yourself, it's never going to make the Nazis and KKK and fascists vote Democratic instead of Republican or liberal instead of conservative or wave their flags and torches at "Unite the Left" rallies.


Uh. That's because, in a prevailing political landscape where there are two major parties, and one of them is socialist with the specific ideology of benefiting groups of people they don't like, and the other party has the ideology of not benefiting any single group of people at all, they're going to pick the latter side to support. Not because that side aligns with their beliefs, but because it's merely better than the alternative. They don't gain anything, but they don't lose anything either (in their own view anyway).

Let's drop the labels and think this way. You've got group A who believe that government should pick and choose benefits for the people, and group B who think government should not pick sides at all. You've got Group A1, who wants X to get benefits and Y to lose benefits. You've got Group A2, who wants Y to get benefits and X to lose benefits. Now imagine that there is no major party that supports Group A2. That group will vote for Group B, simply to prevent Group A1s policies from being imposed.

That does not speak at all about Group Bs ideology though. They're just as opposed to Group A2, as they are to Group A1. In their opinion, both of those groups are in the wrong. In Group B's perspective, both groups are racist, sexist, bigoted, biased, etc, etc, etc. That they fight mightily against each other, each insisting that the other is "infringing my groups rights!" is irrelevant. They're both wrong. Period.

The correct approach is to not empower government to do this in the first place. Then neither "side" is benefited at the expense of the other. That's what you're not getting. It's funny because I keep explaining this to you, and it's like you just can't grasp the concept. You keep circling around to "but I'm fighting against the other group!". Um... Yeah. You're two groups on the same side arguing about how to divvy up the goodies. That's it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#744 Mar 06 2018 at 6:28 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,304 posts
Quote:

Uh. That's because, in a prevailing political landscape where there are two major parties, and one of them is socialist with the specific ideology of benefiting groups of people they don't like, and the other party has the ideology of not benefiting any single group of people at all, they're going to pick the latter side to support. Not because that side aligns with their beliefs, but because it's merely better than the alternative. They don't gain anything, but they don't lose anything either (in their own view anyway).


Are you saying this is what the landscape is, or what your perception of it is, because without even brief contemplation I can name at least one group the other party's ideology benefits. It is difficult for me to believe that you cannot.

You are an odd duck.

FYI, going back to your previous argument, I did not accept your premise ( and therefore your argument ), but had I done so for some silly reason, I would like to point out that if government size is truly the differentiator for you, you are in for a rude awakening given how much Rs and T are ready to blow up deficit to fund their particular toys.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#745 Mar 06 2018 at 8:04 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,571 posts
gbaji wrote:
Yeah, I have read those
Then why are you still arguing against historical fact?

Oh, because you haven't read them and you're lying.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#746 Mar 06 2018 at 8:07 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,571 posts
gbaji wrote:
Let's drop the labels and think this way. You've got group A who believe that government should pick and choose benefits for the people, and group B who think government should not pick sides at all.
Like homeowners?

Are you going to renounce your tax write-off on your mortgage from now on, then?

I live in an apartment. Why don't I get a write-off for paying rent?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#747 Mar 06 2018 at 9:54 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,304 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
And yet you did. I take it back. You are funny. I am not certain it is intentional. Since that is the case, my position is that nobody cares. My position is also that you do not care as well, based on your performance here. Rebuttal?


Heh, okay. You care more about a fluffy goat's kid than a fluffy penguin's chick. A personality here than a fact anywhere. Good god, word salad, inanity, might as well send this as a resume to All My Children...

Quote:
And yet you did. I take it back. You are funny. I am not certain it is intentional. Since that is the case, my position is that nobody cares.


Since what is the case? "You are funny" is the case? "And yet you did" (you don't refer to what) is the case? You clearly have no desire to debate on 1/0 prop logic or claims since you **** on my very obvious factual claim here. If I weren't drunk a lot I'd take you to a phil/logic shed and beat your *** with a rough piece of Hume and Russell timber.


Keep settlin' in to your condo and private school....<--ad hom (look into it!)



Smiley: drool Smiley: lol Smiley: rolleyes

Feel free to continue to eat oatmeal, as your safe ILK is the sort to do rather than more challenging and factual breakfast fare. (ad hom!)

Seriously dude, the **** is wrong with you and your deal here? Take a break, a couch, a seat. A moment. Not much funny about 2 million dead Armenians at the hands of Turkey. Nor the newly nationalist Turkey under Erdogan. Nor the Syrian situation which I imagine you'd also call me a uh....newt? Tadpole? on. Keep on with your narrative, keep spinning. No facts get in da way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFrGuyw1V8s

Edited, Mar 3rd 2018 3:37am by Palpitus1


Sadly, I am so desensitized that even fluffy goat kid simply does not do it for me anymore. I do shaven stuff now. The more shaven, the better. But even that can barely make chuckle. Inside. Deep on the inside.

To answer your general ramblings, you are correct. I do not desire a debate about your idea of logic. I get this odd impression you mistake logic for logistics, or vice versa.

As to rather personal question regarding what is wrong with me in particular, allow me to say that jury is still out on that one.

As for the genocide, Gbaji, oddly enough, covered a fair amount what I would consider thinking about saying.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#748 Mar 07 2018 at 7:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
"Let me tell you about this crazy cat lady from eighty years ago..."
"Funny you should say that as it seems you have a swarm of cats around you. I think they're attracted to the tuna you have in your pocket"
"No way, everyone knows cats like women. Crazy Cat LADY, it's right there in the name."
"No seriously, there's, like, fifteen cats around you meowing loudly"
"There's no way that I could have eighty year old cats around me."
"Well, obviously. But they ARE cats and they're obviously attracted to your tuna."
"That's because you only see things as cats or dogs."
"They're climbing your legs trying to get at the tuna you're holding on to"
"Are you saying that only cats can like tuna? There's good reasons for people to like tuna!"
"Are you ever going to acknowledge that the tuna you're keeping hold of is attracting a shitload of cats?"
"Historically, cat domestication began in ancient Assyria around..."

Edited, Mar 7th 2018 8:15am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#749 Mar 07 2018 at 8:08 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,525 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Then why are you still arguing against historical fact?
You're questioning the accuracy of the book report someone posted on their blog?

Edited, Mar 7th 2018 9:41am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#750 Mar 07 2018 at 7:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,370 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Quote:

Uh. That's because, in a prevailing political landscape where there are two major parties, and one of them is socialist with the specific ideology of benefiting groups of people they don't like, and the other party has the ideology of not benefiting any single group of people at all, they're going to pick the latter side to support. Not because that side aligns with their beliefs, but because it's merely better than the alternative. They don't gain anything, but they don't lose anything either (in their own view anyway).


Are you saying this is what the landscape is, or what your perception of it is, because without even brief contemplation I can name at least one group the other party's ideology benefits. It is difficult for me to believe that you cannot.


The conflict between Classical and Social Liberalism has been more or less the defining political divide between "Right" and "Left" in the US for nearly a century. While the Dems and GOP have not always aligned perfectly along that divide, this has certainly been the case since the 80s, when the GOP largely adopted this ideology in response to the massive growth of the welfare state in the 60s and 70s (Johnson's "Great Society"). While the GOP doesn't share in in the whole "limited foreign affairs" platform (that's been more shuffled off to the Libertarians), the rest is pretty well defined based on those classical liberalist ideas.

Where this gets confusing when discussing European politics is that in Europe (I think I mentioned this earlier), there is little classical liberalism at all, and it's certainly not associated with being "Conservative", or "Right". That's because the idea was never really fully adopted in the first place, certainly not early enough to be considered "classical" (or "Conservative", in the sense of "the way things were/are" versus a "new way"). Classical Liberalism was resisted in Europe because of the strong presence of Feudalism and Nobility (which was soundly rejected in the US, which fully adopted Classical Liberalism as its starting point). It's arguable that their form of liberalism actually led to the idea of Social Liberalism, since that is itself an outgrowth of the older Feudal idea of the State (the Nobles/Lords) being responsible for the care of the peasants who worked their lands. During the industrial revolution, this took on a directly economic aspect, in which "the workers" should be protected from unbridled capitalism which would (in theory at least) strip them of all power and lead them into complete servitude.

This is why, when we examine different major political movements in Europe in the early to mid 20th century, we find that they're all variations of social liberalism. None of them are particularly "Conservative" as we in the US would think of them. And yes, this is why I say that Fascism is a form of Socialism. Because they are all branches from the same basic ideology. Certainly, from a US perspective, Fascism would and could only arise from the "Left", since is it our political left that allows for the idea of a strong central government which is empowered to "make things better". The political "Right" in the US simply does not include that.

So in the US, the "Left" is authoritarian, since that's a move away from Classical Liberalism (which is small government focused) towards Social Liberalism (which is big government focused), while the "Right" is anti-authoritarian, since it's a desire to stay with Classical Liberalism rather than move to adopting Social Liberalism. In Europe, both "sides" are Social Liberalism, so the Right and Left are defined more by how authoritarianism is used, rather than whether it exists in the first place. If it's used to enforce order and build a strong military and otherwise rule with an iron fist or whatever, then it's labeled as "Right", while if it's used to help the poor, feed the hungry, and protect duckes and bunnies, then it's labeled "Left".

Um... But they are all Socialist. Because that is defined merely as the degree of control the government has over the industry, and both forms of government use that control to implement their policies. The policies may differ, but the means to obtain and use power is the same. And yes, all argue for the necessity of that power by appealing to the people, and getting them to agree that <insert important thing that must be done> can only be done by a strong central government and not via any other means. This was the same whether we're talking about the rise of Fascism in Italy and Germany, or Communism in Russia, or the various socialist governments today. All use the same form of promise to "the people" in return for the power to implement those promises.

Which is why, at least in the US context, it's absurd to equate "Conservative" with movements like Fascism. The US cannot move to a fascist form of government by means of a Conservative/Right movement. It can only do so if it moves sufficiently in the direction of the Left. As long as the Right is about small government, then this will be the case. But if we adopt Social Liberalism as the default, as happened a century ago or so in Europe, then the same "Right/Left" dynamic would exist, and you could properly label things like Fascism as "Right". But that's because there would no longer exist a Right in the US that stands for small government and Classical Liberalist ideas, but it would be replaced by one seeking to use the power of Socialism to do the same sorts of things we think of when we think of Fascism.


Quote:
You are an odd duck.


Oh, I'll freely admit that. I also tend to think outside the box, and buck the "common wisdom", whenever I can. I also like to think that I at least have a modicum of understanding of the topics I'm doing this with to make reasonable arguments for my positions.

Quote:
FYI, going back to your previous argument, I did not accept your premise ( and therefore your argument ), but had I done so for some silly reason, I would like to point out that if government size is truly the differentiator for you, you are in for a rude awakening given how much Rs and T are ready to blow up deficit to fund their particular toys.


At the risk of repeating myself (for the umpteenth time), deficit is not a measure of small government. Small government is reflected in two ways:

1. How much the government directly regulates the governed. Specifically in the context of "must do", rather than "may not do". So regulations aimed at forcing people or businesses to do things they would not otherwise choose to do is an example of big government. Simply passing laws saying "you can't do this, because it has bad effects, is harmful, unfair, etc" is not necessarily a violation of small government principles.

2. How "large" the tax footprint is. This is more of a relative thing, obviously. But it's specifically relevant to the oft-repeated arguments that fiscal conservatives should be ok with raising taxes to reduce the deficit. Um... No. We should decrease spending, especially on things that aren't strictly necessary first. And no, this does not mean "spend no money on anything at all". And it especially doesn't mean "spend no money on the things that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution as things that the US government is supposed to do, or else abandon the argument that we should spend less money on things that aren't mentioned in the Constitution at all".


And I also disagree with the label of "toys" there. What are these toys? If they're things that the government is supposed to do (like maintain a military), then that's not a toy. If it's things like border security (which, again, is the responsibility of the federal government), then it's not a toy. And it's definitely not things like "cut taxes". Even if that increases the deficit, that's well within the guidelines for fiscal conservatism. What are "toys" (at the federal level anyway) are things like welfare spending, education spending, housing, etc. I'm curious what you think are toys, and how you think they'll somehow blow up our deficit. Cause I see a heck of a lot more on the D side rather than the R side.


Do I think the GOP is perfect about this? Absolutely not. But it's far far far better than the Democrats.

Edited, Mar 7th 2018 7:17pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#751 Mar 07 2018 at 8:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,370 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Let's drop the labels and think this way. You've got group A who believe that government should pick and choose benefits for the people, and group B who think government should not pick sides at all.
Like homeowners?


Sure. I get that this may be a shock to you, but we don't live in a perfect system, and we certainly don't live in a system in which Small Government policies rule the day. Things like interest deductions for mortgages are a compromise with other forms of taxes and funded programs. Singling out one while ignoring the others is at least a bit unfair, don't you think?

I'll also point out that there's a heck of a difference between taking less money from people in the form of taxes (it's a deduction, not a credit), and giving money to people in the form of various direct benefits. One is inherently limited (you know, that "small government" concept), while the other is not.

Quote:
Are you going to renounce your tax write-off on your mortgage from now on, then?


Absolutely! The moment I'm not longer required to pay taxes for subsidies for other people's transportation, and housing, and food, and education, and medical care, freaking bike paths, HOV lanes, blah, blah, blah, blah and blah...

Get back to me when I'm not on the hook for paying federal income taxes for anything other than operating costs for the government itself, military expenditures, some policing and adjudicating operations, border security, standards settings, foreign policy operations, and interstate/international trade. When we get to that point, I'll gladly give up any and all deductions on the "we'd like to encourage people to do this with their money" scale.

Quote:
I live in an apartment. Why don't I get a write-off for paying rent?


You already do. Well, in a way. The mortgage interest deduction is a special deduction to allow homeowners to deduct the interest on the mortgage for their personal residence. This is a special exception to the general rule that loans for your own benefit don't qualify for deductions. Here's the thing: interest on loans for a business purpose are already deductible as a business expense. You can't deduct the principle payments, of course, since that's a direct capital expense (and gain). They wash out. Every dollar you spend buying the property is a dollar more of the property you now own (and which has value). So no deduction. But interest on a rental property is a business expense. Just like anything else that doesn't actually increase the value of the property is (so fixing something that is broken, or providing a service like wifi, grounds keeping, maintenance, etc are all business expenses and can be deducted, but putting in new floors, or shutters, or whatever is an improvement and cannot).

Guess what? If your landlord could not deduct the interest from the loan on the property, what do you suppose he'd do with the many thousands of dollars extra he'd have to pay each year to own that property? Just eat the loss? No. He'd pass it on to you, at least to some degree. So you are already gaining the benefit of an interest deduction. You just don't see it directly because it's already baked into the rental cost in the first place.

And in many states, you get a renters deduction as well, but that's a state tax issue, and we're talking federal taxes here. Just did want to point it out though.

The point is that it's somewhat perverse to have a system that rewards people for owning properties that they operate as businesses, but not ones that they use for themselves. Assuming personal home ownership is a thing we kinda want all people to aspire to, it seems reasonable to allow for that and make it as easy as possible. At the very least a system that effectively rewards people for remaining renters while punishing them for trying to buy their own homes seems a bit... strange.

As I said earlier, it's a compromise. And at least part of that is a nod to the fact that clever property owners have figured out how to get around this restriction in some countries that don't allow a mortgage interest deduction on personal homes (I'm looking at you Canada). It's at least in part designed to level the playing field, and make things less complicated. Is it strictly "small government"? No. But in the complex and imperfect world we live in, it's not nearly as problematic as a ton of other things that I'm far more interested in eliminating first.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 0 All times are in CDT