• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gregg withdraws as commerce secretary nominee

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wessexman said:
I see what you are saying but those arguments still look silly to me without having to include partisanship.
Click to expand...

That's the thing. They are silly. And the addition of partisanship, which seems to always occur in American politics these days, makes them sillier and more irrelevant.

In Britain and Australia most mainstream politicians aren't like that although they opposition will oppose almost everything the gov't does as a matter of routine and usually come out and attack it.
Click to expand...

I don't know much about the politics in Britain or Australia, though I was reading a bit about Britain last night after one of our discussions. Seems to be a bit different than how we conduct ourselves, here.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
This is what I am getting at. It's good to see that you get it...figured you would. You're a conservative, but you understand conservatism and understand liberalism. You are not extreme in the former, nor do you overgeneralize the latter.

In all of our discussions, today, you have earned my respect.
Click to expand...

This is typical of the lib.
They praise the conservative for compromising his values.

I'd rather not be praised by the liberal.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
This is what I am getting at. It's good to see that you get it...figured you would. You're a conservative, but you understand conservatism and understand liberalism. You are not extreme in the former, nor do you overgeneralize the latter.

In all of our discussions, today, you have earned my respect.
Click to expand...
Thank you, I feel the same towards you.

I'm more Conservative than a Conservative.
 
zimmer said:
Very, very cute slithering.
Click to expand...

Not in the least. Pointing out how your position is completely irrelevant since I never made it.


You stated I was of the type that should be killed.

I'm a conservative.
Click to expand...

No, I stated that extreme conservatives should be eliminated, similar to what Southern Man said about liberals earlier in the thread. I'm assuming his comment was tongue in cheek, as was mine.

And you are an extreme conservative by the way you post. I have no problem with mainstream conservatives. Extreme conservatives and liberals are the biggest problem in this country today.
 
Wessexman said:
Actually Marxism is a political and social philosophy as well as economic based on a "critical analysis" of capitalism relying on dialetical materialism. Marxism is a very complex philosophy and cannot be summed up as you put it, aside from the fact not all Marxists have believed in a centralised state as the answer, and certainly can't be applied to Obama.
Click to expand...
It's not that complex. Haul out the Commi Manifesto.

The collective before the individual.
"It Takes a Village"
No that would be the regimes of Stalinist Russia and similar places.
Click to expand...
Stalinism is a mode of behavior when dealing with opponents. It desires to achieve a result of compliance through fear, through control.

No socialism is about placing the means of production in the hands of the public or state representing the public. There are low or no state versions of socialism and communism.
Click to expand...
Socialism is the government intrusion into the free market.

Man I hate it when people throw around temrs like this when they aren't needed. Libs do it as well with fascist, racist, bigot etc
Click to expand...
They're needed now more than ever. Obama, the socialist has moved to increase the role and power of government into our lives in ways unprecedented.

His recent foray is a trillion USD disguised as "stimulus".

You don't like labels.
I do.
I'm a proud, unapologetic conservative.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
This is typical of the lib.
They praise the conservative for compromising his values.

I'd rather not be praised by the liberal.
Click to expand...

I compromise my Conservatism certainly. Today is not a time for a thorough Conservatism even those like Thatcher or Reagan who claim to be Conservative are more motivated by abstract ideologies than a Conservative really should be. I'll be the first to admit my decentralised vision for Britain is sometimes in tension with pure Conservatism in means and ends. I can rationalise it somewhat in the fact that the dominant trends and powers in today's Britain are not conducive to a Conservative spirit and my desired changes will be a lot more so perhaps and also in the fact that I plan a decentralised vision with plenty of scope for local customs and an increase in intermediate associations and their roles against the decidely unconservative, centralised bureaucracy of my nation but I can't completely get away from the fact I want change that is in some ways quite radical.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
It's not that complex. Haul out the Commi Manifesto.

The collective before the individual.
"It Takes a Village"
Click to expand...
Marxism is a hell of a lot more than the manifesto.

Putting the collective before the individual is a vague phrase, Conservatism is certainly not about unbounded individualism.

Stalinism is a mode of behavior when dealing with opponents. It desires to achieve a result of compliance through fear, through control.
Click to expand...
That sounds more like terrorism. It is not restricted to Stalinists.

Socialism is the government intrusion into the free market.
Click to expand...
Quick, someone tell Kropotkin.

I do.
I'm a proud, unapologetic conservative.
Click to expand...
Really, perhaps you are but you are still into throwing around silly, irrelevant labels.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
This is typical of the lib.
They praise the conservative for compromising his values.
Click to expand...

You still don't get it. Not surprising. He didn't compromise his values. He doesn't look at life with blinders on in some sort of fantasy black or white state. This is why you extremists on both sides of the aisle fail so miserably. You stomp your feet and say, "I'm right and your evil" without looking at anything objectively.

Wessexman is conservative, but he has logic in his positions. Extremist have no logic. They look at things one way: how can I defend my position no matter what, and how can I attack the other, no matter what. This is what you are doing. You keep making yourself look more and more as I've described you.

I'd rather not be praised by the liberal.
Click to expand...

Don't worry. You won't.
 
Wessexman said:
I compromise my Conservatism certainly. Today is not a time for a thorough Conservatism even those like Thatcher or Reagan who claim to be Conservative are more motivated by abstract ideologies than a Conservative really should be. I'll be the first to admit my decentralised vision for Britain is sometimes in tension with pure Conservatism in means and ends.
Click to expand...
Conservatism and truth are needed now more than ever.

Dodd and Frank should be on the stand defending their behavior.
Raines and Gorellick should be doing like-kind, along with the cast of criminals that ran Fannie and Freddie into the ground.

The dead weight should be left to Mr. Market.
Let it be a warning for the future.

Instead we have government bailing out losers, and in the process, they're wasting hundreds of billions.
Send them to Chapter 11 and let the private sector do the correcting from there.

This is going to end up just Like Philip Holzmann.
They got wads of cash and went titters just the same.
The fundamental problems weren't addressed and the cash only prolonged the problem, and eventual result.
 
zimmer said:
Conservatism and truth are needed now more than ever.

Dodd and Frank should be on the stand defending their behavior.
Raines and Gorellick should be doing like-kind, along with the cast of criminals that ran Fannie and Freddie into the ground.

The dead weight should be left to Mr. Market.
Let it be a warning for the future.

Instead we have government bailing out losers, and in the process, they're wasting hundreds of billions.
Send them to Chapter 11 and let the private sector do the correcting from there.

This is going to end up just Like Philip Holzmann.
They got wads of cash and went titters just the same.
The fundamental problems weren't addressed and the cash only prolonged the problem, and eventual result.
Click to expand...
I'm not that thrilled with the bailouts either. I'm not sure is all we are arguing over by far.
 
Wessexman said:
Marxism is a hell of a lot more than the manifesto.

Putting the collective before the individual is a vague phrase, Conservatism is certainly not about unbounded individualism.
Click to expand...

This is true. But the problem here is that extremists see this as an either or situation. Yet there are varying degrees of each. I would say that in American history, the President that was the most socialistic was FDR. Was he a complete collectivist? Not in the least. The most conservative President was probably Calvin Coolidge or maybe Ronald Reagan. Neither were complete individualists. Yet extremists cannot see these shades of gray.


That sounds more like terrorism. It is not restricted to Stalinists.
Click to expand...

And though economically, Stalinist Russia was quite socialistic, politically and governmentally, it was more fascist, which is more of a right wing ideology.

Quick, someone tell Kropotkin.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. Or perhaps Murray Bookchin.

Really, perhaps you are but you are still into throwing around silly, irrelevant labels.
Click to expand...

Correct.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You still don't get it. Not surprising. He didn't compromise his values. He doesn't look at life with blinders on in some sort of fantasy black or white state. This is why you extremists on both sides of the aisle fail so miserably. You stomp your feet and say, "I'm right and your evil" without looking at anything objectively.

Wessexman is conservative, but he has logic in his positions. Extremist have no logic. They look at things one way: how can I defend my position no matter what, and how can I attack the other, no matter what. This is what you are doing. You keep making yourself look more and more as I've described you.
Click to expand...
First, I've looked at the left... I was of the left.
I was a drone... a well educated drone.

I denounce the left because its ideas are failed ones.
I lived it. Still do.
That's logic buddy. Real life transition.
So pleas about "getting along" or "eliminating conservatives" for the greater good rings to me as an opening for socialism.

When socialism has a perfect record for waste, fraud, corruption and failure... why support any of it? To do so is illogical.

And sorry, but you're wrong again.
Wessexman's admitted to compromising.

Look CC, socialism has failed every time it has been attempted.
I asked you to show me one time it has worked for the long haul.
You have not given me one.

I've answered your questions.. proven my point... now answer the question posed some time ago.

Show me one instance socialism has worked.
One.

O N E.

Jus du ette.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
Conservatism and truth are needed now more than ever.

Dodd and Frank should be on the stand defending their behavior.
Raines and Gorellick should be doing like-kind, along with the cast of criminals that ran Fannie and Freddie into the ground.

The dead weight should be left to Mr. Market.
Let it be a warning for the future.

Instead we have government bailing out losers, and in the process, they're wasting hundreds of billions.
Send them to Chapter 11 and let the private sector do the correcting from there.

This is going to end up just Like Philip Holzmann.
They got wads of cash and went titters just the same.
The fundamental problems weren't addressed and the cash only prolonged the problem, and eventual result.
Click to expand...

And guess what? I'm not thrilled with the bailouts, either. See how your perception and position is getting blown out of the water?
 
zimmer said:
First, I've looked at the left... I was of the left.
I was a drone... a well educated drone.

I denounce the left because its ideas are failed ones.
I lived it. Still do.
That's logic buddy. Real life transition.
So pleas about "getting along" or "eliminating conservatives" for the greater good rings to me as an opening for socialism.

When socialism has a perfect record for waste, fraud, corruption and failure... why support any of it? To do so is illogical.

And sorry, but you're wrong again.
Wessexman's admitted to compromising.

Look CC, socialism has failed every time it has been attempted.
I asked you to show me one time it has worked for the long haul.
You have not given me one.

I've answered your questions.. proven my point... now answer the question posed some time ago.

Show me one instance socialism has worked.
One.

O N E.

Jus du ette.
Click to expand...

Still straw manning. And soapboxing. Show where I said I support socialism. You have yet to answer this question, which I posed to you at the beginning of this.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
This is true. But the problem here is that extremists see this as an either or situation. Yet there are varying degrees of each. I would say that in American history, the President that was the most socialistic was FDR. Was he a complete collectivist? Not in the least. The most conservative President was probably Calvin Coolidge or maybe Ronald Reagan. Neither were complete individualists. Yet extremists cannot see these shades of gray.
Click to expand...
There is also the fact that while Conservatism is against political Collectivism to a large degree it is not for a society of autonomous individuals, it believes that association is a key part of humanity and that the intermediate associations are very important and require sufficient autonomy and authority and that means over the individual as well as from the state.

Robert Nisbet puts it well as usual.

Canadian Conservative Forum - Requested Essay

Conservatives, from Burke on, have tended to see the population much in the manner medieval legists and philosophical realists (in contrast to nominalists) saw it: as composed of, not individuals directly, but the natural groups within which individuals invariably live: family, locality, church, region, social class, nation, and so on. Individuals exist, of course, but they cannot be seen or comprehended save in terms of social identities which are inseparable from groups and associations. If modern conservatism came into existence essentially through such a work as Burke's attack on the French Revolution, it is because the Revolution, so often in the name of the individual and his natural rights, destroyed or diminished the traditional groups - guild, aristocracy, patriarchal family, church, school, province, etc. - which Burke declared to be the irreducible and constitutive molecules of society. Such early conservatives as Burke, Bonald, Haller, and Hegel (of The Philosophy of Right) and such conservative liberals as the mature Lamennais and of course Tocqueville, saw individualism - that is, the absolute doctrine of individualism - as being as much of a menace to social order and true freedom as the absolute doctrine of nationalism. Indeed, they argued, it is the pulverizing of society into a sandheap of individual particles, each claiming natural rights, that makes the arrival of collectivist nationalism inevitable.
And though economically, Stalinist Russia was quite socialistic, politically and governmentally, it was more fascist, which is more of a right wing ideology.
Click to expand...
I personally think terms like left and right lack much meaning today.

I like as diverse groups as paleocons and anarcho-syndicalists and regularly argue against neocons, American style libertarians and social democrats/liberals.

Excellent point. Or perhaps Murray Bookchin.
Click to expand...
I quite like Murray Bookchin myself, I was an anarchist once and I'm still not a million miles away. Kropotkin and Landauer are my favourites though.
 
Last edited:
And sorry, but you're wrong again.
Wessexman's admitted to compromising.
Click to expand...
Not with social democracy/liberalism. I compromised with radical decentralism. I put my commitment to decentralism in Britain above a completely Conservative position on the issue, that is all. I think it is vindicated somewhat by the fact that the current system is not conducive to conservatism in many ways and because I at least whan decentralised change which take power from the centralised state which is the big menace to Conservatives values in today's Britain.

I very much doubt you have the perfect Burkean position and don't give in to rationalism at all. I know very few who do in this day and age.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
Still straw manning. And soapboxing. Show where I said I support socialism. You have yet to answer this question, which I posed to you at the beginning of this.
Click to expand...
No straw man, and why not answer the question?

You cannot, can you?

You believe socialists should be at the table.
I think they should be too.
Watching.

You believe they should be at the table... because they have good ideas?
You support socialism to some degree?
No?
Yes?
If yes, then you're a socialist to some degree.
Enjoy.

They, the socialists in America have done tremendous damage since The Raw Deal with their Grand Schemes for managing people.
I would like to see those Grand Schemes phased out.
The cost projections were laughable, and now the numbers look dire.
In short they created The Madoff Government with all their "actions".

Compromising with socialists is part of what got us in this mess.
Giving them what they want mm by mm.

But I'm the evil one.
The Conservative that need be exterminated.

Tell me, do you feel the same way about Obama?
He does after all, hold the great distinction of being the Senator with the most liberal voting record. He supports infanticide. He has tolerant friends like Wright and Ayers. Not bad, and the voting record... pretty impressive for 140-some days work.
As an "extremist", shouldn't "He" be subject to your political philosophy of permanent neutralization?

Or are you a hypocrite too?
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
No straw man, and why not answer the question?

You cannot, can you?

You believe socialists should be at the table.
I think they should be too.
Watching.

You believe they should be at the table... because they have good ideas?
You support socialism to some degree?
No?
Yes?
If yes, then you're a socialist to some degree.
Enjoy.

They, the socialists in America have done tremendous damage since The Raw Deal with their Grand Schemes for managing people.
I would like to see those Grand Schemes phased out.
The cost projections were laughable, and now the numbers look dire.
In short they created The Madoff Government with all their "actions".

Compromising with socialists is part of what got us in this mess.
Giving them what they want mm by mm.

But I'm the evil one.
The Conservative that need be exterminated.

Tell me, do you feel the same way about Obama?
He does after all, hold the great distinction of being the Senator with the most liberal voting record. He supports infanticide. He has tolerant friends like Wright and Ayers. Not bad, and the voting record... pretty impressive for 140-some days work.
As an "extremist", shouldn't "He" be subject to your political philosophy of permanent neutralization?

Or are you a hypocrite too?
Click to expand...

More soapboxing, straw manning and irrelevancy. I have asked you a question way back on post #59, in fact, I asked you 3, none of which you have answered. I suppose if you did, honestly, you would further be exposed as the extremist that you are, so I understand your reluctance to answer. You'd lose further than you already have. However, these questions and your answers to such have been pertinent to the discussion from the outset; you are attributing positions to me that I have not made, so I would like to see you prove that they are mine.

Either do so, or admit you cannot. Either is accpetable.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
More soapboxing, straw manning and irrelevancy. I have asked you a question way back on post #59, in fact, I asked you 3, none of which you have answered. I suppose if you did, honestly, you would further be exposed as the extremist that you are, so I understand your reluctance to answer. You'd lose further than you already have. However, these questions and your answers to such have been pertinent to the discussion from the outset; you are attributing positions to me that I have not made, so I would like to see you prove that they are mine.

Either do so, or admit you cannot. Either is accpetable.
Click to expand...

Your entire post is nothing but straw man hyperpartisan bs. As expected. Try this:

1) Point out where I said that conservatism=extremism.
2) Point out where I claimed to be a socialist.
3) Point out where I defended socialism.
Click to expand...
I answered your questions, it seems you did not like the answers, so let's do it again for drill.

Your post #44
extreme partisan conservatives...need to be wiped off the face of the earth.
Click to expand...

1.Then you go on and equate me with an extreme partisan conservative in following posts. I'm a Conservative. Nothing extreme. Unless you believe Conservatism to be extreme. Which I have a sneaky feeling you do.

2. You sound like a socialist. You believe there should be room at the table for their ideas and all would be OK. So, to some degree you are a socialist, or simply naive.

3. You defend socialism by thinking their ideas are rational. By bringing them to the table. I believe their ideas are irrational have proven dangerous everywhere they have been tried and therefore should be defeated, not embraced.

You may not jump up and down and scream I'm a socialist, but your words... your words indicate you can deal with them and get half pregnant.

If you don't want to be associated with socialism, stop sounding like one, and don't accommodate their failed ideas.

Now, I asked you to:

1. Show me one place socialism has worked over the long term. If you cannot illustrate a socialist success story, then why support socialism in any form? Just to get along?

2. Explain your position on Obama. He earned the honor of being the most socialist Senator in his 140 plus days in active duty. Do you believe he, a partisan to the extreme left, should be dealt the fate you claimed all extremists should meet in an effort to get things done?

Do you advocate the extermination of much of the Democrat Party? That "they should be be wiped off the face of the earth"?

See, you've made a far more extreme statement than I have ever made.
I don't believe any law abiding citizen should be exterminated. Not even those that actively work to destroy The Constitution.

I believe people should work to defeat opponents, not exterminate them... even when fantasizing.

Extermination... is so socialist... by the way.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
I answered your questions, it seems you did not like the answers, so let's do it again for drill.

Your post #44


1.Then you go on and equate me with an extreme partisan conservative in following posts. I'm a Conservative. Nothing extreme. Unless you believe Conservatism to be extreme. Which I have a sneaky feeling you do.
Click to expand...
This is your problem and an issue with logic. I do not believe conservatism to be extreme. But you have shown yourself to be an extreme conservative.

2. You sound like a socialist. You believe there should be room at the table for their ideas and all would be OK. So, to some degree you are a socialist, or simply naive.
Click to expand...

You still have not answered the question. Show anything that I said that makes mention of socialism. believing that there should be room at the table for their ideas. In fact, show where I mentioned socialism at all prior to you mentioning it.

3. You defend socialism by thinking their ideas are rational. By bringing them to the table. I believe their ideas are irrational have proven dangerous everywhere they have been tried and therefore should be defeated, not embraced.
Click to expand...

You still haven't answered the question, still have shown zero evidence and are still attributing positions to me that I have not claimed or stated. This is what extremists on either side do. Since you cannot win on merits and since your own position is so inherently weak, you must attribute an extreme position to the opposition to have any hopes of winning. But since you have no evidence of any of the positions that you subscribe to me, you lose every time. It's very weak, but it is why extremists cannot hope to win.

Show where I have have defended socialism. Anything. Come on, this should be easy...why are you unable to do it?

You may not jump up and down and scream I'm a socialist, but your words... your words indicate you can deal with them and get half pregnant.

If you don't want to be associated with socialism, stop sounding like one, and don't accommodate their failed ideas.
Click to expand...

Still you have shown zero. Come on, if this is so obvious to you and so easy, why is it that you have not used any of my words against me to show that I am a socialist? I can tell you why. Your an extremist. And the extreme must give their opposite position, the position that they cannot stand to their opposition in order to have any hope of winning. And if that person does not have that position, they still must give it to them, because if they don't their entire position is worthless. This is why extremists cannot win.

So, come on. One comment that shows that I am a socialist. It should be easy.

Now, I asked you to:

1. Show me one place socialism has worked over the long term. If you cannot illustrate a socialist success story, then why support socialism in any form? Just to get along?

2. Explain your position on Obama. He earned the honor of being the most socialist Senator in his 140 plus days in active duty. Do you believe he, a partisan to the extreme left, should be dealt the fate you claimed all extremists should meet in an effort to get things done?

Do you advocate the extermination of much of the Democrat Party? That "they should be be wiped off the face of the earth"?

See, you've made a far more extreme statement than I have ever made.
I don't believe any law abiding citizen should be exterminated. Not even those that actively work to destroy The Constitution.

I believe people should work to defeat opponents, not exterminate them... even when fantasizing.

Extermination... is so socialist... by the way.
Click to expand...

No, I'm sorry, but since you have not shown one ounce of validity in answering my questions, I see no need to answer yours...especially since most, if not all of them are offshoots of straw manning my position.

I'm real patient, so as soon as you can show where I have claimed to be a socialist, where I have supported socialism, where I have associated with socialism, where I have said anything positive about socialism, or where I have mentioned socialism in any context at all, other than asking you, repeatedly, to substantiate your claim, then and only then will I address anything that you present. Your straw manning and soapboxing will not work with me. Peddle it elsewhere. If you are not the extremist you are presenting yourself as, it should be very easy to respond honestly to my questions. If you are, then it will be impossible.

Your move.
 
Eh Cap'n,

Or is it Exterminator in Chief? :)

You failed to answer my questions:
1. Show me one place socialism has worked over the long term. If you cannot illustrate a socialist success story, then why support socialism in any form? Just to get along?

2. Explain your position on Obama. He earned the honor of being the most socialist Senator in his 140 plus days in active duty. Do you believe he, a partisan to the extreme left, should be dealt the fate you claimed all extremists should meet in an effort to get things done?

Do you advocate the extermination of much of the Democrat Party? That "they should be be wiped off the face of the earth"?

See, you've made a far more extreme statement than I have ever made.
I don't believe any law abiding citizen should be exterminated. Not even those that actively work to destroy The Constitution.

I believe people should work to defeat opponents, not exterminate them... even when fantasizing.

Extermination... is so socialist... by the way.
Click to expand...

CaptainCourtesy said:
This is your problem and an issue with logic. I do not believe conservatism to be extreme. But you have shown yourself to be an extreme conservative.
Click to expand...
Ahhh.
Ready for the Gulag C'apn.

I'm not an extreme Conservative.

I am an unapologetic Conservative.

If you think I am extreme... you think Conservatism to be extreme.

I embrace Conservative values of limited government, maximum personal liberty, private property rights, low taxation, national security and markets free of government intrusion. It's not to say lawlessness, I'm no advocate of anarchy.

If that's "extreme", then you must lean towards socialism.

As one who has lived the socialist nightmare, and find no redeeming value in it. It fails wherever it is tried.

You still have not answered the question. Show anything that I said that makes mention of socialism. believing that there should be room at the table for their ideas. In fact, show where I mentioned socialism at all prior to you mentioning it.
Click to expand...
Hey look... your ability to reason seems challenged. You make a statement, and we can't deduce anything from it?

You are the one who believes socialists should be at the table to sort out our problems. I don't.

You support having socialists at the table. For what reason?
As a garnish?

You still haven't answered the question, still have shown zero evidence and are still attributing positions to me that I have not claimed or stated.
Click to expand...
BS.

Since you cannot win on merits and since your own position is so inherently weak,you must attribute an extreme position to the opposition to have any hopes of winning. But since you have no evidence of any of the positions that you subscribe to me, you lose every time. It's very weak, but it is why extremists cannot hope to win.
Click to expand...
Eh C'apn, tell me why bringing socialists to the table will solve our problems rather than increase them?

You think they should be at the table.
Show where I have have defended socialism. Anything. Come on, this should be easy...why are you unable to do it?
Click to expand...
I've done it repeatedly... you think they should have a place at the table, which means you think their ideas should have sway in the "fixing" of our problems.

Read your post #44.
Please.

Still you have shown zero. Come on, if this is so obvious to you and so easy, why is it that you have not used any of my words against me to show that I am a socialist? I can tell you why. Your an extremist. And the extreme must give their opposite position, the position that they cannot stand to their opposition in order to have any hope of winning. And if that person does not have that position, they still must give it to them, because if they don't their entire position is worthless. This is why extremists cannot win.
Click to expand...
You believe I am an extremist. You believe someone espousing Conservatism is an "extremist".

Where have I advocated anything extreme?
I've made a few hundred posts now... go ahead... find "extreme".

I suspect you don't like my delivery, and that's OK.

So, come on. One comment that shows that I am a socialist. It should be easy.
Click to expand...
You want them at the table to sort out our challenges. Why?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
duplicate.....
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
I embrace Conservative values of limited government, maximum personal liberty, private property rights, low taxation, national security and markets free of government intrusion. It's not to say lawlessness, I'm no advocate of anarchy.

If that's "extreme", then you must lean towards socialism.
Click to expand...
No mention of intermediate associations nor anti-Constructivism/rationalism.

Historically speaking much of that has not always been associated with Conservatism. Hume, Bonald, Hegel and De Maistre were rather different Conservatives.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
Eh Cap'n,

Or is it Exterminator in Chief? :)

Ahhh.
Ready for the Gulag C'apn.

I'm not an extreme Conservative.

I am an unapologetic Conservative.

If you think I am extreme... you think Conservatism to be extreme.

I embrace Conservative values of limited government, maximum personal liberty, private property rights, low taxation, national security and markets free of government intrusion. It's not to say lawlessness, I'm no advocate of anarchy.

If that's "extreme", then you must lean towards socialism.

As one who has lived the socialist nightmare, and find no redeeming value in it. It fails wherever it is tried.

Hey look... your ability to reason seems challenged. You make a statement, and we can't deduce anything from it?

You are the one who believes socialists should be at the table to sort out our problems. I don't.

You support having socialists at the table. For what reason?
As a garnish?

BS.

Eh C'apn, tell me why bringing socialists to the table will solve our problems rather than increase them?

You think they should be at the table.
I've done it repeatedly... you think they should have a place at the table, which means you think their ideas should have sway in the "fixing" of our problems.

Read your post #44.
Please.

You believe I am an extremist. You believe someone espousing Conservatism is an "extremist".

Where have I advocated anything extreme?
I've made a few hundred posts now... go ahead... find "extreme".

I suspect you don't like my delivery, and that's OK.

You want them at the table to sort out our challenges. Why?
Click to expand...
I thought about this and realized I needed to add an adjective. You are an extreme hyperpartisan conservative. All of how I have described you, all of my examples fit you to a tee and describe what I just identified. Further, you have continued to refuse to answer my questions and show evidence of your claims. Standard extreme hyperpartisan fare. Since you can't defend your own position, attack a position that your opponent does not expouse. Since you have made claims, it is your job to prove them. Here they are, again, and since you've added claims, I've added a challenge:

1) Point out where I said that conservatism=extremism.
2) Point out where I claimed to be a socialist.
3) Point out where I defended socialism.
4) Point out where I said we should bring socialists to the table to help solve our problems.

Come on zimmer, why all the dodging. This should be easy. Go ahead...one comment substantiating any of these things. I doubt you will, since there is another trait of extreme hyperpartisans that you obiviously have: refusal to admit you are wrong, even when it is proven to you. Closedminded, inability to be objective, inability to examine, these are all traits that people I have described have. So, go ahead, point out, with quotes, the post(s) where I made any of the claims you are stating. You know I have you beaten, here, and your refusal to admit it, keeps strengthening my position with each post you make.

So, what's it going to be? Point out my quotes? Admit you are wrong? Or keep the straw manning and soapboxing?
 
Eh Cap'n,
I answered your questions, but you haven't answered mine.

Give me one example of socialism working.
One.
O N E
Uno
Un.
Ein.
Een.
Jeden.
Et.
En.
Yksi.


You have proposed the extermination of conservatives.
Post #44.
I have not.
This is not extreme?

Perhaps you should exterminate thyself?

So, according to your theory you believe Obama should be physically removed from office and society?
Or is He not "extreme"?
He is furthest left of his Senate colleagues.
The most radical.
(I'd like an answer from you on this)

Or will your fantasies be inconsistent?

Does this mean you advocate exterminating the Democrat Caucus too?

CaptainCourtesy said:
I thought about this and realized I needed to add an adjective. You are an extreme hyperpartisan conservative.
Click to expand...
LOL.
I am simply a Conservative.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Post #44 Deconstructed.
I see nothing here that does anything to dissuade me from what I've always thought: extreme partisan conservatives... need to be wiped off the face of the earth.
Click to expand...
Exterminations as a solution?
"Always thought"?
You believe you can work with socialists? Like Lieberman had? LOL
This is child like reasoning, of which you "always thought".
And "nothing... to dissuade you"?

So you believe the socialists are viable partners for the greater good.
LOL.

I find most of the party irrational.

Lieberman
Lieberman was the only one with a rational view of Iraq from the Leftists in the Senate, and what happened?
They actively set out to end his career.
That's OK, as politics is its own battlefield, but why did they do it?

Because he didn't tow the party line.
With your theory, you'd have to exterminate virtually the entire Democrat party.
But you think these people can be dealt with on the up and up?

By the way...
What is an extreme Conservative?
Really?

I call Democrats "socialists", "Marxists", and "Stalinists" because it fits their behavior.

Can you define "extreme conservative" vs. "Conservative"?


Perhaps then all of the stupidity, the political gridlock, the finger pointing, the vengeance, and the political hackery...would stop.
Click to expand...
LOL.
Let's all sing... "Save the world, make it a better place, for you and for me and the entire human race..."
What blarney lad.

Tell me. Why did partisanship, etc raise its head when Republicans had power? Before that all was well in the world.

And when has socialism worked? One time?


Perhaps then America could be "one nation under God".
Click to expand...
LOL.
Sorry.
Every time I read this post I start thinking about the Miss America pageant.
It's so Miss California, y'know?

Of course there are too many that are invested in anger, hate, and proving the other guy is wrong rather than looking at progress or solutions, or actually looking past their own partisan hackery to see anything.
Click to expand...
People have core beliefs.
Many on the left subscribe to socialism.
Many on the right subscribe to Republican values of limited government...

You believe we should all get along.
"Save the world... make it a better place... exterminate those we don't like, and sit around with socialists chang'in the place..."

The Founders KNEW we should have epic battles to get anything done or altered.
You don't believe in this obviously.

You think we should get along with and succumb to the socialists.

Too many people are willing to appease the left and actually believe their socialist schemes will work. YOU ARE ONE OF THESE INDIVIDUALS BY WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN IN POST #44.

You have a soft spot for socialists, actually believing their ideas provide for the greater good over the long term.

Tell me, you like The New Deal? Great Society? High taxes? Weak military? Government intrusion into our lives? A strong, active, omnipresent government? That's the Democrat Party. You want 'em at the table? You obviously believe they have something valuable to offer.

I don't.

I want to see them defeated and those that support socialists (like you) defeated.

If you don't like what I'm saying, stop believing and promoting socialists have something valuable to offer.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom