Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

jmurph wrote:Can ChaosDave please take his political pushing elsewhere? I hear freerepublic is a pretty good sight for rightards... Most leftards prefer democraticunderground.

The problem with threads like these is people confuse responsible civic activism (voting = the win!) with political dogmatism (vote my way or you = the evil!).

I vote Slaanesh! moar bewbs nao!!!111!!11! kkthx

I was simply responding to stated political opinions in this already politicized thread. Since the politics are limited to this single thread and it hasn't been locked or deleted I don't see why you have such a major issue with it. If you don't want to see it them simply don't read this thread. Isn't freedom great?

ChaosDave wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

The same happens under rightist tyrannies such as Argentina under the generals, etc.

All tyrannies are bad.

The difference being that the natural progression for a leftist government is inevitably a tyranny. Let me put it to you in a way that you can understand using current conservative thought vs. liberal thought in the USA.

That's a completely laughable argument. I'm sorry, but it is. Any kind of government taken to extremes leads to tyranny. If you go off the leftist deep end, you're a commie. If you go off the right deep end, its fascism.

ChaosDave wrote:
Conservatives for the most part want smaller government, less involvement by the government on the lives of it's citizens, less taxes and less of the government telling you what you can and cannot do. Essentially government is a necessary evil that is tolerated and never trusted. This means that the people are always more important than the state and abuse of power is more difficult as the government simply doesn't have the power to abuse it's citizens.

Liberals on the other hand want big government. They intend for the government to take control of major aspects of the citizens lives to allow them to "redistribute wealth" and force everyone into an economic equality. Here in lies the problem. Once the government is given these powers it is extremely difficult to remove said powers and the acquisition of more and more power becomes easier and easier. This creates a situation where the state becomes more important than the people since it is controlling every aspect of it's citizens lives and determines what is best for them and itself. Once that happens killing off "undesirable elements" becomes second nature simply by being "good for the state".

Apart from the totally prejudicial phrasing and framing, there's so many things wrong with this statement. Lets start with the idea that there's a "conservative" base type that makes up the majority of the Republican vote. There isn't. What you're describing is the libertarian wing of the party - which forms a sizable, but nowhere near a majority share of the party.

The majority of the Republican base consists of one thing: the religious right, what I call the theocons. They're conservative in their social views, have a variety of economic views, but vote based on their social beliefs. When it comes to those beliefs, they're FULLY in favor of government interference - as long as its on their behalf.

Liberals don't want big government. They want a government that actually works to deal with the problems that are too big for individuals to solve.

Necros wrote:so I think I will be voting for HypnoToad as well.

HypnoToad Why would I vote for that lazy sack . All he ever does it get me to buy crap I don't want like butt scratchers . Seriously, how many are voting for him?

Oh, look a picture....

.............................

All HAIL HypnoToad!... Oh, and I seem to need another butt scratcher.

ChaosDave wrote:Liberals on the other hand want big government. They intend for the government to take control of major aspects of the citizens lives to allow them to "redistribute wealth" and force everyone into an economic equality. Here in lies the problem. Once the government is given these powers it is extremely difficult to remove said powers and the acquisition of more and more power becomes easier and easier. This creates a situation where the state becomes more important than the people since it is controlling every aspect of it's citizens lives and determines what is best for them and itself. Once that happens killing off "undesirable elements" becomes second nature simply by being "good for the state".

Which is why the GOP is taking a nose dive this round of elections. They have abandonded their core values (fiscal responsibility and smaller government) in favor of entitlement and expanded government control of the american public (ohh, it's the government's decision whether a brain-dead woman can be taken off life support! Where's the small govt. in that viewpoint?).

Whichever idiot wins, they are inheriting a huge pile of debt, diminishing taxes, the credit flame-out and two wars (well, one war and one long term police-action from which it will be virtually impossible to extract ourselves from).

ChaosDave wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

The same happens under rightist tyrannies such as Argentina under the generals, etc.

All tyrannies are bad.

The difference being that the natural progression for a leftist government is inevitably a tyranny. Let me put it to you in a way that you can understand using current conservative thought vs. liberal thought in the USA.

Conservatives for the most part want smaller government, less involvement by the government on the lives of it's citizens, less taxes and less of the government telling you what you can and cannot do. Essentially government is a necessary evil that is tolerated and never trusted. This means that the people are always more important than the state and abuse of power is more difficult as the government simply doesn't have the power to abuse it's citizens.

Liberals on the other hand want big government. They intend for the government to take control of major aspects of the citizens lives to allow them to "redistribute wealth" and force everyone into an economic equality. Here in lies the problem. Once the government is given these powers it is extremely difficult to remove said powers and the acquisition of more and more power becomes easier and easier. This creates a situation where the state becomes more important than the people since it is controlling every aspect of it's citizens lives and determines what is best for them and itself. Once that happens killing off "undesirable elements" becomes second nature simply by being "good for the state".

So Norway, Sweden and France are tyrannies, are they? Did the UK get saved from being a tyranny by Thatcher?

I think the thread title should read:

Americans! Indifferent!

The fact is that Thatcher in the UK, Reagan in the US and Bush all presided over increased government spending.

They just put it into things like social security and warfare instead of infrastructure, and financed it by increasing national debt rather than taxation.

Don't forget you get a free krispy kremes doughnut if you wear your "I Voted" sticker. Now there's a reason to vote.

Yea great, doesn't help me now that I mail voted two weeks ago. Jeez I always miss the Starbucks/Kripsy Kreme picnic.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I cede your point if you can show how thats relevant to the point of the brilliantly false statement that blackfang somehow survived communism without being aware of the millions of dead that resulted from it.

Because the USSR and China were only two communist states ever, right?

My whole country has 2 million people, so I think I'd notice if they all vanished into the gulags one night.

But hey, don't let your "democratic" brainwashing stop you from calling me a liar.

Show me a country that was communist and I'll give you 9 out of 10 they were hifding the bodies by the bucketload. What tyrranic state are you supposedly from?

lord_blackfang wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I cede your point if you can show how thats relevant to the point of the brilliantly false statement that blackfang somehow survived communism without being aware of the millions of dead that resulted from it.

Because the USSR and China were only two communist states ever, right?

My whole country has 2 million people, so I think I'd notice if they all vanished into the gulags one night.

But hey, don't let your "democratic" brainwashing stop you from calling me a liar.

It has 2M now. How many did it have before it became communist? If you want you can always visit the mass grave in Poland where my grandfather's entire extended family is buried.

Grandfathers?

That would most likely have been the Germans during WW2 than the Soviets, surely?

N.B. Not trying to correct you, just pointing out.

budro wrote:
Which is why the GOP is taking a nose dive this round of elections. They have abandonded their core values (fiscal responsibility and smaller government) in favor of entitlement and expanded government control of the american public (ohh, it's the government's decision whether a brain-dead woman can be taken off life support! Where's the small govt. in that viewpoint?).

I'll have to disagree. The problem isn't that the Republicans abandoned their core values - its that they've got three, radically different, and ultimately incompatible sets of core values. Theocons, Neocons, and the libertarian wings all have different objectives, and those objectives are essentially all contradictory.

Since 1968, the Republican electoral strategy as such has essentially been one of fear and demonization of the opposition. And essentially, the result of that is being reduced to being a regional party.

Centurian99 wrote:

ChaosDave wrote:
That's a completely laughable argument. I'm sorry, but it is. Any kind of government taken to extremes leads to tyranny. If you go off the leftist deep end, you're a commie. If you go off the right deep end, its fascism.

ChaosDave wrote:
Conservatives for the most part want smaller government, less involvement by the government on the lives of it's citizens, less taxes and less of the government telling you what you can and cannot do. Essentially government is a necessary evil that is tolerated and never trusted. This means that the people are always more important than the state and abuse of power is more difficult as the government simply doesn't have the power to abuse it's citizens.

Liberals on the other hand want big government. They intend for the government to take control of major aspects of the citizens lives to allow them to "redistribute wealth" and force everyone into an economic equality. Here in lies the problem. Once the government is given these powers it is extremely difficult to remove said powers and the acquisition of more and more power becomes easier and easier. This creates a situation where the state becomes more important than the people since it is controlling every aspect of it's citizens lives and determines what is best for them and itself. Once that happens killing off "undesirable elements" becomes second nature simply by being "good for the state".

Apart from the totally prejudicial phrasing and framing, there's so many things wrong with this statement. Lets start with the idea that there's a "conservative" base type that makes up the majority of the Republican vote. There isn't. What you're describing is the libertarian wing of the party - which forms a sizable, but nowhere near a majority share of the party.

The majority of the Republican base consists of one thing: the religious right, what I call the theocons. They're conservative in their social views, have a variety of economic views, but vote based on their social beliefs. When it comes to those beliefs, they're FULLY in favor of government interference - as long as its on their behalf.

Liberals don't want big government. They want a government that actually works to deal with the problems that are too big for individuals to solve.

I find it interesting that you assume by my stating "conservative" that I meant republican. Nowhere did I mention party affiliation. The only reason I even put conservative or according to you "libertarian party" thought was for contrast.

As for liberals and big government, well your statement tells all. Government doesn't solve problems, the people do. The idea that creating a massive bureaucracy to "handle" any problem is absurd but this is exactly what is done to "deal with" any problem "too big for individuals to solve". In fact I would ask that you tell me one US government bureaucracy that is efficient and isn't plagued by cost overruns or corruption? Hell tell me one that actually works and solves or has solved the problem it was created to "deal with".

Frazzled wrote:
Show me a country that was communist and I'll give you 9 out of 10 they were hifding the bodies by the bucketload. What tyrranic state are you supposedly from?

I'm sure your cold war propaganda is more accurate than my personal experience, but for what it's worth I assure you that Yugoslavia was that 1 in 10 gem. Our only mass graves are of the nazi collaborators.

Centurian99 wrote:

The majority of the Republican base consists of one thing: the religious right, what I call the theocons. They're conservative in their social views, have a variety of economic views, but vote based on their social beliefs. When it comes to those beliefs, they're FULLY in favor of government interference - as long as its on their behalf.

Same could be said about all organizations, including liberal ones. That is why they are called special interests, and why they spend billions of dollars to ensure the government votes there way.

You mean the country that split up into Serbia/Bosnia/Kosova/Croatia? Land of Tito? The one with its own website under the UN International Criminal tribunal? http://www.un.org/icty/

Yea no mass graves there...

Mod in.


OK.

Since we are well off the original topic I have moved this thread to Off Topic.

Pleas continue political discussion politely.

Thank you.


Mod out.

You see! This is what free will gets you...disagreement! Only HypnToad can bring peace to a divided world. Embrace HypnoToad! Love HypnoToad!

I am in western PA, voted before 9pm and only had 1 person in front of me. I waited about 2 minutes.

ender502

Centurian99 wrote:

budro wrote:
Which is why the GOP is taking a nose dive this round of elections. They have abandonded their core values (fiscal responsibility and smaller government) in favor of entitlement and expanded government control of the american public (ohh, it's the government's decision whether a brain-dead woman can be taken off life support! Where's the small govt. in that viewpoint?).

I'll have to disagree. The problem isn't that the Republicans abandoned their core values - its that they've got three, radically different, and ultimately incompatible sets of core values. Theocons, Neocons, and the libertarian wings all have different objectives, and those objectives are essentially all contradictory.

Since 1968, the Republican electoral strategy as such has essentially been one of fear and demonization of the opposition. And essentially, the result of that is being reduced to being a regional party.

Valid points. I was talking more about the approach of the republican take-over of the mid-90's. They preached fiscal responsiblity and the "moral majority" (laughable) and won congress with it. Since then though, the various groups which you pointed out have started fighting themselves to the point where they can no longer energize their "base". Until just recently (shortly before winning the nomination) McCain was very much against the "Theocons" (to use your terminology), but has since switched his talking points to try and keep them (which is rather pointless since they are always going to vote against the Dems anyway).

The majority of american voters are much more moderate then either party would like them to be. But since the rabid left and right both raise more money and make more noise, that's what you hear about all the time. Which leads to choosing the lesser of two evils for the average voter.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Grandfathers?

That would most likely have been the Germans during WW2 than the Soviets, surely?

N.B. Not trying to correct you, just pointing out.

Actually, it could have come from either side: I have attached below a exerpt from Wikipedia which describes that war crimes were commited by both the Nazis and Soviets during WW2.

Wikipedia wrote:This article deals with the occupation of Poland by Germany and the Soviet Union during the Second World War (1939–1945). In the beginning of the war (September, 1939) the territory of Poland was divided between the Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union (USSR). In summer-autumn 1941 the territories annexed by the Soviets were overrun by Nazi Germany in the course of the initially successful German attack on the USSR. After several years of fighting, the Red Army was able to repel the invaders and drive the Nazi forces out of the USSR and the rest of Eastern Europe.

Both powers were hostile to the Polish culture and the Polish people, aiming at their destruction.[1] Before Operation Barbarossa, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union coordinated their Poland-related policies, most visibly in the four Gestapo-NKVD Conferences, where the occupants discussed plans for dealing with the Polish resistance movement and future destruction of Poland.[2]

Over 6 million Polish citizens — nearly 21.4% of Poland's population — died between 1939 and 1945.[3] Over 90% of the death toll came through non-military losses, as most of the civilians were targeted by various deliberate actions by Germans and Soviets.[3] There is some controversy as to whether Soviet policies were harsher than those of the Nazis.[4][5]

Frazzled wrote:You mean the country that split up into Serbia/Bosnia/Kosova/Croatia? Land of Tito? The one with its own website under the UN International Criminal tribunal? http://www.un.org/icty/

Yea no mass graves there...

Yes, that's the one. Funny thing, but it turns out that communism holds people together, and when you abolish it the various ethnic and religious groups start killing each other. The rather fresh mass graves have about as much to do with communism as the fighting in North Ireland does.

ChaosDave wrote:
I find it interesting that you assume by my stating "conservative" that I meant republican. Nowhere did I mention party affiliation. The only reason I even put conservative or according to you "libertarian party" thought was for contrast.

Because the Republicans claim to represent the Conservative position. In fact, its in the Republicans' interest to divide the country into "conservative" and "liberals".

It totally ignores the fact that there's a lot of different types of conservatives. Just for a start, you've got economic conservatives, social conservatives, and libertarian conservatives. All could legitimately call themselves conservative - but when it comes down to it, they all want radically different things.

The social conservatives WANT government interference and big government when it comes to social issues, and in general don't care about economic issues. Economic conservatives want the government to keep its hands off of the economy when things are going well, but they also want the government there to help out if things go south. They also, for the most part, don't care one whit about social issues. Libertarians are against Government in principle. They want as small a government as they can get away with, hate any kind of government intereference in the economy, and really oppose the theocon base on social issues.

ChaosDave wrote:
As for liberals and big government, well your statement tells all. Government doesn't solve problems, the people do. The idea that creating a massive bureaucracy to "handle" any problem is absurd but this is exactly what is done to "deal with" any problem "too big for individuals to solve". In fact I would ask that you tell me one US government bureaucracy that is efficient and isn't plagued by cost overruns or corruption? Hell tell me one that actually works and solves or has solved the problem it was created to "deal with".

Here's the part that I've never gotten (and the reason I'm a Democrat). "For the people, by the people, and of the people." We like to blame government for being ineffective - but that's saying that we're not responsible for what the government does. Which is hogwash, in a representative democracy. We may not be directly responsible, but we choose the people who are. And its our job to hold our elected officials responsible.

Funny thing I thought but it turns out Tito's secret police are what kept that country together, but I agree about the rest of it.

How many died while Tito was in power?

wyomingfox wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:

The majority of the Republican base consists of one thing: the religious right, what I call the theocons. They're conservative in their social views, have a variety of economic views, but vote based on their social beliefs. When it comes to those beliefs, they're FULLY in favor of government interference - as long as its on their behalf.

Same could be said about all organizations, including liberal ones. That is why they are called special interests, and why they spend billions of dollars to ensure the government votes there way.

Agree with you there.

budro wrote:
The majority of american voters are much more moderate then either party would like them to be. But since the rabid left and right both raise more money and make more noise, that's what you hear about all the time. Which leads to choosing the lesser of two evils for the average voter.

Hey, it takes a certain amount of passion to stay involved in political matters. Which leads to the loudest voices being the most out there, generally.

Although I've always found the idea of the "average voter" to be somewhat laughable. It makes it easy for the Mainstream Media to pontificate, but I think it has very little to do with actually winning elections.

Frazzled wrote:Funny thing I thought but it turns out Tito's secret police are what kept that country together, but I agree about the rest of it.

How many died while Tito was in power?

Frazzled for the win.

ender502

Frazzled wrote:Funny thing I thought but it turns out Tito's secret police are what kept that country together, but I agree about the rest of it.

How many died while Tito was in power?

His charisma and a sense of solidarity, actually. The wonderful new cutthroat capitalism makes me vomit.

I don't think there have been any political murders after the post-war mop-up, where undoubtedly some dissidents were thrown in the pits along with the actual traitors. There were a handful of political prisoners and lots of censorship, but the fact that we went from communism to democracy without outside intervention* speaks volumes about how "soft" the regime was.

*UN peace forces watching from a safe distance how the Serbs, Croats and Bosnians slaughtered eachother doesn't really count

lord_blackfang wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Funny thing I thought but it turns out Tito's secret police are what kept that country together, but I agree about the rest of it.

How many died while Tito was in power?

His charisma and a sense of solidarity, actually. The wonderful new cutthroat capitalism makes me vomit.

I don't think there have been any political murders after the post-war mop-up, where undoubtedly some dissidents were thrown in the pits along with the actual traitors. There were a handful of political prisoners and lots of censorship, but the fact that we went from communism to democracy without outside intervention* speaks volumes about how "soft" the regime was.

*UN peace forces watching from a safe distance how the Serbs, Croats and Bosnians slaughtered eachother doesn't really count

Nationalistic hogwash. If you want to ignore US involvement (and that stealth fighter that crashed/was shot down) and the billions in foreign aid...fine.

If you want to conveniently forget about the atrocities commited under tito and the rights that did not exist...fine.

But turning a blind eye to fact doesn't make it disappear.

ender502

lord_blackfang wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Funny thing I thought but it turns out Tito's secret police are what kept that country together, but I agree about the rest of it.

How many died while Tito was in power?

His charisma and a sense of solidarity, actually. The wonderful new cutthroat capitalism makes me vomit.

I don't think there have been any political murders after the post-war mop-up, where undoubtedly some dissidents were thrown in the pits along with the actual traitors. There were a handful of political prisoners and lots of censorship, but the fact that we went from communism to democracy without outside intervention* speaks volumes about how "soft" the regime was.

*UN peace forces watching from a safe distance how the Serbs, Croats and Bosnians slaughtered eachother doesn't really count

Really? (Bold is mine)
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm

Yugoslavia
Tito was one of the few Yugoslavian Communists living in exile in the USSR who managed to survive Stalin's purges. This made him a natural candidate for leadership of Yugoslavian Communism, which he attained in the late 1930's. Tito was present in Yugoslavia to initiate guerrilla warfare against the Nazis after Hitler sneak attacked the USSR. During World War II, Tito's forces waged a two-front war: one against the Nazis and domestic collaborators, the other against non-Communist opponents of the Germans. Even before assuming power, Tito had the blood of 100,000 innocents on his hands - wartime gave him ideal conditions for exterminating domestic opposition. This strategy left Tito in full control of Yugoslavia after the German surrender.

Unlike most of the other Communist leaders that came to power after World War II, Tito seized power with his own forces. He had the independent power base to do as he wished. Executions and forced labor camps accelerated, and (as in Poland and Czechoslovakia) a substantial ethnic German minority was expelled. While Stalin imposed a facade of democracy upon Eastern Europe for a brief period, Tito's police state began at once in full force. Tito's excommunication by Stalin in 1948 sparked a new wave of terror against anyone suspected of continuing loyalty to Moscow. Tito executed many accused "Cominformists," and sentenced the rest to slave labor camps. Tito sought and obtained Western support for his heretical Communist regime, and this Western influence seems to have greatly moderated the level of killing from the early 1950's onward. Nevertheless, by most counts Tito's innocent victims exceed 1 million.