| Author |
 Topic  |
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/12/2011 : 6:08:39 PM
|
Warmskin, except for Ambassador Bolton, who has not announced, there aren't any Neocons running. That is why some of them are frantic that their faction is losing, and getting squeezed out by Christian Right / Tea Partiers like Bachmann. People like Palin are destroying the Neocons by coopting parts of their base and diverting it to other, different Hawkish factions that share a pro-Israel, pro-democracy bias.
Political factions are multi-issue and build on the group's mutual loyalties. Figures of the Tea Party tend to be actively hostile to the Neocons who dominated the Reagan and Bush times. Certainly,, for sure, Bachmann is very strongly so, yet you try to pretend she's one of them. Not logical within a multi-faction major party.
Going back a few years, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson shared some issue support with White-racist Democrats like Lester Maddox, but that didn't put them in the same faction. Agreeing on one minor point, out of several dozen, doesn't suddenly and magically transform them into members of a different functional faction. Especially when they are backing different candidates for President, which is partly happening because there are currently no Neocons running.
Many Neocons tried to keep Palin off the ticket. That makes her one of them?
If any Tea Partiers become Neocons, I'd be very surprized, when they have made their mark in fighting them. Neither is Condi Rice going to sign on with the Christian Right. And it is not up to you or me to tell them to switch between factions.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
 |
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 05/13/2011 : 02:13:42 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by balataf
In the "General Political" thread there is an exposition of a Tea Party move among Congressional Republicans to try to trim back the President's powers to act in the current three undeclared wars.
The question is whether to snub the Pres. by declaring war on AlQueda and the Taliban, which would, in their view be required to correct the situation rather than continue with the current situation.
It is welcome to see any politician, besides Ron Paul, Shaddeg, and Walter Jones (one of the Carolinas), have some pangs of concsience when it comes to the US Constitution. It's a rarity these days. I do wonder if this is purely anti-Obama. Where were they when Bush denied the validity of the Constitution, when he said the Constitution is just a g**d*** piece of paper?
One can honestly question the timing, in light of the fact that both Bush and Obama care not for the Constitution. Disregarding that document has been a tradition of the liberals since the days of FDR and his remark that the Constitution is antiquated, or essentially no longer to be followed.
If some Tea Party folks can see the unlawfulness of both presidents, then there is hope for this nation, if they persist when future presidents of either party take the law into their own hands.
I would not do any wars against Al-Quaida, because none of the "wars" have been any good. The war on drugs, cancer, poverty, etc., have not gone well, and some of them have been quite unlawful.
It might be better for the intelligence operatives to defend this country when it comes to small groups operating within this country. Dropping bombs on innocent people in foreign countries is not a good idea. Launching wars to please the neocons has been a disaster. All it has done is to make more terrorists and cause many nations to hate us.
I'm for not making enemies, where they would not otherwise have a reason to be enemies. I'd rather see Ike's policies be back into place. He had guts and determination, but was well acquainted with the olive branch type of tactic, too. I'm trying to think of terrorists operating in this country back then. Ike would have had a tremendous dislike for neocons, based on his own words.
The good old days!
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/13/2011 : 03:17:54 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by balataf
Warmskin, except for Ambassador Bolton, who has not announced, there aren't any Neocons running. That is why some of them are frantic that their faction is losing, and getting squeezed out by Christian Right / Tea Partiers like Bachmann. People like Palin are destroying the Neocons by coopting parts of their base and diverting it to other, different Hawkish factions that share a pro-Israel, pro-democracy bias.
Certainly,, for sure, Bachmann is very strongly so, yet you try to pretend she's one of them. Not logical within a multi-faction major party.
Many Neocons tried to keep Palin off the ticket. That makes her one of them?
I think that necons are those whose interests lay outside the US's borders, and that they think war, enemies, or even straw men to fight against are necessary. Palin with her foreign flag and lapel button are quite in sync with that sentiment. Michelle Bachmann is also the complete neocon with her latest statement that did not make it over the cuckoo's nest --
"Support for Israel is handed down by God and if the United States pulls back its support, America will cease to exist."
Interesting statement, Michelle, but if you are right, Ma'am, then how did America thrive before 1947? Ummm, her statement doesn't ring true, unless one is a neocon. Yet, this passes as Republicanism, and even Tea Party feelings, if she gets her way. The more we support neocon goals, the more trouble we get into. 911 was a result of America and Israel dominating the Mideast. If we had always remained neutral, I sincrely believe there never would have a 911. The motivation from the man himself, Osama, in his own words, was our badly imbalanced foreign policy in the Mideast. I loathe what he and his outfit did, but part of troubleshooting a foreign policy is to listen to others.
Neocon thinking is that if we have constant war and hegemony in the Mideast, and with lesser emphasis in other theaters in the world, Americans will then be a better people. We have neocon David Frum to thank for encapsulating the "axis of evil." That expression serves only to justify more war, as if we did not have enough right now to pay for.
Religion and war will turn us into a virtuous people. Bachmann and Palin do a lot to promote that thought pattern. Throw in a "spectacular state" mentality espoused by one of the neocon leaders, and we have America that gets too cozy to facism. I have to admit, I don't want America to take on that kind of philosophy.
The sickness of Palin and Bachmann is that they claim to be "Christians," yet they cannot find one Christian teaching that backs up their point of view. Did Jesus advocate shooting and bombing children? Sure didn't. In fact, the teaching are opposite of what these militaristic women would have. "Blessed are the peacemakers." "It would be better to have a millstone placed around your neck and cast into the sea, than to harm these little ones(children)." When bombs fall on innocent children, I guess I don't how Palin and Bachmann's claims have any merit, based on organic teachings found in Christianity.
If one believe what the neocon leaders believe, one is a neocon. Thinking makes it so, if I can borrow from Shakespeare. We are what we think and believe. I'm sure, the neocons would not like to see Palin get nominated simply because they don't think she can get elected. Romney stands a much better chance, and based on his 2008 debate statements, he would fill his DoD offices with neocons. In that, I would fully agree, their choice is not Palin. She has spent a lof of time kissiing their kiesters.
Again, contrast these women with Buchanan and Ron Paul. Worlds of difference. If they are very different, can they all be conservative? I would say not. The ones who want a very small American footprint overseas are the conservatives, just as Warren Harding led us into being after WWI, or how Ike got us out of a war in Korea, or the way Nixon campaigned on extricating us out of Vietnam. It has been the traditional thing to do for the GOP.
Bolton has definitely been a neocon leader, but it's the people who are appointed to office, especially the undersecretaries of departments, like DoD. Bush, or most likely his advisers, filled Bush's staffing with raw neocons. That was a total disaster. More the point is getting rid of that mentally ill kind of thinking, no matter which GOP primary candidate wins, and possibly wins the general election in 2012. Reagan's undersecretaries like Richard Perle and Elliot Abrams were grotesque and un-Reagan-like individuals. One has to wonder who recommended them for appointment, and I'll bet Reagan did not conjure up these individuals by himself. Pulling us out of Lebanon was the ulitmate rejection of neocon thinking. Of course, Abrams went on to disgrace the second term of Reagan. Trash is as trash does.
I thoroughly believe that if Romney, Palin, Santorum, and their ilk, they will fill their DoD appointments with neocons. None of these folks can think independently of outfits like AIPAC. Mark my words, these candidates either have, or will try to win AIPAC's approval and money. They'll attend AIPAC's conventions and give speeches full of worship for AIPAC's client. It just goes with the modern territory of politics. The Democrats do the same thing, too, so it's bi-partisan. Imagine somebody running who ignored AIPAC during the upcoming primaries and election. AIPAC is more right-wing and Zionist than is the Jewish community in America.
It was so much simpler back in the 50s. A candidate could make speeches that didn't have to meet foreign lobbyists' strict approval, I believe, because the candidates were more stateman-like, and had more gravitas, if I might be allowed to mention that over-used word. That is not to say domestic groups of people didn't speak up about their special topics of interestm and that were not generally represented by a candidate, such as unions, for example.
As Jefferson said -- a rottenness takes over a man's soul when he runs for office (close paraphrasing). I believe he meant national offices, as opposed to something like mayorial races.
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/13/2011 : 12:11:23 PM
|
I regard it as deranged that you continue to pretendd that such anti-Neocon leaders as Palin and Baqchmann, who have fought bitterly are somehow, representative of their enemies because of agreement on a few minor issues. Your irrational decision wipes out the reality that the Neocons are only a fraction of the pro-Israel, pro-democracy Hawks. The rest of the World will not rearrnge itself to fit your fantasy. The Tea Party leaders are pretty universally anti-Neocon, and overlap factions like the Christian Right and libertarians, among others.
The Christian Right is, ideologically, very far from Neocon, all you have tod do is look at thgeir policies, such as education, CFhristian Right generally, like libdertarians oppose the Imperial Presidency. Agreeing there doesn't make them agree on other issues. You seem either unwilling or judgementally challenged on the quesstion that there are a dozen or so competing Republican faxctions making a spectrum. The Tea Party was a revolt against the Neocons who dominated Reagan's time and after.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/14/2011 : 02:47:11 AM
|
Again, the neocons have no doubt that Palin or Bachmann will fail in their quest for the presidency. They don't have enough substance. The neocons would be more pleased to see a Romney or a McCain type nominated -- they'd have a better chance of being elected. The neocons are pragmatic at times, as well as coldly calculating.
As I have pointed out in a previous post, the majority of neocons are defenders of Israel, and some are more loyal to Israel than to the USA. We've seen prima facia examples of that with PNAC members. One might throw in the AEI folks, also, not to mention AIPAC.
I'll leave the fantasies to the likes of Bachmann, thank you, and to those who think Israel has never had any effect on uS policy in the Mideast. If Israel demanded $1 trillion from the USA, Bachmann and Palin would lead the charge to give that country our money with no questions asked. Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul would strongly oppose that in this hypothetical case.
The neocons and the Likud party are philosophical twins. I'm talking about philosophy as well as individuals and organizations.
I, for one, don't like a Trotsky-inspired movement taking over one major party of the American political scene. Trotsky to Strauss, to Irving Kristol, to William Kristol. No thanks, I'll let you prefer them, thank you. I suppose the neocons think themselves as an "intellectual movement" that does not include country hicks like Palin. Yet, Palin and they are in full agreement about neocons goals. Thinking makes it so, and that is what counts in the long run. In Bush's famous words, "You're either for us or against us," we see the division within the GOP. You're either for the neocon-Likud thought pattern of all for Israel, or you are against them and believe in preserving America with no regard to "allies."
I'm of the former persuasion, and I don't believe that is a fantasy; it's the only way America can survive the ambitions of neocons and their many supportive organizations, and the organizations that neocons support.
Ever since American politicians have weakened and let Israel dominate our foreign policy [that is according to Fritz Hollings, Admiral Thomas Moorer (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), Paul Findley (GOP-IL US Rep), and more], we have lost our way. We've swapped the care for American well-being to caring more about Israel with regard to how we see the foreign world. Israel is a militant state, while America was meant to be a neutral state. The two don't mix, and as a result of that realization, we have chosen between war or peace. The latter pleases the neocons and their acolytes, Palin and Bachmann.
I could really like Palin if she stayed away from international topic, because of her going after corrupt Alaskan officials. She sincerely believes that she needs AIPAC's support and money to get ahead in politics. That is why she had their flag on display in her office as governor, and believes in the whacky theology that Israel is future to boon to her sense of "Christianity." This is dispensationalism (sp?). That is why Bachmann thinks that it is God's will that we give all our support to Israel, or suffer curses. Whew! I can't top that for superstition.
When it comes to secular concerns, the "Christian" right wants just what the Likud party and the neocons want - Israeli domination. Of course, the Likudniks call the "Christian" right useful idiots. These "Christians" are called Christian Zionists, because they will give up their beliefs if that is what it takes to make Israel the dominant nation in the world. It is truly bizarre thinking. Case in point -- Pastor John Hagee who endorsed McCain, has renounced that Jesus was the Messiah. That is very odd for a pastor. However, he could not effectively ally himself with his Likud party and still hold to basic Christian theology. So, that spills out into political reality.
The picture you set up is more purely technical and term-based rather than based on ideology or philosophy. It's as if you used mere terminology and technicalities so that your intended effects would be to convince me that Palin and Bachmann are not militantly pro-Israel, no matter what that would cost the American taxpayer. Those effects are simply not true, based on what those two ladies have said and done, and based on how these various groups have coalesced around the concept of Israel forever, at any American cost.
What is that cost to Americans? Two different economists have done their respective homework. I'll have to dig into this more, but one estimate was either a little before or after 911, Israel's cost to Americans was $1.65 trilion. That was based on each and every inconvenience, aid, and Israel demanded military operation since 1947. The Iraqi war has been estimated by a Nobel Laureate economist at $3 trillion, based on the very beginning of that neocon planned war to the future costs of that war. So, we have 1.65 plus 3 equaling 4.65. Or, $4.65 trillion spent by the American people in one fashion or another.
What did we get out of all these obligations both in the past, and in the future? I'm still waiting for my benefit out of all this spending, and inconvience, and price rises, like the 1973 oil embargo, which never needed to have happened.
The neocon loss of $2.3 trillion from the Pentagon during Bush's terms is still not accounted for. Who was in charge of that money? Hmm, well it was Rabbi Dov Zakheim, who was the head honcho in charge of keeping track of all the money that goes in and out of the Pentagon.
For a bit of more analyis, imagine that there was no Israel as yet, and that these folks were living a nice life here and there, in these more humane days, thankfully. There never would have been an oil embargo, a 911, attack on a US ship by Israel, and much more.
There are rabbis who think that Israel is horrible, and its time has not yet come. Neil Cavuto interviewed one of them, and old Neil had a fairly good education in this talk. These rabbis believe that when the Messiah comes for the Jewish world, then Israel will be created.
It appears to me that America has some divisions in loyalty. the safe thing to do is to be loyal to Israel, if you are a person who is trying to be on the way up in politics. It's the standard thing to do. Yet, others are pro-America and neutral about Israel, thinking that foreign country or any other, is not a concern American formulation of policies. It's not just Israel. It's any county who has too much say in American government. I wouldn't like Cuba, Venezuela, or Russia having any say in the conduct of American government either.
If, say, Brazil had muscled its way into American politics, then I would be uncaring about Brazil as a political entity, while I could still be good friends with its innocent population. The same with Israel, so it's not that I run around hating, but rather I'm seeing through the thin veneer that we must be their "ally," even though we get nothing from it, in the balance.
If I were president and Queen Elizabeth bowed down to me, begging for us to be their ally, I'd tell her -- no!! If there is a dire mutual emergency, then we could be allies, if and only if after the enemy or distress was dealt with, we'd go back to being non-allies, yet still friendly.
I don't think you understand where I'm coming from. I'm not evil, crazy, or hateful. I'm just for an America that was bequeathed to us by a superior generation of people, the Founders.
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/14/2011 : 12:11:46 PM
|
My point about Palin an d Bachmann is that many anti-Neocons are, like them, also Hawkish pro-Isrel, pro-democracy. The Neocons are not the majority within that policy category.
Far from being a mere technicality, these questions deterimine the relative strengths of candidates aqnd movements. If a candidate can pick up the support of added groups and factions, they are closer to winning. (DUH!) The Christian Right supports Israel for reasons that are abhorrent to Neocons, as you pointed out. But then, by your own logic, you cannot pretend that they ARE themelves, Neocons, without stupidly contradicting yourself. Certainly, both groups are militantly both pro-Israel and pro-democracy.
For eaxample, Christian Right voters are often unwilling to support Neocons as candidates. bercause they violently disagree on many social and economic issues. The same unhappiness is seen with Neocon voters opposing Christian Rightists. That isn't a mere technicality, but a very large issue in managing the Republican coalition. If either side is too unhappy with the other, the result is likely to be electing Democrats.
