It is sad that this even has to be pointed out. With Joseph Patrick Bedell, the Democrat and Pentagon shooter, and Joe Stack, the crazed and angry Austinite, being lumped in as Tea Party activists, the right feels compelled to respond to a badly misguided media showing its left-wing bias.
Stack and Bedell, like Timothy McVeigh before them, are considered conservatives by the left, despite very clearly hating the right. In fact, if we were to be honest they like McVeigh are of a branch of anarcho-libertarian that hates both left and right.
But in a day and age when the media dwells on simple narratives devoid of reality, it is easier to lump them all in as conservatives, helping feed left-wing narratives about a violent right. And so the right must respond.
[More]
Timothy McVeigh was caught with a copy of the Turner Diaries, a neo-nazi fantasy novel used by the extreme right as inspiration to commit all kinds of hate-crimes (like that police beating in Minnosota). That is about as far to the RIGHT as you can get. Timmy was no Obama/Clinton/etc fan to be sure.
As for the left using more violence over all … well of course – they were seeking power. When you have power, you don’t have to commit violence yourself. You just summon the army to do it, or better yet subcontract that job to some paramilitary organization while sending their leadership to vague “schools” where you show them how to do it.
Hence, Nicaragua, Angola, South Africa, etc aren’t literally on the right’s hands – even if they did orchestrate or prop up all of those slaughters. The trend continues today with the Islamist wars.
Well said Cy. And wasnt it the Johnson democrats who committed most of the U.S. troops to Vietnam even though JFK wanted to pull them out.
…and it was JFK who (when he wasn’t in the sack with MM) orchestrated the Bay of Pigs invasion by a relatively small number of Cuban exiles. Then when things didn’t go as planned he abandoned the invaders to their fate on the Cuban beaches. As if that wasn’t bad enough, because of this failed attempt to overthrow him Castro went on a witch hunt that ultimately cost (if I remember correctly) over 100,000 Cubans their freedom and in too many cases their lives. There’s more than enough blame to go around and neither side is wearing white gloves.
Cy; the Nazi’s were socialists (Communists), Hitler was Stalin’s pal until he, like all totalitarians, feared he might have to share power and the ‘spoils’ of victory. Hitler felt ‘superior’ to Stalin: Hitler did not disagree with Stalin’s ideology or his methods to ‘cull’ undesirable people.
The Nazis’ ECONOMIC plans were socialist. Their social plans were lifted directly from American right wing organizations like the KKK. Nazi spokesmen stated this directly and meant it in a positive way, as the KKK was pretty popular in the 20′s and 30′s.
I don’t believe for a minute that you think the neo-nazis are marching arm in arm with the labour unions, so let’s not play sleight of hand.
It seems strange BTDT that the Americans (mainly Republicans) dont like communist Cuba but will bend over back wards to do business with the largest communist country in the world, China.
And lets not forget how America backed Iraq in their war with Iran. Yes, both american political parties have blood on their hands. Whats the old saying ‘politics makes for strange bedfellows.’ And America sure has slept around.
The KKK were not ring wing, they were/are FAR right wing(nuts). The left wing also have their own FAR left wing(nuts). The right and left wing parties openly and regularily disassociate themselves from the lunatics on their fringes.
As far as Americans disliking Cuba, UV, I don’t buy into that one bit. Based on years of working with socializing with and corresponding with Americans, I believe the general attitude is that it’s time to heal the wound. In fact I discussed Cuba only last month with a small group of Americans and that is exactly what I got out of the conversation. They hate it that they can’t legally travel there. They had many questions about what it is like (I’ve been 5 times in 8 yrs and have about a dozen Cubans who I consider friends, and they me). I tell Americans exactly how and why I feel it’s time to end it. I tell them about the poverty and how their country’s embargo is hurting the people. I tell them how wonderful the Cuban people are. Friendly, giving, religious, loyal. In fact, I’ve had some pretty revealing personal conversations with Cubans and not even once has any one of them bad mouthed the USA. Not once! But once they trust you they’ll let you in on the fact that they are not too pleased with El Presidente, that they are practically starving, that their elderly are treated poorly, that every single piece of mail coming onto the island is opened and any valuables stolen before delivery, that the police are nortoriously corrupt etc. etc. It’s not all the fault of America but even so the Americans I spoke to are not happy to hear what I tell them. They feel genuine guilt and it’s not all their fault by any means. I am basing my beliefs as a result of my conversations with ordinary Americans not some duffus politician. Of course nobody would have to look very hard to find some loudmouth American to make it sound like the entire USA hates Cuba.
I have to disagree with the currently held definition of “far right”. What seems to be common between the definitions hinted at above and the policies of the left is a disregard for the inalienable rights of the individual. In spite of the economic policies, these “far right” groups were gross violators of inalienable rights.
The extreme right is anarchy, not the nihilistic anarchy of our masked pals at the G20 protests, but the philosophical anarchy of Rothebard and Hoppe. Philosophical anarchists could be raging bigots but they would never prevent one from realizing their fundamental rights.
Like I said in another post, I think that lumping these people in with the “far right” is simply an effort to protect socialist values.
Thank-you for answering Cy, Johndoe 124; with a briefer more informative answer than I could have given. Freedom counts in my books, I believe that if people are guaranteed a sovereign right to themselves by law and if people take that sovereign right personally amd seriously; and if each person then asserts that right; everything else will sort itself out. I believe that individuals earn their own place in a nation; not groups of people.
What you two described is libertarianism, not right wing philosophy.
Libertarians can be on the left or the right.
The KKK is on the right, always have been and always will be. They hate immigration, affirmative action, non-Christian religions, etc just like the right. They have nothing in common with the left.
Moreover, much of this individualism espoused by the right is a trick. What they want to do is reduce government interference in their affairs, knowing full well they’ll be able to individually implement the social exclusion associated with collectivism. If one group has all the power then it doesn’t matter whether the government is libertarian or authoritarian … unless that authoritarianism is chipping away at said group’s power. This is why many you hate Obama but have no problem with the far more authoritarian Sarah Palin.
The problem is when you mix and match points from various philosophical, political, religious and personal ideologies then try to draw comparisons to bogeymen of the past (or present or future) and expect some kind of meaningful results, you’re bound to end up with spurious meaningless results.
Take the examples you all are chewing about….
McVeigh didn’t represent the “rightwing” in any meaningful way. He was an arch-anarchist who hated all governments. Rightwing? Nope but since two of the supposed tenets of the rightwing is smaller bureaucracy and limits on the coercive power of governments, guys like Cy push these concepts to “worse case scenario” and come up “no bureaucracy and no government” and voila! McVeigh!
Likewise, the KKK don’t represent the “rightwing” in any meaningful way… but that won’t keep Cy from claiming they’re paragons of the right. Remind me which party Senator Robert Byrd (former Kleagle & KKK recruiter) represents again…
The Nazi Party doesn’t represent the “leftwing” in any meaningful way unless one employs the “worst case scenario” filter… but that filter only works one way. Right, Cy?
This is all familiar territory, folks… Why are we regurgitating labels? Ah yes… because the article calls for the “left” to recognize the radicals in their ranks… Unlikely to happen but a lovely thought…
Mac, the only problem here is that the right acts like the right, enforcing it with authoritarianism (religion, war machine) while trying to present themselves as libertarians. I know actual libertarians and most of them are just as contemptuous of the right as they are of the left.
The rest, my dear friend Mac, will be presented in point form:
-Timothy McVeigh was a government-hating white supremacist. You just said yourself that the right does not like big government. I disagree, but as stated above the right likes to think they are libertarians so it can be inferred that Mr McVeigh would not be walking alongside the labour unions and law-changing feminists
-The KKK does represent social conservatism in its purest form – monoculture, strict Christian tradition, stockpiling of weapons, etc. Social conservatism is under the right-wing tent, not the left-wing tent.
-The Nazi party is the same as the KKK, except that, like the KKK, they fell on the wrong side of history so the right no longer wants to claim them. The Nazis were authoritarian as was Stalin – the right uses this similarity to deceitfully claim that the two are along the same lines.
-There are very few leftist radicals in North America – and by that I mean violent revolutionaries. What most of the right call radical are really local activists who don’t kneel at the altar of social darwinism and winner-take-all capitalism. During the Reagan years, the right were raking in the cash without a fig of concern about the communities that were being exploited (e.g. the neighbourhoods that were flooded with crack-cocaine that kept mysteriously making it through the borders) or the thousands of international civilians that Reagan killed to preserve US hegemony. Now that some of these people dare to complain and question the system that kept them down … voila! Stalins everywhere as far as the right is concerned.
