Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Exploring Columbus
Topic Started: Oct 10 2005, 03:51 PM (264 Views)
DanHouck
Member Avatar
Land of Enchantment NM
Evaluating people from hundreds of years ago by the standards of today is one of the more ridiculous and historically ignorant activities of the PC crowd. Columbus's behavior was very consistent with the mores of his time. He was neither a particularly good or evil man.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Right, he was just a man with a vision. To say he was all bad or all good is equally PC and results in caricature.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
5thwheeler
Member Avatar
Get the message?
MDPD6320
Oct 15 2005, 02:20 PM
Half empty or half full. The liberal left always espouses the half empty. They find fault with everything until the gored ox is theirs.
Does Columbus know or care what others do the pristine land. Of course not. What would or should we do with the pristine land. Dedicate it to agrarian activities. If they did they would decry the tilling of the soil leading to soil erosion. Would they do nothing with it, and deprive mankind with the bounty stored therein?

See there's always a problem with a liberal. They want their cake and they want to eat it too.

Do we negate the fine work of Ben Franklin because he was a womanizer or Jefferson because of his Sally? Liberals bring these things up routinely, but they conveniently
forget about Clinton. It doesn't matter they say. A man's morality doesn't count until they can use it to denigrate, a positive historic image, or a political enemy

"See there's always a problem with a liberal. They want their cake and they want to eat it too."

Da... what good is a cake if you can't eat it. Leave it for the ants? I know... feed it to the masses. :fryingpan:
History 101: When a popular myth is believed to be factual, teach the myth.

Its not possible to underestimate the intelligence of the voting populous.

Hummm, after seeing the results of the 06 election, I may have to modify my perception of the voting populous and refer to them as "Late Bloomers".

:ohmy:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MDPD6320
Member Avatar
Frank - Gainesville, Florida
Chris,

A few words regarding labels. In order to define terms sometimes labels are necessary.
When applied they are best applied as most people understand them. I think your terms while they may be accurate, are obtuse, and not recognized by most as contempory designations. Therefore I use liberal as the "left wing of the Democrat Party, and Conserative for the right wing of the Republican Party. Easy to understand and while not perfect certainly fairly accurate by todays definition of liberal and conservative.

Glass half empty or half full. I don't use the term in regard to generalities, but politically speaking optimist and pessimest just don't fit. When I regard liberals as "seeing the glass half full I refer to their choice to denigrate everything they see as a positive image for the capitalistic society we (once were ?) are. Once again speaking politically they are generally pessimists, with no vision, no hope, and no faith in the common man.
Specifically they have not advanced a new idea in 40 years, they constantly wring their hands in dispair over the environment, over hurricanes, over the war after agreeing to it, over SUV's, over the un-PC, over windfall profits, and on and on and on. They turn their backs on the exploration of space, the exporation of oil, the use of the earths bounty, and preach only conservation. They fail to undestand the basic
desires of men, and take the arrogant, elitist attitude that they are inherently smarter, and better able to spend our money for us, and provide better health care for us, and better tell us how to lead our lives than we.
Now if the shoe fits, regardless of which side of the isle the elected official (he or she
lest we offend) sits, label them. Use yours or mine I don't care.

Something just came to mind, I recently heard a commercial on the radio, exhorting the people in Tallahassee (I think) to vote agains a coal burning power plant that
is on a referandum. The opposing group doesn't want coal or nuke it wants oil. In case you forgot, it is Theresa Hines Kerry's outfit that fights the against the use of coal even though it is very efficiently utilized with todays technology.
See they never give up, even in the face of crisis they continue to force feed pap.






" The government big enough to give you everything you want it is big enough to take everything you have."

"Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
5thwheeler
Member Avatar
Get the message?
cmoehle
Oct 17 2005, 10:42 AM
Right, he was just a man with a vision. To say he was all bad or all good is equally PC and results in caricature.

Profits, profits, profits motivated Columbus. Columbus was profiter first and foremost. Visionary...well yes... but was the concept of sailing west to reach India really his idea? The fact that the earth is round, and its approximate size was well known for over 1500 years prior to Columbus. Was he an explorer... yes, but not in the scientific way we attribute to explorers today. If the Islamic controlled trade routes to India and the far east were not cut off to Spain, and, if the route around Africa wasn't so treacherous, would Columbus ever have sailed west? Not a chance!
History 101: When a popular myth is believed to be factual, teach the myth.

Its not possible to underestimate the intelligence of the voting populous.

Hummm, after seeing the results of the 06 election, I may have to modify my perception of the voting populous and refer to them as "Late Bloomers".

:ohmy:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Frank, agree defined labels are necessary, but the problem with your definition,as I see it, is everything you happen to disagree with is liberal and everything you agree with is conservative. That's far too personal a thing to really be shared as you assume it is by thinking it is understod by most people. It's almost what I see as a religious view where you got a whole lot of people (not all) nodding their heads and mumbling I believe and I'm good and they're evil, yet not one of them can tell you what exactly it is they believe for if they could and dared to they would find themselves worlds apart. Now I say that even though I agree with many of the things you say, just that I don't distinguish lib from con so much as principled people from unprincipled, power-hungry politicians, "regardless", like you say, "of which side of the isle the elected official .. sits". I think it frames politics as a dichotomy that never existed. I think it masks the real issues we face as a people all too conveniently for those very politicians.

Again, I think we stand close in principle and on many issues, just not the language used.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Frank, just an example of why the labels do not fit anymore...

Bush's Disaster Socialism
Quote:
 
What a difference almost a decade makes. It seems like just yesterday that President Bill Clinton, in a major concession to the principles of his Republican opponents (and almost certainly under electoral duress), declared, "The era of big government is over."

...In 2005, however, it's not just a few disgruntled liberals and Clinton apparatchiks who are shoring fragments of the New Deal against their ruin. The Republicans, led by President George W. Bush, are bringing the era of big government back with a vengeance.

... Liberals and conservatives have both noted the message in all this munificence, and are fast turning the hurricane-damaged areas into a laboratory for a new round of big government ideas....

Bush maintains that the type of direct federal aid to victims he's advocating empowers individuals—not a bureaucracy—and is therefore perfectly consistent with ideals of small government. But there is a world of difference between individualizing existing social programs, as through vouchers, and creating new ones....

...Direct federal aid—aid disaster victims don't even have to justify to a bureaucracy—would inevitably expand Americans' sense of individual entitlement, establishing a dangerous precedent. On Bush's principles, why not have the federal government pay for health insurance, job training, and child care for victims of any calamity?...

The most troubling thing about Bush's post-Katrina programs is that they reverse the trend put in motion by the welfare reform effort of the last decade....

A few fiscal conservatives are opposing President Bush's plans because of their price tag. But even if the overall spending can be knocked down a few bucks—not likely, considering the beating given to Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) when he suggested doing just that—these plans threaten more than just the federal budget. They threaten more fundamental values conservatives purport to stand for: limited government, individual responsibility, and freedom.


Those days are gone.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Though a few hang tenaciously on, the old pompously elite truth sayer, Rush "Rumpelstiltskin" Limbaugh: Holding Court: There's a crackdown over Miers, not a "crackup.".
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MDPD6320
Member Avatar
Frank - Gainesville, Florida

I undestand your position, and mostly agree. I think we differ in how to counter the
socialistic advances that people, mostly those that pay no taxes, are demanding.
I look at politics as a game of "take what you can from who you can and when you can"
I see only two or maybe three things that GWB has done that are "good"

He drew a line against terrorist and has stuck to it.
I think we got a good Chief Justice to replace a good Chief Justice
I think the UN was exposed for what it is, an organization that is rife with corruption and looking to fleece the US. Bolton was a good appointment.
If we get an originalist to replace O'Connor that would be four.

On the other side we have massive spending and expansion of entitlements that will
cause us big problems down the road.
No action by anyone about illegal immirgration
several other things that I do not need to enumerate.

As I have said, it only takes a few people to influence a congressional election.
Like minded (converative, Jeffersonial liberals, originalist whatever you want to call them) must find out which candidate is running as a conservative (probably the republican) but is not really what we want and be sure to run a real conservative against him hopefully costing him the election. The next election will present to the electrate a candidate more in tune with the music played.
You don't need to win the seat, you need only to deny it.


" The government big enough to give you everything you want it is big enough to take everything you have."

"Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
I am more philosophical to your practical. You will get things done while I'm still talking, no doubt about that.

How about fiscal conservatives, as opposed to neo-social(ist) conservatives? Perhaps the same for liberals, fiscal and socialist.

Thing is I fear is we're already faced with the next logical step, nationalist socialism.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MDPD6320
Member Avatar
Frank - Gainesville, Florida

Danger from the left (my verbage) is real, Soros and those that depend on him for $$
and therefore political life will sell their souls. I believe he is a communist, and that those around him are completely devoid of scruples when it comes to US independance.

