Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Slip Slidin' Away
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 75244" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>You know in all this debate there seems to me that the individual person is completely lost in all this positioning of which form of political belief holds the higher ground. We all tend to get caught up and overlook that. In the 20th century to present the standard rule of measure of governmental systems has been in the form of a horse shoe with the extreme ends being communism on one side (left wing) and fascism on the other extreme (right wing) with other systems finding place elsewhere on the horseshoe along the arc. However, both extremes share the same end result in that the individual person and their rights are suppressed. Now the individual can prosper in either extreme when they join the ruling party and carry the party line but all that comes to naught if and when that individual thinks for themselves and expresses or acts out contary to the party will. In either system the rule is autocratic and tends to be aristocratic for the few priviledged to be in the ruling elite. Both systems also tend to elevate leaders of flawed character or skills to run things which in turn make matters worse and these individuals tend to use force and tyranny to cover up their own shortcoming as the people see them and become dissenchanted with their leadership. In order to protect the position a firm hand of control must be maintained at all times or totalitarian rule will be lost. </p><p> </p><p>IMO, both right wing (republican) if you will and left wing (democratic) if you will are autocratic, totalitarian forces both fighting for the same thing to control. The American individual. It has been said and with some degree of truth that the democrats want to control the individual economically and the republican wants to control the individual morally. I'll agree it's an over simplistic explaination but there is some element of truth to it in that the republicans one could say want to control the bedroom and the democrats want to control the paycheck. Truth is those rolles could be reversed, it's just the level of degree that might be somewhat different. Also we tend to become absorbed in the political speak of elections and both sides play wordspeak to their base in order to keep them motivated. Whether the issue be codifying morality or guns (right to or control of) or less taxes/more taxes or creation/maintenance or elimination of federal programs designed to support those without or to shift wealth from one point to another, for the most part, very little really changes in the end. Gov't continues to grow and in fact is becoming less and less effective by the day. Most politicians know you run on the extremes to excite your voting base but you govern pretty much from the middle. OK2BC commented the other week on a post I made about GW coming clean on the WMD issue that GW was only doing this because he's in election mode. I believe some poo-pood this in the thought that GW can't run for office any more which is correct. However I do believe the election mode OK was speaking of was the coming 2006' Congressional elections and IMO OK's spot on with that observation. </p><p> </p><p>Effective and good leadership doesn't need to be in election mode as the people will see the natural leadership qualities and just follow it. As to conservative or anti-conservative being more fascist than the other I think one needs to sit down and ask a very important question about both sides to determine this. That question is, would an individual be free to make the choice of living their life as they see fit and not partake of the imposed programs or does the gov't of either make the decision that no matter what the situation or circumstances you will be forced by law even to the extent of jail or extreme physical force be made to take part? IMO, that is where neither sides shows any difference at all and therefore are equal in degree of being totalitarian. </p><p> </p><p>One might say in response that society needs order and structure and I'm not contending otherwise. What I am challenging is the level and amount of control and order you might want to impose. As each day passes gov't involves itself more and more in our lives making decisions for us of what we can and can't do. Where does it stop? What is the line in the sand that they can not cross? Is it? "you will work here or else!" Is it? "you will live here or else!" Some would suggest with emient domain abuse we have a "you won't live there" approach to gov't. Where is the line in the sand?</p><p> </p><p>To conclude, IMHO this is what we all have to ask oursleves. A great man once said, "do unto others as we would have them do unto us." Have any of us ever sat back and put ourselves in the others shoes and then make the political and cultural demands we so strongly believe in? The society I'd like to see is where people of all types of beliefs are able to gather themselves together, in groups if they wish, and do for themselves as they see fit in whatever form that may take as long as the individual is free to join or free to leave at any time. I believe our founding fathers attempted to give us that very thing but like the Israelites in the time of Samual, "tell God we demand a King like those around us." We've got our King and it's becoming more and more like Nero every day that passes. Sadly we are becoming the very empire we revolted against 230 years ago.</p><p> </p><p>Hope everyone had a great holiday and take care.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 75244, member: 2189"] You know in all this debate there seems to me that the individual person is completely lost in all this positioning of which form of political belief holds the higher ground. We all tend to get caught up and overlook that. In the 20th century to present the standard rule of measure of governmental systems has been in the form of a horse shoe with the extreme ends being communism on one side (left wing) and fascism on the other extreme (right wing) with other systems finding place elsewhere on the horseshoe along the arc. However, both extremes share the same end result in that the individual person and their rights are suppressed. Now the individual can prosper in either extreme when they join the ruling party and carry the party line but all that comes to naught if and when that individual thinks for themselves and expresses or acts out contary to the party will. In either system the rule is autocratic and tends to be aristocratic for the few priviledged to be in the ruling elite. Both systems also tend to elevate leaders of flawed character or skills to run things which in turn make matters worse and these individuals tend to use force and tyranny to cover up their own shortcoming as the people see them and become dissenchanted with their leadership. In order to protect the position a firm hand of control must be maintained at all times or totalitarian rule will be lost. IMO, both right wing (republican) if you will and left wing (democratic) if you will are autocratic, totalitarian forces both fighting for the same thing to control. The American individual. It has been said and with some degree of truth that the democrats want to control the individual economically and the republican wants to control the individual morally. I'll agree it's an over simplistic explaination but there is some element of truth to it in that the republicans one could say want to control the bedroom and the democrats want to control the paycheck. Truth is those rolles could be reversed, it's just the level of degree that might be somewhat different. Also we tend to become absorbed in the political speak of elections and both sides play wordspeak to their base in order to keep them motivated. Whether the issue be codifying morality or guns (right to or control of) or less taxes/more taxes or creation/maintenance or elimination of federal programs designed to support those without or to shift wealth from one point to another, for the most part, very little really changes in the end. Gov't continues to grow and in fact is becoming less and less effective by the day. Most politicians know you run on the extremes to excite your voting base but you govern pretty much from the middle. OK2BC commented the other week on a post I made about GW coming clean on the WMD issue that GW was only doing this because he's in election mode. I believe some poo-pood this in the thought that GW can't run for office any more which is correct. However I do believe the election mode OK was speaking of was the coming 2006' Congressional elections and IMO OK's spot on with that observation. Effective and good leadership doesn't need to be in election mode as the people will see the natural leadership qualities and just follow it. As to conservative or anti-conservative being more fascist than the other I think one needs to sit down and ask a very important question about both sides to determine this. That question is, would an individual be free to make the choice of living their life as they see fit and not partake of the imposed programs or does the gov't of either make the decision that no matter what the situation or circumstances you will be forced by law even to the extent of jail or extreme physical force be made to take part? IMO, that is where neither sides shows any difference at all and therefore are equal in degree of being totalitarian. One might say in response that society needs order and structure and I'm not contending otherwise. What I am challenging is the level and amount of control and order you might want to impose. As each day passes gov't involves itself more and more in our lives making decisions for us of what we can and can't do. Where does it stop? What is the line in the sand that they can not cross? Is it? "you will work here or else!" Is it? "you will live here or else!" Some would suggest with emient domain abuse we have a "you won't live there" approach to gov't. Where is the line in the sand? To conclude, IMHO this is what we all have to ask oursleves. A great man once said, "do unto others as we would have them do unto us." Have any of us ever sat back and put ourselves in the others shoes and then make the political and cultural demands we so strongly believe in? The society I'd like to see is where people of all types of beliefs are able to gather themselves together, in groups if they wish, and do for themselves as they see fit in whatever form that may take as long as the individual is free to join or free to leave at any time. I believe our founding fathers attempted to give us that very thing but like the Israelites in the time of Samual, "tell God we demand a King like those around us." We've got our King and it's becoming more and more like Nero every day that passes. Sadly we are becoming the very empire we revolted against 230 years ago. Hope everyone had a great holiday and take care. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Slip Slidin' Away
Top