1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Let Your Moderation Be Known To ALL

Discussion in 'Introductions' started by ML2007, Jul 23, 2008.

  1. ML2007

    ML2007 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Texas
    Hi, I am ML2007 from Texas. I am a moderate in most all things in my life. I believe moderation is the balance in life that makes us sane. To me, Extremism has been what makes us unbalanced and insane. I am moderate in my political views and lean toward Populist and Libertarian philosophies. I have always voted Independent, but have actively worked within the party frameworks for an individual I thought worthy of being elected.

    If we can agree that the definition of Fascism is the willingness to favor the state above individual rights as the dictionary says, then, I think this country, the US of America, has been slowly evolving into a Fascist state for some time. I believe for whatever reason, it is inexcusable to take away our individual rights as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the US. I refer most recently to the suspension of Habeas Corpus by our current President, to illegal wiretapping, and to torture of humans, regardless of citizenship and without recourse. Therefore, I spend a great deal of time debating those who cannot reconcile how the ideology of fascism supports such ideas.

    Finally, I believe in calmly debating the issues, and I take no quarters, but if the debate turns personal toward myself or one of my friends or family, I will defend myself with twice the voracity of the attacker. I will always prefer debating issues. I am not familiar with this forum and their rules on this site, yet, and how they handle these matters. The social site I just came from was very lax in dealing with such matters, but now they seem to censor what they do not agree with. I am seeking a sight that allows free speech and the exercise thereof, but will draw capable debaters who wish to discuss and debate the issues, not personalities. If you are not mature, then, when you debate me, beware. I give no quarters, and I do not ask for any in return.
     
  2. UShadItComing

    UShadItComing New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    680
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry I didn't anwer this post earlier ML but it's been pretty frantic on this forum with answering all the long posts which have been directed at me.
    I have a feeling that with your presense thoght, some of the weight will be taken off of me.

    Your message is spot on for me and I think we will have much in common. But we'll see.

    What is a moderate? I quite frankly agree with you that the ills which the US faces today can be attributed in large part to it's move toward fascist policies. I'm a Canadian and I can't say for certain in all cases and so I'll defer to your opinion for now. But I am currently engaged with a few cons on this forum who are insisting that the ills of the US are due to your country turning toward socialist policies. I 'won't' defer to that because it's just too incredible a claim to accept. In any case I'm afraid that they are going to have a hard time seeing you as a moderate. And so what is a moderate?

    One thing I will say is that it appears to me as an outsider that Obama is intending to lead your country closer to the rest of the world in political ideology. I think that is the correct direction in which to move.
     
  3. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First of all, claiming to be a "moderate" and supporting libertarianism is a self-contradiction - the view of government envisioned by libertarianism is a RADICAL departure from what prevails. Confusing moderation in life (eg exercize, but don't excercize too much) with so-called "moderation" in politics is a BIG error. Political "moderation" means, to get your position, add the prevailing two extremes and divide by two - it is irrational and not based on any principle. Eg, take the polity of nazi germany around say 1942. A "moderate" nazi within that context would say gas the jews, but not the commies, homosexuals, or gypsies. Ironically, a moderate lets the extremes define his position - he just looks at what they say, and finds the midpoint.

    You are simply uninformed - wiretapping that was FAR more invasive than what the current administration has done has been done by EVERY president during war time since the dawn of the electronic age, and began with Abraham Lincoln (intercepting all telegraph traffic). Franklin Roosevelt monitored all electronic messaging into and out of the US during WWII - a practice that would have been prevented by the current USSC. Furthermore, the constitution PROVIDES for the suspension of Habeas Corpus, and Lincoln also did that. Are Lincold and FDR examples of the fascist evolution?
     
  4. ML2007

    ML2007 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Texas
    What part of lean ("lean toward Populist and Libertarian philosophies")did you not understand? Are you a dumb ass or just someone who is so damn stupid they can't read? There are all kinds of libertines, conservatives, and moderates. Your narrow views with blinders is certainly characteristic of your views, I am sure. To combat narrow minded people as yourself who obviously do not know how to speak the English language, I use the dictionary. The online Merriam Webster dictionary definition for 'moderation' is "an avoidance of extremes in one's actions, beliefs, or habits". So, I used the word correctly. That means I avoid the extremes of politics like ultra conservative, ultra liberal etc. So, your idea that being moderate means "to get your position, add the prevailing two extremes and divide by two - it is irrational and not based on any principle" is not only non sensical, but it is an idiotic and stupid statement based on no rational thought, let alone principle. Your Nazi illustration is half baked and illustrates nothing about what I claim to believe. If you are a Nazi and believed in gassing anyone, it would be a conundrum to believe their could possibly be a moderation to killing. Death is death. Being a Nazi,then, would be the extreme. An ultra liberal, on the other hand, would kill no one for any reason. He would be like some of the religious sects who are non violent even if someone murders their wife and kids. That is an extreme opposite to the way of killing. I don't fall in that category either. I fall somewhere in between depending on the circumstance. To say there is no position between the two extremes is ludicrous. No sense arguing with stupidity. It can't be done.




    If wiretapping has been done as you suggest, it is still wrong. 50 million wrongs never make a right. You sound just like my kids. "Dad", they would say, "everyone else is doing it". I would reply, "I don't give a damn who else is doing it, you are not", and they didn't. "Are Lincoln and FDR examples of the fascist evolution?" Lincoln suspended habeas corpus because of rebellion, in which the Constitution allows, but Lincoln did us no favors. In the case of FDR, I would disagree with the Supreme Court findings on the Japanese whom he denied their rights as American citizens for the benefit of all, because that is exactly what the term fascist means. By dictionary, Fascism is "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual." To suspend habeas corpus without a constitutional reason, is to invite fascist ideals to flourish. BTW, the suspension of habeas corpus in itself is a fascist idea. The real question becomes, are there times when we must moderate our high ideals and compromise even with fascism? I will moderate to what a strict interpretation of the Constitution means on the subject. I draw the line with the FDR decision. It was wrong in my opinion and far too extreme, but the Supreme Court made that particular incidence as lawful. Unlawful wiretapping without warrant is also wrong. It violates our 4th amendment. Are there exceptions to the rule? Maybe, but who is to decide those exceptions? The President walks a tenuous line when he suspends habeas corpus. If the line breaks, he could very well be guilty of unlawful practices, and he certainly contributes to the possibility of fascist ideas gaining a foot hold within our own system of government. So, where do we draw the line, and when does fascism become too extreme? I say at the end of the practitioner's nose or at the end of revolution, which ever wins the day.
     
  5. UShadItComing

    UShadItComing New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    680
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well done ML! It's not often I get the pleasure of hearing such a huge contrast in intellectual ability.
     
  6. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Leaning toward libertarian philosophies" - what a howler! :D That's like a woman saying her body is "leaning toward pregnancy". :p As ANYONE who knows ANYTHING about libertarianism knows, it's an all or nothing proposition.

    You say you believe in calmly debating the issues? :D

    "Blah blah splutter burp mouth-fart"

    The two descriptions reduce to exactly the same thing - avoiding the "extremes" is none other than seeking a midpoint, or something near it.

    You are so flabbergasted at having your clueless ass nailed for your illogic, you cant think straight. LISTEN now. What is "extreme" has always been >>>CHANGING<<< from time to time and place to place. A woman showing an ankle at the beach was extreme in 1890. A woman showing her face would be extreme in saudi arabia in 2008. A person demanding union representation would be extreme in the US in 1840. "Extremism" is inseperable from place and time. But the political spectrum CHANGES all the time, here and everywhere else. IF you agreed with slavery in 1850, but thought slaves should be treated as humanely as possible, that would make you a LIBERAL in the south. Do you get it yet?? Yesterday's liberals are todays conservatives. So then what is a "moderate"? He's someone who takes a position between the two "extremes", but what the "extremes" are varies with time and place. What seems moderate 20 years ago doesn't seem moderate today. The so-called "moderates" therefore are without principle, only seeking a position somewhere between the "extremes" of the day.


    Yeah, but if you want to debate that, start another thread. You said "the US of America, has been slowly evolving into a Fascist state for some time" - remember? I merely pointed out that the "some time" (using your silly-ass definition of fascism) goes back a VERY long time. In fact I think I remember that George Washington ordered all couriers stopped and searched in case they were spies.


    Ewwwwwwwwwww .... the man who saved the union "did us no favors".

    Article 1, section 9, says

    - it's not just rebellion.

    Ah, so where we are now, in your recounting of history, is Lincoln did us no favors, and FDR was a fascist. Continue.

    Did anyone here say it should be done "without a constitutional reason"? Not me.

    Ewwwwww - now the founding fathers, who put it in the constitution, are fascist.

    Okay, enough for me. :D You are so full of it, it's squirting out your ears!
     
  7. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe we can set up a "dimwitted cheerleader" section just for you? :D
     
  8. SW85

    SW85 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland
    I don't normally comment on these boards but there is a lot here that needs to be addressed.

    (1) That's not what fascism is. It's also not what the dictionary says it is.

    Your definition of fascism is broad enough to include both mainstream liberals, mainstream conservatives, and, yep, lots of moderates, too. Most people of all ideologies believe to some degree that individuals must sacrifice some rights in order to protect the rights of the body politic; they only disagree on where that line is to be drawn.

    2. Even if your (faulty) definition of fascism were accurate, there is no basis for the claim that we have advanced towards it faster in the last few years than ever before. (I'd argue we've been marching towards it since the New Deal).

    3. Habeas corpus has not been suspended (and there is no reasonable basis to claim otherwise). It has, in fact, been extended -- to include foreigners apprehended on the battlefield in a time of war, a group the Founders never intended it to include, which was never recognized prior to the Boumediene decision (what, a few weeks old?), and which no legally binding international agreement requires the U.S. to recognize.

    4. As I've said elsewhere, the torture issue is seriously overblown. The evidence suggests it has been used less than half a dozen times, not within the last three years or so, and without formal government approval. And the fact that there has been massive public outcry and government investigations into this would seem to suggest that it is contrary to the public will and government's desire and so hardly indicative of creeping fascism, no?

    5. You cannot reasonably reconcile the outlandish claims above with your supposed political moderation.
     
  9. SW85

    SW85 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland
    And just a word of caution to ML: you should maybe take USHIC's praise with a grain of salt. He is on record here stating his support for the imprisonment of people who express whatever he thinks constitutes "bigotry." If you don't like fascism, you'll hate this guy.

    Otherwise, welcome to House of Politics!
     
  10. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    EXCELLENT point - wish I had remembered that - for the first time in history the USSC, in an idiotic 5-4 decision, extended habeas corpus to include foreigners on foreign soil, something that has NEVER been the law in the entire history of the US. Not only is habeas corpus NOT being taken away, the USSC libs have extended it to ridiculous extremes. If our Mr. Moderate lived up to his claims for himself, he would oppose that as an example of "extremism". :D
     
Loading...

Share This Page