Obama would be considered a right-winger in virtually any nation except the USA. That includes this one. But America is so far to the right that anyone who even sniffs concern for a forgotten community (even if he doesn’t follow through with it, as seems to be the case with Mr. Obama) is branded the son of Lenin and out to destroy America. What does that say about America?
In other words, it doesn’t matter that McVeigh didn’t represent the right in any meaningful way so long as he is available as a bogeyman so the right doesn’t get uppity. Likewise with the KKK… but you can’t have it both ways, Cy… Stalin and the Nazis are aberrations of the left, not the right.
I still don’t get how you figure the left is exempt from authoritarianism. Take a peek under the tent of any leftist and you’ll find an iron curtain. Would you argue that Obama isn’t authoritarian? Or perhaps you think he’s a closet rightwinger?
There aren’t too many violently revolutionary rightists floating around either despite the best efforts of CNN and MSNBC to misrepresent the Tea Party rallies as being radicals and extremists… Yet union thugs were beating people down outside of the town hall meetings on health care… whereas the Tea Party rallies are peaceful…
Hmmmm….
We know the KKK was composed of monstrous bigots, as were the Nazis, the Leninists, the Maoists and the Baathists… all killed millions. Also society won’t tolerate isolated whacko murderers like the anarchist McVeigh and that’s why he was executed.
So those are dangers that we can spot and deal with. Probably being preoccupied with the Cold War, we didn’t spot and deal with the Islamists quickly enough, now we are doing that.
But there are other slow creeping dangers that we need to be aware of, for example excessive liberal utopianism. Interestingly , as soon as we succeeded in giving liberalism a bad name they changed it to the more subliminal, innocuous sounding “progressivism”. So now we know to also be wary of the progressives.
Be that as it may, a worthwhile discussion has to take on political subjects one issue at a time. Because we’ve reached a stage of development where just labeling someone as a “progressive” or the “Christian right” doesn’t have much of an impact anymore because it basically has no meaning without context. Without offering context the debater appears lazy and instantly loses credibility.
Political debate today takes more work than just saying “It’s Bush’s fault”. Even the pretenders at the Hollywood Oscars this year seem to have figured that out.
Stalin was from the left. The Nazis weren’t.
Ok, being implicit has proven most unfruitful. So let’s spell it out.
A) The opposite of political left is political right (outdated but people still like the labels)
B) The opposite of authoritarianism is libertarianism.
Knowing a person is one of the options from group A implies absolutely nothing about their affiliation in group B. Or vice-versa
Examples:
Left, Authoritarian – Stalin
Left, Libertarian – Gandhi
Right, Authoritarian – Hitler
Right, Libertarian – Voltaire
Left, Authoritarian – Al Gore
Left, Libertarian – Ralph Nader
Right, Authoritarian – Sarah Palin
Right, Libertarian – Jesse Ventura
“Right, Authoritarian – Sarah Palin”
No she’s for smaller government, thus libertarian. You are probably referring to pro-life. Then the question becomes:
libertarian for the Mom wanting to use abortion as birth control
or
libertarian for the baby’s rights.
Again, the labels left and right are just banana peelings, very unhelpful.
No, she’s for less social security and so-called redistribution, more indicative of being against the “left” than against government. Is she also for reducing the military?
Re pro-life, Sarah belongs to a fundamentalist church and takes an authoritarian position on abortion. There’s no flipping that script – Sarah Palin wants every American woman to be a good Christian woman who doesn’t have abortion. Far from libertarian. Baby rights come before civil rights? Perhaps then the state should take these unwanted babies and raise them … but wouldn’t that expand government? Of course it would – … authoritarian. A real libertarian would let the living mother work out what she wants to do with her fetus, whatever their personal conviction.
But you will say she’s for small government because she support deregulation, reduction in government preservation of civil rights and other pesky initiatives that get in the way of the right wing initiatives to purify their communities and maximize profit at any cost.
Objective people would simply call that robbing Paul with interest to reimburse Peter.
The left/right labels aren’t just outdated… they’re inadequate… but alas…
Hitler’s rise to power was based in promoting German nationalism, anti-semitism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Marxism with charismatic oratory and propaganda.
Nationalism is neither politically left nor right; it’s a game both sides like to play but not to the extremes which Hitler took it.
Anti-semitism is more prevalent on the left. Anti-capitalism is purely left.
Anti-Marxism is neither left nor right although it’s more prevalent on the right.
Simply put, Hitler’s political positions were more to the left than the right although he doesn’t fit either definition because he was an aberration…. and his party’s policies mirrored Hitler’s aberrant nature.
Anti-semitism is more prevalent on the left
Only because you think neo-nazis are leftists.
Radical Islam is certainly on the far right in its nations of origin (Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan) but it’s embraced by the Western left because Islamists are opposed to the radical Christians who’ve dominated the GOP White House and the military.
Anti-semitism on the left is a recent phenomenon. Many major leftists past and present are Jewish, recall. Jews still aren’t allowed in some of the country clubs for the Evangelicals who’ve recently declared themselves Israel’s fifth column. Moreover, much of what the pro-Israel yellow journalists call antisemitism is merely anti-Zionism or anti-Israelism. Israel is basically the new South Africa for social justice protesters. Most of the stateside leftists campaigning against Israel aren’t dangerous like the Islamists or the neo-nazis – they’re just goofy and wasteful of their parents’ funds.
“No, she’s for less social security, more indicative of being against the “left” than against government.”
That’s self contradictory and what make these terms so archaic and useless. I confess I use them all the time, this is about getting ourselves to improve the language we use, I hope.
“Re pro-life, Sarah belongs to a fundamentalist church and takes an authoritarian position on abortion”
That’s just more ad hominems. I know atheists that are pro life. It’s a legitimate moral debate that takes place in a Church and outside of Churches. It’s a moral debate. But to say someone belongs to a Church thus their position is irrelevant is simply not sufficient argument anymore. Particularly now that those brilliant intellectuals at Globe and Mail do not dominate our thinking on this subject, we have other media outlets.
You think she’s for BIG government?
“Left, Libertarian – Gandhi”
Gandhi might be called libertarian in terms of advocating secular government and tolerance of religions. But not in terms of economics, he was a disaster.
He was practically a tribal hippie in his rants about wanting to keep everyone in a village mentality. He could not adapt a massive population to those old tribal ways. His buddy Nehru followed suit and when it wasn’t working he too feel into a form of tribalism by cozying up to the USSR and going down the socialist path. A disaster until the current PM Singh, an economist, helped turn it around in 1991, now India has some hope and change by becoming capitalist and developing a middle class.
Mac “Nationalism is neither politically left nor right; it’s a game both sides like to play but not to the extremes which Hitler took it.”
Correct. Unlike what our unionized teachers brainwash our kids in schools, nationalism didn’t cause wars, totalitarianism did .. Maoism and Stalinism killed almost a 100 million of their own people. Nazism is just totalitarianism with some ethnic bigotry thrown in to help recruit. Ditto Islamists are totalitarian and use cultural warfare against Israel and the Western capitalism to stir up the recruitment.
“Radical Islam is certainly on the far right”
Again, left or right is irrelevant. The Islamists are for a 2-class system. Just like the Nazis and the Communists. There is a ruling class and the peasants that serve them, no middle class with the power to throw the bums out.
To put it another way, the Islamists and the Marxists are both utopians. Islamist ( mostly males ) want to take us back to a utopian pastoral nomadic life that persevere as idyllic. They are utopians of the past, and the key motivator to it is keeping women supressed. The Marxist are utopians of the future, if only we can implement their plan , they have the perfect system that will make us all equal and all happy , just like the Stepford Wives. Both the Islamists and Marxists are as whacko as a Stepford Wives movie.
“radical Christians who’ve dominated the GOP White House and the military.”
Good grief, you sure have a hate on for us Christians Cy
That’s just more ad hominems. I know atheists that are pro life. It’s a legitimate moral debate that takes place in a Church and outside of Churches.
You’re dodging. The mandate of the church is clear and it not meant to apply just to the individual or even the church. Unless Sarah is lying to her acolytes, she has to act according to her FAITH, which dictates no abortion. Since her church is authoritarian, she is bound to force her views on others through legislation and she’s shown every indication to want to. Ms. Cynapse is a pro-life atheist, but by contrast does not demand everyone march in lockstep lest they face eternal damnation.
A disaster until the current PM Singh, an economist, helped turn it around in 1991, now India has some hope and change by becoming capitalist and developing a middle class.
So, India now has a handful of super-barons, a moderate swatch of Ward Cleavers and still masses of poor now dealing with far more pollution than they ever did in pre-Industrial India. What do you think is going to happen in the long run?
The reason capitalism (more like corporatism) always seems to succeed and socialism always seems to fail is that socialism aims to take care of everyone’s needs. The needs always seem to outstrip the production, since the self-declared needy rarely produce, and the country goes bankrupt. Capitalism, on the other hand, only seems to be concerned that it is a possible for someone to get rich. This will inevitably happen in any system short of pure communism. Add a few middle class and to hell with the rest of em – we need monkey waiters and hedge-clippers anyway. The bar is lower.
Both systems seem to be doomed to failure in the long run. Sustainability will probably come through a framework capable of accommodating multiple ideologies, but that’s a different discussion.
Good grief, you sure have a hate on for us Christians Cy
No hate on – just a compulsion to knock you off that soap box every time you start barking about Islam like you don’t have an impressive rap sheet of your own. Plus, how quick were both Bushes and Reagan to give the big man a little shout out before calling in the bombers? It played well on TV, even before FOX.
Cynapse I think you really need to post some sort of guideline for what you believe. You are so all over the map. Your ideology seems to spring from whatever you feel you need to say to “win” a debate.
I dont see you attempting to win the debate through reason, rather your responses are too often simply reactionary.
I truly am curious as to what you actually stand for.
The reason it’s a mystery is because you keep trying to slot it as left or right. I came on here disavowing those labels and I’m not the only one who has. Most people who claim to be “left” or “right” can’t even keep their stories straight, or at least take up the causes of groups who would seem to be acting against the principles.
My belief system is pretty straight but it was created on a case by case basis, typically backed by personal experience or what’s known in science at the moment. For someone so hard on the “right” as yourself, there’s no point spelling it out – you’ll have no better luck prejudging on something that wasn’t spelled out. Sorry.
As for the debates … well that’s as easy as pointing out inconsistencies. No school of thought is immune to providing them since they all want so much to believe that their little model perfectly summarizes all situations and history in the world. I don’t need to believe in the North to prove when the South is acting stupidly.
Much respect to you for asking. Most people just assume you’re the polar opposite if not goose-stepping with the crowd. I was the “heartless, capitalist pig” on the last board.
“No hate on – just a compulsion to knock you off that soap box every time you start barking about Islam”
Making comparisons of radical Christians in the WH with political Islam doesn’t knock me off any boxes , it causes considerable worry about what Ward was talking about, the use of “reason”.
This thread has lost “reason” when you make statements that there were radical Christians in the WH. Then you seem to be saying that Bushes and Reagan were part of it , all in the same breath as radical Islam. Very serious accusations.
Who were the radical Christians in the WH and what did they do to deserve the “radical” label?
I’d say shouting out God before you kill thousands qualifies … George Bush I said point blank “God is on our side” during the first Iraq war. George Bush II had regular prayer circles before his military-based meetings. It also goes beyond the WH – Members of the US airforce were so psycho with their Christianity that Jewish pilots launched an official complaint. Pagan religious ceremony grounds in the military were defaced with crosses and graffiti. And don’t forget about the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells whose radical Christian pronouncements in favour of Apartheid and destroying Islam greatly affected GOP policy even if they were never directly elected.
When Muslims do this sort of thing (Saddam Hussein also said God was on his side; Osama also made all kinds of pronouncements) you call them radicals. Why doesn’t the shoe fit for your crew?
“When Muslims do this sort of thing (Saddam Hussein also said God was on his side; Osama also made all kinds of pronouncements) you call them radicals.”
For the love of God Cynapse they are not radical for what they say … it’s what they do. If they just said it we’d get an HRC to outlaw it and slap their wrists, but these “radicals” behead people over Danish cartoons.
I’m not sure I agree Bush ever said God was on our side, more likely he said he hoped we do God’s will. A Big diffierence. Besides all Presidents ,GOP and Dems, have referred to God in war one way or another. But again it’s not “radical” to say stuff about God Cynapse. “In God we trust” is on the US currency, that’s not “radical”. Jews, Muslims and Christians are all descended from Abraham, all 3 religious texts reference Abraham as the historical beginning of monotheism, one God. Ergo referencing God is pretty normal.
I would agree with you that there is an argument to be made now in 2010 that we should rethink how we phrase any reference to God in a diverse population. But for you to call the GOP WH stuffed with “radical” Christians simply cannot stand and your defense of that misstatement does not hold.
