The Briefing Room
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: PaleoConPrep on December 16, 2015, 10:13:28 pm
-
I'm not asking you to compare Fascism to Liberal democracy. I simply want to know why Fascism has been made to look so bad these days. Calling someone a Fascist these days is like calling them Satan. Yet Socialism is fine. Fascism is not a perfect system, but I hate it when so called "conservatives" destroy another type of conservative. If a Socialist can run in the Dem Party and be embraced, why can't a Fascist run in the Republican Party and be respected? If the extreme Left is OK, why not the extreme Right?
-
Seriously....please stop?
Just stop.....
-
Are you kidding me?
-
Who's paying you?
-
If you got to ask a question like this, I pray your iPod never runs out of charge. Or the soothing voice in your ear, saying "Breath in. Breath out." will stop too.
-
....I hate it when so called "conservatives" destroy another type of conservative. If a Socialist can run in the Dem Party and be embraced, why can't a Fascist run in the Republican Party and be respected? If the extreme Left is OK, why not the extreme Right?
So many problems, so little time. First of all, fascism is not Conservative in the least. Ayn Rand put it best a long time ago, 'the only thing different between a fascist and a communist is the color of their uniforms' (paraphrased). Fascism is still a centralized collectivism. Where Communism is bottom up (control derived from the commoners) fascism is top down (control derived from the corporate/government alliance). Both create a centrialized control of industry, media, and even down to belief.
The 'left/right' paradigm that often is used to separate communists from fascists (calling the latter 'extreme right') is from 19th century European measurement where they were comparing one form of totalitarian from another. Free market democracies aren't even factored into their description. This is different where extreme right would be considered anarchists (measured on a scale of government/centralized control). In that measure, fascism would be extreme left like communism, just slightly to the right of communism but still far left compared to even most of our left of center politics.
-
Here is a good example, healthcare.
In Communism, the healthcare system is run by the government, period. Hospitals are owned by the government; doctors, nurses and others are employed by the government. There is no choice.
In Fascism, the healthcare system appears to be somewhat private because it is run by puppet corporations that answer directly to the government. Insurance and payments are handled also through corporations that work closely with the government to ensure there really isn't a choice and you are forced to go through them for any services both by driving out alternatives, but forcing participating in the system. It is still a central controlled system run by the government, they just use middle men to give it the appearance of being in the market. (sound familiar).
Neither option is free market conservative.
-
You guys misunderstand what I'm saying when I say Fascism, I don't mean Mussolini style Fascism. When I say Fascism, I mean an ultra-nationalist, socially conservative, authoritarian government with free-market economics, and a protectionist trade policy. My biggest issue with democracy is that a dumb janitors vote matters as much as a doctors or lawyers. That's pathetic. As we've seen, democracy can be manipulated very easily. I don't think dumb masses know what's good for them. A Republic only works if the population is cultured and educated. Ours isn't. Go ahead and attack me, but I'd love an authoritarian, right-wing, ultra-nationalist, socially conservative government with free market economics, and a protectionist trade policy that STRICTLY BANS Marxism and Liberalism in all forms. We ( conservatives) would be fine in a government like this. I'm not saying this will ever come about. I never even directly supported it. All I'm asking is, if Bernie Sanders isOK why isn't Paul Gottfried?
-
You guys misunderstand what I'm saying when I say Fascism, I don't mean Mussolini style Fascism. When I say Fascism, I mean an ultra-nationalist, socially conservative, authoritarian government with free-market economics, and a protectionist trade policy. My biggest issue with democracy is that a dumb janitors vote matters as much as a doctors or lawyers. That's pathetic. As we've seen, democracy can be manipulated very easily. I don't think dumb masses know what's good for them. A Republic only works if the population is cultured and educated. Ours isn't. Go ahead and attack me, but I'd love an authoritarian, right-wing, ultra-nationalist, socially conservative government with free market economics, and a protectionist trade policy that STRICTLY BANS Marxism and Liberalism in all forms. We ( conservatives) would be fine in a government like this. I'm not saying this will ever come about. I never even directly supported it. All I'm asking is, if Bernie Sanders isOK why isn't Paul Gottfried?
What you described still isn't conservative in the least. All I have to say, especially in the desire for an authoritarian centralized government is be careful what you wish for. Our Constitutional system is exactly opposite of that where it gives the most power to the individual, yes, even the 'dumb janitor' who in our system, deserves every right and opportunity as the erudite, educated bureaucrat.