This is compounded by those that seek some type of compatability (McCaine comes to mind) These "accomodators" must be defeated. They are more a threat than the Pelosi, Kenney. Kerry and Clinton bunch.

The liberterians appear to seek to elect candidates. This is a road that leads nowhere.
When you try to appeal to people you only alienate others. But be against (a philosophy,
idea, group) and many will follow.
" The government big enough to give you everything you want it is big enough to take everything you have."

"Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Socialism has a history of defeating itself, I'm against neo-socialist conservatives who seek to take their place.

Good appraisal of Libertarians, we stand for something. Reps and Dems stand against things, it's too easy.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Here's another list of Bush's socialist policies. Explains why fiscal conservatives are revolting, but not big government neo-socialist cons.

Conservative Revolt Long in the Making
Quote:
 
The White House appears to have been truly blindsided by the vehemently negative response from conservative intellectuals to the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. In truth, this is a revolt that has been long in the making. The surprising thing is that it has taken such a long time for it to come out into the open.
The truth that is now dawning on many movement conservatives is that George W. Bush is not one of them and never has been. They were allies for a long time, to be sure, and conservatives used Bush just as he used them. But it now appears that they are headed for divorce. And as with all divorces, the ultimate cause was not the final incident, but the buildup of grievances over a long period that one day could no longer be overlooked, contained or smoothed over.

From the conservative point of view, the list of grievances is a long one, dating back to the first days of the Bush administration.

-- One of President Bush's first actions in office was a vast expansion of education spending with little real reform in return. To conservatives, it has always looked like a transparent effort to buy off the so-called soccer moms. But rather than buy peace with the education lobby, it has simply led to continuous calls for still more education spending, despite the paucity of evidence correlating spending with achievement.

-- Almost all conservatives view campaign finance reform as a blatantly unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment, the Supreme Court's endorsement notwithstanding. Now it may end up being used to suppress blogs and other new media that have been critical for conservatives in breaking the liberal monopoly of the mainstream press.

-- It is the rare conservative who has a kind word for the Bush immigration policy. Most conservatives think that he has been woefully weak on protecting our borders. Among the grassroots of the Republican Party, there is active hostility to administration plans to allow illegal immigrants to have guest-worker status. Most see this as a form of amnesty that will further encourage illegal immigration.

-- Even leaving aside national defense and homeland security, government spending has exploded during the Bush years. Although the vast proliferation of pork-barrel spending, which President Bush steadfastly refuses to veto, has gotten most of the attention, far more worrisome has been the expansion of entitlements, especially the extraordinarily ill-conceived Medicare drug benefit. In future years, Republicans will rue the day they passed this legislation, because they are eventually going to have to cut it, thereby losing all the political benefits they thought they would get among the elderly.

-- Government regulation got a big boost from passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, which Republicans rushed through Congress to deflect criticism over the Enron scandal. But the fact is that nothing in the legislation would have prevented Enron's financial abuses -- a fact proven by a new scandal involving stockbroker Refco, which appears to have engaged in Enron-style financial shenanigans that are now being investigated by authorities.

I could go on, but the point is that George W. Bush has never demonstrated any interest in shrinking the size of government. And on many occasions, he has increased government significantly. Yet if there is anything that defines conservatism in America, it is hostility to government expansion. The idea of big government conservatism, a term often used to describe Bush's philosophy, is a contradiction in terms.

Conservative intellectuals have known this for a long time, but looked the other way for various reasons. Some thought the war on terror trumped every other issue. If a few billion dollars had to be wasted to buy the votes needed to win the war, then so be it, many conservatives have argued. Others say that Bush never ran as a conservative in the first place, so there is no betrayal here, only a failure by conservatives to see what he has been all along.

Of course, this doesn't say much for the conservative movement. At best, conservatives were naive about Bush. At worst, they sold out much of what they claim to believe in.

The Miers nomination has led to some long-overdue soul-searching among conservative intellectuals. For many, the hope of finally turning around the judiciary was worth putting up with all the big government stuff. Thus, Bush's pick of a patently unqualified crony for a critical position on the Supreme Court was the final straw.

Had George W. Bush demonstrated more fealty to conservative principles over the last five years, he might have gotten a pass on Miers. But coming on top of all the big government initiatives he has supported, few in the conservative movement are inclined to give him the benefit of a doubt any longer.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply