Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The Fururist: Why Republicans won't shrink the gov't
YelliChink    10/19/2011 3:52:35 PM
http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/11/why-republicans-will-not-shrink-government.html
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
YelliChink       10/19/2011 3:53:39 PM

Why Republicans Will Not Shrink Government

Here we are, on the eve of a red wave that will see the GOP wrest over 60 House seats, 8 Senate seats, and 7 Governorships away from the Democrats.  As a free-market, small government advocate, I greet this development with only minimal enthusiasm.  In fact, on a scale of 1 to 10, while I certainly rate the Democrats as a shameful 1, I cannot give the Republicans a score any higher than a 4.  My ratings of 1 and 4, interestingly, offend not just Democrats but Republicans as well.  Allow me to elaborate.
Republicans have held the Presidency for 28 of the last 42 years.  They have also held majorities in Congress for substantial periods of time.  Yet, no one can dispute that the US is far more left-leaning than it was in 1968.  Government spending as a percentage of GDP is much higher, incidence of single motherhood is vastly higher, free enterprise is less respected, individual liberties are lower, and popular entertainment has become vulgar, disgusting, and immoral.  These are all things Republicans do not desire, yet it has happened under their noses anyway.  We can thus conclude that :
Republicans winning elections does not counter leftism, it merely postpones the inexorable advance of leftism.    
So why are Republicans unable to advance what their voters want, while the left can advance their agenda whether they are in office or not?  The reasons for this are as follows :
Marketing Ignorance : Longtime readers are aware of how I strongly emphasize that one must never refer to leftists as 'liberals'.  In reality, they are illiberal, intolerant, and rigid.  By allowing them to assign a positive word like 'liberal' or 'progressive' to themselves, the right already concedes the battle before it has even begun.  Would you want to enter into a public debate with someone under the agreement that they get to call themselves the 'smart/good person' while you have to be known as the 'dumb/evil person'?  Yet this is what the right readily agrees to, and they appear to be incapable of learning from their errors.  In 8 years, I have seen just two articles by a Republican describing why it is unwise to refer to totalitarian leftists as 'liberals', while every other article posted daily continues with this foolishness.
========================
 
Read more from the link.
 
Quote    Reply

RedParadize       10/20/2011 12:40:43 AM
4 on 10 ??? omg thats almost the center!!!  Hold on....
 
Updated YC political spectrum:
 
Left<-------------------Center left-------------------Center--------------------------->Right
Socialism                     Repubilcan                      Nothing                                   YC
Communism                Ronald Regan                                                                God
Fascism                                                                                                  McCarthyism    
Liberalism
Anarchism
Extremism
Women's rights
Feminism (or Feminazis)
Dictatorship of any form
Any form of evil
The world
 
Quote    Reply

RedParadize       10/20/2011 1:32:03 AM
"Longtime readers are aware of how I strongly emphasize that one must never refer to leftists as 'liberals'In reality, they are illiberal, intolerant, and rigid.  By allowing them to assign a positive word like 'liberal' or 'progressive' to themselves,"
 
 I am a little confuse here. So the liberals and progressist are no more on the left ? Humm... Do you mean its now on the right?  If so, That would also mean that now the republican are more on the left than democrats...
You could rename the "leftist", something like the "bad guy".
For whats in red, does that mean that you tolerate the liberal? does in mean you have any flexibility?
 
Quote    Reply

RedParadize       10/20/2011 2:46:30 AM
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       10/20/2011 10:37:53 AM


 
 I am a little confuse here. So the liberals and progressist are no more on the left ? Humm... Do you mean its now on the right?  If so, That would also mean that now the republican are more on the left than democrats...
You could rename the "leftist", something like the "bad guy".

For whats in red, does that mean that you tolerate the liberal? does in mean you have any flexibility?

 

In his book Liberalism (1929),  Ludwig von Mises sums up,

“The program of liberalism, therefore, if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property, that is, private ownership of the means of production… All the other demands of liberalism result from his fundamental demand.”

Political and economic collectivist ideology such as Socialism, Fascism, Progressivism and Communism have been words that are usually not very respected and typically looked down upon in America so it is natural to develop other labels that can be used to accomplish the same objectives. It is from this point that “liberalism”, among other words, has become corrupted and manipulated to mean different things, and in fact, opposites. Some claim this an example of ideological evolution but others believe this has been an intentional act of terminological theft.

 


To find this early acknowledgment was in a 1920s New York Times... article that criticized “the expropriation of the time-honored word ‘liberal’” and argued that “the radical red school of thought…hand back the word ‘liberal’ to its original owners.”

If you note the era of the NYT’s article, you will see that this is a process that had begun with the progressive movement in the early twentieth century. The first progressive president in America was Republican Theodore Roosevelt. Following Roosevelt was Taft but he was mildly progressive while the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, was truly the more powerful second and Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the even more powerful third progressive president.


Ludwig von Mises  wrote in prescience,

“In the United States “liberal” means today a set of ideas and political  postulates that in every regard are the opposite of all that liberalism  meant to the preceding generations. The American self-styled liberal  aims at government omnipotence, is a resolute foe of free enterprise,  and advocates all-round planning by the authorities, i.e., socialism.”Liberalism... (1929)

 
Quote    Reply

CJH       10/22/2011 11:30:53 PM
The left have appropriated the term liberalism and thereby have attempted to deceive everyone.
 
The left hate liberty. That is why they hate gun rights and hate the unregulated internet (freedom of expression).
 
We know leftists are not liberal.
 
And they are the left who murdered over a 100 million innocent people in the twentieth century.
 
--
 
I believe that the GOP is a captive of the Dems. As long as the Dems are making messes, the GOP has something to do keep it out of mischief.
 
After it has succeeded in cleaning up the latest collection of such messes, idleness leads to the GOP getting into trouble with the voters.
 
And with the messes out of the way, the voters no longer hold these against the Dems.
 
Meanwhile, the Republican establishment remains obsessed with suppressing the airing of social issues concerns on the grounds that these divide the party.
 
The irony as I see it is that the fiscal issues which the GOP establishment wants to concentrate on almost certainly result from the failure to address the social issues which it wants to avoid.
 
Of course the fiscal messes will recur endlessly until their root causes are delt with - job security.
 
Also funny is that the Dems aren't as afraid of social issues.
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       10/22/2011 11:38:30 PM
Also, I wonder where "women's rights" come from.
 
From what moral or ethical system are they derived.
 
They seem rather artificial in that they seem to be made up.
 
I'm not being critical of women here since I do not necessarily ascribe the orginal cause of the existence of these "rights" to women. I rather suspect the reason has to do with men.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       10/23/2011 12:58:53 AM
For whats in red, does that mean that you tolerate the liberal? does in mean you have any flexibility?
 
No no it's that liberals are on the right now, see appended diagram below: 
 
Updated YC political spectrum:
 
Left<-------------------Center left-------------------Center--------------------------->Right
Socialism                     Repubilcan                      Nothing                                   YC
Communism                Ronald Regan                                                                God
Fascism                                                                                                        McCarthyism    
Liberalism                                                                                                     Glenn Beck
Anarchism                                                                                                      Liberalism
Extremism
Women's rights
Feminism (or Feminazis)
Dictatorship of any form
Any form of evil
The world
Centrism
Getting Laid
The Mainstream Media
Women
Atheism
Nazis 
Ilsa, She-wolf of the SS 
Manginas (men in the West)
The Roosevelts 
Entertainment
 
I think that's it for now but I'm sure there's a long way to go until this essential guide is complete.
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       10/23/2011 12:59:59 AM
For the next list remember to add "The 20th Century" to the "left", it's also very guilty.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics