130 réponses à ce sujet

[Borschtbeet]

Jalem001 wrote...

Borschtbeet wrote...

Jalem001 wrote...

Borschtbeet wrote...

So you're discounting Turkey because it's secular? So you want us to give an example of a non-secular, western style democracy that is majority Islamic? That isn't possible. Secularism is an essential tenet of any democratic nation as you can't have religious freedom in a nation that gives special preference to one religion over all the others. Right wingers don't understand this which is why they want the USA to be a Christian theocracy.
Turkey's success is proof that the Islamic people can embrace democracy and your refusal to acknowledge it's success is proof that you just want to vilify all Muslims. You're just as bad as the Muslim extremists. No doubt if you could have your way we'd be nuking every nation on the planet just because they have Muslims in it.

No, Turkey is discounted because of its long history of secularism because NO OTHER ISLAMIC NATION HAS THAT SAME HISTORY.  Its the exception, not the rule.  

Other nations have transitioned from religiously oppressive states to successful Democracies at the drop of a hat.  Japan and the US are great examples (Most, if not all, of the US Colonies had state religions and were vehmently anti-Catholic).  

You can try to twist this however you want, and rant all you want.  I am a firm believer that Iraq will prove that an Islamic nation can be a successful democracy, but I'm not about to lie to myself and pretend that Islam has a good example of freedom and democracy.

Also since I'm a neocon who believes in spreading Democracy wouldn't nuking be decisively against my ideology?  Keep talking though, it makes you look more unhinged.

So your argument is that Islam does not have a good relation with democracy.  Well no ****, but since when does any religion have a good relation with democracy?  Religion has nothing to do with democracy which is why the most successful democracies in the world such as ours and Turkey's have secular constitutions.
You're making it out as if the middle east's problem with democracy is an Islamic problem when in reality it is due to a lack of secularism.
The reason why nations with Christian populations still have secular governments is because nobody in the developed world takes religion that seriously.  Only exception are the bat**** insane republicans who want to put prayer in public schools and outlaw the teachings of evolution.  The middle east should serve as an example of why we should not want to empower such people.
As for your last question, a neocon doesn't necessarily believe in spreading democracy.  They believe in using our military might to assure global dominance.  You wouldn't be the first neocon to advocate the use of nuclear weapons against people who dissagree with US policy.  Not by a long shot. 

The above is an example for why there are twice as many Conservatives to Progressives in the US.  This insane, hateful ranting that makes one wonder what personal infliction they suffered at the hands of the Western culture or religion.

That was a dismissal of you and your arguments as nonsensical and not worth my time if you didn't get that.  But before I go I suggest you look at the French and American revolutions, compare and contrast, and then look at the all the elements of the American revolution and major players.  You may be forced to, you know, tolerate different views, but it won't hurt.  Trust me.  You'll live.

Twice as many conservatives yet you losers keep getting your ass kicked in every election.  Fancy that huh?

Funny that you bring up the American and French revolution after bashing progressives.  What, did you think our founding fathers were conservatives?!  HAHA!  HELL NO!  The conservatives back then were loyal to the throne.  All social and political change that has happened in this nation has been due thanks to progressivism and liberalism.

The American Revolution was just the first example of the left kicking the **** out of the right.  Must've felt the way I felt when I saw Sarah Palin's stupid face after she lost the election.  Not that you would know.  I love the taste of republican tears!  I just enjoyed some more after you guys lost the health care battle.

Modifié par Borschtbeet, 28 mars 2010 - 10:33 .

[ObserverStatus]

May I suggest shortening the quote pyramids? The moderators are going to shut down this thread any minute.

[Jalem001]

^-^ = My face after realizing this moron can't tell the difference between classical Liberalism and Progressivism.

[Borschtbeet]

Jalem001 wrote...

^-^ = My face after realizing this moron can't tell the difference between classical Liberalism and Progressivism.

When did I fail to make that distinction?
classical Liberalism has different economic views than progrssivism, but on matters like social justice such as the abolitionist movement, civil rights, women's sufferage, etc they've contributed to the progress of American culture.

Conservatives have contributed nothing.

[Bann Duncan]

It's foolish to act as though conservatism has contributed nothing to American culture (or any other culture for that matter).

I happily consider myself a conservative, though admittedly not in the American mould, as I believe in monarchy and such things, but I do agree with American conservatives on quite a few issues, such as the protection of culture. Leftists like those in this thread saying religion is a handicap placed upon our society are the same sort who would destroy the cultural and intellectual heritage of the west. I proudly consider myself an inheritor of both Eastern and Western tradition, so the threats made upon both by the Leftists of both regions leave me incensed.

Borschtbeet, the meaning of conservatism is not to espouse any one particular political ideology, but instead to look at whatever popular ideas have come about in society through the critical lens of tradition. It is because of this that neither the US nor the UK have ever plunged themselves completely into any particular new political dogma, be that Liberalism in the 19th century or Socialism in the 20th. It is this critical eye that makes the presence of conservatives necessary, whether or not you agree with us. Conservatism is the bulwark against a country being swept away by modernity, whose rewards are, more often than not, fleeting.

Modifié par Bann Duncan, 28 mars 2010 - 11:03 .

[Jalem001]

Borschtbeet wrote...

Jalem001 wrote...

^-^ = My face after realizing this moron can't tell the difference between classical Liberalism and Progressivism.

When did I fail to make that distinction?
classical Liberalism has different economic views than progrssivism, but on matters like social justice such as the abolitionist movement, civil rights, women's sufferage, etc they've contributed to the progress of American culture.

Conservatives have contributed nothing.

You know I said I was done with you, but its really hard to ignore all this nonsense.

First off:  Trying to say "They were 200 - 300 years ago means thats the same thing now!" is stupid.

Second:  classical liberalism stresses freedom for the individual and a small limited government at the very core.  Modern Progressivism stresses an expansive government and takes a "Father knows best" style of ruling toward personal freedoms.  Call it whatever, to make this go by easier we'll say its a lot like legislating political corectness.  Equality becomes sameness and takes precedent over individual freedom.

Now I shouldn't have to explain all this, but oh well.  classical liberalism of the past is different then how its interpreted today, but today its closest ancestor would be Libertarianism.  And I don't mean the cosmopolitian Libertarianism, but I'll let you pick whichever branch of that ideology you want to call its closest ancestor.

Now modern libertarianism and conservatism are ideological compatible.  Ronald Reagan's saying that at the heart of conservatism is libertarianism is correct.  Both share (in theory at least) the idea of a small, limited government (which means capitalism and private/faith based aid are all good things).  Whereas the ideology of modern day liberalism/progressivism is almost a polar opposite to this (but not quite).

Going back to my first point:  Its almost ludicrious to try and take our modern day ideologies and transplant them back to the 19th or 18th century.  Today's Conservatives would of been yesterday's Liberals.  And today's Progressives were...non-exsistant in their current form (but not far off from the Progressives of the late 19th century, early 20th century).  So saying that Conservatism has brought us nothing is ignorant to say the least.

[Borschtbeet]

Bann Duncan wrote...

It's foolish to act as though conservatism has contributed nothing to American culture (or any other culture for that matter).

I happily consider myself a conservative, though admittedly not in the American mould, as I believe in monarchy and such things, but I do agree with American conservatives on quite a few issues, such as the protection of culture. Leftists like those in this thread saying religion is a handicap placed upon our society are the same sort who would destroy the cultural and intellectual heritage of the west. I proudly consider myself an inheritor of both Eastern and Western tradition, so the threats made upon both by the Leftists of both regions leave me incensed.

Borschtbeet, the meaning of conservatism is not to espouse any one particular political ideology, but instead to look at whatever popular ideas have come about in society through the critical lens of tradition. It is because of this that neither the US nor the UK have ever plunged themselves completely into any particular new political dogma, be that Liberalism in the 19th century or Socialism in the 20th. It is this critical eye that makes the presence of conservatives necessary, whether or not you agree with us. Conservatism is the bulwark against a country being swept away by modernity, whose rewards are, more often than not, fleeting.

The nature of conservatism by it's very definition is to be antithetical to change.  The nature of American culture on the other hand is multi-culturalism so conservatism is thus incompatable with American culture.  We are not a nation state like Britain or France that is defined by a common nationality.  We are in a sense all immigrant. Conservatives want to make the USA an exclusionary country but that goes against the very nature of what our nation stands for.
Even if you take the traditionalists viewpoint on conservatism you'd find that American conservatism is inherently flawed since the ideas they espouse such as the USA being a "Christian" nation, or that the government does not have the right to collect taxes(read article 1. section VIII) are flat out wrong.

The ideas conservatives claim never existed in the first place.

[Jalem001]

Borschtbeet wrote...

Bann Duncan wrote...

It's foolish to act as though conservatism has contributed nothing to American culture (or any other culture for that matter).

I happily consider myself a conservative, though admittedly not in the American mould, as I believe in monarchy and such things, but I do agree with American conservatives on quite a few issues, such as the protection of culture. Leftists like those in this thread saying religion is a handicap placed upon our society are the same sort who would destroy the cultural and intellectual heritage of the west. I proudly consider myself an inheritor of both Eastern and Western tradition, so the threats made upon both by the Leftists of both regions leave me incensed.

Borschtbeet, the meaning of conservatism is not to espouse any one particular political ideology, but instead to look at whatever popular ideas have come about in society through the critical lens of tradition. It is because of this that neither the US nor the UK have ever plunged themselves completely into any particular new political dogma, be that Liberalism in the 19th century or Socialism in the 20th. It is this critical eye that makes the presence of conservatives necessary, whether or not you agree with us. Conservatism is the bulwark against a country being swept away by modernity, whose rewards are, more often than not, fleeting.

The nature of conservatism by it's very definition is to be antithetical to change.  The nature of American culture on the other hand is multi-culturalism so conservatism is thus incompatable with American culture.  We are not a nation state like Britain or France that is defined by a common nationality.  We are in a sense all immigrant. Conservatives want to make the USA an exclusionary country but that goes against the very nature of what our nation stands for.
Even if you take the traditionalists viewpoint on conservatism you'd find that American conservatism is inherently flawed since the ideas they espouse such as the USA being a "Christian" nation, or that the government does not have the right to collect taxes(read article 1. section VIII) are flat out wrong.

The ideas conservatives claim never existed in the first place.

Conservatives never claim that the government doesn't have the right to collect taxes.  Overtaxation and that the the government is overtaxing because its larger then the constitution intended (or allows it to be), yes.  But no conservative denies the government's right to taxation.  Anarcho-Libertarians might.

[Borschtbeet]

Jalem001 wrote...

Borschtbeet wrote...

Jalem001 wrote...

^-^ = My face after realizing this moron can't tell the difference between classical Liberalism and Progressivism.

When did I fail to make that distinction?
classical Liberalism has different economic views than progrssivism, but on matters like social justice such as the abolitionist movement, civil rights, women's sufferage, etc they've contributed to the progress of American culture.

Conservatives have contributed nothing.

You know I said I was done with you, but its really hard to ignore all this nonsense.

First off:  Trying to say "They were 200 - 300 years ago means thats the same thing now!" is stupid.

Second:  classical liberalism stresses freedom for the individual and a small limited government at the very core.  Modern Progressivism stresses an expansive government and takes a "Father knows best" style of ruling toward personal freedoms.  Call it whatever, to make this go by easier we'll say its a lot like legislating political corectness.  Equality becomes sameness and takes precedent over individual freedom.

Now I shouldn't have to explain all this, but oh well.  classical liberalism of the past is different then how its interpreted today, but today its closest ancestor would be Libertarianism.  And I don't mean the cosmopolitian Libertarianism, but I'll let you pick whichever branch of that ideology you want to call its closest ancestor.

Now modern libertarianism and conservatism are ideological compatible.  Ronald Reagan's saying that at the heart of conservatism is libertarianism is correct.  Both share (in theory at least) the idea of a small, limited government (which means capitalism and private/faith based aid are all good things).  Whereas the ideology of modern day liberalism/progressivism is almost a polar opposite to this (but not quite).

Going back to my first point:  Its almost ludicrious to try and take our modern day ideologies and transplant them back to the 19th or 18th century.  Today's Conservatives would of been yesterday's Liberals.  And today's Progressives were...non-exsistant in their current form (but not far off from the Progressives of the late 19th century, early 20th century).  So saying that Conservatism has brought us nothing is ignorant to say the least.

I never said they were the same thing as they are now.  How could a progressive from 2 centuries ago fit the profile of a progressive today considering that the nature of progressivism and liberalis(yes, even classical liberalism) is change?  Logic would dictate that the standards of change would have altered after such time as society does not remain static.
The point was that the founding fathers were NOT conservatism and if they were there never would've been a revolutionary war to begin with as they would've been loyal to the throne.
classical liberalism which is indeed an alternative way of saying "libertarian" is indeed similar to right wing economics, but on social issues which led to the progress I mentioned earlier, it is the progressives and classical liberals who were allies.
Libertarians cannot be compared to the modern day political right as the latter hate everything that isn't white, straight, and Christian.  Libertarians stand for freedom first and foremost and while I may not agree with them on their economic views, I do respect what classical liberalism has contributed to America.  Quite a contrast to what conservatives have contributed, which is nothing.  They just hold society back.


Yeah, today's conservatives would be cosidered yesterday's liberals.  I agree.  You know what that proves though?  It shows that change is inevitable which renders conservatism pretty damn useless.
Just think, 100 years from now, your average conservative would be considered a socialist.  Conservatives are destined to fail.

[Borschtbeet]

Jalem001 wrote...

Borschtbeet wrote...

Bann Duncan wrote...

It's foolish to act as though conservatism has contributed nothing to American culture (or any other culture for that matter).

I happily consider myself a conservative, though admittedly not in the American mould, as I believe in monarchy and such things, but I do agree with American conservatives on quite a few issues, such as the protection of culture. Leftists like those in this thread saying religion is a handicap placed upon our society are the same sort who would destroy the cultural and intellectual heritage of the west. I proudly consider myself an inheritor of both Eastern and Western tradition, so the threats made upon both by the Leftists of both regions leave me incensed.

Borschtbeet, the meaning of conservatism is not to espouse any one particular political ideology, but instead to look at whatever popular ideas have come about in society through the critical lens of tradition. It is because of this that neither the US nor the UK have ever plunged themselves completely into any particular new political dogma, be that Liberalism in the 19th century or Socialism in the 20th. It is this critical eye that makes the presence of conservatives necessary, whether or not you agree with us. Conservatism is the bulwark against a country being swept away by modernity, whose rewards are, more often than not, fleeting.

The nature of conservatism by it's very definition is to be antithetical to change.  The nature of American culture on the other hand is multi-culturalism so conservatism is thus incompatable with American culture.  We are not a nation state like Britain or France that is defined by a common nationality.  We are in a sense all immigrant. Conservatives want to make the USA an exclusionary country but that goes against the very nature of what our nation stands for.
Even if you take the traditionalists viewpoint on conservatism you'd find that American conservatism is inherently flawed since the ideas they espouse such as the USA being a "Christian" nation, or that the government does not have the right to collect taxes(read article 1. section VIII) are flat out wrong.

The ideas conservatives claim never existed in the first place.

Conservatives never claim that the government doesn't have the right to collect taxes.  Overtaxation and that the the government is overtaxing because its larger then the constitution intended (or allows it to be), yes.  But no conservative denies the government's right to taxation.  Anarcho-Libertarians might.

Overtaxed?  By what standard?  Many extraordinarily wealthy people in the USA actually don't pay any taxes at all thanks to loopholes such as off-shore tax havens.  
Relative to the rest of the world, the USA has among the lowest tax rates.

[Bann Duncan]

Borschtbeet wrote...

Bann Duncan wrote...

It's foolish to act as though conservatism has contributed nothing to American culture (or any other culture for that matter).

I happily consider myself a conservative, though admittedly not in the American mould, as I believe in monarchy and such things, but I do agree with American conservatives on quite a few issues, such as the protection of culture. Leftists like those in this thread saying religion is a handicap placed upon our society are the same sort who would destroy the cultural and intellectual heritage of the west. I proudly consider myself an inheritor of both Eastern and Western tradition, so the threats made upon both by the Leftists of both regions leave me incensed.

Borschtbeet, the meaning of conservatism is not to espouse any one particular political ideology, but instead to look at whatever popular ideas have come about in society through the critical lens of tradition. It is because of this that neither the US nor the UK have ever plunged themselves completely into any particular new political dogma, be that Liberalism in the 19th century or Socialism in the 20th. It is this critical eye that makes the presence of conservatives necessary, whether or not you agree with us. Conservatism is the bulwark against a country being swept away by modernity, whose rewards are, more often than not, fleeting.

The nature of conservatism by it's very definition is to be antithetical to change.  The nature of American culture on the other hand is multi-culturalism so conservatism is thus incompatable with American culture.  We are not a nation state like Britain or France that is defined by a common nationality.  We are in a sense all immigrant. Conservatives want to make the USA an exclusionary country but that goes against the very nature of what our nation stands for.
Even if you take the traditionalists viewpoint on conservatism you'd find that American conservatism is inherently flawed since the ideas they espouse such as the USA being a "Christian" nation, or that the government does not have the right to collect taxes(read article 1. section VIII) are flat out wrong.

The ideas conservatives claim never existed in the first place.

I'm of immigrant stock. Not white immigrant. Dark immigrant.

Don't tell me what my conservatism means because it is different person-to-person - there's not a centralised conservative party deciding what conservatives should believe. I would say that the nature of conservativism is skepticism of change- not antithesis. And I would rather the US be a tolerant Christian nation than a soulless secular one. When Alexander Hamilton spoke of seperation of Church and State, he meant that the US was not to have an established Church such as the Church of England - not what people have taken that to mean today where any and all religious references are "unconstitutional"

Before you call me whatever you're about to, I'll point out that I'm not Christian.

[Borschtbeet]

Bann Duncan wrote...

Borschtbeet wrote...

Bann Duncan wrote...

It's foolish to act as though conservatism has contributed nothing to American culture (or any other culture for that matter).

I happily consider myself a conservative, though admittedly not in the American mould, as I believe in monarchy and such things, but I do agree with American conservatives on quite a few issues, such as the protection of culture. Leftists like those in this thread saying religion is a handicap placed upon our society are the same sort who would destroy the cultural and intellectual heritage of the west. I proudly consider myself an inheritor of both Eastern and Western tradition, so the threats made upon both by the Leftists of both regions leave me incensed.

Borschtbeet, the meaning of conservatism is not to espouse any one particular political ideology, but instead to look at whatever popular ideas have come about in society through the critical lens of tradition. It is because of this that neither the US nor the UK have ever plunged themselves completely into any particular new political dogma, be that Liberalism in the 19th century or Socialism in the 20th. It is this critical eye that makes the presence of conservatives necessary, whether or not you agree with us. Conservatism is the bulwark against a country being swept away by modernity, whose rewards are, more often than not, fleeting.

The nature of conservatism by it's very definition is to be antithetical to change.  The nature of American culture on the other hand is multi-culturalism so conservatism is thus incompatable with American culture.  We are not a nation state like Britain or France that is defined by a common nationality.  We are in a sense all immigrant. Conservatives want to make the USA an exclusionary country but that goes against the very nature of what our nation stands for.
Even if you take the traditionalists viewpoint on conservatism you'd find that American conservatism is inherently flawed since the ideas they espouse such as the USA being a "Christian" nation, or that the government does not have the right to collect taxes(read article 1. section VIII) are flat out wrong.

The ideas conservatives claim never existed in the first place.

I'm of immigrant stock. Not white immigrant. Dark immigrant.

Don't tell me what my conservatism means because it is different person-to-person - there's not a centralised conservative party deciding what conservatives should believe. I would say that the nature of conservativism is skepticism of change- not antithesis. And I would rather the US be a tolerant Christian nation than a soulless secular one. When Alexander Hamilton spoke of seperation of Church and State, he meant that the US was not to have an established Church such as the Church of England - not what people have taken that to mean today where any and all religious references are "unconstitutional"

Before you call me whatever you're about to, I'll point out that I'm not Christian.

If the USA was meant to be a Christian nation, why is it that there is not a single legal US document that has any reference to any particular diety or religion?  You can go ahead and cherry pick some religious quote from a founding father if you wish.  I could do the same by bringing up quotes from Jefferson in support of secularism but that doesn't matter.  The only thing that matters is that we're a nation of laws and the law doesn't favor any particular religion.

Secularism is the only viable stance a government can take on religion when you're dealing with a nation as religiously diverse as ours.  The second the government takes preference of one religion over others, the government is discriminating against everyone else.

[Jalem001]

I never said they were the same thing as they are now.  How could a
progressive from 2 centuries ago fit the profile of a progressive today
considering that the nature of progressivism and liberalis(yes, even
classical liberalism) is change?

Funny that you bring up the American and French revolution after
bashing progressives.  What, did you think our founding fathers were
conservatives?!  HAHA!  HELL NO!  The conservatives back then were
loyal to the throne.  All social and political change that has happened
in this nation has been due thanks to progressivism and liberalism.

One of two errors has been comitted here.  Either you are being intellectually dishonest by suggesting that change only comes from Liberals (Progressives is a very distinct branch of Liberalism, not even fit for use here since we're not drawing a line to modern liberals) or you are lying the bolded section of the first quote.

Logic would dictate that the
standards of change would have altered after such time as society does
not remain static.
The point was that the founding fathers were NOT
conservatism and if they were there never would've been a revolutionary
war to begin with as they would've been loyal to the throne.

Same as the above except this is just flat our intellectual dishonesty.  You are on one hand conceding that modern ideologies cannot accurately be compared to past ones, and then...comparing them to past ones.  You are lumping all right-wing thought across 300 years, and all left-wing thought across 300 years, and throwing the end product at us.

Doesn't work that way.

classical
liberalism which is indeed an alternative way of saying "libertarian"
is indeed similar to right wing economics, but on social issues which
led to the progress I mentioned earlier, it is the progressives and
classical liberals who were allies.

Ask a libertarian if they think a Progressive is a political ally.  Assuming they don't give you a dirty look they'll go on a rant about how Progressives are leading the NWO.

Libertarians cannot be compared
to the modern day political right as the latter hate everything that
isn't white, straight, and Christian.  Libertarians stand for freedom
first and foremost and while I may not agree with them on their
economic views, I do respect what classical liberalism has contributed
to America.  Quite a contrast to what conservatives have contributed,
which is nothing.  They just hold society back.

And this is just nonsense.  Fun fact:  I'm black ******.

Yeah,
today's conservatives would be cosidered yesterday's liberals.  I
agree.  You know what that proves though?  It shows that change is
inevitable which renders conservatism pretty damn useless.
Just think, 100 years from now, your average conservative would be considered a socialist.  Conservatives are destined to fail.

Communism failing proves you wrong.

Edit:  Oh and turn of the century Progressivism failing proves you wrong. 

Modifié par Jalem001, 28 mars 2010 - 11:34 .

[Jalem001]

Borschtbeet wrote...

Jalem001 wrote...

Borschtbeet wrote...

Bann Duncan wrote...

It's foolish to act as though conservatism has contributed nothing to American culture (or any other culture for that matter).

I happily consider myself a conservative, though admittedly not in the American mould, as I believe in monarchy and such things, but I do agree with American conservatives on quite a few issues, such as the protection of culture. Leftists like those in this thread saying religion is a handicap placed upon our society are the same sort who would destroy the cultural and intellectual heritage of the west. I proudly consider myself an inheritor of both Eastern and Western tradition, so the threats made upon both by the Leftists of both regions leave me incensed.

Borschtbeet, the meaning of conservatism is not to espouse any one particular political ideology, but instead to look at whatever popular ideas have come about in society through the critical lens of tradition. It is because of this that neither the US nor the UK have ever plunged themselves completely into any particular new political dogma, be that Liberalism in the 19th century or Socialism in the 20th. It is this critical eye that makes the presence of conservatives necessary, whether or not you agree with us. Conservatism is the bulwark against a country being swept away by modernity, whose rewards are, more often than not, fleeting.

The nature of conservatism by it's very definition is to be antithetical to change.  The nature of American culture on the other hand is multi-culturalism so conservatism is thus incompatable with American culture.  We are not a nation state like Britain or France that is defined by a common nationality.  We are in a sense all immigrant. Conservatives want to make the USA an exclusionary country but that goes against the very nature of what our nation stands for.
Even if you take the traditionalists viewpoint on conservatism you'd find that American conservatism is inherently flawed since the ideas they espouse such as the USA being a "Christian" nation, or that the government does not have the right to collect taxes(read article 1. section VIII) are flat out wrong.

The ideas conservatives claim never existed in the first place.

Conservatives never claim that the government doesn't have the right to collect taxes.  Overtaxation and that the the government is overtaxing because its larger then the constitution intended (or allows it to be), yes.  But no conservative denies the government's right to taxation.  Anarcho-Libertarians might.

Overtaxed?  By what standard?  Many extraordinarily wealthy people in the USA actually don't pay any taxes at all thanks to loopholes such as off-shore tax havens.  
Relative to the rest of the world, the USA has among the lowest tax rates.

The top 10% of wealthy pay somewhere around 60% of the taxes.  Most people think that the rich pay something comparable percentage wise.  They don't.  Something making millions a year is going to be paying upwards of 50% in taxes. 

Furthermore the US has the highest corporate tax in the world.  Plus we're not stupid.  We look at the European system (high taxation) and our own (Lower) and for the longest time America had the stronger economy.  And half the reason we're in our **** right now is because government overstepped its role by forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn't pay them back.  Combine that with excessive government spending.

So yeah, we think we're overtaxed and that theres too much government.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Grog415 wrote...
Maylasia, let's see, despot charges rival with sodamy and imprisons him on trumped up charges. Indonesia, Suharto-Sukarno..... yes I read history. The followers of the poedophile prophet are not big on electing leaders.

Abu Bakr Al Siddiq, the first caliph after the Prophet, was elected. Umar Ibn al Khattab, the 2nd Caliph was elected. Uthman Ibn Affan the same. Ali Ibn Abi Talib the same. Muawiya Ibn Abi Suffyan, the same. Umar Ibn Abd Al Azziz, the same.

The concept is called "Shura" and "Mubaya'a" in Islamic Jurisprudence. In addition to the Sharia law's 3rd most important source, which is Ijma (consensus) of the people and the scholars (both ofwhich Saudi Arabia and Iran lack). Even when the Caliphate became a heridetary system, it was never ruled by a real despot except for one example (Al Hakim, who was mentally unstable and was killed by his own dynasty). All other caliphs were always checked and balanced by the people and the Ulama, as well other the tribal elders. A major reason why the Islamic world was the most advanced civilisation at the time, while Europeans were primitive barbarians. 

As for today. Let's see a summary of what happened.
- in 1945, the Syrian Democratically elected parliament issued a decree refusing the French increase in the military garrison, fearing that they will not leave after WW2. What did the French do? They stormed the Parliament, killed many of them and started a general bombing campaign of Damascus for two days. 2000 were killed.

- 1953, Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran, democratically elected, was removed from power by the American CIA in operation Ajax. Why? Because Mossadeq wanted to use the oil money for his own people and British Petroleum thought he was communist. Thank you for that.

- Who helped put the Sauds in power? The British. Keep them in power? The USA.

- Who helped Saddam Hussein instore his dictatorship and wage a pointless war? The USA of course. 

- What about Sadate and Mubarak? The USA.

All modern day dictatorships have attempted to curve or annihilate the religious establishment precicely because it's a check to their power. Baath party in Syria and Iraq, Gamal Abd Al Nasser in Egypt...etc. Even in Saudi Arabia, everyone with a bit of knowledge knows that the main opposition to the regime is from the Wahhabis and that the alliance between the Saud and the Wahhab sect has long since been broken.   
And evidently, all of them are somehow linked, directly or indirectly, to foreign powers playing Risk with the world. The USA will always prefer a dictator, even if being awfully close to Fascism (Pinochet) that will be under its sphere of influence, instead of a democracy that threaten its power. 

Yes, so called modern day Sharia Law countries are despotic and a disgrace. But only a tiny minority of Muslims would think of the 2 countries (Iran and KSA) as legitimately Islamic. For Saudi Arabia's Wahhabism is a minority within a minority. Sunni islam has 4 Mathhabs (historically it had more), and KSA only has one sect within one Mathhab that dictates how sharia law should be like. Iran is Shia, a minority sect, is bound to be despotic because of its ideas of Imams and the like. It remains a minority however.

The concept of election, popular consensus, checks and balances, advisory courts are all present in Islamic Jurisprudence. Even the Prophet himself used to take the advice of his followers as much as possible, even very low ranking soldiers (example at the batttle of Badr, where it was a soldier who formulated the plan). 

So while western democracy and an Islamic political system are not equivalent, they overlap in many domains. You want to think your system is superior? Go ahead. Just try to be less ignorant next time. And no, evidently you never read history.

As for your "poedophile" comment. Yes, that's the last resort for the intellectually bankrupt. Won't bother responding more than this, as it would be a sad waste of time. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 28 mars 2010 - 11:47 .

[Borschtbeet]

I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make with that first comment.  Let me try to get this straight....because the founding fathers would be considered to the right of modern the modern day left(they supported slavery after all so of course they were to the right) that means that conservatives get to take credit for what they achieved?  That doesn't make any sense.  Might as well say that social security was a conservative victory as well since it was supported by many southern dixiecrats.
If I were to ask a Libertarian flat out if they agreed with progressives they would likely say no.  If I got more specific and asked them if they agreed with progressives on issues like gay rights, abortion rights, seperation of church and state, etc they most certainly would've said yes.
Libertarians and progressives dissagree on economic issues but they were both supporters of the social change that brought about the civil justice of the 20th century.

Conservatives have never really contributed anything.  You may point to say how military spending helped defeat the Soviet Union, but where in the original draft of the constitution does it give the government authority to fund a military(that was what the second amendment was for.  You know, a well organized militia by the state.).  It's later inclusion in the constitution was an act of progressvisism and thus even the accomplishments conservatives take credit for couldn't have happened without progressives.

I don't know how communism failing proves me wrong.  Might as well cite Fascism's defeat as the swan song of the right if we're going to use extreme examples of both sides of politics.

[Borschtbeet]

Jalem001 wrote...

Borschtbeet wrote...

Jalem001 wrote...

Borschtbeet wrote...

Bann Duncan wrote...

It's foolish to act as though conservatism has contributed nothing to American culture (or any other culture for that matter).

I happily consider myself a conservative, though admittedly not in the American mould, as I believe in monarchy and such things, but I do agree with American conservatives on quite a few issues, such as the protection of culture. Leftists like those in this thread saying religion is a handicap placed upon our society are the same sort who would destroy the cultural and intellectual heritage of the west. I proudly consider myself an inheritor of both Eastern and Western tradition, so the threats made upon both by the Leftists of both regions leave me incensed.

Borschtbeet, the meaning of conservatism is not to espouse any one particular political ideology, but instead to look at whatever popular ideas have come about in society through the critical lens of tradition. It is because of this that neither the US nor the UK have ever plunged themselves completely into any particular new political dogma, be that Liberalism in the 19th century or Socialism in the 20th. It is this critical eye that makes the presence of conservatives necessary, whether or not you agree with us. Conservatism is the bulwark against a country being swept away by modernity, whose rewards are, more often than not, fleeting.

The nature of conservatism by it's very definition is to be antithetical to change.  The nature of American culture on the other hand is multi-culturalism so conservatism is thus incompatable with American culture.  We are not a nation state like Britain or France that is defined by a common nationality.  We are in a sense all immigrant. Conservatives want to make the USA an exclusionary country but that goes against the very nature of what our nation stands for.
Even if you take the traditionalists viewpoint on conservatism you'd find that American conservatism is inherently flawed since the ideas they espouse such as the USA being a "Christian" nation, or that the government does not have the right to collect taxes(read article 1. section VIII) are flat out wrong.

The ideas conservatives claim never existed in the first place.

Conservatives never claim that the government doesn't have the right to collect taxes.  Overtaxation and that the the government is overtaxing because its larger then the constitution intended (or allows it to be), yes.  But no conservative denies the government's right to taxation.  Anarcho-Libertarians might.

Overtaxed?  By what standard?  Many extraordinarily wealthy people in the USA actually don't pay any taxes at all thanks to loopholes such as off-shore tax havens.  
Relative to the rest of the world, the USA has among the lowest tax rates.

The top 10% of wealthy pay somewhere around 60% of the taxes.  Most people think that the rich pay something comparable percentage wise.  They don't.  Something making millions a year is going to be paying upwards of 50% in taxes. 

Furthermore the US has the highest corporate tax in the world.  Plus we're not stupid.  We look at the European system (high taxation) and our own (Lower) and for the longest time America had the stronger economy.  And half the reason we're in our **** right now is because government overstepped its role by forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn't pay them back.  Combine that with excessive government spending.

So yeah, we think we're overtaxed and that theres too much government.

That really is not that much.  During the Eisnehower administration it was over 90 percent.  Most corporations in the USA don't pay any taxes at all and even with the 60 percent tax rate there are tons of unclosed loopholes such as offshore tax havens in the Bahamas that the rich exploit to avoid paying any taxes at all.  It costs the US billions of dollars in revenue.  We really only have a high tax rate de-facto, it's the poor and the middle class who get squeezed in this country while the rich keep getting richer and still don't pay taxes.

The government forced banks to hand out loans?  What a crock.  Some non-governmental organizations like ACORN encouraged it but the government itself did not order the banks to do anything.  The banks deliberately handed out loans they knew their clients couldn't pay back so they could sic creditors on them to claim every dime they owned.  It was an act of pure greed and proof that we need to nationalize the banks so that their actions are accountable to the people.

[Amberyl Ravenclaw]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

(snip for brevity)

@ KnightofPhoenix: Thank you very, very much for that lesson about democratic trends in Islamic judicial and political history. I admit to not being very well-versed about the latter, though it's a growing topic of interest for me. Also, your point about US administrations and other western powers having historically backed dictatorships and intervening in the politics of other states (including, of course, various examples in Latin America) is very timely. For all the ideological ruffling of feathers about "our democracy" versus "other non-democratic peoples", I think folks need to be reminded that reality isn't always that clear-cut. /peace out 

Modifié par Amberyl Ravenclaw, 29 mars 2010 - 12:00 .

[fairandbalancedfan]

Amberyl Ravenclaw wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

(snip for brevity)

@ Knight: Thank you very, very much for that lesson about democratic trends in Islamic judicial and political history. I admit to not being very well-versed about the latter, though it's a growing topic of interest for me. Also, your point about US administrations and other western powers having historically backed dictatorships and intervening in the politics of other states (including, of course, various examples in Latin America) is very timely, I think. For all the ideological ruffling of feathers about "our democracy" versus "other non-democratic peoples", I think folks need to be reminded that reality isn't always that clear-cut. /peace out 

@knight, holy Sh** man, very informative. Though even Iran has democratic elements, and it's people are believers of that democracy. Especially the students.

Amberyl, this thread needs a lockdown I think. The rot of ignorance must stop here.

Modifié par fairandbalancedfan, 29 mars 2010 - 12:07 .

[Bann Duncan]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
--
 

Wonderful post, Knight. That is precisely the point I was trying to get across; the repressive Muslim states exist in spite of the 'ulama - not because of Islam.

[Bann Duncan]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
--
 

Wonderful post, Knight. That is precisely the point I was trying to get across; the repressive Muslim states exist in spite of the 'ulama - not because of Islam.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Amberyl Ravenclaw wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

(snip for brevity)

@ KnightofPhoenix: Thank you very, very much for that lesson about democratic trends in Islamic judicial and political history. I admit to not being very well-versed about the latter, though it's a growing topic of interest for me. Also, your point about US administrations and other western powers having historically backed dictatorships and intervening in the politics of other states (including, of course, various examples in Latin America) is very timely. For all the ideological ruffling of feathers about "our democracy" versus "other non-democratic peoples", I think folks need to be reminded that reality isn't always that clear-cut. /peace out 

Any time.
If you need any help or more info concerning this, please feel free to ask.

I am not saying that an Islamic system will be like Western democracy. But I think the core principles would be the same. And people think that Sharia Law is set in stones and cannot change. That is false.

Sharia Law is determined by 4 variables:
- The Qu'ran, which itself states that the people must not accept oppression and must earn their freedom.
- The Hadiths, oral traditions attributed to the Prophet. Who said to his followers "Your lives and your property are sacred" (property rights).
 - Ijma'. Consensus of the people and the Ulama (scholars). Historically, the scholars were into at least 4 different schools of Jurisprudence and all 4 were represented within the various regimes. The four mathhabs are Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali. Hanafi, the most liberal of all schools, has always been the majority, next comes Shafi'i (centrists). The ultra conservative Hanbali, while legitimate, have always been a minority. 
- Qiyas or measurement. It's basically the practise to measure and compare the situation of the present with the past and ask how would the first Muslims have handled this. If it's a compeltely new situation, then Ra'i (opinion) comes into play.

2 of these 4 sources are able to change and reform. The other 2 have room for interpretation. In my opinion, any regime that does not allow for the 4 Mathhabs to be represented is not a legitimate Islamic system. And that's of cousrse not to mention the various different schools in philosophy, theology and the like. Those 4 mathhabs I listed are schools of law only. Could be seen as equivalent to political parties, if there was a real Islamic system today. 

[Amberyl Ravenclaw]

@ KnightofPhoenix:

Wonderful! Thanks so much for the info. I'm positive that your knowledge and any future contributions will be of great interest to a number of folks including myself and fairandbalancedfan (who I know is fascinated by all things politically and culturally South Asian and Middle Eastern). Also, if I may ask, what is your background in Islamic history and law? Do you have a personal investment in Islam, or are you a scholar of some sort?

Modifié par Amberyl Ravenclaw, 29 mars 2010 - 12:19 .

[Borschtbeet]

Islam > Christianity.

[ObserverStatus]

Borschtbeet wrote...

Islam > Christianity.