Right-Wing Marxism

[TeenageRepublican]

I have come to the conclusion that there is, in fact, such a thing as Right-Wing Marxism.

Right-Wing Marxism is big government conservatism that seeks to force morals and God in to everyone's lives... even if they refuse to accept it.

I consider it Right-Wing Marxism when the government busts down your door and arrests you for being homosexual. I consider it Right-Wing Marxism when you're sent to a camp for looking just a little Middle-Eastern.

Right-Wing Marxism is basically trying to get a perfect society by forcing, and I mean forcing, God and morality in to people's lives. The result is equally as horrific as the results of Left-Wing Marxism.

What do you think should classified as Right-Wing Marxism?

P.S. I'm not trying to slam Christianity, morals, or God. I am slamming the Right-Wing Marxists.

[hellinon]

Thats theocracy, not marxism.


Marx is anti religious, so you cannot truly euqate the two. Also, to do so is the equivalent of liberals declaring the Nazi Regime "Right Wing" for no reason other than their perceived "biggotry."

[Maggie_T]

I have come to the conclusion that there is, in fact, such a thing as Right-Wing Marxism.

Right-Wing Marxism is big government conservatism that seeks to force morals and God in to everyone's lives... even if they refuse to accept it.

I consider it Right-Wing Marxism when the government busts down your door and arrests you for being homosexual. I consider it Right-Wing Marxism when you're sent to a camp for looking just a little Middle-Eastern.

Do you have a particular instance of this, or are you just describing your idea of Right-Wing Marxism?


Right-Wing Marxism is basically trying to get a perfect society by forcing, and I mean forcing, God and morality in to people's lives. The result is equally as horrific as the results of Left-Wing Marxism.

And those would be who, again? Far as I know, nobody tries to force God and morality on to anyone in this country. Christians just try to point out that our basic moral laws are based on the Ten Commandments, that homosexuality is a destructive behavior, and that Muzzies want our head on a platter. What has any of that to do with Marxism?

You can't accuse them of Marxism of any sort only because you don't agree with the last part.

Hellion said it clearly and briefly. You cannot equate religion with a philosophy that claims that religion is the opium of the masses.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

What do you think should classified as Right-Wing Marxism?

Nothing. The two are incompatible.

P.S. I'm not trying to slam Christianity, morals, or God. I am slamming the Right-Wing Marxists.

:rolleyes:

[DesertFox]

TR, what you're calling Right Wing Marxism is normally called fascism.

[TeenageRepublican]

First of all, I want to apologize for not being clear enough in this thread.


Do you have a particular instance of this, or are you just describing your idea of Right-Wing Marxism?


Yes. I have examples.
Egypt sentences 5 men for homosexuality (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=58238)
Israeli man suggests sending homosexuals to rehabilitation centers. (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=55423&highlight=Rehab+Homosexuals)

And those would be who, again? Far as I know, nobody tries to force God and morality on to anyone in this country. Christians just try to point out that our basic moral laws are based on the Ten Commandments, and that homosexuality is a destructive behavior.

Maybe not in this country, but I do know a lot of people that hate homosexuals and other unbelievers with a passion and wish to see all of them go to prison... how or why I encountered them is beyond me.


Hellion said it clearly and briefly. You cannot equate religion with a philosophy that claims that religion is the opium of the masses.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->



I know. That's the part I screwed up. I meant to say was that it was like Marxism in the big government sense. So I guess it's like moral Marxism (that's the best way I can describe it).


Oh, and apologies again. I hope you all get where I'm coming from though...

[Maggie_T]

First of all, I want to apologize for not being clear enough in this thread.



Yes. I have examples.
Egypt sentences 5 men for homosexuality (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=58238)
Israeli man suggests sending homosexuals to rehabilitation centers. (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=55423&highlight=Rehab+Homosexuals)

Kid, before liberals started polluting the air - as well as other people's values - homosexuality was considered a crime against morality pretty mcuh all over the world. You can faint at that, if it offends your tender sensitivies, but it's true.

There are some societies that still consider it unnatural, even criminal. I don't know that that merits being compared to Marxism. Don't you think you are acting like liberals, immediately accusing societies that differ with your idea of what is criminal and what is not as Marxist?


Maybe not in this country, but I do know a lot of people that hate homosexuals and other unbelievers with a passion and wish to see all of them go to prison... how or why I encountered them is beyond me.


Still, that does not make them Marxists of any sort. They are intolerant and bigotted. One does not have to be a Marxist to have those qualities.

[gnome]

Marxism has more to do with an economic philosophy than the level of authority, as you're using it. I would say "facism" or perhaps more generically "totalitarianism" as even Facism has some specifics behind it that go beyond lacking essential liberties.

[Maggie_T]

Pst! Gnome, don't look now. Marxism IS totalitarianism.

:rolleyes:

[DesertFox]

Facism is narcissism, as in "Mirror mirror, on the wall..."

Fascism is a form of govt, as in Mussolini, Hitler, et al. :D

TR is talking about the mullocracies of the Middle East. They are indeed fascist. They have nothing to do with Marxism.

[Banana]

The far left and the far right both want a jackboot on the neck on the individual. Both wish to control the lives of others and to impose their value system on them.

The far right and the far left are just as bad as each other and neither have any respect for the concepts of liberty and freedom.

I don't care for either a communist or a christian jackboot, I prefer freedom.

[DoctorDoom]

Let me guess: you especially revere freedom from thought. It shows in your ramblings.

<table align="center" bgcolor="ffffb0" bordercolor="#CCCCCC" border="4" cellpadding="8"><tr><td><div align="center"><font face="Verdana" color="303000" size="6"><b>You are so mercifully free of<br>the ravages of intelligence.<font size="5"><br></font></b></font></div></td></tr></table>

[gnome]

Pst! Gnome, don't look now. Marxism IS totalitarianism.

:rolleyes:

I would be more willing to say that Marxism cannot be implemented without totalitarianism, i.e., that it is a consequence, not the core of the idea.

Another way of putting it is that there can be totalitarian governments that are not Marxist at all.

[TeenageRepublican]

Alright, I used the wrong term. I apologize. I had a TR moment...

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: There is no such thing as "right-wing marxism". All forms of totalitarianism are left-wing.

[DesertFox]

I don't care for either a communist or a christian jackboot, I prefer freedom. This is an ignorant statement. Communism led to the deaths of scores of millions of people in countries worldwide. Christianity, whatever its flaws as a political system, led to the freedom and liberty of America. Communism was incapable of that because it is premised on the collective, which hides individual responsibility; for Christianity it was pert near inevitable because Christianity made the individual accountable for himself.

Communism is also responsible, everywhere it or its pale imitation socialism are tried, for famine and poverty. Christianity, as Max Weber showed, gave us capitalism which gave us undreamed-of wealth.

Your treatment of Communism and Christianity as if they were opposite sides of the same evil is beyond ignorant; it's so stupid that it's offensive.

[DesertFox]

All forms of totalitarianism are left-wing.The mullocracies are totalitarian. They aren't left wing.

[The_Elucidator]

Pffft

[gnome]

This is an ignorant statement. Communism led to the deaths of scores of millions of people in countries worldwide. Christianity, whatever its flaws as a political system, led to the freedom and liberty of America. Communism was incapable of that because it is premised on the collective, which hides individual responsibility; for Christianity it was pert near inevitable because Christianity made the individual accountable for himself.

Communism is also responsible, everywhere it or its pale imitation socialism are tried, for famine and poverty. Christianity, as Max Weber showed, gave us capitalism which gave us undreamed-of wealth.

Your treatment of Communism and Christianity as if they were opposite sides of the same evil is beyond ignorant; it's so stupid that it's offensive.

The point, as I see it, is not that Christianity is an opposite evil to Communism, but that it can result in evil if it is imposed by force, regardless of its merits as practiced by members of a free society.

[Banana]

The point, as I see it, is not that Christianity is an opposite evil to Communism, but that it can result in evil if it is imposed by force, regardless of its merits as practiced by members of a free society.

Thank you Gnome, that is what I was saying.

I don't care if you're a muzzie, a commie, a fascist or a christian, keep your ideological jackboot to yourself and stay out of my life.

As long as I don't infringe on the rights of another I will decide how I will live my life.

[DesertFox]

True Christianity and "force," in the sense you're using it, are mutually exclusive. Anyone trying to shove Christianity down your throat, in any way, is not practicing Christianity.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I have come to the conclusion that there is, in fact, such a thing as Right-Wing Marxism.

Right-Wing Marxism is big government conservatism that seeks to force morals and God in to everyone's lives... even if they refuse to accept it.

I consider it Right-Wing Marxism when the government busts down your door and arrests you for being homosexual. I consider it Right-Wing Marxism when you're sent to a camp for looking just a little Middle-Eastern.

Right-Wing Marxism is basically trying to get a perfect society by forcing, and I mean forcing, God and morality in to people's lives. The result is equally as horrific as the results of Left-Wing Marxism.

What do you think should classified as Right-Wing Marxism?

P.S. I'm not trying to slam Christianity, morals, or God. I am slamming the Right-Wing Marxists.
What you are describing is liberal fascism which is left-wing, not right wing. Christianity equals freedom, not force.

[The_Elucidator]

True Christianity and "force," in the sense you're using it, are mutually exclusive. Anyone trying to shove Christianity down your throat, in any way, is not practicing Christianity.

What the Fox said.. One of the few times where our religious lines cross at the same point. :D

[Banana]

True Christianity and "force," in the sense you're using it, are mutually exclusive. Anyone trying to shove Christianity down your throat, in any way, is not practicing Christianity.

Well there are some here who would legislate their ideology down my throat. For example, for a christian to attempt to criminalise pornography is no different to me than a lib telling me that I can't use a particular kind of lightbulb or own a gun.

If I want to own a gun, or watch a porn movie that is my right and those who wish to infringe on my freedom can take thieir jackboot and shove it.

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

I have come to the conclusion that there is, in fact, such a thing as Right-Wing Marxism.

Right-Wing Marxism is big government conservatism that seeks to force morals and God in to everyone's lives... even if they refuse to accept it.

I consider it Right-Wing Marxism when the government busts down your door and arrests you for being homosexual.
By your criteria every founder of America was a marxist and America was founded as a marxist state. Congratulations. You've proved without a doubt that you're completely deluded.

Thats theocracy, not marxism.


Marx is anti religious, so you cannot truly euqate the two.
He's merely taking something of which I made him aware (http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html) in the past and reversing it (like he does with everything else).

The stated goal of communists is to promote licentiousness until we socially implode. He's the one doing that. Commies also openly rejected natural law and absolutes. This philosophy is the anti-thesis of our original governmental philosophy which was to promote morality (as only a moral people can be free), that law is derived from religion, and that government is founded upon unchanging transcendent principles.

[gnome]

True Christianity and "force," in the sense you're using it, are mutually exclusive. Anyone trying to shove Christianity down your throat, in any way, is not practicing Christianity.

Whether it's real "Christianity" does not prevent it from being a problem. It can still result from too much ideological zeal, even if taking it that far "disqualifies" one's Christianity as you see it.

[The_Elucidator]

Well there are some here who would legislate their ideology down my throat. For example, for a christian to attempt to criminalise pornography is no different to me than a lib telling me that I can't use a particular kind of lightbulb or own a gun.

If I want to own a gun, or watch a porn movie that is my right and those who wish to infringe on my freedom can take thieir jackboot and shove it.

And this is different from people like you trying to legislate "immorality" down our throats.

I'm one of those that would do anything in my power to take the porn industry down! And personally I really don't care what YOU think about it. :noggin:

[DesertFox]

Whether it's real "Christianity" does not prevent it from being a problem. It can still result from too much ideological zeal, even if taking it that far "disqualifies" one's Christianity as you see it.As I see it? Dude, don't take my word for it. Read the New Testament yourself. That's where Christianity comes in. Make up your own mind about what constitutes true Christianity and what is not.

Hint: There are a whole lot -- and I mean a GREAT BIG BUNCH -- of people who think themselves Christians, who are going to be mighty surprised when they die. I'm not pointing fingers at anybody; in fact, I expect pert near every Christian here agrees with me.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

DesertFox:
The mullocracies are totalitarian. They aren't left wing.

:unsmile: I disagree. If they're totalitarian, they're left wing.

[TeenageRepublican]

True Christianity and "force," in the sense you're using it, are mutually exclusive. Anyone trying to shove Christianity down your throat, in any way, is not practicing Christianity.

I agree. Christianity isn't something that needs to be forced upon people. I frankly believe God has a plan for the unbelievers and it doesn't require us to force-feed it to them.

[roguemerc]

:unsmile: I disagree. If they're totalitarian, they're left wing.

What would you call the kings, emperors and their proponents?

[TeenageRepublican]

What you are describing is liberal fascism which is left-wing, not right wing. Christianity equals freedom, not force.

Yes, but fascism can also have right-wing motives.
And I agree with you on Christianity.

[EveningStar]

TR, I understand what you're,saying. :thumb:

[TeenageRepublican]

Good. :)

[BarkleUSA]

Marxism is based on class struggle in which a leader convinces the struggling working class that if they overthrow the ruling class then the wealth of property and industry owners will then be equally distributed by the benevolent Marxist leader to all for the greater good.

It appeals to class envy and promises a more fair and egalitarian society but in the end leads to an enslaved population, starvation and mass genocide.

Christianity is exactly opposite.

[The_Elucidator]

I agree. Christianity isn't something that needs to be forced upon people. I frankly believe God has a plan for the unbelievers and it doesn't require us to force-feed it to them.

That is a two way street there Hoss. If one decides that his/her Christianity can be obtained through telepathic means, Vulcan mind meld or by some miracle they can slip through the back door into heaven like a dollar movie then your logic from above would apply. But some of us take what Matthew and Luke said seriously and are going out and trying to spread (not force) the word.

Nobody is "forcing" religion down anybody's throat, excep for Islam. And that forcing doesn't get very far when it could slip through the slice in ones neck or through the hole left from a good old fashioned beheading. :rolleyes:

Hint: There are a whole lot -- and I mean a GREAT BIG BUNCH -- of people who think themselves Christians, who are going to be mighty surprised when they die. I'm not pointing fingers at anybody; in fact, I expect pert near every Christian here agrees with me.

Fox is exactly right on this issue. The Bible is very specific on this issue!

[DesertFox]

Marxism is based on class struggle in which a leader convinces the struggling working class ... Actually, that's Leninism. Marx said the revolution would be spontaneous. No leaders. Revolution would just happen.

Lenin came up with the Vanguard Doctrine that Marxism needed leaders to get the rebolooshin going and keep it focused. Leninism thus stood Marxism on its head, but that of course was no big deal to the True Believers.

[NowhereMan]

Technically the theory put forward by Marx was Communism, he refused to label himself a Marxist though plenty of others adopted it. His theory was meant to be an analysis of historical social development whereby everything boils down to economic competition between different classes. The 'revolution' was his prediction that society was aiming towards an overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the wage slaves who would then reject any kind of social hiearchy. The end result would be some form of anarchic society where noone is exploited by others and everyone works for the betterment of themselves and their community. Of course the details of how this would happen and precisely how things would work is extremely fuzzy but Marx's thinking was that society shapes human nature and with a fair and equal society people wouldn't be the dicks they are that require laws and social systems of control.

Like Fox said Lenin and a fair few other Marxists in the early 20th century decided that it fit perfectly into Communist theory to speed things up with a revolutionary vanguard that could bring about the dictatorship of the proletariat. In fact Russia at the time of the revolution wasn't even regarded as being at the proper level of industrialisation for a communist revolution to occur, Lenin really had been hoping that it would spread to Germany so there'd be a proper communist uprising. Turns out capitalism can adapt far better than Marx predicted.

[ThomasMore]

Technically the theory put forward by Marx was Communism, he refused to label himself a Marxist though plenty of others adopted it. His theory was meant to be an analysis of historical social development whereby everything boils down to economic competition between different classes. The 'revolution' was his prediction that society was aiming towards an overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the wage slaves who would then reject any kind of social hiearchy. The end result would be some form of anarchic society where noone is exploited by others and everyone works for the betterment of themselves and their community. Of course the details of how this would happen and precisely how things would work is extremely fuzzy but Marx's thinking was that society shapes human nature and with a fair and equal society people wouldn't be the dicks they are that require laws and social systems of control.

Like Fox said Lenin and a fair few other Marxists in the early 20th century decided that it fit perfectly into Communist theory to speed things up with a revolutionary vanguard that could bring about the dictatorship of the proletariat. In fact Russia at the time of the revolution wasn't even regarded as being at the proper level of industrialisation for a communist revolution to occur, Lenin really had been hoping that it would spread to Germany so there'd be a proper communist uprising. Turns out capitalism can adapt far better than Marx predicted.

That is a good history and a good assessment, NM.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Yes, but fascism can also have right-wing motives.
No, it can't. Fascism is ALWAYS totalitarianism and as LP correctly pointed out, "If they're totalitarian, they're left wing," ALWAYS!

[gnome]

No, it can't. Fascism is ALWAYS totalitarianism and as LP correctly pointed out, "If they're totalitarian, they're left wing," ALWAYS!

I think it's a semantic argument on the definition of "left wing"

If you define left-wing as "that which is against democracy" then you are correct.

If you associate it with Marxism/Leninism then that is not the only kind of totalitarianism. There were totalitarians that wanted nothing to do with communism.

So it really depends on what you mean when you say Left-wing.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I think it's a semantic argument on the definition of "left wing"

If you define left-wing as "that which is against democracy" then you are correct.

If you associate it with Marxism/Leninism then that is not the only kind of totalitarianism. There were totalitarians that wanted nothing to do with communism.

So it really depends on what you mean when you say Left-wing.
Of course, Marxism/Leninism isn't the only kind of leftist totalitarianism. It's obvious that Nazism/Fascism is also leftist totalitarianism, but I didn't include Nazism/Fascism in my discussion of leftist totalitarianism because were discussing Marxism in this thread.

[TeenageRepublican]

That is a two way street there Hoss. If one decides that his/her Christianity can be obtained through telepathic means, Vulcan mind meld or by some miracle they can slip through the back door into heaven like a dollar movie then your logic from above would apply. But some of us take what Matthew and Luke said seriously and are going out and trying to spread (not force) the word.

Nobody is "forcing" religion down anybody's throat, excep for Islam. And that forcing doesn't get very far when it could slip through the slice in ones neck or through the hole left from a good old fashioned beheading. :rolleyes:

I'm for spreading the word, I'm talking about lecturing people in to a corner.
I one time got a lecture from a woman saying I'm going to hell because I watched a rated "R" movie. She basically cornered me for an entire hour. Yes, this woman was my aunt.
I know many Christians, sadly enough, that love to force-feed Christianity on a daily basis. As a result, some of my best friends have turned from God.
I'm not against spreading the word. My mother was missionary and went behind the Iron Curtain to convert. That's not force-feeding. They're willing to let Christ in to their lives.

[gnome]

Of course, Marxism/Leninism isn't the only kind of leftist totalitarianism. It's obvious that Nazism/Fascism is also leftist totalitarianism, but I didn't include Nazism/Fascism in my discussion of leftist totalitarianism because were discussing Marxism in this thread.

It is so commonly used to say "left" when referring to the capitalist-communist spectrum, why confuse things by using the same word to mean the extreme of the democracy-totalitarianism spectrum?

I think you're at a high risk of miscommunicating.

What confuses things further is the same "left" and "right" are used to describe the democratic, largely capitalist, liberal and conservative politics in America.

[The_Elucidator]

I'm for spreading the word, I'm talking about lecturing people in to a corner.
I one time got a lecture from a woman saying I'm going to hell because I watched a rated "R" movie. She basically cornered me for an entire hour. Yes, this woman was my aunt.
I know many Christians, sadly enough, that love to force-feed Christianity on a daily basis. As a result, some of my best friends have turned from God.
I'm not against spreading the word. My mother was missionary and went behind the Iron Curtain to convert. That's not force-feeding. They're willing to let Christ in to their lives.

Sorry kid, I don't buy it!

Your definition of "force-feeding" is different than mine. When I think of Christians "force-feeding" morality vs Muslims "force-feeding" morality, I don't see the same thing. Do you?

[Naturalized-Texan]

It is so commonly used to say "left" when referring to the capitalist-communist spectrum, why confuse things by using the same word to mean the extreme of the democracy-totalitarianism spectrum?
I think you're at a high risk of miscommunicating.
Totalitarianism = leftism.
Communism = totalitarianism = leftism.
Nazism = totalitarianism = leftism.
Fascism = totalitarianism = leftism.
Communism, Nazism, and Fascism are all on the left and all totalitarian.

What could be clearer than that?

What confuses things further is the same "left" and "right" are used to describe the democratic, largely capitalist, liberal and conservative politics in America.
The roots of modern American liberalism can be traced back to the Progressive movement of the early 20th Century. Here is the sequence:

Italian Fascism was largely based on Wilsonian Progressivism and so was German Nazism. FDR's New Deal was mainly based on Italian Fascism and FDR's top aides heaped much praise on Mussolini and Mussolini heaped much praise on FDR because there was so much similarity in their policies. In the 1930s there was also much praise passed between FDR and Hitler for the similarities in their policies. Modern American liberalism is, in turn, based on FDR's New Deal.

Consequently, it is correct to refer to the current Democrat presidential candidates and nearly all of the leadership of the Democrat party as liberal fascists. The Liberal Fascism (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/6394/) of Hillary and B. Hussein Obama is defined as fascism with a smiley face. As we have seen from the current Democrat presidential campaign, both Hillary and Obama are borderline totalitarians.

[TeenageRepublican]

Sorry kid, I don't buy it!

Your definition of "force-feeding" is different than mine. When I think of Christians "force-feeding" morality vs Muslims "force-feeding" morality, I don't see the same thing. Do you?

There are some extreme "Christians" that would love to lock up a Middle-Eastern guy (KKK or the Nazi Party).
I never tried to (at least, as I recall) compare Muslims to Christians. They have some things in common... but so do a rat and a dog. That doesn't mean they're the same thing.
If I did, I apologize (I might be over-doing that also).

Okay, maybe I should use a different term.

[gnome]

Totalitarianism = leftism.
Communism = totalitarianism = leftism.
Nazism = totalitarianism = leftism.
Fascism = totalitarianism = leftism.
Communism, Nazism, and Fascism are all on the left and all totalitarian.

What could be clearer than that?


The roots of modern American liberalism can be traced back to the Progressive movement of the early 20th Century. Here is the sequence:

Italian Fascism was largely based on Wilsonian Progressivism and so was German Nazism. FDR's New Deal was mainly based on Italian Fascism and FDR's top aides heaped much praise on Mussolini and Mussolini heaped much praise on FDR because there was so much similarity in their policies. In the 1930s there was also much praise passed between FDR and Hitler for the similarities in their policies. Modern American liberalism is, in turn, based on FDR's New Deal.

Consequently, it is correct to refer to the current Democrat presidential candidates and nearly all of the leadership of the Democrat party as liberal fascists. The Liberal Fascism (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/6394/) of Hillary and B. Hussein Obama is defined as fascism with a smiley face. As we have seen from the current Democrat presidential campaign, both Hillary and Obama are borderline totalitarians.

As I understand it, the term "left" in politics originates with a distinction in seating in the French Legislative Assembly around 1791. The nobility sat on the right, and the peasants, laborers, and "bourgeoisie" sat on the left. Ultimately the "left" side became associated with socialism or even anti-capitalism, which is why the term attaches to Communists.

Totalitarianism is definitely evil, but I have never heard it inherently described as Leftist before I came here. Is there a history behind calling all Totalitarian governments "left"?

[ThomasMore]

gnome, you are correct that the origin of the terms "right" and "left" originate with the French assembly.

Totalitarianism is Statism, by definition. Libertarians, "classical liberals" and most conservatives share a philosophy hostile to Statism (although some conservatives do sometimes seek Statist answers to various issues, to the annoyance of other conservatives). Socialism and modern liberalism as a general rule seek to use the power of the State, top-down, as the response to society's perceived problems.

Since conservatives as a general rule are hostile to Statist/collectivist responses to society's perceived problems, conservatives generally view totalitarianism in all its forms as a disease of the left.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Totalitarianism is definitely evil, but I have never heard it inherently described as Leftist before I came here. Is there a history behind calling all Totalitarian governments "left"?
Of course:

For starters, please read Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning by Jonah Goldberg (A NY Times #1 best seller).

Then, if you can find it, please read LEFTISM: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse (1974). In it Professor Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn details the natural progression of leftism from The French Revolution to Socialism to Communism to Marxism to Fascist Nationalism to National Socialism to Socialist Racism to what he calls "False Liberalism" - modern American liberalism.

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

You may wonder why I correctly refer to Hitler as a leftist. In order to justify my contention, we must look at the political spectrum. More than 40 years ago, I attended a political seminar where the speaker presented the most logical description of the political spectrum I have seen (I know. I know. Liberals aren't logical, but no matter.):

Picture the political spectrum as a road running from left to right. The further to the right one travels on that road, the less the government controls over people's lives. The further to the left one travels on that road, the greater the government controls over people's lives.

As we travel along the road from the center to the right, towards less government controls, we first reach the Republican Party. Next we find the conservatives. Then we find the libertarians and finally, at the right edge of the political spectrum, the anarchists.

As we travel from the center to the left, towards greater government controls, we first reach the Democrat Party. Next we find the liberals. Traveling on, we find the fascists, and then the Socialists. As we reach the far-left edge of the political spectrum, we find the National Socialists (the Nazis) and lastly, the Communists.

[Maggie_T]

I would be more willing to say that Marxism cannot be implemented without totalitarianism, i.e., that it is a consequence, not the core of the idea.

Another way of putting it is that there can be totalitarian governments that are not Marxist at all.


Nope. Sorry to disappoint you, mate. Totalitarianism = leftism.

Don't even try to argue with me, gnome. I lived under a right-wing dictatorship for more than 20 years. People were free to come and go. Business flourished. People didn't even lock their doors.

True. If you went around shouting "Down with the dictator! Long live Communism!" you got into very hot water. Which is why the clever ones kept their leftist ideas to themselves and flourished like green bay leaves.

The useful idiots that went about praising communism and Castro had a hard time of it. I don't condone that. The point I'm trying to make is that in a right-wing dictatorship you still have some freedom, if you are clever enough to mind your own business, and keep your mouth shut. In a leftist dictatoship, the opposition is in deep shit regardless whether they keep their ideas to themselves or not.

[Maggie_T]

I don't care if you're a muzzie, a commie, a fascist or a christian, keep your ideological jackboot to yourself and stay out of my life.

As long as I don't infringe on the rights of another I will decide how I will live my life.


Uh-huh. Try to inflate your chest in that brave manner in a leftist totalitarian govenment. Like, say, the ex-USSR.

You would have ended in a gulag before you had time to complete the sentence.

[gnome]

Nope. Sorry to disappoint you, mate. Totalitarianism = leftism.

Don't even try to argue with me, gnome. I lived under a right-wing dictatorship for more than 20 years. People were free to come and go. Business flourished. People didn't even lock their doors.

True. If you went around shouting "Down with the dictator! Long live Communism!" you got into very hot water. Which is why the clever ones kept their leftist ideas to themselves and flourished like green bay leaves.

The useful idiots that went about praising communism and Castro had a hard time of it. I don't condone that. The point I'm trying to make is that in a right-wing dictatorship you still have some freedom, if you are clever enough to mind your own business, and keep your mouth shut. In a leftist dictatoship, the opposition is in deep shit regardless whether they keep their ideas to themselves or not.

Maybe we're differing on the definition of Totalitarian then. I don't distinguish it from a dictatorship.

It sounds like what you're saying is that you would find a right-wing dictatorship preferable to a left-wing, and that may be very true.

[gnome]

Picture the political spectrum as a road running from left to right. The further to the right one travels on that road, the less the government controls over people's lives. The further to the left one travels on that road, the greater the government controls over people's lives.

As we travel along the road from the center to the right, towards less government controls, we first reach the Republican Party. Next we find the conservatives. Then we find the libertarians and finally, at the right edge of the political spectrum, the anarchists.

As we travel from the center to the left, towards greater government controls, we first reach the Democrat Party. Next we find the liberals. Traveling on, we find the fascists, and then the Socialists. As we reach the far-left edge of the political spectrum, we find the National Socialists (the Nazis) and lastly, the Communists.

In truth I don't see the Republicans as offering less government controls than Democrats, but instead directing government controls towards different priorities.

Maybe what you'd call a liberal is not really what I am. I don't envision government controls for their own sake... but that it is useful for some things and not so useful for others, and in fact I prefer to err on the side of fewer controls.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Maybe we're differing on the definition of Totalitarian then. I don't distinguish it from a dictatorship.

It sounds like what you're saying is that you would find a right-wing dictatorship preferable to a left-wing, and that may be very true.
What Maggie described was far from totalitarianism. Under what she calls a "right-wing dictatorship" people had freedom, both personal and economic, probably more freedom than we in the U.S. would have if either Hillary or Obama become president with a Democrat Congress. Under totalitarianism, people don't have freedom.

[CzechPrince]

TR, I agree and understand the premise of your original point, but realize Marxism, while it is a political ideology, is more of an economic ideology. Like hellion stated, what you described is more of a theocracy, but there are people out there who want that, and there are people and governments that have used religion and theocratic elements to push their agendas.

Abusive governments have existed on both the left and the right, and some are a combo of both, or hard to identify. People label things all the time how they wish though.

[gnome]

Looking up some definitions I think Maggie_T and N-T are right about how I was using the term. In its correct usage it seems to mean a state that rules over every aspect of its citizens' lives, and there are many dictatorships that do not fall under that.

So I must use the more generic term dictatorship to refer to what I mean, that of a state with the executive branch having total authority or at least most of it, and is not answerable to its people via democratic means.

[Etaoin]

, both Hillary and Obama are borderline totalitarians.

I take exception to your qualifying both of these would be presidents as being only borderline totalitarians. Every word they utter, every program they support or advocate reeks of totalitarianism!

[MaximumSam]

Picture the political spectrum as a road running from left to right. The further to the right one travels on that road, the less the government controls over people's lives. The further to the left one travels on that road, the greater the government controls over people's lives.


Ah, so simple, yet so completely wrong. If that is how we describe things, then we arrive at all sorts of crazy labels. A pro-lifer must be a liberal, since he wants government to control abortion.

In actuality, in today's spectrum, I would imagine that different values define where you are on the spectrum. Liberals tend to be more for equality, fairness, the environment, things like that. The right tends to be more towards the free market, religion, and nationalism. There is no linear spectrum which accurately defines where people are. There are values that are important to people, and certain values align with the right and certain values align with the left.

[DeclinetoState]

I one time got a lecture from a woman saying I'm going to hell because I watched a rated "R" movie. She basically cornered me for an entire hour. Yes, this woman was my aunt.Was that movie The Passion of the Christ?

A pro-lifer must be a liberal, since he wants government to control abortion.Actually, I'm surprised there aren't more pro-life big-government liberals.

A person who wants the government to restrict or regulate something because it's bad isn't necessarily a liberal, and a person who opposes such regulation is not necessarily a conservative. I would consider the latter a libertarian, while I'd consider the former to be an "anti-libertarian," but not necessarily an authoritarian. Marxists, fascists, Nazis, etc., are what I'd consider authoritarians.

[Elgalad]

Ah, so simple, yet so completely wrong. If that is how we describe things, then we arrive at all sorts of crazy labels. A pro-lifer must be a liberal, since he wants government to control abortion.

Or is the pro-lifer instead a Conservative since he believes the government should not force the child to be killed without due process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process)?

Abortion is not a 'right', no matter how hard you liberals might wish it so. What it Is in fact, is an act that involves the willful destruction of the Real rights of one citizen by another, With the government's sanction.

The Court decision that granted that sanction was then and remains unconstitutional to this day. Since your criticism of N-T's political spectrum analogy is founded on a faulty premise though, you just succeeded in strengthening it further.

In actuality, in today's spectrum, I would imagine that different values define where you are on the spectrum. Liberals tend to be more for equality, fairness, the environment, things like that.

Equality is no purview of the Left, unless you are referring exclusively to Equality of Outcome. Conservatives are very strongly in favor of Equality of Opportunity, which Liberals refuse to believe can exist. While the former is a noble goal, it cannot ever occur. The latter however, is far easier to work towards, and far more 'compassionate' in the long run, since it invokes individual responsibility and achievement.

Fairness is something that does not exist in nature. It is only created artificially by overly concerned (and underly experienced) idealists who believe that if THEY, acting in the role of kindergarten recess teacher, could just step in and mediate, they can magically guarantee happiness and joy for all. Unfortunately the only fairness that emerges from such pointless quixotisms is the reduction of all involved to the lowest common denominator. Rather than all experiencing equal Joy, all suffer "equally" together (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvQ2JF-glvw).

Environmentalism is also no exclusive aspect of Liberalism. Rather, one might say "Environmentism" is. That word does not exist of course, since I just made it up. What I mean by it, is that instead of seeking to preserve the environment for our own and future generations to treasure and exploit responsibly, the Left has decided that humanity is no longer a part of nature and that being the case, the natural environment must be protected From us. This has been the cause of countless adventures in buffoonery from the protection of the snail darter all the way up to and including the current CRISIS of modern ice age (http://neoconexpress.blogspot.com/2007/02/newsweek-1975-scientists-predict.html) global warming Climate Change. Without exception, every one of those 'causes' is rooted in something other than trying to preserve the environment. And quite often, it's economic or, dare I say.. political (http://www.marxist.com/global-warming-socialism050400.htm). :smirky:

The right tends to be more towards the free market, religion, and nationalism. There is no linear spectrum which accurately defines where people are.

Well at least you've defined the Right correctly (for the most part). I would add though that you should probably add the word "free" before religion. Unlike secular humanists, most Conservatives of Faith believe in Tolerating others' beliefs ~ that is, as long as they do not require the separation of heads from torsos.

There are values that are important to people, and certain values align with the right

These are usually called Virtues.

..and certain values align with the left.

And these are known as Vices.


Now that we have that all settled, I can go back to my watching another episode of Miami Vice before bed.

Have a Nice Day. :smirky:
-Elgalad

[TeenageRepublican]

Was that movie The Passion of the Christ?

Nope. It was The Mist. She thought the movie was evil. Long story short, I told my parents that was the last time they were leaving me behind with my aunt.

[ThomasMore]

I one time got a lecture from a woman saying I'm going to hell because I watched a rated "R" movie. She basically cornered me for an entire hour. Yes, this woman was my aunt.

It was The Mist. She thought the movie was evil. Long story short, I told my parents that was the last time they were leaving me behind with my aunt.

No. 1: You told your parents?!? Who feeds, clothes, houses and provides for whom? Who has the wisdom of years?

Oy.

No. 2: You have to admit that Stephen King's "The Mist" describes a very odd Christianity:

This spiraling breakdown leads to the rise to power of a religious zealot named Mrs. Carmody, who convinces a majority of the survivors that these events fulfill the biblical prophecy of the end times, and that a human sacrifice must be made to clear away the Mist. Drayton and Ollie attempt to lead their remaining allies in a covert exit from the market, but are stopped by Mrs. Carmody, who orders her followers to seize her chosen victims: Billy and Amanda.

Wiki: The Mist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mist)

Somewhere I missed out on the whole "human sacrifice" section of the Bible. Maybe Stephen King has a different version.

I can't for the life of me understand why your aunt would be offended by such a movie. I just don't see it.

[NowhereMan]

I have to admit that the identification of left wing with increased government control and right wing with decreased here has always struck me as odd. It's not something I've seen in any other place. This place (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) splits the political spectrum between left/right and greater/lesser government controls, thus you don't end up sticking communitarian anarchists (who think that we should get rid of capitalism, government, religion and national identity and that everyone should work for the benefit of their community rather than themselves) with anarchist capitalists (who think we need a radically free market without any government intervention).

That right wing dictatorship Maggie reminds me quite a bit of modern day China where provided you're not stupid enough to demand political rights or openly do things the government perceives as opposing it you've got quite a bit of freedom. You can work and earn money, even buy property now and become economically successful.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Ah, so simple, yet so completely wrong. If that is how we describe things, then we arrive at all sorts of crazy labels. A pro-lifer must be a liberal, since he wants government to control abortion.
Wrong! Pro-lifers are conservative because we don't believe that the government - the Supreme Court - should force abortion on the American people as it has.

In actuality, in today's spectrum, I would imagine that different values define where you are on the spectrum. Liberals tend to be more for equality, fairness, the environment, things like that.
You're joking of course. :hahaha::hahaha: Liberals are the racists in today's world. Liberals judge people by the color of their skins, by their gender, by their social class, etc., while conservatives judge people as individuals regardless of skin color, gender, social class, etc.

Liberal programs are specifically designed to produce ever-increasing numbers of poor and ignorant people who are dependent on government handouts. Liberals don't want the minorities and the poor to ever become self-sufficient. If they ever became self-sufficient, there would be no need for liberals. Conservatives support programs that help everyone become self-sufficient with no need for government handouts.

The right tends to be more towards the free market, religion, and nationalism.
Yeah, just like our Founding Fathers. If our Founding Fathers were alive today, they would be conservative Republicans.

There is no linear spectrum which accurately defines where people are. There are values that are important to people, and certain values align with the right and certain values align with the left.
Yes there is: the further left one is, the greater the government controls over our lives. The further right one is, the lesser the government controls over our lives.

[MaximumSam]

Or is the pro-lifer instead a Conservative since he believes the government should not force the child to be killed without due process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process)?

No. The only definition of pro-life I have seen is that they support abortion being illegal, hence, they want the government to take a more intrusive role in prohibiting abortion.

Abortion is not a 'right', no matter how hard you liberals might wish it so. What it Is in fact, is an act that involves the willful destruction of the Real rights of one citizen by another, With the government's sanction.


Whether abortion should be a right or not is a different discussion. However, it is one private citizen terminating their pregnancy. Obviously, this is no could for the unborn child. However, abortions can occur without the government ever being involved. A prosecution for abortion can never happen without the government being invovled. Therefore, there is no escape from the fact that pro-lifers want more government intrusion in this particular area.

Equality is no purview of the Left, unless you are referring exclusively to Equality of Outcome. Conservatives are very strongly in favor of Equality of Opportunity, which Liberals refuse to believe can exist. While the former is a noble goal, it cannot ever occur. The latter however, is far easier to work towards, and far more 'compassionate' in the long run, since it invokes individual responsibility and achievement.


While it is easy try and attribute everything you feel is evil to the other party, that's not what I'm talking about. People have values, and they differe from individual to individual. Certainly, religion is something that is more identified with the right. However, not all right-wingers are religious, and not all churchgoers are Republicans. They are simply values. A liberal will be more receptive to the ideas surrounding equality between races, rich and poor, etc., and more likely to support policy that effects those goals.

[MaximumSam]

Wrong! Pro-lifers are conservative because we don't believe that the government - the Supreme Court - should force abortion on the American people as it has.

Please tell me when the Supreme Court has forced anybody to have an abortion.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Please tell me when the Supreme Court has forced anybody to have an abortion.

C'mon. You never saw it. It was on youtube. Ginsburg had some white trash bitch in a full nelson. Souter walked up with a plunger in one hand and a wiffleball bat in the other.

[Neil Peart]

A liberal will be more receptive to the ideas surrounding equality between races, rich and poor, etc., and more likely to support policy that effects those goals.Bullshit. If that was true, then liberals wouldn't support affirmative action, higher taxes for the rich, and condescension to minorities. They wouldn't give Obama a pass on the Rev. Wright issue, either.

[TeenageRepublican]

You have to admit that Stephen King's "The Mist" describes a very odd Christianity:



Wiki: The Mist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mist)

Somewhere I missed out on the whole "human sacrifice" section of the Bible. Maybe Stephen King has a different version.

I can't for the life of me understand why your aunt would be offended by such a movie. I just don't see it.

If you have read the novella or even have seen the movie, you would realize that the women they're trapped inside with is a Fred Phelps-esque character. It's not saying that all Christians are like that.
There's a scene and a part where a biker is about to head in to the foggy mist and as soon as he heads out, he says: "Look lady, I believe in God, I just don't think he's blood-sucking a-hole you make him out to be."
The movie and novella clearly say that the woman's insane and shouldn't be trusted.
She's actually like this woman (http://208.65.153.253/watch?v=iCh2FXzD6R4). You can't tell me that people like that woman don't exist.
Also, it's fiction. It's not meant to be taken seriously.

[The_Elucidator]

Bullshit. If that was true, then liberals wouldn't support affirmative action, higher taxes for the rich, and condescension to minorities. They wouldn't give Obama a pass on the Rev. Wright issue, either.

Zactly!! Liberals are every bit as worthless as a cancerous testicle, and every bit as dangerous.

The only way you can utilize Democrats and "little guy" in a sentence today is with the word exploit!

[Naturalized-Texan]

Please tell me when the Supreme Court has forced anybody to have an abortion.
I never said it did. :dunce:

However, Roe v. Wade has resulted in the slaughter of about 50 million babies.

[MaximumSam]

I never said it did. :dunce:

However, Roe v. Wade has resulted in the slaughter of about 50 million babies.

Hence, you want the government to do something about it, right? Namely, you want women who get abortions locked up. Isn't that some pretty major governmental intrusion?

[ThomasMore]

If you have read the novella or even have seen the movie, you would realize that the women they're trapped inside with is a Fred Phelps-esque character. It's not saying that all Christians are like that.
There's a scene and a part where a biker is about to head in to the foggy mist and as soon as he heads out, he says: "Look lady, I believe in God, I just don't think he's blood-sucking a-hole you make him out to be."
The movie and novella clearly say that the woman's insane and shouldn't be trusted.
She's actually like this woman (http://208.65.153.253/watch?v=iCh2FXzD6R4). You can't tell me that people like that woman don't exist.
Also, it's fiction. It's not meant to be taken seriously.

Fair enough. Why do so many authors paint those who take their faith seriously as evil or insane?

[NowhereMan]

In horror movies there's frequently a human element that threatens the protagonist in addition to the scary monsters. I don't see it as particularly different from featuring mad scientists trying to play God, it's behaviour that has parallels in real life and people can accept as 'in-character'. Having her declare that they need to sacrifice someone for no particular reason lacks any sort of realism and appealing to a religion noone in the town would likely follow equally wouldn't make much sense. It sounds to me far more like it's meant to portray people going mad in the face of impossible circumstances rather than some sort of critique of Christianity. Like I said you may as well ask why so many horror movies portray men of science as arrogant and irresponsible, it fits a generic character it's easy to write and easy for an audience to identify.

[TeenageRepublican]

Fair enough. Why do so many authors paint those who take their faith seriously as evil or insane?

I really don't know. I don't know what they're thinking. But there's also other authors that don't do that. Dean Koontz is one, off of the top of my head.

[Neil Peart]

Hence, you want the government to do something about it, right? Namely, you want women who get abortions locked up. Isn't that some pretty major governmental intrusion?No more so than locking up rapists, pedos, thieves, and murderers of people who have been born.

[TeenageRepublican]

In horror movies there's frequently a human element that threatens the protagonist in addition to the scary monsters. I don't see it as particularly different from featuring mad scientists trying to play God, it's behaviour that has parallels in real life and people can accept as 'in-character'. Having her declare that they need to sacrifice someone for no particular reason lacks any sort of realism and appealing to a religion noone in the town would likely follow equally wouldn't make much sense. It sounds to me far more like it's meant to portray people going mad in the face of impossible circumstances rather than some sort of critique of Christianity. Like I said you may as well ask why so many horror movies portray men of science as arrogant and irresponsible, it fits a generic character it's easy to write and easy for an audience to identify.

Actually, the man wasn't sacrificed for no reason. The man was actually in the army (I really don't know what type of officer he was) and it turned out that the army played an incredibly big role in the reason why the mist was there.
He had nothing to do with it, yet they said he did it and threw him out. It was like a Jonah-and-the-Whale type of situation gone horribly wrong. They get rid of the man because the man is (supposedly, in this case) was causing the storm (in this case, mist). So, they tossed him out.

[TeenageRepublican]

Btw, I recommend The Mist as a great way to spend a Friday evening. All I'm going to say is that the ending is something that will catch you offguard. And you either love the ending or you hate it.

[MaximumSam]

No more so than locking up rapists, pedos, thieves, and murderers of people who have been born.

Certainly. Goverment intrusion is government intrusion. It isn't fundamentally good or bad.

[Neil Peart]

Certainly. Goverment intrusion is government intrusion. It isn't fundamentally good or bad.You really are an idiot, aren't you? You see no difference between government interfering in the murder of an innocent human being and government interfering in free market processes. :rotflmbo:

[MaximumSam]

You really are an idiot, aren't you? You see no difference between government interfering in the murder of an innocent human being and government interfering in free market processes. :rotflmbo:

If you could please point to the post where I said there was no difference between murder and economic regulation, I would be happy to agree with you.

[Neil Peart]

If you could please point to the post where I said there was no difference between murder and economic regulation, I would be happy to agree with you.That's essentially what you were saying when you responded that government intrusion is neither good nor bad in response to my post about abortion.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Hence, you want the government to do something about it, right? Namely, you want women who get abortions locked up. Isn't that some pretty major governmental intrusion?
:hahaha::hahaha: You're hilarious. :hahaha::hahaha:
Since there is absolutely no constitutional basis for Roe v. Wade, I want it overturned. In fact, according to the 14th Amendment Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Ideally, abortion should be treated as a murder by the abortionist who committed the murder, but in actuality, laws covering abortion should be enacted at the state level, not the federal level.

[MaximumSam]

That's essentially what you were saying when you responded that government intrusion is neither good nor bad in response to my post about abortion.

No, that isn't what I was saying at all. I was saying that governmental intrusion isn't good or bad. The good and bad is in what you think should and should not be regulated. Obviously, you think abortion should be regulated.

Since there is absolutely no constitutional basis for Roe v. Wade, I want it overturned. In fact, according to the 14th Amendment Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."


That's great, but overturning Roe v. Wade, by itself, doesn't affect one's ability to get an abortion in any way. Overturning Roe v. Wade would make it possible for people like you to get laws passed which would allow the government to regulate abortion.

Also, Roe v. Wade doesn't violate the 14th Amendment, since it is private citizens who are getting abortions, not States.

Ideally, abortion should be treated as a murder by the abortionist who committed the murder, but in actuality, laws covering abortion should be enacted at the state level, not the federal level.

So you agree that this would be government intrusion?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Now I understand Sam's confusion. He fails to understand the difference between enumerated powers of the federal government authorized in Article I, Section 8, and the powers reserved to the states by the 10th Amendment.

There is nothing in Constitution that gives any federal government entity jurisdiction over aborting - i.e., murdering - babies.

Also, Roe v. Wade doesn't violate the 14th Amendment, since it is private citizens who are getting abortions, not States.
So, you agree that its unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment for the states to allow abortions because by doing so deprives babies of their lives without due process.

[MaximumSam]

There is nothing in Constitution that gives any federal government entity jurisdiction over aborting - i.e., murdering - babies.

Hence, the federal government doesn't abort any babies.

Now I understand Sam's confusion. He fails to understand the difference between enumerated powers of the federal government authorized in Article I, Section 8, and the powers reserved to the states by the 10th Amendment.


This is irrelevant. No matter which government is doing the intruding, regulation of abortion is governmental intrusion.

So, you agree that its unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment for the states to allow abortions because by doing so deprives babies of their lives without due process.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

No, that leads to silly results. I start with the premise that everything is legal, except those things that are proscribed by the government. They do this by making a law which makes the act illegal. You seem to be saying that we start with the presumption that everything is illegal, and the state determines what we can and cannot do. I don't think this is a reasonable or healthy way to view the government.

Further, if you ground your kid for smoking weed, and thus restrict his liberty, is the state required to give him a due process hearing?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Hence, the federal government doesn't abort any babies.

This is irrelevant. No matter which government is doing the intruding, regulation of abortion is governmental intrusion.

No, that leads to silly results. I start with the premise that everything is legal, except those things that are proscribed by the government. They do this by making a law which makes the act illegal. You seem to be saying that we start with the presumption that everything is illegal, and the state determines what we can and cannot do. I don't think this is a reasonable or healthy way to view the government.

Further, if you ground your kid for smoking weed, and thus restrict his liberty, is the state required to give him a due process hearing?
:confused: :confused: :confused: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
God help anyone who gets stuck with you as a lawyer because that person certainly won't get any help from a lawyer as thoroughly confused about the law and the Constitution as you are. It's a miracle that you got through law school.

[Neil Peart]

:confused: :confused: :confused: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
God help anyone who gets stuck with you as a lawyer because that person certainly won't get any help from a lawyer as thoroughly confused about the law and the Constitution as you are. It's a miracle that you got through law school.Actually, he's shown that he's pretty damn good at making ludicrous statements that could fool the kind of naive people that tend to get selected for juries.

[Maggie_T]

Maybe we're differing on the definition of Totalitarian then. I don't distinguish it from a dictatorship.

<CITE minmax_bound="true">Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)</CITE> (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna.html) - Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=totalitarianism&ia=luna) - <CITE minmax_bound="true">Share This (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/totalitarianism#sharethis)</CITE> <!-- google_ad_section_start(name=def) -->
to·tal·i·tar·i·an·ism http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png<SCRIPT type=text/javascript minmax_bound="true"> // <![CDATA[ var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "18", "<img src=\"http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif\" border=\"0\" /> (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/\&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/T03/T0393300\&quot;)", "6"); interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false"); interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high"); interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false"); interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t"); interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictionar y%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FT03%2FT0393300.mp3"); interfaceflash.write(); // ]]> </SCRIPT><OBJECT class=inlineimg id=speaker title="Big Grin" codeBase=codebase= height=18 alt="" width=17 data=data:application/x-oleobject;base64,IGkzJfkDzxGP0ACqAGhvEzwhRE9DVFlQR SBIVE1MIFBVQkxJQyAiLS8vVzNDLy9EVEQgSFRNTCA0LjAgVHJ hbnNpdGlvbmFsLy9FTiI+DQo8SFRNTD48SEVBRD4NCjxNRVRBI Gh0dHAtZXF1aXY9Q29udGVudC1UeXBlIGNvbnRlbnQ9InRleHQ vaHRtbDsgY2hhcnNldD13aW5kb3dzLTEyNTIiPg0KPE1FVEEgY 29udGVudD0iTVNIVE1MIDYuMDAuNjAwMC4xNjY0MyIgbmFtZT1 HRU5FUkFUT1I+PC9IRUFEPg0KPEJPRFk+DQo8UD4mbmJzcDs8L 1A+PC9CT0RZPjwvSFRNTD4NCg== align=top border=0 classid="clsid:D</OBJECT><NOSCRIPT minmax_bound="true"></NOSCRIPT>Audio Help (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/audio.html)/toʊˌtælhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngɪˈtɛərhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngihttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəˌnɪzhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəm/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[toh-tal-i-tair-ee-uh-niz-uhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngm]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation–noun <TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">1.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">the practices and principles of a totalitarian regime. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">2.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">absolute control by the state or a governing branch of a highly centralized institution. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">3.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">the character or quality of an autocratic or authoritarian individual, group, or government: the totalitarianism of the father. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>





<HR class=ety minmax_bound="true">[Origin: 1920–25; totalitarian (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=totalitarian) + -ism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=-ism)http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png]

—Related forms to·tal·i·tar·i·an·ist, noun


<CITE minmax_bound="true">Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)</CITE> (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna.html) - Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=dictatorship&ia=luna) - <CITE minmax_bound="true">Share This (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dictatorship#sharethis)</CITE> <!-- google_ad_section_start(name=def) -->
dic·ta·tor·ship http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png<SCRIPT type=text/javascript minmax_bound="true"> // <![CDATA[ var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "18", "<img src=\"http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif\" border=\"0\" /> (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/\&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/D02/D0284200\&quot;)", "6"); interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false"); interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high"); interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false"); interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t"); interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictionar y%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FD02%2FD0284200.mp3"); interfaceflash.write(); // ]]> </SCRIPT><OBJECT class=inlineimg id=speaker title="Big Grin" codeBase=codebase= height=18 alt="" width=17 data=data:application/x-oleobject;base64,IGkzJfkDzxGP0ACqAGhvEzwhRE9DVFlQR SBIVE1MIFBVQkxJQyAiLS8vVzNDLy9EVEQgSFRNTCA0LjAgVHJ hbnNpdGlvbmFsLy9FTiI+DQo8SFRNTD48SEVBRD4NCjxNRVRBI Gh0dHAtZXF1aXY9Q29udGVudC1UeXBlIGNvbnRlbnQ9InRleHQ vaHRtbDsgY2hhcnNldD13aW5kb3dzLTEyNTIiPg0KPE1FVEEgY 29udGVudD0iTVNIVE1MIDYuMDAuNjAwMC4xNjY0MyIgbmFtZT1 HRU5FUkFUT1I+PC9IRUFEPg0KPEJPRFk+DQo8UD4mbmJzcDs8L 1A+PC9CT0RZPjwvSFRNTD4NCg== align=top border=0 classid="clsid:D</OBJECT><NOSCRIPT minmax_bound="true"></NOSCRIPT>Audio Help (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/audio.html)/dɪkˈteɪhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngtərˌʃɪp, ˈdɪkhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngteɪ-/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dik-tey-ter-ship, dik-tey-]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation–noun <TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">1.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">2.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">3.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">the office or position held by a dictator. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



<HR class=ety minmax_bound="true">[Origin: 1580–90; dictator (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dictator) + -ship (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=-ship)http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png]


<!-- google_ad_section_end(name=def) --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0 minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD minmax_bound="true"><CITE minmax_bound="true">Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.</CITE>


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- end luna -->


<!-- google_ad_section_end(name=def) -->
In case the difference escaped you, gnome, totalitarianism is absolute control, while dictatorship means absolute power. And no, they are not the same.

As I said, the erst-while dictator I'm talking about used his power only to control public manifestations of leftism. Emphasis on public. Other than that, people were free to go about their own business, and earn thier living as they saw fit (do you know that there is no income tax in the country I'm referring to?) The only time you were in trouble was if your business was to overthrow Mr. Big, which is no surprise. Dictators (both left- and right-wing) take a dim view of people who insist on replacing them.

The USSR, on the other hand, used total power to totally control (hence the name) everything that went on in the country: business, government, mind and body of citizens.

They are different, gnome. I know you don't like to hear that, but it's true.

It sounds like what you're saying is that you would find a right-wing dictatorship preferable to a left-wing, and that may be very true.

It is.

[Maggie_T]

Actually, he's shown that he's pretty damn good at making ludicrous statements that could fool the kind of naive people that tend to get selected for juries.

Bingo! :claps:

Think John Edwards and his infamour Ghost Whisperer moment. If I had been part of that jury, I would have risked being held in contempt of court by snorting and walking away from the premises. However, the usual retards fell for John's soap opera.

Obviously, our Maxi must have considered a lesson worth learning.

[MaximumSam]

God help anyone who gets stuck with you as a lawyer because that person certainly won't get any help from a lawyer as thoroughly confused about the law and the Constitution as you are. It's a miracle that you got through law school.

I'm not the one claiming the 14th Amendment outlaws abortions.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Actually, he's shown that he's pretty damn good at making ludicrous statements that could fool the kind of naive people that tend to get selected for juries.
Yeah, there's that. A typical liberal lawyer. :evilgrin:

[Naturalized-Texan]

I'm not the one claiming the 14th Amendment outlaws abortions.
Once again you prove that you have a reading comprehension problem. This is the 3rd thread, that I know of, where you have exhibited that problem. Since I've seen 3, then there are probably at least a dozen other instances. Oh, well, it appears that you're just a typical liberal troll. :troll: :trollhook:

[conservatour]

Sam is a lawyer!!?! I guess he'd be a good one if you knew you committed a crime and wanted to get off. He's real good at talking in loops and circles and using the opposing councils words to confuse the jury. Or maybe he just doesn't comprehend what the opposing council is saying. Not everyone graduates in the top of his class and still gets a job.

[RogerFGay]

I have come to the conclusion that there is, in fact, such a thing as Right-Wing Marxism.

Right-Wing Marxism is big government conservatism that seeks to force morals and God in to everyone's lives... even if they refuse to accept it.

I consider it Right-Wing Marxism when the government busts down your door and arrests you for being homosexual. I consider it Right-Wing Marxism when you're sent to a camp for looking just a little Middle-Eastern.

Right-Wing Marxism is basically trying to get a perfect society by forcing, and I mean forcing, God and morality in to people's lives. The result is equally as horrific as the results of Left-Wing Marxism.

What do you think should classified as Right-Wing Marxism?

P.S. I'm not trying to slam Christianity, morals, or God. I am slamming the Right-Wing Marxists.

Both parties want more power and pork; they just use different arguments to get it. The reason they use different arguments has nothing to do with differences in their own political ideology, because their political ideology is not different. They both want more power and pork. They're just trying to make sales pitches to different audiences.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Sam is a lawyer!!?! I guess he'd be a good one if you knew you committed a crime and wanted to get off. He's real good at talking in loops and circles and using the opposing councils words to confuse the jury. Or maybe he just doesn't comprehend what the opposing council is saying. Not everyone graduates in the top of his class and still gets a job.
Remember, 50% of law school graduates graduated in the bottom half of the class.

[MaximumSam]

Remember, 50% of law school graduates graduated in the bottom half of the class.

Ya, they're the ones who couldn't figure out what "State" means in the 14th Amendment. :smirky:

[Naturalized-Texan]

Ya, they're the ones who couldn't figure out what "State" means in the 14th Amendment. :smirky:
That must be why you graduated in the bottom half of your class.