Mormon forum lights up over California gay change

[_Droopy]

And some serious scholarly food for though in a nutshell:


http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/2919976.html

[_Moniker]

Can you respond to my earlier points or is this your way of wiggling out of it?

No, its too easy, its not challenging, and most of your points aren't even relevant to the issue at hand.

I replied to each of YOUR points, Coggins. You replied to one of my posts NOT directed at you! I asked you to consider what you were saying and commented on YOUR comments. You can't back them up so you continually reached for something else. Don't get pissy at me 'cause I like to make notice that you say crap and have no idea what you're saying.

I enjoy it 'cause you often tell me I'm essentially a stupid slut. Well, this stupid, slut at least has a degree in poli-sci with an emphasis in pre-law and knows a wee bit about what she chooses to discuss. What I do NOT understand I'm eager to learn -- that's the difference between you and I Coggins.

You run to google and can NOT admit that some things you don't have knowledge of. It's OKAY to not be an expert. It's okay to learn, ask questions, admit ignorance of subjects, and look at differing opinions without fear that your soul will be tainted by the stain of Marxism!

[_Droopy]

And neoconservatism is also a child of this leftist tradition that you decry, and somehow conservatives have managed to give them support. In other words, we live in a real world, Coggy, not a museum. And, you shouldn't pretend that you are a gentry farmer of the 18th century American colonies. You simply aren't.

You're in over your head here Trevor. Leave while you can still find the door.

[_cksalmon]

You're the one who has actually, despite all the substantive scholarship to the contrary, still swallows the idea that Fascism, National Socialism, and Marxian Socialism are opposite ideologies arising from completely different mentalities and core assumptions.

Let's talk about who doesn't know what they're talking about.

HAHAHA! Oh, wow. You're desperate. Fascism is on the right of the political ideological spectrum and socialism is on the left.

Insofar as both systems embraced a state-centric absolutism, Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia held more things of significance in common than they didn't.

I think your dichotomy is overstated.

Both absolutistic systems engendered massive murder-based enforcement of their ideals.

Substitute Hitler's unthinking nationalism for Russia's never-realized, unthinking, rule of the proletariat (always at the hands of the elite) in the service of unified socialism and I think it's a wash.

Both ideologies manifestly failed in the 20th C. Moreover, both resulted in the widespread murderous silencing of opposition influences.

The targets differed perhaps, but the end result was largely the same. Except that socialism in those formative years killed lots more folks than Germany's nationalism.

"Lots more" is figured in the millions. One more is too much. Millions more is too much.

The two systems aren't unrelated for all that.

Can you identify the opposite ideologies succinctly?

Chris

[_Chap]

No such assumption is needed, generally speaking. The constitution, and its philosophical antecedent, the Declaration of Independence, were all products of the the Classical Liberal tradition of the English speaking world (primarily England), while Leftism is derived from a Franco/Germanic continental intellectual tradition. The two are polar opposites and the twain shall never meet.

And neoconservatism is also a child of this leftist tradition that you decry, and somehow conservatives have managed to give them support. In other words, we live in a real world, Coggy, not a museum. And, you shouldn't pretend that you are a gentry farmer of the 18th century American colonies. You simply aren't.

I am smitten with a vision of Coggins' old avatar with a George Washington wig.

The only writers to do justice to the magnificence of Coggins' conception of his Anglo-Saxon heritage are G&S. See HMS Pinafore ...

All.
He is an Englishman!

Boatswain.
He is an Englishman!
For he himself has said it,
And it's greatly to his credit,
That he is an Englishman!


All.
That he is an Englishman!

Boatswain.
For he might have been a Roosian,
A French, or Turk, or Proosian,
Or perhaps Itali-an!


All.
Or perhaps Itali-an!

Boatswain.
But in spite of all temptations
To belong to other nations,
He remains an Englishman!
He remains an Englishman!


All.
For in spite of all temptations
To belong to other nations,
He remains an Englishman!
He remains an Englishman!

You really need the music to appreciate this one ...

Fortunately there is a karaoke file here:

http://math.boisestate.edu/GaS/pinafore ... /pin18.kar

The tune you need begins just before half way through.

[_Trevor]

I think Coggy is admitting that his beloved Republicans have been overrun by leftists who go by the title "neoconservative." These lefty neocons believe in big government, the manipulation of the masses through religion, and American imperialism. So it is the case that what appears to be the "right" in the American spectrum, is really the "left" at its absolute and most cynical worst.

[_Trevor]

You're in over your head here Trevor. Leave while you can still find the door.

Again you say nothing and have wasted bandwidth. Dismissal does not substitute for argument, Coggy. Try for once to learn from your mistakes.

[_Droopy]

I replied to each of YOUR points, Coggins.

Only in a vague manner, and primarily by avoiding the detailed points directly and inserting plastic ducks that must then be eliminated so we can return to the substantive points at hand.

I enjoy it 'cause you often tell me I'm essentially a stupid slut.

You are now either lying through your pointed teeth or are projecting onto me some unfinished psychological business of your own. I have never once come close to calling you anything approaching that. Never. One time, and one time only, I made an insinuation, which I apologized for and which you accepted. That was that.

Well, this stupid, slut at least has a degree in poli-sci with an emphasis in pre-law and knows a wee bit about what she chooses to discuss. What I do NOT understand I'm eager to learn -- that's the difference between you and I Coggins.

Degrees are one thing, actually having been educated is another.

You run to google and can NOT admit that some things you don't have knowledge of. It's OKAY to not be an expert. It's okay to learn, ask questions, admit ignorance of subjects, and look at differing opinions without fear that your soul will be tainted by the stain of Marxism!

I go to Google for quotes and sources to support my statements, when I think its needed. This "run to Google" thing is a Scratch tactic...to save face.

End of transmission.

[Guest]

You're the one who has actually, despite all the substantive scholarship to the contrary, still swallows the idea that Fascism, National Socialism, and Marxian Socialism are opposite ideologies arising from completely different mentalities and core assumptions.

Let's talk about who doesn't know what they're talking about.

HAHAHA! Oh, wow. You're desperate. Fascism is on the right of the political ideological spectrum and socialism is on the left.

Insofar as both systems embraced a state-centric absolutism, Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia held more things of significance in common than they didn't.

I think your dichotomy is overstated.

I wonder why you assumed I was talking about states and not political ideologies when I stated that I was discussing ideologies. This is the same thing Coggins did before.

Can you identify the opposite ideologies succinctly?

Chris

Already did in a thread I created months ago. I bumped it for Coggins a while ago.

That end results are similar does not mean that the ideologies are similar.

Simple refresher and copy and paste of earlier points:

Let me just mention this as it relates to the left-right scale of political theory.

Left concern for redistribution of wealth vs. laissez-faire, social darwinism on the right
Left concern for workers rights vs. management and employers on the right
Left concern for class conflicts vs. class collaboration (which fascists fully embrace by the way) on the right
Left concern for internationalism vs. purely national interests on the right

Uh, I'd just like to mention that fascism is nationalistic in nature.

Fascist states heavily subscribe to the ethnicity of it's populace as superior, the cult of personality, or national supremacy. Social upward mobility in the fascist state is also embraced. Superior individuals were rewarded and there was no to little concern for class inequality.

It's actually difficult to even make broad generalized statements about economics when it deals with fascist states. Most often the economics was secondary or not seen as important to those that rose to power. The driving force behind the fascists ideology was supremacy in class, ethnicity, as well as nation. Social darwinism is perfectly acceptable and encouraged in the fascist state.

Both collectivist and yet different as fascist is collectivist in the vertical and communist is in the horizontal.

Might wanna check this out toooo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

Most spectra include a right wing and left wing. According to the simplest left-right axis, communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, opposite nationalism and fascism on the right. Liberalism means different things in different contexts, sometimes left, sometimes right. Conservativism is almost always considered on the right.

[_Trevor]

End of transmission.

Begin decoding of secret transmission: "I bid thee adieu, from the Lost Continent of Mu. Affectionately yours, Loran"