No, not just a nut...a super freak nut.
There are Ultra Liberals, such as Barack Obama. Then there are the Ultra Right extreamists like Alex Jones. In between you have most of Americans such as democrat, republican, libertarian, conservative etc.
Somehow this Alex Jones is being attached to the conservative side of things. That is not a good thing. What do you think?
53 comments:
It has been my belief (for quite some time now) that the Republican party has split into two groups: the reasonable, quasi-moderate Republicans who are very sensible to almost every issue. They usually represent responsible fiscal politics and a devotion to the rights of the individual.
Then you have the "Whack-job" Republican, who, sadly, are growing larger every day. Led by the doctrines and teachings of their "Holy Trinity" (Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck) they have been infected with CLS (Chicken Little Syndrome), the symptoms of which are an unrealistic and unreasonable belief in fascism and socialism hiding under EVEERY corner of government and a belief that the sky really is falling. DOOMSDAY Republicans to put it in the simplest terms.
Now, the Dems have their freaks as well, however, their voices tend to go ignored by the majority in their party (most dems hate Michael Moore, Hollywood, etc). The problem I see with Republicans is that the voices of insanity are getting stronger. This is tragic, since Republicanism (in my opinion) represents some of the very best ideas. Now, fortunately there are still some great REASONABLE Republicans (Romney, Giuliani, etc.) but sadly, they are being forced out by the nut-jobs (Huckabee, Pat Robertson and yes, that IDIOT Palin).
To put it simply, I believe that the Republicans are facing an important crossroads. Do they choose to support honest, intelligent and reasonable politics (Romney, Giuliani, et al.) or do they listen to the voices of UN-reason within their party (Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, etc). If they choose the latter, I believe the Dems will crush them. If, however, they can put their support behind the former I believe the Republicans could not only take back Congress but the White House as well. And yes, I would vote for a Romney, Giuliani, etc. any day over an Obama. BUT, if Republicans continue to demand a "Jesus Freak" without a real plan or a functioning brain then let me be the first to say Obama in 2012!
I'm gonna make you eat your hat when the sky really does fall Brad. :) And no, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck are not CLS. They just comment on how they see it off of their researchers. The reason they are so popular right now, it they have so much to comment about. Obama is a screw job! Yes an idiot beyond what Palin ever could have done to screw things up in this country. Thank heavens for the Democratic population to finally wake up, go to a town hall meeting and demand the screw ball they voted in to stop his mad scheme. Socialistic agenda? You bet. Fascism? I'm as sure about that. I do know that Obama ran on a premises of socializing our health care system. He's just spending, blabbering, and socializing things as he promised. A complete IDIOT with a clown suit that had common sense would be better than this joker!
Is socialism bad? Just look around at all the socialist countries begging us not to have socialized medicine. YES it is bad. If you need reasons, go tour the world.
Democrats are so quick to criticize Palin, yet there is no real substance to the criticism. I think she scares the crap out of them.
I must confess, I have no idea who Alex Jones is, I'll have to look him up, but let me agree with the premise, a nut job is a nut job, no matter whether right or left. But can you be at all suprised that the media is making an effort to attach him to the conservative side of things? I can't say I'm surprised at all
Richard writes:
"And no, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck are not CLS. They just comment on how they see it off of their researchers. The reason they are so popular right now, it they have so much to comment about. Obama is a screw job! Yes an idiot beyond what Palin ever could have done to screw things up in this country."
Research? What research? Let’s get one fact straight here. The SINGLE FOCUS of every single talk radio personality is to invoke an emotional response from their target audience, not to provide “facts” or "research." These guys are not the “voices in the dark” they are often portrayed to be. If they were as patriotic as they claim, why are they hiding behind a microphone instead of taking action in the halls of government...you know...like those founding father guys they claim to emulate? Beck is the perfect example of this. Most of his "research" can be refuted by a simple appeal to Wikipedia. Yes, he's that bad. Instead, they are the worst brand of “Monday morning quarterbacking” known to man. Or as Teddy Roosevelt would put it:
“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming...who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
Oh, wait, my bad. We can’t like Teddy Roosevelt because Beck called him, “a progressive,” even though such an accusation is laughable. But hey, they’re on the radio so they must know. After all, they do lots of “research.”
As for Obama, I don't begrudge you the right to hate him, Richard. That's fine and in many ways I agree. But fascism? Oh come on! That's just silly. And no, Palin is WAAAAY dumber than him. Let's keep it real here.