Also, fascism in any form is not based on free market economics but on markets controlled by a strict, authoritarian government. Very few (outside those on the left who paint everyone on the right as a fascist) would paint Paul Gottfried as a true fascist, at least in his younger days, but lately he has gone to the extreme, even running H. L. Mencken groups and writing gloriously about him - an enemy of representational democracy and free markets, nothing Conservative about him. The problem is that Gottfried took his centralized control and nationalism beliefs so far he started to swing back around to the left. Using him as a guidepost can get one in trouble because his early writings were very comparable to Goldwater, his latter writings, to Mencken.
-
Go ahead and attack me, but I'd love an authoritarian, right-wing, ultra-nationalist, socially conservative government with free market economics, and a protectionist trade policy that STRICTLY BANS Marxism and Liberalism in all forms
It is oxymoronic to think that one can have an authoritarian government with a protectionist trade policy and still have free market economics.
Of course, you're the one who thinks William F. Buckley was a screaming leftist. To be so doctrinaire at such a young age seems to be rather boring, if you ask me.
-
It is oxymoronic to think that one can have an authoritarian government with a protectionist trade policy and still have free market economics.
Of course, you're the one who thinks William F. Buckley was a screaming leftist. To be so doctrinaire at such a young age seems to be rather boring, if you ask me.
Throwing the 'neocon' label out so liberally usually is a sign they treat government philosophy more like a hipster fad than really studying it.
-
I never said Buckley was a Leftist. I said he was a NEOCON. You guys think Gottfried is a Leftist which is an idiotic statement. Again my definition of authoritarian is different from your definition. In my view, an authoritarian government STRICTLY enforces the law, without caring about what the masses say. An authoritarian government does not HAVE to control economics. Let's see where your Constitutional system gets us. The reason I'm asking these sorts of questions is because I can't take another Dem POTUS. If Hillary wins, I will have no choice but to move to Hungary. ( or some Eastern European country)I'm NOT living in a country that
1. Kills babies
2. Accepts gay marriage, and other perversions
3. Taxes its people. To death.
4. Has no sense of nationalism or national identity
5. Admits millions of refugees and commits national suicide
When was the last time Conservatives won anything? 1984. Obama has repeatedly violated your "Constitution" and your "Democratically elected" Congress has done nothing. Why aren't there talks of revolution or secession? The "people" are brain dead idiots.
-
The problem with Fascism is the same as the problem with communism: they are two sides of the collectivist coin. Under each, your rights as an individual are assumed to be granted by government rather than by God or nature.
Under all variants of collectivism, your liberty may be, and inevitably will be revoked at will, the moment that someone else's need, convenience, preferences, and access to power demands it. And all such systems of governance end up in heaps of dead, smoldering bodies.
Other than that, the 20th Century went swimmingly, didn't it?
-
I never said Buckley was a Leftist. I said he was a NEOCON. You guys think Gottfried is a Leftist which is an idiotic statement. Again my definition of authoritarian is different from your definition. In my view, an authoritarian government STRICTLY enforces the law, without caring about what the masses say. An authoritarian government does not HAVE to control economics. Let's see where your Constitutional system gets us. The reason I'm asking these sorts of questions is because I can't take another Dem POTUS. If Hillary wins, I will have no choice but to move to Hungary. ( or some Eastern European country)I'm NOT living in a country that
1. Kills babies
2. Accepts gay marriage, and other perversions
3. Taxes its people. To death.
4. Has no sense of nationalism or national identity
5. Admits millions of refugees and commits national suicide
When was the last time Conservatives won anything? 1984. Obama has repeatedly violated your "Constitution" and your "Democratically elected" Congress has done nothing. Why aren't there talks of revolution or secession? The "people" are brain dead idiots.
You're in high school. You're going to stay right here as long as you are under the control of your parents. No Hungary for you.
The voters of this country are never going to institute the kind of regime you want. I'd start dialing back, as Ronald Reagan did.
Deal with reality.
-
Is this guy a liberal plant? Serious question................. **nononono*
I appreciate those of you who answered his "question" thoughtfully and seriously.
And if he IS in HS, he has a whole lotta learning to do before he becomes a conservative.
-
Is this guy a liberal plant? Serious question................. **nononono*
I appreciate those of you who answered his "question" thoughtfully and seriously.
And if he IS in HS, he has a whole lotta learning to do before he becomes a conservative.
That's occurred to me too.
Anybody who's reading Paul Gottfried in high school is damned weird.
-
You guys misunderstand what I'm saying when I say Fascism, I don't mean Mussolini style Fascism. When I say Fascism, I mean an ultra-nationalist, socially conservative, authoritarian government with free-market economics, and a protectionist trade policy. My biggest issue with democracy is that a dumb janitors vote matters as much as a doctors or lawyers. That's pathetic. As we've seen, democracy can be manipulated very easily. I don't think dumb masses know what's good for them. A Republic only works if the population is cultured and educated. Ours isn't. Go ahead and attack me, but I'd love an authoritarian, right-wing, ultra-nationalist, socially conservative government with free market economics, and a protectionist trade policy that STRICTLY BANS Marxism and Liberalism in all forms. We ( conservatives) would be fine in a government like this. I'm not saying this will ever come about. I never even directly supported it. All I'm asking is, if Bernie Sanders isOK why isn't Paul Gottfried?
I would suggest that you made a wrong turn somewhere and wound up in a place that will prove not to you liking.
-
First off, define Fascist. You talking corporate fascism, a la Mussolini? Falangist fascism under Franco? Potuguese Fascism under Salazar [the longest lasting Fascist government in Europe? Romanian Fascism under Antonescu, 'soft ' Fascism under the Polish military pre-WW II? Or Nazism under Adolf Hitler.
You have a tendency to throw terms around without fully grasping them. Come back when you've mastered the basics of what you wish to discuss. And discuss them with some specificity. ..Please.
-
I'll say it one more time. This is the type of Fascism I'm talking about
1. Ultra-nationalist
2. Authoritarian ( ruled by a small group of people that STRICTLY enforce the law)
3. Extremely socially conservative
4. Capitalist( a government that has a free-market economy and Protectionist trade policy)
5. Extremely Right wing( a government that TOTALLY crushes the Left in all forms)l
This is not conventional Fascism( I don't agree with Fascist economics) The government would be Fascist in that it would be ultra-nationalist, ruled by a small group of people, and strictly enforce the law.( that would mean giving Leftists the choice of death or exile) You can still have free market economics with an authoritarian government.
-
Sinkspur
After the 2016 election, I'd be 17( very close to 18) I wouldn't go to Hungary right away. I'd get an undergrad degree, and then a degree from a top law school. Then I'd move to Hungary( or somewhere in Eastern Europe) Hungary actually has a party with views similar to mine. It's called Jobbik. They are not currently the ruling party, but it is very possible they could be in the future. The current ruling party Fidesz is pretty Right-wing anyway. What will you guys do if Hillary wins in 2916, and again in 2020? After Hillary, they'll run Warren and she'll serve 8 years. By 2032, this country could be a Socialist nation. If the masses were so smart, there'd be talk of revolution or secession.
-
I'll say it one more time. This is the type of Fascism I'm talking about
1. Ultra-nationalist
2. Authoritarian ( ruled by a small group of people that STRICTLY enforce the law)
3. Extremely socially conservative
4. Capitalist( a government that has a free-market economy and Protectionist trade policy)
5. Extremely Right wing( a government that TOTALLY crushes the Left in all forms)l
This is not conventional Fascism( I don't agree with Fascist economics) The government would be Fascist in that it would be ultra-nationalist, ruled by a small group of people, and strictly enforce the law.( that would mean giving Leftists the choice of death or exile) You can still have free market economics with an authoritarian government.
And you're a Rand Paul fan? Give me a break.
-
And you're a Rand Paul fan? Give me a break.
Have to admit that I'm skeptical of PaleoConPrep's self described bio.
Don't believe he's on "The Edge of Seventeen".
What better way to besmirch our home, than to have one or more members agree with him regarding ANY FORM of Fascism?
-
Sure. The founding fathers sweltered through the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia working, struggling, to design a new fascist government in a nascent United States of America. Yeah, right. I believe that.
-
Have to admit that I'm skeptical of PaleoConPrep's self described bio.
Don't believe he's on "The Edge of Seventeen".
What better way to besmirch our home, than to have one or more members agree with him regarding ANY FORM of Fascism?
Yep.
-
Yep.
My advice to Paleo......don't quit your day job. :laugh:
....unless 'this' is your day job.
We all know there are administration-paid hacks on the forums. Or as AC eloquently describes them as "Fora". :laugh:
-
My advice to Paleo......don't quit your day job. :laugh:
....unless 'this' is your day job.
We all know there are administration-paid hacks on the forums. Or as AC eloquently describes them as "Fora". :laugh:
Could be.................... could be!
What we do know for sure is that NO conservative advocates fascism. That's a leftist perspective on conservatism, not an accurate one.
-
Sure. The founding fathers sweltered through the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia working, struggling, to design a new fascist government in a nascent United States of America. Yeah, right. I believe that.
NO charter of government is worth the paper it's written on if the people are unworthy of upholding it and those great men you speak of knew that very well!!
“No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders. “
Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, November 4, 1775
“Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction. A good form of government may hold the rotten materials together for some time, but beyond a certain pitch, even the best constitution will be ineffectual, and slavery must ensue.”
John Witherspoon, The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men, 1776
-
Have to admit that I'm skeptical of PaleoConPrep's self described bio.
Don't believe he's on "The Edge of Seventeen".
What better way to besmirch our home, than to have one or more members agree with him regarding ANY FORM of Fascism?
Posing, playing, trolling.
-
I'm a troll because I ask a radical question. Very funny. I actually just came home from school. I'm a member of the choir, and we went to sing Christmas carols for patients at the local Catholic hospital today. You guys can mock me all you want. I'm only a high school Junior. I could certainly be wrong, but don't attack me for it. I never directly supported Fascism. I was just throwing an idea out there. Ok, let's say I'm wrong. What will we do if Hillary wins? If she wins, she WILL serve for 8 years. Then it will be Warrens turn. By the time Warrens finished, we will be a Socialist nation. Fascism is not my favorite form of government. The ideal government would be what the founders wanted; a REPUBLIC. But we can't have that. In order to have a Republic, you need an educated, cultured populous. We don't have that. Most people( especially young people) are idiotic Socialists due to public education. Look at the crowds Sanders is getting. As Adams said the Constitution is only for a moral and religious people. Do we have that? No. Most people are brain-dead relativists. They have NO understanding of objective truth. Id favor an Authoritarian government these days because the masses can't think. They don't know what's good for them. We outnumber the elites. If the people were educated, the elites would not be able to get away with anything. I like Rand Paul because he's an alternative to the norm. He's not corrupt like the others. If Cruz, Paul, or Trump get the nomination, we will be headed in the right direction. My main point is, we Conservatives need our own nation. I'm tired of fighting with Leftists. When will this end? The 2 ideologies can't co-exist forever. One will win out, and at this pint, the left is winning. They control the 2 most important things. The schools and the media. You can have whatever form of government you want, but Liberalism and Marxism need to be BANNED in all forms. If you guys don't agree with me on that, you're not conservatives. ( and don't give me the freedom crap. Freedom has its limits. The Constitution does not protect Marxism)
-
From that screed above, it's clear that you ARE an 'elitist.'
And NO conservative EVER advocates fascism as an acceptable alternative government.
-
I just modified my last post. Read it again.
-
From that screed above, it's clear that you ARE an 'elitist.'
And NO conservative EVER advocates fascism as an acceptable alternative government.
Spot on ML
My biggest issue with democracy is that a dumb janitors vote matters as much as a doctors or lawyers. That's pathetic.
What in the world are they teaching these kids in school if he has these questions....
-
Most people are brain-dead relativists. They have NO understanding of objective truth. Id favor an Authoritarian government these days because the masses can't think. They don't know what's good for them.
This is fascist talk so it appears you're already there. And you're very arrogant for a 17 year old. You'll soon begin to find out how little you actually know.
-
I just modified my last post. Read it again.
No, thank you.
-
This is fascist talk so it appears you're already there. And you're very arrogant for a 17 year old. You'll soon begin to find out how little you actually know.
I doubt it. If he IS young, he clearly thinks he knows everything now.
And people who think they know everything are incapable of learning.
-
Do I know everything? Absolutely not.( only God does) I'll say this. I know WAY more than 95% of high school Juniors. I also know way more than Sean Hanity.( although that's nothing to brag about. What an idiot.) Answer my question. What will we do if Hillary wins, serves 8 years, and then hands it over to Warren? Will you happily live in a Socialist democracy?
-
My stepfather before he died had to go to doctors all the time to see what was wrong with him. It got to the point if the doctor was younger than him he would just leave. At 17 you haven' t clue. Just sayin' IMHO.
-
I'll say it one more time. This is the type of Fascism I'm talking about
1. Ultra-nationalist
2. Authoritarian ( ruled by a small group of people that STRICTLY enforce the law)
3. Extremely socially conservative
4. Capitalist( a government that has a free-market economy and Protectionist trade policy)
5. Extremely Right wing( a government that TOTALLY crushes the Left in all forms)l
This is not conventional Fascism( I don't agree with Fascist economics) The government would be Fascist in that it would be ultra-nationalist, ruled by a small group of people, and strictly enforce the law.( that would mean giving Leftists the choice of death or exile) You can still have free market economics with an authoritarian government.
OK - on the off chance you are merely a young idiot:
1/ Ultra Nationalist: It's a big world out there, with a tangle of obligations and treaties going back centuries (millennia in some cases). Nothing wrong with national pride, it's expected, but don't expect a whole load of co-operation if you go the "everything for us" route, also known as "Eff you, Jack, I'm alright."
2/ Authoritarian: Two points - Who decides who gets power? What checks are there on said power? I know a lot more about Mussolini than your average person and, believe it or not, he started out with the best intentions. Power corrupts. That level of power corrupts almost instantly.
3/ Extremely Socially Conservative: Why? Do you believe morality is NOT a personal responsibility? Are you incapable of behaving in a moral manner without the force of law? Sound like a Muslim to me, if you say yes.
4/ Capitalist: Free market capitalism and protectionism go together like ham and lava. Pick one.
5/ Extremely Right Wing: Redundant, given your other 4 points.
-
I'm only a high school Junior. I could certainly be wrong, but don't attack me for it. I never directly supported Fascism.
I could have sworn you stated that you preferred a Fascist government, with restricted voting.
That is not an attack. That is reading what you stated.
When you say "I never directly supported Fascism," you sound like a slick lawyer.
FWIW authoritarian/totalitarian by ANY label, reduces personal and economic freedom, which were the basis of the Constitutional Republic envisioned by the classical liberal political philosophy in our founding debates and documents.
Authoritarian/totalitarian diminishes freedoms. You cannot be an advocate for fascism and convince me you are true to the political philosophy of Ron Paul/Rand Paul, period.
Contemporary "conservatism" is NOT the same as classical liberalism, in many aspects.
Nor is fascism.
-
Truth-seeker
Leftists and Marxism have NO PLACE in this country. Forget the other stuff. All I want is a conservative nation. Ban Socialism and Marxism outright, and in all forms.
-
Truth-seeker
Leftists and Marxism have NO PLACE in this country. Forget the other stuff. All I want is a conservative nation. Ban Socialism and Marxism outright, and in all forms.
Our system of laws does not provide for the "banning" of political philosophies, hence as recently as the 1930s the citizens elected FDR, who went on to be reelected 3 more times, advocating a more leftist political philosophy than you like.
Likewise Obama was reelected after leaning more leftward.
If you want a (more) conservative nation, you and others will need to step up the game of convincing fellow citizens. There are reasons to be both optimistic (state houses, governorships, control of US House and Senate), and pessimistic (loss of popular vote for President 5 of the last 6 times; maybe soon to be one more).
Because of changing demographics, "conservatism" will need to appeal, or be modified to appeal, to new members of our citizenry.
I am pessimistic, for I do NOT share the idea that enough old white men can be found, to offset the disrespected Hispanics, women, muslims, etc.
-
Truth-seeker
You just proved my point. If conservatism needs to be modified, it's not conservatism anymore. This is something the John Birch Society has been saying since it was founded. You are a Liberal; not me. America must be split up if Conservatism is to be saved. If something radical doesn't happen soon, you will be toiling in a Socialist democracy, and I'll be living happily in Hungary.
-
Truth-seeker
You just proved my point. If conservatism needs to be modified, it's not conservatism anymore. This is something the John Birch Society has been saying since it was founded. You are a Liberal; not me. America must be split up if Conservatism is to be saved. If something radical doesn't happen soon, you will be toiling in a Socialist democracy, and I'll be living happily in Hungary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE1FX0Uf01I
Google, "Budapest - 1956"
-
Truth-seeker
You just proved my point. If conservatism needs to be modified, it's not conservatism anymore. This is something the John Birch Society has been saying since it was founded. You are a Liberal; not me. America must be split up if Conservatism is to be saved. If something radical doesn't happen soon, you will be toiling in a Socialist democracy, and I'll be living happily in Hungary.
Ah, the arrogance of Americans. What makes you think they'd take you?
-
EC
Hungary will take you if you are educated. I plan on getting an undergrad degree, and then getting a degree from a top law school( hopefully Harvard) the schools I'm looking at for undergrad are very fine schools.
1. Patrick Henry College
2. Hillsdale College
3. Hampden-Sydney College
4. New St. Andrews College
5. Thomas Aquinas College
I can get to a top law school from any of these undergrads. Hungary would not say NO to someone with a Harvard Law degree.
-
EC
Hungary will take you if you are educated. I plan on getting an undergrad degree, and then getting a degree from a top law school( hopefully Harvard) the schools I'm looking at for undergrad are very fine schools.
1. Patrick Henry College
2. Hillsdale College
3. Hampden-Sydney College
4. New St. Andrews College
5. Thomas Aquinas College
I can get to a top law school from any of these undergrads. Hungary would not say NO to someone with a Harvard Law degree.
Perhaps you can use your superior intellect to convince a few of those distinguished Harvard Law professors to join you when you leave! That would be a great service to your country!
-
Do I know everything? Absolutely not.( only God does) I'll say this. I know WAY more than 95% of high school Juniors. I also know way more than Sean Hanity.( although that's nothing to brag about. What an idiot.) Answer my question. What will we do if Hillary wins, serves 8 years, and then hands it over to Warren? Will you happily live in a Socialist democracy?
Warren will be 75 in eight years. The only 75 year old woman who wears it well is Sophia Loren.
-
Warren will be 75 in eight years. The only 75 year old woman who wears it well is Sophia Loren.
Don't forget about Raquel Welch.
-
Don't forget about Raquel Welch.
How could any man forget Raquel Welch!!! And, you're right, she is 75 and fine.
-
Hungary would not say NO to someone with a Harvard Law degree.
Really? Why the devil would they want someone trained in a completely different legal system? One size doesn't fit all in the legal world, any more than it does in any other discipline. If you are going to stick to this plan, at least pick an engineering degree.
-
Warren will be 75 in eight years. The only 75 year old woman who wears it well is Sophia Loren.
Furthermore...'Indians' don't age very well. :laugh:
-
Truth-seeker
You just proved my point. If conservatism needs to be modified, it's not conservatism anymore. This is something the John Birch Society has been saying since it was founded. You are a Liberal; not me. America must be split up if Conservatism is to be saved. If something radical doesn't happen soon, you will be toiling in a Socialist democracy, and I'll be living happily in Hungary.
You failed to deal with several points I made, and reverted to claiming that I am a liberal, which is simply not true. Such a style often found on contemporary conservative forums, is a recognition of your lack of any, or weak arguments.
So let me finish by asking a few pertinent questions (I learned you like numbered lists.).
1. Of our 535 elected legislators at the federal level, how many are Fascists of the variety you like and admire?
2. Since you want to go to Hungary, shouldn't you depart soon? Or shouldn't you wait till you arrive there, to study law?
3. Who will pay for your higher education, here in the USA?
4. Who have been the main sources of influence, to get you to your current beliefs? Grandparents, parents, siblings, educators, religious leaders?
5. What is your current career path objective? To seize control of a government, and rule in an elite class of superior individuals? Would you be the generalissimo, or the dictator?
I say that, because the trend of the last decades, is toward democratically elected governments, not democratically elected fascistic states.
Whatever ideas you hold, I doubt you or very many others will be able to convince groups of people to be ruled under fascism, or by the Birch Society.
Finally when I was your age, I was far more interested in pretty hormonal females, than debating or studying politics.
-
Truth-seeker
I wasn't talking about Fascism. Forget that for now. I thought you said Conservatism needs to be modified to appeal to more Liberal people. If that's what you believe, then conservatism isn't conservatism anymore. It Democrat-lite. Let me address your points.
1. Doesn't apply. I wasn't talking about that. When I said the U.S. need to be split up, I'd want a REAL Constitutional Republic. Marxism and Liberalism would be banned in all forms, but it would be a Republic. Every election, it would be the Constitution Party vs. the Libertarian Party. There would be no ill will between us. I'd be fine with a Libertarian Prsident, and the Libertarians should be fine with a Constitution Party President.
2. You're probably right. I'm waiting to see what happens in 2016. If Hillary wins I'll go, if Cruz, Carson, Trump, or Paul becomes POTUS, I'll stay.
3. I'm am a top student academically. I have a very high GPA, good amount of community service, and should get a good ACT. If you look at the list of colleges I'm applying to, most aren't that expensive. A good amount will be covered by scholarship, and I can pay the rest.
4. Are you asking about political beliefs or all beliefs. I'll assume you mean all beliefs. Here's a list of people that have influenced me.
Politics
1. Pat Buchanan( I agree with him on pretty much everything)
2. Ron Paul
3. Paul Gottfried
Theology
1. Martin Luther
2. John Calvin
3. Jonathan Edwards( my favorite theologian)
4. Dr. Janes White
5. Douglas Wilson
6. Dr. Greg Bahnsen
Those are the people that have had a lot of influence on me. I've studied a lot of other people, but these are the ones I agree with politically and theologically.
5. My career path depends on the 2016 elections. If we get a conservative POTUS, I'll get an undergrad degree, get a law degree, and then move to Dallas to practice law. After 5-10 years of law practice, I'll run for Congress with pretty much the exact same platform as Pat Buchanan. I would be a political insurgent like Ted Cruz. If Hillary wins, I'll get my degrees, move to Hungary, become a citizen and run as a member of the Jobbik Party.
I am not a Fascist, and do not believe Fascism is the best form of government. A cultured, educated Republic would be the best, but we can't have that due to the amount of Liberals in this country. America needs to split, and conservative and Libertarians need to unite. We need to form a real Constitutional Republic. Ban Liberalism and Marxism in all forms. As far as "pretty hormonal females" go, I'll save that for college. I believe modern dating is very destructive. I don't think people under 18 should even be thinking about this sort of thing. Look up Biblical courtship( this is what I will be doing)
-
When I said the U.S. need to be split up
It is split up, they are called states and each state was supposed to be allowed to have it's own "mini-culture" (for lack of a better description.
But the state governments have become so addicted to federal money the will do anything to get it.
Even when the federal money is not involved, the feds bring in federal thugs to force the states to do their bidding.
I think you are too hung up on labeling people and need to spend more time actually understanding what is going on.
-
1. I notice no mention of serving in our military.
2. I notice the absence of President Ronald Reagan, from sources of your philosophy.
I doubt there is a big demand in Dallas, for lawyers holding fringe philosophies. You stand very much in a fringe; Buchanan got 0.5 percent when he ran for office.
The Truth for me is that Reagan stands as the example of what is or was achievable by conservatism in this country during our lifetimes.
He persuaded, convinced, influenced, converted people to his philosophy. Few conservatives today can do that.
Pragmatism and Reality play huge roles in my outlook. I cannot respect anybody that decides their solution for America is to run away.
-
It is split up, they are called states and each state was supposed to be allowed to have it's own "mini-culture" (for lack of a better description.
But the state governments have become so addicted to federal money the will do anything to get it.
Even when the federal money is not involved, the feds bring in federal thugs to force the states to do their bidding.
I think you are too hung up on labeling people and need to spend more time actually understanding what is going on.
goopo
-
Truth-seeker
1. I can't serve in the military because I have a visual impairment. I have no vision in my right eye, and limited vision in my left.( I was born prematurely)
2. Reagan was a great POTUS, and one I'll always respect( Pat Buchanan worked for him by the way) he was not as conservative as Coolidge. Borrowing continued under the Reagan administration. Of course, I was not alive to see either Coolidge or Reagan as POTUS. Something I really dislike within conservatism is the way SOME conservatives worship Reagan. People talk of a "Reagan Revolution" This really amuses me. As Paul Gottfried has said, "revolution" is not the right word. A revolution drastically changes things( like the American Revolution did) Disruption is a better word. Reagans presidency was a temporary halt to the norm. If there had been a "revolution", Bush Sr. would not have been nominated in 88, Dole in 96, Bush Jr in 2000, McCain in 08, and Romney in 12. Do you realize there hasn't even been a conservative NOMINEE for POTUS since Reagan? So much for the idea of a "Reagan Revolution" And now the establishment wants Rubio. Although with Ted Cruz, Trump, and Mark Levin hitting him at one time, I don't think that'll happen. From what you've said, it looks like you're a modern conservative. That's fine, but realize that there are other types of conservative( as a Paleoconservative, I'm just as conservative as you are) give me a straightforward answer. Would you rather have Buchanan or what we have now? Go to YouTube, and look up a video called " Robert Welchs Amazingly Accurate Predictions 1958" Welch was the founder of the John Birch Society. Are you saying he wasn't conservative?( put your dislike for the Society to the side for a moment) You seem to really dislike the JBS. Do you even bother to read the New American? Take a look at their website once in a while.
3. I want to do corporate law. I'm not doing public interest. My political affiliation won't matter to a law firm.
You say you have no respect for someone who wants to leave America. OK fair point. I have no respect for a country that's committing national suicide.
-
Pat Buchanan dances on the edge of anti-semitism. He also despises the state of Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East.
Glad he's nowhere near the White House.
-
Sinkspur
Don't get fooled by the Jewish lobby. Israel needs to START TAKING CARE OF ITSELF. STOP SENDING THEM MONEY AND WEAPONS. You can attack Buchanan all you want, but know that he would've been a better POTUS than Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, and Obama put together. When America is a Socialist democracy, you will hide you're head in shame for attacking Buchanan. I have undying respect for the man. He tried his best. Pat Buchanan and Robert A. Taft are very similar. Two great Americans who should've been POTUS, but were ultimately overpowered by the establishment. Watch Pat school Sean Hanity on Iran.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVA7JHawPlA
-
Kooksville. Illuminati, Bilder burgers, and anti-semites Holocaust Deniers
A bunch of guys that never put on a uniform, (Welsh, Buchanan, etc.)
Done with this complete waste of time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Welch,_Jr.
And Hungarian Jobbik Party:
World Jewish Congress Protest[edit]
On 4 May 2013, Jobbik members protested against the World Jewish Congress in Budapest, claiming the protest was against "a Jewish attempt to buy up Hungary".[93] Jobbik MP Enikő Hegedűs vociferously condemned both Israel and Jews at the rally as her husband, Lóránt Hegedűs Jr., stood nearby.[94] An ordained minister in the Reformed Church in Hungary, Lóránt Hegedűs himself had served in the National Assembly as an MP of the far-right nationalist Hungarian Justice and Life Party from 1998 to 2002.[95] He invited Holocaust denier David Irving to his Budapest church in 2007 as a "special guest",[95] and has also been accused of anti-Semitism on several occasions for statements he has made about Jews at Jobbik events. At a 2011 rally, he claimed that Jews orchestrated World War II and controlled the international media,[96] and a year prior had alleged that the Hungarian government was secretly cooperating with Mossad to facilitate an Israeli takeover of Hungary with the assistance of Hungarian Jews and mainstream churches.[97] After his wife's statement regarding the World Jewish Congress, the Reformed Church launched an inquiry into the minister's conduct, with presiding bishop Gusztáv Bölcskei denouncing Hegedűs's activism for Jobbik as "permanent provocation" which was incompatible with scripture.[94]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobbik#World_Jewish_Congress_Protest
-
Sinkspur
Don't get fooled by the Jewish lobby. Israel needs to START TAKING CARE OF ITSELF. STOP SENDING THEM MONEY AND WEAPONS. You can attack Buchanan all you want, but know that he would've been a better POTUS than Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, and Obama put together. When America is a Socialist democracy, you will hide you're head in shame for attacking Buchanan. I have undying respect for the man. He tried his best. Pat Buchanan and Robert A. Taft are very similar. Two great Americans who should've been POTUS, but were ultimately overpowered by the establishment. Watch Pat school Sean Hanity on Iran.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVA7JHawPlA
I don't brook anti-semitism in any form. And Pat Buchanan has convinced me that he has a thing against Jews. His ridiculous attempt to say that the Nazis never used Zyklon B gas in the gas chambers when the Allies found canisters of the stuff all over Auschwitz proved to me just how deep his Jew-hatred runs.
I find Pat amusing and entertaining in a debate, but I have absolutely no respect for him.
-
Pat Buchanan dances on the edge of anti-semitism. He also despises the state of Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East.
Glad he's nowhere near the White House.
What is telling is the so-called non-interventionist (or isolationist or nationalist or whatever label one attributes to him at the time) Pat, sides with Iran against Israel. So he is all about pulling out intervening support for Israel (which is mostly on paper, financial support comes from selling them arms (not giving it to them) and trade deals), but wants to intervene with Iran in terms of creating an alliance there. I've believed for a long time Pat believes The Protocols are not fiction. He speaks stronger against Israel than the totalitarian Islamists that surround her.
http://buchanan.org/blog/deal-iran-war-iran-5991