Hypocrisy and Right vs. Left Wing

  • Thread starter Thread starter mschrank
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hitler/Nazi is thrown around a lot on both sides. Liberals have called the president Hitler, his “regime” Nazi Germany, etc. Please don’t hypocritically wave your finger at the Right for using that tactic without including your brothers on the Left.
I haven’t waved that finger. I stated quite clearly that both sides use the same tactic and try to deny it. That is hypocrisy from both sides. BTW, that’s why I fall somewhere in the middle. As for the assumption on abortion I am against that but I am for social programs for the poor. Call me morally convservative and fiscally liberal. I don’t really have brothers on the left or the right. I have severe disagreements with both of them.
 
But Nazis also believed in strict gun control, abortion, euthansia, and eugenics. Sound familiar?
Since when have I ever been for those, but for gun control. Once again a right wing ad hominem attack to show how the right assumes the slightest liberal position on one issue means liberal on everything. This hypocrisy has to stop from the right and the left and that is my point.
 
I haven’t waved that finger. I stated quite clearly that both sides use the same tactic and try to deny it. That is hypocrisy from both sides. BTW, that’s why I fall somewhere in the middle. As for the assumption on abortion I am against that but I am for social programs for the poor. Call me morally convservative and fiscally liberal. I don’t really have brothers on the left or the right. I have severe disagreements with both of them.
We’re not brothers Jim? I’m hurt. 😉
 
Before I write this let me state something about myself. I am not right wing, and I am not left wing. I hate Communism, Modernism, and all the other fads and modern heresies, just as much as I hate Capitalism and Libertarianism.

I want to rant about something I’ve noticed with Catholics. Especially the more conservative-minded ones. I mentioned it on another thread but it deserves its own.

If you embrace a position that is commonly held by left-leaning people that is not compatible with Catholicism, for example the idea that women should be able to be Priests, then you will be condemned. People will tell you about the traditions of the Church and Church teachings and remind you that obstinate persistence in your mistake is heretical.

However, if you embrace a position that is commonly held by the right, and is likewise out of step, then it’s just ignored. Nobody questions it. For example, the idea that the government should provide no social services to the poor, or that (as in the wal-mart thread) corporations have no obligations apart from their shareholders.

Catholics need to go beyond right and left. We should not uncritically swallow each and every thing as long as it fits our little self-conceptions and identities. We have to be Catholics first, and Republicans or Democrats second.

For example: It’s not okay to be a Catholic Democrat, but still support abortion on demand. It’s likewise not okay to be a Catholic Republican and support cuts in assistance to the poor and needy (and did you know the Bible compares robbing the poor to murder?!).

Don’t be afraid to offend your peers.
Great post.
 
With respect to name calling, labeling, all the Nazi-Fascist stuff…

For your reference shelf, buy a copy (or ask your librarian to buy a copy) of Jonah Goldberg’s excellent recent book, “Liberal Fascism”.

amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841

**

You’re quite the salesman for the the Right. 😉 Frankly, I wouldn’t give a penny to someone who writes a book with such a nonsensical title. If I wanted to read something like that, I would go to the library and check it out for free (yes, the library paid for it, but it’s only one book that is read by a lot of people, spreading the cost per reader to virtually nothing).

It’s interesting, really. The Right has redefined words so they mean what they want and then lambaste people who disagree with them with these redefined words.

As a counter, I would recommend “Cracking the Code” by Thom Hartmann.
 
You’re quite the salesman for the the Right. 😉 Frankly, I wouldn’t give a penny to someone who writes a book with such a nonsensical title. If I wanted to read something like that, I would go to the library and check it out for free (yes, the library paid for it, but it’s only one book that is read by a lot of people, spreading the cost per reader to virtually nothing).

It’s interesting, really. The Right has redefined words so they mean what they want and then lambaste people who disagree with them with these redefined words.

As a counter, I would recommend “Cracking the Code” by Thom Hartmann.
You just reminded me.

A couple of more essential titles:

amazon.com/Blacklisted-History-Senator-McCarthy-Americas/dp/140008105X/ref=pd_sim_b_4

And this one is OUTSTANDING … really defines and shows the evolution of words such as “progressive”.

amazon.com/None-Dare-Call-Treason-Years/dp/0914053108/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216057453&sr=1-1

Frankly, I worry a lot about readers, posters, and lurkers here at the CAF precincts suffering from low blood pressure. Serious medical condition.

So here is a remedy:

amazon.com/Democrats-Had-Brains-Theyd-Republicans/dp/0307353451/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216057580&sr=1-2

[The author needs the money to buy food.]

AAANNNNDDDD, since we need to encourage new, young authors, check these two authors.

booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9598&SectionName=Politics&PlayMedia=No

amazon.com/Youre-Wrong-About-Right-Conservatives/dp/1416562826/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216057932&sr=1-1

And this one is pretty good, also:

amazon.com/Conservative-Comebacks-Liberal-Lies-Responses/dp/0977227901/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216058063&sr=1-1

[The author was on BookTV]
 
You just reminded me.

A couple of more essential titles:

amazon.com/Blacklisted-History-Senator-McCarthy-Americas/dp/140008105X/ref=pd_sim_b_4

And this one is OUTSTANDING … really defines and shows the evolution of words such as “progressive”.

amazon.com/None-Dare-Call-Treason-Years/dp/0914053108/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216057453&sr=1-1

Frankly, I worry a lot about readers, posters, and lurkers here at the CAF precincts suffering from low blood pressure. Serious medical condition.

So here is a remedy:

amazon.com/Democrats-Had-Brains-Theyd-Republicans/dp/0307353451/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216057580&sr=1-2

[The author needs the money to buy food.]

AAANNNNDDDD, since we need to encourage new, young authors, check these two authors.

booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9598&SectionName=Politics&PlayMedia=No

amazon.com/Youre-Wrong-About-Right-Conservatives/dp/1416562826/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216057932&sr=1-1

And this one is pretty good, also:

amazon.com/Conservative-Comebacks-Liberal-Lies-Responses/dp/0977227901/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216058063&sr=1-1

[The author was on BookTV]
I’m not reading any of the name calling books. They are just plain ludicrous. I have stated time and time again I am morally conservative but fiscally liberal. Yet somehow the conservatives still want to link me with the Nazis and fascists. Continue your stupid games.
 
I’m not reading any of the name calling books. They are just plain ludicrous. I have stated time and time again I am morally conservative but fiscally liberal. Yet somehow the conservatives still want to link me with the Nazis and fascists. Continue your stupid games.
Jim, they’re not “name calling books”.

Visit your local library and check them out. See for yourself.
 
Jim, they’re not “name calling books”.

Visit your local library and check them out. See for yourself.
Anything that wants to continue calling me a Nazi or fascist is name calling. I’ve had enough. Conservative fascists can exist as well but I don’t use the term out of charity. If we started respecting each other we wouldn’t have this hypocrisy, which, as I keep on saying, comes from the left and the right. Neither side is so innocent as they would like to believe.
 
Anything that wants to continue calling me a Nazi or fascist is name calling. I’ve had enough. Conservative fascists can exist as well but I don’t use the term out of charity. If we started respecting each other we wouldn’t have this hypocrisy, which, as I keep on saying, comes from the left and the right. Neither side is so innocent as they would like to believe.
The books are not aimed at you, personally, Jim.

The books are part of a very large, world wide political debate that started in the 1920’s … and perhaps even earlier.

The Librarian of Congress, James Billington, wrote an outstanding book, “Fire in the Minds of Men” … tracing the origins of Communism back to the French Revolution.

Fascinating study. You might enjoy it as pure history.

amazon.com/Fire-Minds-Men-James-Billington/dp/0765804719

Actually, the book reviews by readers on Amazon are almost as good as the book itself.

amazon.com/review/product/0765804719/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

A couple of excerpts from one of the reviews:

The chapter National vs. Social Revolution chronicles the revolutionary fracture that came about in the mid-1800’s. What emerged from this schism were the totalitarian movements of the twentieth century. The heirs of the national revolutionary tradition, “fortified fraternity with equality” and gave birth to Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. National revolutionaries of the twentieth century found their fraternity in the abstractions of Volk (People) or the (Reich) Nation. The social revolutionaries, on the other hand, lofted equality above all but bound it to fraternity. They gave rise to Bolshevism and Communist movements. Ironically, as Billington notes, “The most violent and authoritarian movements in Germany and Russia each intensified one form of the revolutionary faith by adopting signficant elements of the other.” Nazism was abbreviation for “national socialism” while Communism under Stalin came to be defined as “socialism in one country.” Both of these revolutionary faiths whether of the national revolutionary tradition or the social revolutionary tradition were millenarian social religions.

The contagious revolutionary fervor of the French Revolution, which was wrought from 1789 to 1791, had its origin in the utopian Rousseau and German Romanticism. Billington’s sweeping narrative begins amidst this fervor, which beset the eighteenth century.

Further bridging the nineteenth and twentieth century, Billington offers a chapter on ‘Lenin’s Path to Power,’ which traces the revolutionary activities of he and his cohorts in bringing about the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.

Billington has created a framework that anyone can use as a reference for further study and reading or just as a stand-alone reference work.
 
The idea that fascism and liberalism are linked because they both use the government as agent is at best superficial.

If one element of fascism and socialism appears the same, then the two must be the same, right?.. despite the completely differing goals.

In this case, it’s not a duck.
 
The books are not aimed at you, personally, Jim.

The books are part of a very large, world wide political debate that started in the 1920’s … and perhaps even earlier.

The Librarian of Congress, James Billington, wrote an outstanding book, “Fire in the Minds of Men” … tracing the origins of Communism back to the French Revolution.

Fascinating study. You might enjoy it as pure history.

amazon.com/Fire-Minds-Men-James-Billington/dp/0765804719

Actually, the book reviews by readers on Amazon are almost as good as the book itself.

amazon.com/review/product/0765804719/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

A couple of excerpts from one of the reviews:

The chapter National vs. Social Revolution chronicles the revolutionary fracture that came about in the mid-1800’s. What emerged from this schism were the totalitarian movements of the twentieth century. The heirs of the national revolutionary tradition, “fortified fraternity with equality” and gave birth to Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. National revolutionaries of the twentieth century found their fraternity in the abstractions of Volk (People) or the (Reich) Nation. The social revolutionaries, on the other hand, lofted equality above all but bound it to fraternity. They gave rise to Bolshevism and Communist movements. Ironically, as Billington notes, “The most violent and authoritarian movements in Germany and Russia each intensified one form of the revolutionary faith by adopting signficant elements of the other.” Nazism was abbreviation for “national socialism” while Communism under Stalin came to be defined as “socialism in one country.” Both of these revolutionary faiths whether of the national revolutionary tradition or the social revolutionary tradition were millenarian social religions.

The contagious revolutionary fervor of the French Revolution, which was wrought from 1789 to 1791, had its origin in the utopian Rousseau and German Romanticism. Billington’s sweeping narrative begins amidst this fervor, which beset the eighteenth century.

Further bridging the nineteenth and twentieth century, Billington offers a chapter on ‘Lenin’s Path to Power,’ which traces the revolutionary activities of he and his cohorts in bringing about the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.

Billington has created a framework that anyone can use as a reference for further study and reading or just as a stand-alone reference work.
And you continue to prove why I won’t read these books. I believe communism fell because of its godlessness. Yet capitalism based on its greed also has a false god and I foresee it falling as well. What will replace these two systems I have yet to know. I am not an expert in such things. But I have continually stated I am a moderate, not a Communist or a right wing propagandist.
 
One might, as easily, write a book on the ‘Messianic origins of National Socialism and Communism’ with Lenin/Stalin or Hitler as ‘Messiah’, the Politburo/Reich Cabinet as apostles and Party Comrades and Volksgenossen as disciples.

That’s not to say that members of, say, Stalin’s inner circle (inner circles, since he had so many of them executed or sent to the Gulag from time to time) owed their beliefs to Christianity but many of them had strong religious backgrounds and while rejecting the ‘religion’ they replaced it with alternative fundamentalist beliefs and saw themselves as noble and inflexible protagonists for them.

In other words, virtually any political movement that takes place after a significant historical event can be traced back to that event in one way or another.
 
One might, as easily, write a book on the ‘Messianic origins of National Socialism and Communism’ with Lenin/Stalin or Hitler as ‘Messiah’, the Politburo/Reich Cabinet as apostles and Party Comrades and Volksgenossen as disciples.

That’s not to say that members of, say, Stalin’s inner circle (inner circles, since he had so many of them executed or sent to the Gulag from time to time) owed their beliefs to Christianity but many of them had strong religious backgrounds and while rejecting the ‘religion’ they replaced it with alternative fundamentalist beliefs and saw themselves as noble and inflexible protagonists for them.

In other words, virtually any political movement that takes place after a significant historical event can be traced back to that event in one way or another.
Huh?
 
Yet capitalism based on its greed also has a false god and I foresee it falling as well.
Where does this idea that capitalism is based on greed come from? Greed is a human failing that exists in any system. It may seem that capitalists are greedy because they produce so much wealth but the engine of capitalism is not greed, rather it is the recognition that society benefits when individuals are free to pursue their own goals and to retain the fruits of their own labor.

Ender
 
This just in …

Father/Daughter Talk:

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal left wing Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch right wing Republican, a feeling she openly expressed.

Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew.

She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, ‘How is your friend Audrey doing?’

She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA.

She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.’

Her wise father asked his daughter, ‘Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.’

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, ‘That’s a crazy idea, and how would that be fair! I’ve worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!’

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, ‘Welcome to the Republican party’.

If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Republican right-wing and Democrat left-wing I’m all ears. THIS explains politics in simple terms that even a Democrat can understand.
 
This might help you Al instead of spouting strawmen on other people’s political positions:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/

And this story summarizes conservatism quite well:
I have a little story that sums up exactly what I believe conservatism is all about. Admittedly, I do not know the origins of the story, and I have no idea how factual it is. It is probably a joke, but it sure is funny:
I’m reminded of the time that Catherine - a little girl in our neighborhood - told me that she wanted to be President one day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there with us, and I asked Catherine, “If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?”
Catherine replied - “I would give houses to all the homeless people.”
“Wow! what a worthy goal you have there, Catherine,” I told her (while both parents beamed), “But, you don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that. You can come over to my house and clean up all the dog poop in the back yard and I will pay you $5 dollars. Then we can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $5 dollars to use for a new house.”
Catherine (who was about 4) thought that over for a second, and then replied, “Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and clean up the dog poop himself, and you can pay him the $5 dollars.”
Welcome to the Republican Party, Catherine…

So conservatism is all about paying people a pittance to do a s^%it job?

iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5408931#post5408931

I suppose that is correct. Look at the people in this thread who sympathize with the cheap labor interests. It really makes you question why two seemingly diametrically opposed groups such as Wall Street Journal conservatives and La Raza agree.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=261858&page=3
 
Ahh so the poor are just lazy. Welcome to the Republican party.

By the way, you can’t exchange a GPA for food and shelter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top