@TUsulli:
Do you really think Dems are scared of Palin? I think they'd be overjoyed to see her run because, along with almost the entire country, they know she doesn't stand a chance.
And as for having "no substance" to the criticism, uh, have you ever heard her speak? Dude, please!
Look, I'm not out to destroy the Republican Party. In fact, I'd like to see it saved. And THE BEST WAY to do that is to get rid of the nonsense. So many people are fed up with the Republican Party for these very reasons. They are sick of the "doomsday," sky is falling rhetoric, which provides no real solutions and just gets people all worked up. If you really think Palin is the best we can do then heaven help us. Face it, she's a disaster!
And again, the radio shock jocks do our party ZERO favors. They add credence to the myth that Republicans are a bunch of brainless, racist, scared sheep. Of course this isn't true for most but again let's face the facts. The Republican Party has made a virtue out of being a simple-minded fool (remember "Joe the Plummer”...and the Palin V.P. selection?). Conservatism (back in the days of Eisenhower) was cutting-edge. All of the best thinkers were conservatives. NASA was built by conservatives. Civil Rights came about because of conservatives....REASONABLE conservatives who didn't buy into the DOOMSDAY RHETORIC of the 60's democrats (amazing how the tides have shifted isn't it?).
You want to beat Obama? You want to take back TRUE conservatism? Ok, then brush aside the talk radio nonsense. They offer nothing profound, insightful or patriotic. Instead, they simply scare people and propagate the myths surrounding what it means to be a Republican. The only way to beat Obama and the dems is to return to REASONABLE conservative politics (without the nonsensical hype). Look to the example of Dwight Eisenhower. Any politician like him is a stud (Romney, Giuliani, Jindal, Pawlenty are all good examples). Let's also face the reality that Palin is a first-class idiot (yes, worse than anything the Dems have). Fighting fire with fire isn't going to work here. We have to out-smart the dems in 2012. And as Sun Tsu stated in his epic book, "The Art of War," the worst mistake one can make in battle is to assume his/her enemy is dumber than they are. The Dems aren't stupid. They are, in most ways, superior to Republicans right now (from a politically strategic perspective).
To sum it up: less doomsday rhetoric, more substance.
So your criticism is that you don't like the way she speaks??? Name calling is the fastest way to claim the "other side" (fyi, I'm an Independent) has nothing to offer. It's a convenient way to hide without having examine someone else's point of view. Like Obama claiming he wants an honest open debate on health care, but then saying if you are "part of the problem, get out of here". He only wants "honest debate" from those who already agree with him.
Waiting for the substance...
Hey Rich,
Wife says not to fight through your comments. I appologize if I'm offending. I'll stop.
-Chuck
No...my problem is that Palin is a HORRIBLE candidate, but for some reason a decent number of Republicans still back her. Why? What has she done? She can't even tell you what the job of a V.P. is (and she had multiple opportunities to do so).
I'm not "name calling" at all. I'm just completely and totally in amazement at how so many Republicans can esteem Sarah Palin to be of any worth to the party. She makes Dan Quayle look like a genius.
Do you really think (given the chance) that Obama would turn down a chance to face Palin in an election? Of all the candidates from the G.O.P. ticket, my guess is that Obama would CHOOSE Palin over the rest (because it's a guaranteed 2nd term). Now, Romney might be able to beat him, or one of the others I mentioned (and I emphasise MIGHT) but Palin doesn't stand a chance.
Oh, and for the record, I'm not "hiding" from anything. I've been on Palin's case since day one. Just ask Rich.
I will agree with you one one thing: don't anybody take this stuff as "fighting." It's just politics.
This is a bit off topic, but still relevant....
You want to beat Obama? Well, in my opinion, here is your best possible scenario:
1.) The Republicans give up on Palin and put as much distance between the party and her.
2.) Try to minimize the stupidity that comes out of the radio from the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc. All they do is energize a base that has no need of being energized. They're essentially preaching to the choir (but making a lot of moderates angry in the process, which is bad for us).
3.) Nominate Mitt Romney for President. His experience in fiscal matters is second to none. And if economics continue to be THE factor in 2012, we will need Romney more than any other candidate.
4.) To balance the ticket, nominate General David Petraeus as the V.P. Petraeus is strongest where Romney is weakest. His foreign policy ans security credentials are second to none. And his appeal as a moderate Republican could swing voters away from the Dems. Petraeus carries HUGE popularity amongst both parties and would possibly bring back some moderates. In addition, he's a Washington "outsider" which could be used as an attacking point against the Obama Administration.
The best thing about this ticket is that it is MODERATELY CONSERVATIVE. Neither Romney or Gen. Petraeus are "Jesus Freak" Republicans who "shoot wolves from airplanes" and thump their Bibles. They are both extremely educated and experienced, not to mention that they have achieved the highest level of success in their respective fields.
In my opinion, this is the best possible recipe for defeating Obama.
No no Chuck, fight away. I get a kick out of it. Not really fighting...more constructive, thought evoking remarks. That's why I like Brad's comments. He likes to provide well thought-out debate. He is getting his masters (obtained-when do you graduate Brad?) in History and can provide a well thought out historical perspective, and does fantastic research. We don't always see eye to eye...but that makes it fun. Carry on.
Brad...I love Romney because of his credentials, wisdom and his solid center moral qualities. He screwed up big time though with Mass. socialized healthcare. It's already a broken system. Not necesssarily his fault, kowtowing to the liberals of the state, but a problem none the less.
I don't think he has a fighting chance. Just look at the time he ran last. He blew millions and millions and was struck down because of his "freak faith", (especially here in the Bible belt) and lack of pizazz personality (like Obama has) . I do hope he runs and wins. Don't get me wrong. I don't think Palin should run as president. I don't agree with your stupid thought because any one can learn politics. Just look as the big gaffe vice president. Looks intelligent on topic, but research his words, catch him being himself, and he's a buffoon. I think she has too much on her plate, and has made too many mistakes up to this point.
Well, I agree with you that Romney has an uphill climb, but I still don't see any other candidate for the Repubs that would be better. Nominating another "Jesus Freak" would be a disaster and would surely give Obama an easy ride to a second term.
However, I will say that Romney's religious "problem" is not without precedent. John F. Kennedy faced huge resistance to his Catholicism. In fact, it became the central issue of his campaign. JFK was able to effectively "twist" the religious problem to his favor by coming off as a victim of sorts. And as we all know, it worked for him. Romney I'm sure would face a steeper hill I'm sure but again, who do the Republicans have that is better than him?
Bottom line: if not Romney then who? Who could honestly take down Obama? Now, I know you think he's an idiot and all, but before you start attacking him, keep in mind that he's one of the best politicians we've seen in decades. He brought down the Clinton campaign (which was considered a guaranteed lock for the presidency). Having both Obama and Clinton campaigning for a second term will be tough to beat. We'll need somebody who can outsart them at every chance.
And most importantly, we'll need more than radio talk show smoke and mirrors.
Okay, Okay, I'll come back in, as long as I can be assured I'm not offending anyone.
Brad, I understand where you are coming from on Palin, you don't like her, and that shapes the lense through which you see her. Let me admit I have the same problem going the other way. That being said, all I hear against her is that she is horrible, but it begins and ends there. Of course you don't like her policies! She's not on your side! Naturally she seems horrible to you because you don't agree with her, just like Obama seems horrible to me, because I disagree with him. I think one of the hardest things about political debates, or discussions or whatever, is that we really believe that our side (whichever it may be) is right, and the other side is wrong and we can never really get past our biases enough to have meaningful discussion, instead we refer to name-calling: Fearmongers, idiots, elitist. This is why I remain an Independent, I don't feel that either party can effectively run the country without input from the other party, yet whoever has the power at the time tries to do so. That is why the people you seem to hate are so vital (Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh - although, I can't really stand Limbaugh either, so there you go) right now, and when Bush was in office, MSNBC and others were vital. But don't dismiss them simply because they are not in Washington, you don't really believe that the only way to be Patriotic is by holding office? If you'll recall, our Founding Fathers used the available media of the time to get thier ideas out, particularly after their attempts to get an audience with the King were denied. I would argue it is very Patriotic to disagree with government from the radio. To quote then Senator Hillary Clinton: "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic, We should stand up and say, we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." Besides, how can anyone debate from within Washington when Speaker Pelosi says things like (and I'm paraphrasing here, forgive me) "we won the election, we'll write the bill"???
Anyway, a final thought on Palin, she does know the role of the Vice President, Article 1, Section 3, Paragraph 4 of the United States Constitution states: "The Vice President of the United States shall be the President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, UNLESS they shall be equally divided" (emphasis added). I believe she does know the role of the VP.
Sorry this is so long, let me end by agreeing with Rich, you do provide very well thought out debate, great perspective and good research. Don't stop!
Holy cow! I don't check for like a couple days and all of a sudden their is a little war going on. And now I'm gonna insert myself into the middle of it...tomorrow. Oh and Brad, don't think that I didn't notice that the word "stupid" was omitted in regards to Palin. I'm surprised that you downgraded her (at least in my book).
Oh no, Jenn...Palin is still stipid.
TUsulli writes:
"Of course you don't like her policies! She's not on your side! Naturally she seems horrible to you because you don't agree with her, just like Obama seems horrible to me, because I disagree with him."
Uh, what makes you think that Palin is not on "my side?" See, this is the typical assumption I always get. If I attack Palin, Ruch, Beck etc. that means I MUST be an evil liberal.
Not so...not by a mile. I attack conservatism because I would like to see it return to it's "glory days" under Eisenhower, Goldwater, etc. In fact, I'd argue that I am more conservative than others on here. However, I also STRONGLY believe that the party is jacked up right now, thanks in part to the STUPIDITY (for you, Jenn) of Palin, Ruch, Hannity, et al.
As far as your claim that "name calling" is all I do, well, you're new around here so I doubt (with all due respect) that you can make such a claim. We'e dissected this stuff before on several blogs and topics. To repeat it in EVERY SINGLE post would be too repetetive.
Now, your insistance that the radio dorks are like the founders because they used the media to protest government, well, that's like saying that the hippies of the 60s were like the founders. Simply arguing or questioning government (while it certainly is everyone's right) does not entitle somebody to be on the same stage of the founders. Simply put, there's too many historical problems with this.
To sum it up: I do love conservatism. I believe that the Republicans represent the best (and worst) of American politics, which is why I attack with such vigor the crap from the "dumb" ones.
I believe that most Republicans feel the same. It's not that we are against protesting government or gathering an protesting, but we are STRONGLY against the idiot protestors who call Obama a Nazi, carry guns to rallies, call every democrat they meet a facist, label Obama a racist, insist on a liberal plot/conspiracy to convert America to pure socialism, etc. This is counter-productive and the result of doomsday garbage. Instead, let's see REAL leaders. Romney, Jindal, Giuliani, Lieberman, and many others. See, they put their $$$ where their mouth is...as opposed to the mmicrophone "shock jocks."
And no, sorry, Palin continually got it wrong when it came to the role of the V.P.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucIRIUyGY1o
I don't like Olbermann either, but Palin's own words kill her here...as they do any thime she opens her mouth.
Sorry for the assumption, you could see where your go Obama cheers would lead me to think you're anything but conservative.
I don't think there is such a thing as "true" conservatism. There is no such thing as a one size fits all.
Brad-
I completely agree that there are quite a few doomsdayers out there. Now, as for the “Trinity”, I only listen Hannity once a week when I’m in my car driving to Tulsa and back. As I’ve said before, I’m a Boortz girl, who does have his facts straight (at least from all my research). Now, that said, what personality in ANY media form doesn’t strive to invoke an emotional response?? Okay, I might have the answer to that. Joel McHale is just plain funny, is amusement an emotion? Hmm...maybe so. Another thing (and I’m full of them), some people are better at being “behind the scenes”, or “microphone”, if you prefer. Things get done by the people behind the scenes, not always by those on the set.
I have to disagree with Richard’s reasoning of the popularity of Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck. They are not popular because they have so much to comment on, they are popular because people agree with what they are saying (or they just tune in to get their daily adrenaline rush in the form of anger).
I think Romney would be a great candidate. His business sense would be quite refreshing. I also think the if the Republicans would run on the Fair Tax, they would get much more support by those on the fence.
Now to address fascism and socialism that no one seems to think is happening. First off, the definition of fascism. Has anyone ever looked it up? Well, here it is:
Fascism: an authoritarian and nationalistic RIGHT-WING form of government or social organization.
Socialism: (in Marxist theory, since that is the context we are using) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.
Given those definitions, I agree with Brad on fascism not really happening. Socialism, however, I believe is definitely on the up and up.
Apparently, I have to do this in parts because there is a limit to the amount of words you can post.
Now I have been ACHING to get some quotes out there (all by the same man, Ezra Taft Benson). Now Brad, I happened to click on a forwarded email, and I must admit, it was a video put together by Beck, I believe (not sure). So I decided to look up the basis of the video and this is what I found: (remember that most of the quotes are from Pres. Benson, written in the early 1970’s). Read them all, they are very telling.
Pres. Ezra Taft Benson:
“How strong is our will to remain free—to be good? False thinking and false ideologies, dressed in the most pleasing forms, quietly—almost without our knowing it—seek to reduce our moral defenses and to captivate our minds. They entice with bright promises of security, cradle-to-grave guarantees of many kinds. They masquerade under various names, but all may be recognized by one thing—one thing they all have in common: to erode away character and man’s freedom to think and act for himself.”
“Effort will be made to lull us away into a false security. Proposals will be and are being offered and programs sponsored that have wide appeal. Attractive labels are usually attached to the most dangerous programs, often in the name of public welfare and personal security. Again, let us not be misled”.
“Freedom can be killed by neglect as well as by direct attack.”
“Communism introduced into the world a substitute for true religion. It is a counterfeit of the gospel plan. The false prophets of Communism predict a utopian society. This, they proclaim, will only be brought about as capitalism and free enterprise are overthrown, private property abolished, the family as a social unit eliminated, all classes abolished, all governments overthrown, and a communal ownership of property in a classless, stateless society established.”
George Washington wrote of the defects of this loose federation in these words:
“The fabrick which took nine years, at the expense of much blood and treasure to rear, now totters to the foundation, and without support must soon fall.” (John C. Fitzpatrick, ed., Writings of George Washington, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1939, 29:68.)
Hmmm....support for the Constitution is most definitely tottering as we invite more and more “government assistance”.
“Our Constitution,” said John Adams, first vice-president and second president, “was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (John R. Howe, Jr., The Changing Political Thought of John Adams, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1966, p. 189.)
Read that again. So why are we adopting other forms of government?
“I say to you that the price of liberty is and always has been blood, human blood, and if our liberties are lost, we shall never regain them except at the price of blood. They must not be lost!” (Stand Fast by Our Constitution, p. 137.)
And again.
Calvin Coolidge addressed the problem:
“We do not need more material development, we need more spiritual development. We do not need more intellectual power, we need more moral power. We do not need more knowledge, we need more character. We do not need more government, we need more culture. We do not need more law, we need more religion. We do not need more of the things that are seen, we need more of the things that are unseen. It is on that side of life that it is desirable to put the emphasis at the present time. If that side is strengthened, the other side will take care of itself. It is that side which is the foundation of all else. If the foundation be firm, the superstructure will stand.” (Prophets, Principles and National Survival, p. 35.)
3 July 1936, the First Presidency published this warning to Church members:
“Communism is not a political party nor a political plan under the Constitution; it is a system of government that is the opposite of our Constitutional government. …
“Since Communism, established, would destroy our American Constitutional government, to support Communism is treasonable to our free institutions, and no patriotic American citizen may become either a Communist or supporter of Communism. …
“We call upon all Church members completely to eschew [shun] Communism. The safety of our divinely inspired Constitutional government and the welfare of our Church imperatively demand that Communism shall have no place in America” (signed: Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., David O. McKay, The First Presidency, in Deseret News, 3 July 1936; italics added).
And this, perhaps most plainly said:
“The truth is, we have to a great extent accommodated ourselves to Communism—and we have permitted ourselves to become encircled by its tentacles. Though we give lip service to the Monroe Doctrine, this has not prevented Cuba from becoming a Soviet military base, ninety miles off our coastline, nor has it prevented the takeover of Nicaragua in Central America, the surrender of the Panama Canal, or the infiltration by enemy agents within our American borders.
No nation which has kept the commandments of God has ever perished, but I say to you that once freedom is lost, only blood—human blood—will win it back.” Ezra Taft Benson
To me, you cannot refute the fact that our government is being led by men who have an agenda to impose socialism, which is the means by which communism comes about. Don’t even try.
Sorry this is so long.
Ok, I'll try to break my responses down as best I can:
Jenn writes:
Now, that said, what personality in ANY media form doesn’t strive to invoke an emotional response??"
I couldn't agree more. This is sort of what I am getting at as well. People let television news simply immerse them without stopping to think.
Jenn, THANK YOU on backing me up on the fascist bit. It's so incredibly ridiculous to call Obama (or any liberal) a fascist. In fact, there's even a book out called "Liberal Fascism" which, as you point out, is IMPOSSIBLE. And yes, I also agree about what you have to say on socialism...which is VERY different from fascism. Again, this sort of proves my point that many Americans simply hear the radio crap and accept it. Beck says Obama is a fascist, so it must be true.
As for your quotes and such on socialism (somehow then converting to communism) well that's a bit of a stretch. First off, Benson was an ULTRA conservative (not that I disagree with the man...he's free to believe whatever he wants). But keep in mind, Benson was so conservative that he even thought Eisenhower was a socialist (a laughable accusation). I agree that communism is terrible but I don't see us heading that way. Sure, there's plenty of ridiculous socialized programs taking place right now and I dislike them as much as the rest of you. But there's simply no comparison to be made with communism right now. That's as crazy as the fascist stuff.
Now, you certainly provided some good quotes from Benson, et al. But keep in mind that there are just as many (if not more) quotes from other church leaders condemning capitalism and its "evils." I'll have to get them when I get home...they are on my other computer. But for now, I will simply appeal to Joseph Smith who, among other things, was a staunch opponent of capitalism and favored a communal/Zionist approach. In fact, Smith believed (along with Young, Taylor, Woodruff and others) that it would be CAPITALISM that would lead to the downfall of America.
In fairness, I will say that we Americans tend to throw around these words (communism, capitalism, socialism, etc.) like baseball cards. And, as you point out, Jenn, most don't even know or care about the meanings behind them. In my opinion, the majority of this argument can be boiled down to people debating semantics. The problem really isn't socialism, capitalism, or whatever other "ism" you want to discuss. The real problem is GREED. As one famous person put it, "you can buy anything in this world with money." There is nothing inherently wrong with any of these economic systems. In theory they all can work. In practice, however, they ALL fail (yes even our "blessed" capitalism). And why do they fail? Greed.
As Nelson Mandela aptly summarized things:
"Under capitalism, man is free to take advantage of his fellow man; under socialism/communism it's the other way around."
Communism naturally follows right behind socialism (as the definition states), which is why I brought it up.
Brad says:
"Sure, there's plenty of ridiculous socialized programs taking place right now and I dislike them as much as the rest of you. But there's simply no comparison to be made with communism right now."
Yep, socialized programs and where do those lead? They don't just stop in their tracks. They lead down the path of communism. In any case let's call the policies being enacted (or about to be) what they are, socialistic. They have definitely been presented under appealing pretenses (well, appealing to those who want to cash in on others' hard work), but if you look at them, it is socialism. My humble opinion.
You'll have to get me some quotes from Joseph Smith or other church leaders in favor of socialism or against capitalism. From my understanding Joseph Smith was in favor of the United Order and the Law of Consecration. Not the "communal" society that man has come up with.
While I STRONGLY disagree with your denial of socialism slowly taking over the country, I as strongly agree that it's all about the greed. And pride. Amen!
Jenn writes:
"Yep, socialized programs and where do those lead? They don't just stop in their tracks. They lead down the path of communism"
No, no, no, no, NOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Socialism does NOT lead to communism. This is a major myth. Now, don't construe my comments as a support of socialism. As I mentioned before, I despise our move towards socialized healcare, etc. as much as the rest of you. However, we MUST be honest about things. Socialism, while it CAN eventually evolve into communusm, does NOT automatically do so by default. Communism is something very different (and very few socialized nations have made the switch). In fact, it is less likely for a socialized nation to embrace communism (as history cleary demonstrates).
This notion that all socialism eventually becomes communism is akin the the myth that all pot smkoers will eventually become meth smokers. NOT TRUE. Yes, pot and meth are bad (just like socialism and communism can be bad) but one does not equate into the other...and we are FAR from being a communist nation...or a truly socialized one for that matter.
I'll get you the Smith quotes as soon as I get home...probably tomorrow. But yes, he despised capitalism.
Brad-
Here is the definition of socialism:
Socialism: (in Marxist theory, since that is the context we are using) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.
And, once again, as the definition illustrates, it doesn't stop in it's tracks, it keeps going, even if it only takes baby steps.
The definition is flawed. Socialism is NOT communism nor is it a transitional state. History has shown that there have been several socialist nations (even now) that don't become communist. Again, I don't favor socialism, but it's not right to call it communism or the step before communism.
I'm just telling ya what the dictionary says.
Just to let you guys know...I have thoroughly enjoyed the discussions. I didn't jump in because it was so fun to read.
Well, Jenn, the dictionary also defines marriage as being a union between a heterosexual couple AND a homosexual couple.
Could it be that the dictionary is also influenced by outside factors?
Hmmmm. I think you are comparing apples and oranges here Brad. I think you need a better example than marriage (a very controversial topic, depending on which state you are in). Definitions are only as good as their source. Jennerator, maybe sourcing your definition might enlighten us. Very interesting indeed.
Oooops, I just realized I miss-typed on a former comment. When I typed on Fascism, what I meant to say was that I do "NOT" believe B.O. is pushing that agenda...there may be portions of the ideology used, but socialism is what I see happening, not fascism. I may be wrong here too. We'll see if the brown shirts come out to play.
Websters.
Yep, Webster's doesn't get it all correct. That's for sure.
Heh, then what dictionary would you recommend Brad?
I've looked in four different dictionaries, they all say the same thing.
What exactly is your point? How about James Paxton (the foremost expert on the history of communism, socialism and fascism). In his book "Anatomy of Fascism" he shoots down these myths of socialism being communism's kid brother. It's just a ridiculous comparison. Of course an American/British dictionary is going to condemn everything socialist/communist. That seems only natural.
By the way, a Russian dictionary that my brother brought home from his mission calls Capitalism, "a precursor to the anarchy, satanism, and Nazi fascism."
Amazing how those "dictionaries" can be influenced by politics isn't it?
It goes both ways doesn't it....
Ok, this is another change in topic (sort of) but it's worth looking at. As you all know, I'm sick and tired of all the conservatives ranting and raving about the impending Marxist, socialist, fascist incursion taking place in America. I believe that these same types haven't a clue what these words even mean, let alone the historical significance behind them.
Case in point: the Christian/fundamentalist conservatives. You hear these idiots ramble on about how God favors capitalism and that socialism is the work of the devil. They believe that socialism/Marxism is incompatible with Christianity.
Well, they couldn't be more wrong. In fact, Karl Marx himself stated that he FAVORED an ultra-Christian society because it would make the change to socialism MUCH easier. Marx's words:
"Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a Socialist tinge. Has not Christianity declaimed against private property? Has it not preached in the place of these charity and poverty, celibacy and mortification of the flesh? Monastic life and Mother Church? Christian socialism is but the holy water with which the priest concecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat.
Re: Socialism...I think the point here is simple...
1) We live in the only nation in the world who's economy of which everyone else in the world wants to be apart of.
2)Those people come from socialistic and communistic governments.
Is Capitalism perfect? No, but it's the best this world has got. Need proof? Look at the immigration lists. Better yet, look at our boarders. People are willing to risk death to get here.
Does Socialism lead to communism? According to some it does, others it doesn't. It might not necessarily in all cases, but it sure does make it easy to two step over to communism when people decide a fantastic leader comes by promising hope and change. I'm not talking about B.Obama here, but if the shoe fits. Correct me if I'm wrong here Brad... and I might be, but Lenin, Stalin, Hitler took advantage of this.
The reason America is great has little or nothing to do with capitalism. John Taylor made this point very clear in his book, "The Government of God." He said that political institutions, governments, economic systems were of little or no significance. What made America great was its massive wealth of resources. Taylor stated that America would have been great even if it was a despotism.
As for Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, I have to disagree Rich. The circumstances behind Russia and Nazi Germany are quite unique. Hitler despised socialism (hense his hatered for Stalin and Russia).
Stalin completely and totally went against Marxist ideals for the "correct" implimentation of socialism, which is why many theorize it failed in Russia.
In today's political atmosphere we hear Hitler, Stalin, etc. brought up WAY too much. There are little to no comparisons that can or should be made between those eras and what is going on today.
Thank you for the input on the Russian and German dictators...
I do stand behind my capitalist comment though. Brazil and Africa resource alone, could rule the world.
How our nation stands now...all the things that make it up, capitalism included make it great.
Well, take it up with John Taylor. =)
So this whole 41 comment thread has me wondering about something:
If you could choose between having socialism without corruption or capitalism with corruption which would you choose?
Hmm...would you define "socialism without corruption" as the Law of Consecration? Since it's pretty much a perversion of that?
No. The Law of Consecration is not socialism/communism or any other "ism." And socialism/communism is not a "perversion" of the Law of Conc. I had that bogus seminary lesson as well. It's a silly myth that we should probably do without.
The LOC, according to Smith, would include BOTH privately owned property (a capitalist trait) AND communal superiority (a socialist trait). Talmage said it is a system that is completely different from anything known on earth.
No. The Law of Consecration is not socialism/communism or any other "ism." And socialism/communism is not a "perversion" of the Law of Conc. I had that bogus seminary lesson as well. It's a silly myth that we should probably do without.
The LOC, according to Smith, would include BOTH privately owned property (a capitalist trait) AND communal superiority (a socialist trait). Talmage said it is a system that is completely different from anything known on earth.
Did you read that quote by Benson?? Maybe I didn't put it up, I will.
Okay, this is about communism, but since I firmly believe in the definition (the AMERICAN one I guess), to me it applies to socialism.
Elder Benson-
"Communism introduced into the world a substitute for true religion. It is a counterfeit of the gospel plan. The false prophets of Communism predict a utopian society. This, they proclaim, will only be brought about as capitalism and free enterprise are overthrown, private property abolished, the family as a social unit eliminated, all classes abolished, all governments overthrown, and a communal ownership of property in a classless, stateless society established."
Now Brad, I'm not going to change your mind, you're not going to change my mind, therefore, let's go ahead and agree on disagreeing.
Well, fortunately Benson was not speaking as the prophet at this occasion, nor was he giving any kind of revelation. As bad as this my sound, Benson was wrong on his interpretation of communism. It is NOT the counterfeit of the Law of Conc. If you read Marx you will see this.
On a lighter note, I thought all you capitalist lovers would appreciate this. It comes from the "Father" of capitalism, Adam Smith. In his book, "Wealth of Nations" he states:
The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
A redustribution of wealth! Oh my! Isn't that the jump-off point for all the "Obama is an evil socialist" advocates?
The wealthy should help the poor THROUGH CHARITY-
Samuel Adams-
"The Utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of the wealth] and a community of goods [central ownership of the means of production and distribution], are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional."
And it's immoral for the government to take our money (whether rich or poor) through confiscatory taxation and deficit spending and place our debt upon our children
Jefferson said-
"...we shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves, consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life [expectancy] of the majority."
Also by Jefferson-
"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must be happy."
I think Obama (whether he has good intentions or not) is using the labors of my husband, and all other tax paying people, to "take care of them" (society).
Oh yeah, Benson was still a General Authority, I doubt his "interpretation" was wrong. And I'm sure if the Prophet didn't agree, he wouldn't have said any of that.
No, Benson was NOT proclaiming revelation. But since we're throwing out quotes:
"To insist that a free labor market system will promote equality in America cannot be accepted by any liberty loving citizen of the republic."
~Thomas Jefferson
"Happiness has never been found in the capitalist zeal for goods and money. It will only lead to misery and the rapid demise of American republicanism."
~Joseph Smith
"Capitalism may be the unequal distribution of wealth, but it is also the unequal distribution of misery."
~James E. Talmage
Yes, Benson's "interpretation" is completely wrong. And yes, sometimes G.A.'s get things wrong (like Brigham Young's Adam-God Theory). Keep in mind, Benson thought Eisenhower was a socialist. He was as hard-core a capitalist as we've ever seen. Now, I don't begrudge him the right to be that way, but it certainly twisted his views of what socialism/Marxism is.
By the way, if you ever want to read a really cool book on this topic check out Hugh Nibley's "Approaching Zion." One of the most interesting components of his thesis is his analysis of the originator of all money: Lucifer. While God tells us we can have that which we need by asking in faith, Satan says ask and PAY ME ("You can buy anything in this world with money" comes to mind).
My feeling is that Marx is much closer to what we (at least philosophically) believe as Mormons than we generally give him credit for. The true Zion society seems much closer to Marx’s ideal than Adam Smith’s.
Now, that doesn't mean Marxism is flawless. His rejection of religion, for example, is a problem (hense the famous quote "religion is the opium of the masses"). With that said, I think people today (especially Americans) see the word "Marx" as a scarlet letter of sorts. They judge Marxism without ever reading it first.
I'm not trying to sound anti-capitalist here, but at the same time I don't want to be seen as a supporter of it. We Americans tend to think that capitalism is a fundamental component of our democracy. It is not. None of the founding fathers (with the exception of Alexander Hamilton probably) did NOT favor market economics (Market economics was usually the phrase for capitalism back in the 18th century). Nor was J. Smith a big fan. In fact, he used the doctrines of the BOM to condemn "market ecoonomics."
Now, I'm not saying we should throw the baby out with the bath water. I don't want to see capitalism removed from society and replaced with something else. I think it's served us well. BUT, if we think for a second that capitalism can't hurt our democracy we are dead wrong. Marx was right about one big thing: capitalism makes the plight of the proletariat a driving force for radicalism. Why do you think we're seeing ideologues like Beck, Hannity, Maher, and others ranting on the television? It's not purely for political reasons. Marx was right that all executive leadership of a nation is simply a "chairman" for the bourgeoisie, and that the Proletariat has little or no say or control in government.
Post a Comment