Concentration of far-right extremists on PPR

Page 9 of 11 [ 171 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Next

What's PPR's bend?

Far Right Bend	8%	[ 3 ]
Rightwing Bend	18%	[ 7 ]
Centre-Right Bend	0%	[ 0 ]
Centrist Bend	0%	[ 0 ]
Radical Centrist Bend	0%	[ 0 ]
Centre-Left Bend	13%	[ 5 ]
Leftwing-Bend	23%	[ 9 ]
Far Left Bend	8%	[ 3 ]
Syncreticist Bend?	0%	[ 0 ]
Extremist Bend (any direction)	18%	[ 7 ]
Undecided	5%	[ 2 ]
Other (write in thread)	8%	[ 3 ]

Total votes : 39

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

20 Oct 2010, 10:49 am

ikorack wrote:

dennis kucinich wants to ban handguns i don't see how wanting to limit the right to bare arms is conservative. I have no idea who the other guy is and its time for me to sleep so I'm not going to find out anytime soon.

)

The way to bare arms is to remove one's shirt or roll up one's sleeves.

ruveyn

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

20 Oct 2010, 1:36 pm

ikorack wrote:

I am not deifying them. What they would call themselves isn't relevant. This discussion is about what category they would fall under if we measure them by today's standards. Seeing as they lived in the past and set up how our government(for the time following their deaths) was to be run it stands to reason they would be conservatives. By today's standards the policies they implemented in our government are conservative. Your argument really has nothing to do with what I'm saying, I suggest you reread my posts and try and understand what I'm saying again.

They supported limited government in their time and modern conservatives support limited government in our time. That's the only claim you can make. My problem is when modern conservatives/right-wingers claim that the Thomas Jefferson and George Washington are somehow in cahoots with their ideology from beyond the grave.

If they really wanted to set their views in stone for eternity they wouldn't have written into the constitution processes allowing for it to be ammended. They were obviously aware of the need for flexibility and adaptation for changing times and changing circumstances.

phil777
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

20 Oct 2010, 2:18 pm

Ruveyn, the verb, not the adjective. :p

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

20 Oct 2010, 2:28 pm

ruveyn wrote:

ikorack wrote:

The way to bare arms is to remove one's shirt or roll up one's sleeves.

ruveyn

But what is the way to bare, or bear, armaments?

ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

20 Oct 2010, 7:22 pm

marshall wrote:

ikorack wrote:

Of course they're not involved in current politics only a fool would try and claim they have some kind of support from someone who isn't even there to chime in. But their ideals still match up and fall under the same category. The reason they fall under conservatism is because conservatism looks to the past. That was the only claim i was making. Also conservatism isn't against change its just in support of small change as opposed to radical or fast change.

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

20 Oct 2010, 8:56 pm

phil777 wrote:

Ruveyn, the verb, not the adjective. :p

Um, the intended word, I think, was supposed to be "bear." In ruveyn's literal interpretation, the word "bare" can actually either an adjective OR a verb.

The original quote: "I don't see how wanting to limit the right to bare arms is conservative." This could be read as "I don't see how wanting to limit the right to make arms naked is conservative." OR also "I don't see how wanting to limit the right to naked arms is conservative." In this example, "bare" and "naked" are synonyms. The difference being that "bare" can be a verb or adjective, while "naked" requires some verb to indicate that nakedness is a condition in which arms have become.

Either way, ruveyn's grammar is correct.

#1: The way to make arms naked is to remove one's shirt or roll up one's sleeves.
#2: The way to naked arms is to remove one's shirt or roll up one's sleeves.

But by using the word "bare" in place of the infinitive "to make...naked" or the adjective, ruveyn is actually more succinct. So if ikorack had actually meant a more succinct way of saying "expose," he succeeded.

But if we're talking about civil rights, as in "to carry" weapons, then "bear" is actually the more appropriate verb. We don't really live in the kind of society that really cares whether your upper limbs are covered.

ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

20 Oct 2010, 9:26 pm

oops?

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

20 Oct 2010, 9:52 pm

marshall wrote:

They supported limited government in their time

They supported safeguards against governmental abuse of power, which makes them stand in stark contrast to modern conservatives.

Quote:

and modern conservatives support limited government in our time.

No they don't. That's a myth, and you only help them plunder the country by playing along with their little game.

Quote:

My problem is when modern conservatives/right-wingers claim that the Thomas Jefferson and George Washington are somehow in cahoots with their ideology from beyond the grave.

Washington perhaps could be regarded as conservative, but Jefferson? He's the one who coined the phrase "separation of church and state" that conservatives so deeply despise.

I doubt Washington or Jefferson would have approved of either the military regime the neo-conservatives want to set up, or the theocracy that the social conservatives want. And if anyone wants an example of a Founding Father who would be progressive/liberal by today's standards, just look up Thomas Paine.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

21 Oct 2010, 11:03 am

Orwell wrote:

Quote:

My problem is when modern conservatives/right-wingers claim that the Thomas Jefferson and George Washington are somehow in cahoots with their ideology from beyond the grave.

Washington perhaps could be regarded as conservative, but Jefferson? He's the one who coined the phrase "separation of church and state" that conservatives so deeply despise.

Did Washington so much as peep in protest about "separation of church and state"?

_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.

number5
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

21 Oct 2010, 12:42 pm

Orwell wrote:

Washington perhaps could be regarded as conservative, but Jefferson? He's the one who coined the phrase "separation of church and state" that conservatives so deeply despise.

I though that was Hitler. :wink:

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

21 Oct 2010, 1:34 pm

Orwell wrote:

marshall wrote:

They supported limited government in their time

They supported safeguards against governmental abuse of power, which makes them stand in stark contrast to modern conservatives.

Quote:

and modern conservatives support limited government in our time.

No they don't. That's a myth, and you only help them plunder the country by playing along with their little game.

Yea. I was going by what conservatives claim to support. The reality of the situation is quite different. I agree that the Tea Party conservatives are being played.

Quote:

My problem is when modern conservatives/right-wingers claim that the Thomas Jefferson and George Washington are somehow in cahoots with their ideology from beyond the grave.

Washington perhaps could be regarded as conservative, but Jefferson? He's the one who coined the phrase "separation of church and state" that conservatives so deeply despise]

I doubt Washington or Jefferson would have approved of either the military regime the neo-conservatives want to set up, or the theocracy that the social conservatives want. And if anyone wants an example of a Founding Father who would be progressive/liberal by today's standards, just look up Thomas Paine.

By "conservative" I was focusing on what so-called "fiscal conservatives" claim to support.

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

21 Oct 2010, 1:54 pm

And still we find a descent into pointless generalism. (And not a little bit of the cult of personality.)

The authors of the U.S. Constitution were not a monolithic bloc representing a single political view. They were a bunch of political representatives thrown together like ferrets in a bag, and the exercised the first, best skill of the politician to reach a result: compromise.

If the Founders stand for any political principle it is that principle must always bend to the practical. "They" were neither conservative nor liberal, they were pragmatists.

_________________
--James

waltur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 924
Location: california

21 Oct 2010, 2:08 pm

number5 wrote:

Orwell wrote:

Washington perhaps could be regarded as conservative, but Jefferson? He's the one who coined the phrase "separation of church and state" that conservatives so deeply despise.

I though that was Hitler. :wink:

most definitely hitler.

waltur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 924
Location: california

21 Oct 2010, 2:15 pm

visagrunt wrote:

the thread title implies pointless generalism is all there really is to hope for within.

it's always nice to see that interrupted by reason, though.

that said, the founding fathers were all time traveling pranksters from the 4chan of the future. the constitution and the first few amendments are worded how they are just to fish with people.

(what? it's less ridiculous than people who think thomas paine would be anti-socialism.)

_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)

Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

21 Oct 2010, 3:22 pm

visagrunt wrote:

You win the thread. THAT is what several of us are trying to say. Perfectly summed up sir.

They were pretty well behaved ferrets while in that bag, werent they?

_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 Oct 2010, 3:45 pm

Fuzzy wrote:

visagrunt wrote:

You win the thread. THAT is what several of us are trying to say. Perfectly summed up sir.

They were pretty well behaved ferrets while in that bag, werent they?

And they wore wigs, too.

ruveyn

Page 9 of 11 [ 171 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Next

Jump to:

Concentration of far-right extremists on PPR Post Reply New Topic

Concentration of far-right extremists on PPR