You are constantly dragging out the “Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells” and the KKK as if they were relevant in today’s current events; as if these idiots were part of a current theocracy. Senator Byrd was once a member of KKK, but that would not justify my calling the Dems “radical” racists.
You have a lot to offer on this blog until something triggers you into race and religion. Then reason goes out the window and it becomes pointless to carry on with a thread; because it’s not as if you are a troll, you are a significant contributor to Jack’s blog. So we have a problem!
You can’t answer a simple, honest question can you Cynapse? I’m not asking for your manifesto, just 10 or so key values or positions that are your ideological foundation.
Shouldn’t be too hard to do, so I will ask again.
You’re going to have to be more specific.
Choose the topics you’re interested in.
Nom:
One thing that must be pointed out is that the Democrats of Byrd’s KKK/Dixiecrat days were like the Republicans of today. They were conservatives in every sense and prior to the civil rights act blacks overwhelmingly voted for th abolitionist-inspired GOP. Republican Barry Goldwater’s state’s rights revolution and Democrat Lyndon Johnson’s acquiescence to civil rights effectively swapped the roles of these parties and the transition of support was mostly completed by the 1980′s. Byrd’s something of an anomaly for not switching parties.
So really, by pointing out Byrd’s past, you’re not tarring the Democrats so much as affirming that conservatism has always been on the wrong side of civil rights.
Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell ran multi-million dollar faith-based empires and affected GOP policy as a major voting block. That doesn’t consistute theocracy but certainly makes activist Christians a driving force in American politics. It’s rather bizarre that you think you can just sweep them under the rug because they say a few things you don’t like. Can you name a Christian organization that has greater political impact? In fact, can you list ANY lobby group or bloc besides AARP that has greater impact on one or more of the political parties?
As for trolling … no. Provoking? Sure. Any semi-anonymous political internet discussion forum that doesn’t probe viewpoints to an extent that career politicos would not is kind of a waste of time. Sadly there are many blogs that are nothing more than pointless echo chambers. This isn’t one of them.
You are living in the past Cynapse, carting around a lot of baggage.
If you don’t find a way to drop some of it along the way, you will find that as you get older it will really slow you down.
How can I live that far back when I was born in the 1970′s, nom? Facts are facts and mass media was just adequate enough in the 1960′s that there is plenty of evidence of everything I’ve posted. Is it hyper-link time, nom? The 1980′s stuff is nearly current and Falwell didn’t pass away THAT long ago. The Jewish incident happened last year and the pagan incident this year.
Be sure you’re comparing my presumed views to the world we live in and not the one you want to live in.
Cy – how many angels do you think could dance on the head of a pin?
Believe it or not, I haven’t put much thought into the question.
What is clear is that one’s social status and experiences can lead to vastly different impressions of the same institutions and people. Now if we can generate such a gulf of perception within the same culture then you need to ask yourself what the chances are you’re correctly summarizing what people want internationally when you invade and “reorganize”.
That said, it must be nice to be able to believe in idealized versions of everything, throwing away and minimizing mitigating facts just because you haven’t been personally affected. Not really the way I’d handle it had I the privilege but it’s not uncommon.
This isn’t a case of believing in “idealized versions of everything” nor of “minimizing mitigating facts”
There’s nothing to minimize, nothing to mitigate, because it is not a FACT that radical Christians took over the White House. Moreover using the word “radical” with Christians in the same breath as radical with Islamists can “generate such a gulf of perception” as to make one say: why bother?
So really you’re simply denying that the apocalyptical pro-war-all-the-time Christians that flooded Reagans WH with a desire to fight the godless communists in the 1980′s weren’t radical? I suppose a pass is also given to the evangelicals who want war with the Islamic world to protect Israel so that in the end of days the Jews will convert to Christianity and the lord will return?
What DOES it take for you to consider Christians radical? Or are you invariably wedded to the idea that all Christians are just as harmless as you presume yourself to be?
“So really you’re simply denying that the apocalyptical pro-war-all-the-time Christians that flooded Reagans WH with a desire to fight the godless communists in the 1980’s weren’t radical?”
YES!
Then you’re right, we don’t have anything to talk about. In my world, everyone who commands the slaughter of thousands over ideological control is a radical. Yours may also require a kufi. We’ll agree to disagree.
Strange. Why do you publicly denounce Falwell and Robertson?
Going back to post 29 – 30, I am being specific Cynapse. I’d like you to state what you stand for, the basic building blocks of your world view and philosophy.
Bullet points would be fine.
That is a manifesto, ward, and you just said you didn’t want one.
I stand for meritocracy, the last thing anyone wants to implement. Liberals intentionally thwart meritocracy under the premise of equality, while the right implements false meritocracies to preserve social stratifications.
I believe most people act in their own interests, while prefering to believe what conforms to their world view over what might be happening. For this reason, nearly every human organization is subject to corruption.
That was all pretty random but then again your question is ridiculously open ended. Why don’t you answer it for yourself?
(honestly, are you just looking for a way to strawman me?)
Good start Cynapse – re strawman you no- and open ended no. How about 5 basic tenets?
Meritocracy is fairly standard. Does anyone really advocate putting people in positions they don’t deserve to be in?
The reason I ask is that I find you contradictory in your arguements, and am trying to figure out what you really stand for.
I think you like to argue/debate, but too often seem to be going for the “win” and as such end up being reactionary with a lack of cohesion.
I have a very good idea what others who post here stand for based on consistency, but you are inconsistent.
So other than meritocracy, which I fully agree with what else anchors your foundation?
In the interests of fair play I’ll say I would support a flat tax.
1) Make all violent crimes subject to reverse-sentences. Thus the judge can only determine when is the EARLIEST a rapist or killer can be up for parole. If they keep failing, then I guess they never get out. Also, public recidivism rates must be posted for all parole-sitting judges. Too high of a recidivism rate = getting kicked from the bench. Dollars to donuts that fixes a lot of our violent crime problem
2) Flat tax on any non-dividend income over $x. Put dividend rates a bit lower for dividends (or 0%) to encourage buy and hold investment
3) Scrap the RSP and CPP. Quadruple the maximum TFSA investment amount. Citizens can register their TFSA’s with the government for a yearly “gift” that they can use as they see fit.
4) Aim to make most government departments self sufficient through the enforcement of user fees.
5) Create an actual score (like a credit score) for immigration applicants and only pick from the top. Eliminate family class immigrants except spouses and children. Applicants need to pass English test in their country of origin (as administered by the Canadian embassy) before entering.
Re: #43. Way to make a guy break into a cold sweat. After I read those 5 points I thought “hey, I’d vote for that guy”!
I would vote for Cy but I suspect he won’t run. More’s the pity.
I’d support each of those inititatives Cynapse, so I guess we are in agreement on a few things. I’d also like to see an end to the recognition of special interests groups and the balkanization that it creates in our society/nation
Even if he did run on that platform Mac, the Globe, CBC, and Star would run a character assassination on Cynapse that would be truly Palinesque.
Run for office? HAHAHAHAHAHAH.
1) The first thing that happens to new candidates is the media goes through their garbage and the garbage of their relatives / friends / former roommates for anything that seems even slightly awry, politically correct or off-colour. I’ve already left them a 10 year digital trail of agitation. I couldn’t become a city mayor with the amount of dirt they’ll find. Not even mayor of Montreal.
2) Politics has become so polarized and gotcha-oriented that implementing sound, long-term policy is the furthest thing from the average politician’s mind. Much like our businesses, our politicians think quarter to quarter – or more accurately poll to poll. Most Canadians would cry foul at ditching Pensions because that’s their safety blanket. They get it no matter what screwy spending decisions they make during their lifetime. To tell them that the government will pay out the money up front and they have to manage it themselves … well, let’s just say there will still be many complaints from people wondering why the government is letting old people suffer well after the big screen TV’s the poor souls bought have disintegrated.
The politician that tries to take baby’s lollipop away will be branded a creep, even if he’s trying to head off tooth decay.
Re #46, that’s where we’ll start to diverge. Socially, I do think certain groups need a voice because I’ve seen what happens when they don’t get one. Isolation is the start of balkanization and it seems that the right-leaning movements (Reform Party, Tea Party, etc) what dismiss group identity politics nonetheless appeal to one core demographic. Thus when they’re in power a whole lot of people are disenfranchised. At least with special interest groups, a variety of religions, races, sexual orientations, etc have a stake in national governance. Until we get a truly populist movement, special interest groups are the only thing keeping Canada from turning into a South American Spanish-style oligarchy.
Well, Canada can always count on the great nation of Quebecistan to come to our financial and morale rescue.