Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Someone should tell John Roberts that there's no longer a stigma associated with being gay.

(02-10-2019, 11:01 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-10-2019, 07:51 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]You apparently spent 20 years being indoctrinated by leftists. Fascism is a leftist concept. FDR modeled his plan of governance on Mussolini's Italy.

As far as Pirkster's drawing, left and right don't exactly follow a Statist vs. Anarchy line, but the political Left is far toward the Statist end.

Some posters wouldn't surprise me with a simple shot at my education. You're not one of them. I'm a little disappointed, actually.

Political theory is generally agreed upon as a horseshoe spectrum. You would be correct in saying that where certain ideologies fall on that horseshoe spectrum, and you'd be right to point out that the most common version of it these days puts liberalism as moderate and conservatism as somewhat more extreme. I'd disagree with the chart pretty strongly there. If anything, classical conservatism is more moderate than classical liberalism, but what we have in our government right now doesn't resemble either of those. I'd say that what we have right now is a left that wants to pass itself off as democratic socialists and a right that wants to pretend it isn't trying to form a theocracy. The actual state of our government most closely resembles a corporatist state. If Verizon wants something done, they just make a few phone calls and pass out a few bucks and now their lawyer is running the FCC. If TurboTax wants to make sure everyone's stuck paying them $60 a year for the privilege of paying the government, they make a few phone calls and a few campaign donations, and the bill never makes it out of committee.

What's funny is that corporatism is generally defined as being somewhere along the far right side of the horseshoe, closing in on the extreme because of how theoretically easy it would be for a corporate-controlled government to take away rights in the name of sales. Democrats are just as complicit here, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in this country who would call the Democratic Party far right. They're not. They've just shifted in actuality to a position on the horseshoe where they start to mirror their friends across the aisle. And can you really tell me, with a straight face, that our government isn't owned by corporations?

If 20 years of studying political theory failed to teach you that Fascism is a left wing philosophy that was the basis for the Progressive movement in the US then you need a 21st year.

As far as corporatism, that would not be a problem if government had not co-opted so much power from the people. A government that can't create regulations that stifle competition is of no use to corporations. Corporatism is just an offspring of statism.

As far as it goes, conservatism and progressivism are not points on the State-Anarchy line but swaths. But there is nothing in progressivism that reaches close to the middle, much less the anarchy side of the line. Progressivism requires Statism. Some versions of conservatism also require a degree of Statism.

As far as political parties, both fall on the Statist side of the line as Pirkster claimed. Some Republicans are even Progressives. There are a few conservative Republicans who might cross over to the other side (Rand Paul is a good example) but not enough to stop the slow creep of the US government towards more Statism.

Back to the original topic.

Louisiana was crazy to pass that law.

In practice it pretty much makes abortion illegal in the state. Only resident doctors of a local hospital can do abortions.. in New Orleans, as an example, there is only one doctor that fits that criteria.

(02-11-2019, 09:42 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-10-2019, 11:01 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]Some posters wouldn't surprise me with a simple shot at my education. You're not one of them. I'm a little disappointed, actually.

Political theory is generally agreed upon as a horseshoe spectrum. You would be correct in saying that where certain ideologies fall on that horseshoe spectrum, and you'd be right to point out that the most common version of it these days puts liberalism as moderate and conservatism as somewhat more extreme. I'd disagree with the chart pretty strongly there. If anything, classical conservatism is more moderate than classical liberalism, but what we have in our government right now doesn't resemble either of those. I'd say that what we have right now is a left that wants to pass itself off as democratic socialists and a right that wants to pretend it isn't trying to form a theocracy. The actual state of our government most closely resembles a corporatist state. If Verizon wants something done, they just make a few phone calls and pass out a few bucks and now their lawyer is running the FCC. If TurboTax wants to make sure everyone's stuck paying them $60 a year for the privilege of paying the government, they make a few phone calls and a few campaign donations, and the bill never makes it out of committee.

What's funny is that corporatism is generally defined as being somewhere along the far right side of the horseshoe, closing in on the extreme because of how theoretically easy it would be for a corporate-controlled government to take away rights in the name of sales. Democrats are just as complicit here, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in this country who would call the Democratic Party far right. They're not. They've just shifted in actuality to a position on the horseshoe where they start to mirror their friends across the aisle. And can you really tell me, with a straight face, that our government isn't owned by corporations?

If 20 years of studying political theory failed to teach you that Fascism is a left wing philosophy that was the basis for the Progressive movement in the US then you need a 21st year.

As far as corporatism, that would not be a problem if government had not co-opted so much power from the people. A government that can't create regulations that stifle competition is of no use to corporations. Corporatism is just an offspring of statism.

As far as it goes, conservatism and progressivism are not points on the State-Anarchy line but swaths. But there is nothing in progressivism that reaches close to the middle, much less the anarchy side of the line. Progressivism requires Statism. Some versions of conservatism also require a degree of Statism.

As far as political parties, both fall on the Statist side of the line as Pirkster claimed. Some Republicans are even Progressives. There are a few conservative Republicans who might cross over to the other side (Rand Paul is a good example) but not enough to stop the slow creep of the US government towards more Statism.

Ironically this is why conservatism is looking the culture war so badly.  Why would I stuck my neck out and risk the cultural backlash if I'm still forced to pay 10k to a zoning board to build a shed?

(02-11-2019, 10:18 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Back to the original topic.

Louisiana was crazy to pass that law.

In practice it pretty much makes abortion illegal in the state. Only resident doctors of a local hospital can do abortions.. in New Orleans, as an example, there is only one doctor that fits that criteria.

You got it. That was the whole point. And Roberts called them on it. And we get the good old "states rights" argument. You know, the argument used to justify slavery. Now it's needed to justify going around Roe v Wade.

Whatever it takes.

---

(02-11-2019, 09:27 AM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]Someone should tell John Roberts that there's no longer a stigma associated with being gay.

Wow. You know you got no argument when you try to get sleazy. Alex Jones would be proud.

(02-10-2019, 05:10 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-10-2019, 03:12 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]Fascism is an authoritarian trait, which is by definition on the far left end of the scale.

The far right end of the scale is the exact opposite - unbound individual freedom with no control whatsoever.  Anarchy.

Wherever you go that idea from, was mistaken.

Which is why the left using it to describe the right is so ridiculous.  At the extremes, left is total control and domination of the people by one.  You can see that in the endgame of today's Democrats, they don't even try to hide it anymore.  Ideas that lead to that path are mainstream today.  Extreme right is the absence of any control whatsoever over the people.  You don't see that in the Republican party today.  Libertarian and Tea Party ideologies lean this direction, but they aren't philosophies that have any broad engagement or underlie any platforms of the Republican party.  Today, the Republican party is mostly a watered down version of the Democrats.

Anarchy actually doesn't fall on the spectrum. It's a state of no government and a belief that governments are unnecessary. That's neither left nor right. It's the default state until someone identifies themselves on the spectrum.

And yes, fascism and nationalism are on the far right end of the scale. Dude, I spent 20 years of my life studying political theory, from grade school straight through college. I have the horseshoe scale measured backwards and forwards and I can tell you why any particular ideology lands where it does. You are not winning this one.

How do you get fascism as far right?  The right that I know is not close to wanting total control by the government.

(02-11-2019, 10:21 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Ironically this is why conservatism is looking the culture war so badly.  Why would I stuck my neck out and risk the cultural backlash if I'm still forced to pay 10k to a zoning board to build a shed?

Because that's the sort of government overreach that should always be fought, and I don't think you'd find much in the way of cultural backlash for fighting against paying $10k for a shed that presumably costs $1-2k.

(02-11-2019, 11:01 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]How do you get fascism as far right?  The right that I know is not close to wanting total control by the government.

Fascism is usually (usually) the product of extreme nationalism, militarism, theism and/or racism, which almost always fall to the far right end of the scale. That said, by the time you hit fascism, you're starting to wrap back around, and extreme leftist views can lead to it as well, just not as commonly. Hitler is the quintessential example of a fascist leader. He came to power based upon a nationalistic, militaristic and racist platform--mostly racist. Whatever "socialism" was present in the Nazi party was about as legit as Hillary Clinton's explanation of what happened in Benghazi. It was purely a fascist regime where the head of the government existed without any checks on his power, and used that power to remove political opponents, govern unilaterally and kill upwards of 6,000,000 people that he personally found undesirable. It was based on a far right agenda. To call the Nazis "left wing socialists" would be about as accurate as calling Bill Clinton a "conservative Democrat".

(02-11-2019, 02:09 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-11-2019, 10:21 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Ironically this is why conservatism is looking the culture war so badly.  Why would I stuck my neck out and risk the cultural backlash if I'm still forced to pay 10k to a zoning board to build a shed?

Because that's the sort of government overreach that should always be fought, and I don't think you'd find much in the way of cultural backlash for fighting against paying $10k for a shed that presumably costs $1-2k.

(02-11-2019, 11:01 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]How do you get fascism as far right?  The right that I know is not close to wanting total control by the government.

Fascism is usually (usually) the product of extreme nationalism, militarism, theism and/or racism, which almost always fall to the far right end of the scale. That said, by the time you hit fascism, you're starting to wrap back around, and extreme leftist views can lead to it as well, just not as commonly. Hitler is the quintessential example of a fascist leader. He came to power based upon a nationalistic, militaristic and racist platform--mostly racist. Whatever "socialism" was present in the Nazi party was about as legit as Hillary Clinton's explanation of what happened in Benghazi. It was purely a fascist regime where the head of the government existed without any checks on his power, and used that power to remove political opponents, govern unilaterally and kill upwards of 6,000,000 people that he personally found undesirable. It was based on a far right agenda. To call the Nazis "left wing socialists" would be about as accurate as calling Bill Clinton a "conservative Democrat".

Saying "usually" implies that there were a lot of examples, but there were only two. Italy and Spain were fascist. Neither based the government on militarism, theism, or racism. Roosevelt (and a few POTUS before him) tried to take the US down that route, but only partially succeeded.

Nazi Germany wasn't fascist. Hitler claimed fascism and socialism as a basis for his rule, but his government was no more fascist than it was socialist.

BTW, here's an interesting article on US government corporatism:

Link

(02-11-2019, 09:27 AM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]Someone should tell John Roberts that there's no longer a stigma associated with being gay.

????????

(02-11-2019, 09:27 AM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]Someone should tell John Roberts that there's no longer a stigma associated with being gay.

Please elaborate.

(02-11-2019, 02:09 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-11-2019, 10:21 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Ironically this is why conservatism is looking the culture war so badly.  Why would I stuck my neck out and risk the cultural backlash if I'm still forced to pay 10k to a zoning board to build a shed?

Because that's the sort of government overreach that should always be fought, and I don't think you'd find much in the way of cultural backlash for fighting against paying $10k for a shed that presumably costs $1-2k.

(02-11-2019, 11:01 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]How do you get fascism as far right?  The right that I know is not close to wanting total control by the government.

Fascism is usually (usually) the product of extreme nationalism, militarism, theism and/or racism, which almost always fall to the far right end of the scale. That said, by the time you hit fascism, you're starting to wrap back around, and extreme leftist views can lead to it as well, just not as commonly. Hitler is the quintessential example of a fascist leader. He came to power based upon a nationalistic, militaristic and racist platform--mostly racist. Whatever "socialism" was present in the Nazi party was about as legit as Hillary Clinton's explanation of what happened in Benghazi. It was purely a fascist regime where the head of the government existed without any checks on his power, and used that power to remove political opponents, govern unilaterally and kill upwards of 6,000,000 people that he personally found undesirable. It was based on a far right agenda. To call the Nazis "left wing socialists" would be about as accurate as calling Bill Clinton a "conservative Democrat".

I think you are taking a small part of fascism and trying to apply it with a broad brush to conservatism.  The right at least here in the USA are extremely nationalistic but only in that they love their country.  They are not fans of their government at all especially with how far left it is going.

1.) Hitler was a national socialist.
.2.) Socialists killed 10s of millions of undesirables.... Russia China Cambodia Cuba. The first thing those regimes did was kill/displace those they deemed wealthy/undeserving and take their stuff.
3.) Are you not paying attention? The modern left is open and honest about their ideas about using the state to avenge racial tension and open about their desire to displace certain groups, white males, Asians, in the past the universities have been very hostile to Jewish students.
4.) Go back and read some of the architects of the new deal and what they said about white supremacy.

This idea that the left is inherently moral with fuzzy economics Nd the right is inherently racist is the biggest cover up in the history of historical analysis.

Right and Left are both relative terms that we use to compare one political party with the opponents that it competes with.
The Leninists, the Soviets, did not compete in Russia's elections. They called Russia's elected Duma illegitimate, set up their own Parliament, and eventually persuaded enough people that they should rule instead of the elected officials. Russia's Duma had left-wing parties in it, but the Leninists were not one of them.
The Russian revolution is a more typical path to totalitarian government.
Most other totalitarians, from the kings of France, to Saddam Hussein, to the kings of Saudi Arabia, came to power with no elections. It didn't involve elections or right and left at all.
But before the Nazis took over, back when they were competing with other parties in Germany, they did identify as a right-wing party within that country's politics at the time. Just as Mussolini was right wing before he took over.
If you look at the list of totalitarians throughout history, and focus only on those that started out by competing in elections, you will find a lot of right-wingers in the group.

Yes, fascism is to the right of international communism, that doesn't mean it has any common cause with classical liberalism libertarianism conservatism or the like. Mussolini was a Marxist.

Strange way to go completely off topic...

From a Supreme Court decision which (rightfully) struck down an anti-abortion law in Louisiana to discussions about governments.

I'll settle this.. anything that involves total control from the state or small group of oligarchs is a leftist premise - they are all about thought and people control.

anything that involves the least amount of control from the state or government and allows personal freedoms to people regardless of their ability to handle it is a right premise.

Settled? Cool.

(02-12-2019, 03:01 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]1.) Hitler was a national socialist.  
.2.) Socialists killed 10s of millions of undesirables....  Russia China Cambodia Cuba.  The first thing those regimes did was kill/displace those they deemed wealthy/undeserving and take their stuff.
3.) Are you not paying attention?  The modern left is open and honest about their ideas about using the state to avenge racial tension and open about their desire to displace certain groups, white males, Asians, in the past the universities have been very hostile to Jewish students.
4.) Go back and read some of the architects of the new deal and what they said about white supremacy.  

This idea that the left is inherently moral with fuzzy economics Nd the right is inherently racist is the biggest cover up in the history of historical analysis.

Your German history is lacking. National socialism in Germany stemmed from conservative theorists post world war 1. They wanted a system to oppose Bolshevism. 

It was used by Hitler as a modern(at the time) way to sell nationalism to the middle classes.

(02-12-2019, 10:12 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Strange way to go completely off topic...

From a Supreme Court decision which (rightfully) struck down an anti-abortion law in Louisiana to discussions about governments.

I'll settle this.. anything that involves total control from the state or small group of oligarchs is a leftist premise - they are all about thought and people control.

anything that involves the least amount of control from the state or government and allows personal freedoms to people regardless of their ability to handle it is a right premise.

Settled? Cool.

I assume you're being satirical. Only a right-winger could love your definition.

Left-wingers just seem to be more upfront about it - i.e., controlling the means of production. Right-wingers like to cloak their control in the guise of allowing the means of production to remain in private hands, but controlling all usages of such production - i.e., the Third Reich. Right-wing authoritarianism (fascism) usually will allow organized religion to be practiced, but rigidly controlled (Franco).

Their seems to be a real effort in some of these posts to absolve the right-winger of any responsibility for numerous bad deeds and millions of deaths. Kind of funny.

(02-12-2019, 09:58 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, fascism is to the right of international communism, that doesn't mean it has any common cause with classical liberalism libertarianism conservatism or the like.  Mussolini was a Marxist.

How do you expect to be taken seriously while posting horse [BLEEP] like this?

(02-12-2019, 10:36 AM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-12-2019, 03:01 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]1.) Hitler was a national socialist.  
.2.) Socialists killed 10s of millions of undesirables....  Russia China Cambodia Cuba.  The first thing those regimes did was kill/displace those they deemed wealthy/undeserving and take their stuff.
3.) Are you not paying attention?  The modern left is open and honest about their ideas about using the state to avenge racial tension and open about their desire to displace certain groups, white males, Asians, in the past the universities have been very hostile to Jewish students.
4.) Go back and read some of the architects of the new deal and what they said about white supremacy.  

This idea that the left is inherently moral with fuzzy economics Nd the right is inherently racist is the biggest cover up in the history of historical analysis.

Your German history is lacking. National socialism in Germany stemmed from conservative theorists post world war 1. They wanted a system to oppose Bolshevism. 

It was used by Hitler as a modern(at the time) way to sell nationalism to the middle classes.

It's called revisionist history, and the notion that Hitler was a socialist and not a fascist has been gaining ground since Trump's new tactic has become depicting Democrats as socialists to scare more into his fold.

(02-12-2019, 10:44 AM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-12-2019, 10:36 AM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]Your German history is lacking. National socialism in Germany stemmed from conservative theorists post world war 1. They wanted a system to oppose Bolshevism. 

It was used by Hitler as a modern(at the time) way to sell nationalism to the middle classes.

It's called revisionist history, and the notion that Hitler was a socialist and not a fascist has been gaining ground since Trump's new tactic has become depicting Democrats as socialists to scare more into his fold.

And at the same time it's used to keep comparisons between Hitler's brand of nationalism away from the conservatives (even though that's where it came from).  

The whole point of the movement was to stop the rise of actual communism and prevent a proletariat uprising in Germany