Similarly, parts of several varied factions are contained in the Tea Party, including some libertarians and some Christian Right, among others. These distinctions are critical, as those shifting alliances determine the future Republican direction. The exact same question applies to other factions, including small business in dealing with other factions.
The relative strengths of the major groups within the Party are what dtermines the nominees and platform. Christian Right, Main Street, libertarians, Big Business, the Establishment, and others all have some overlap, but are distinct forces with seperate agendas. That is a very critical point for winning / losing elections, and balancing factiona and policies has to be dealt with in running a campaign.
Acting as tho the fights between Neocons and Christian Right were neglibible or just technical is a formula for disaster that is totally unrealistic. Thay is not how it works.
|
Edited by - balataf on 05/14/2011 12:28:28 PM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/16/2011 : 03:52:07 AM
|
Neocons think of themselves as being intellectually superior, especially in light of the more ordinary evangilistic "Christians."
What I see is that the hearts of both types are in sync. They may have different routes to the same passion, but the end result is the same - lack of loyalty to their ideals that one would think they have.
My loyalties are to our Founders and the teachings of Jesus, in their untainted, organic form. The Palins and Boltons of this world have other intentions. They both let too much foreign influence into their judgment when it comes to appreciate America. Palin does not appreciate the organic teachings of Jesus, nor does Bachmann, either. I'm not trying to boil this down into some kind of holy roller sermon, but am simply pointing out misplaced loyalties.
If one claims to be something, and goes off in the opposite direction, you have Palin and the likes of Bolton. With Palin, it's the abandonment of Christian teachings, and with Bolton, it's the abandonment of American principles as ennuniciated by our Founders, all to be in favor of Israel, no matter how they deviate from their outward goals. The true and demonstrative matters of their heart outweigh their stated goals. That is why I put them into the same pidgeon-hole.
Palin has even suggested that Israel commit crimes against humanity to kill more Palestinians, or make them homeless. That is right out of the pages of neoconism. I proved quite nicely that the necons are mostly from the Jewish community, while you were claiming that was not true. They are by definition Israel-oriented, as are Palin and Bachmann. What you fail to recognize is that all these folks have a large goal in common - hegemony for the cause of the State of Israel. I simly am for peace by means of international law in that area by re-adopting the UN agreement.
That is where we differ. You might be very dissapointed by the dispatching of Mubarak, for that may well mean that the Palestinians will now be able to get sufficient food, medicine and other "luxuries" that Israel has gone out of their way to deny Palestine. Palin and Bachmann are most likely having fits and nightmares over this. To this end, Palin and Bachmann are irrational sisters at heart.
The funny part is that Palin defends Ron Paul, the godfather of the Tea Party movement. That is like oil defending water. I'd love to see Paul debate Palin, or Bachmann. I can just see the sparks flying, as they would when taking a shiny wrench and placing it across the terminals of a car battery.
I'm glad Giuliani tanked, the phony photo-op bozo that he is, and Gingrich has shot himself in the foot by defending Obama, just recently. Their true nature is coming out. Don't be too hard on socialism, they say, but rather pay attention to meddling in other countries' business, and if they don't live like we think they should - bomb 'em.
Romney has done some socialist things, so a Republican might wonder about him, but they won't in the long run. Huckabee hints he won't run. McCain is finished on the national scene. He and his dad are/were traitors to this nation. We may well have to see who the real Pawlenty is.
As I say, whoever the GOP nominee will be, they are too heavily in debt to avoid AIPAC's directives. There won't be any indepence as to foreign policy. Former US Senator Hollings and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Thomas Moorer have both more or less said - America cannot have a foreign policy different from what Israel give us.
The GOP and the Democrats are powerless to stop this juggernaut. Not that trying to influence America is all bad, but it's the successful ramrodding of power by our special ally that frosts my cake. Why cannot America have it's own foreign policy? Are we too stupid to have it?
If AIPAC, and their ilk, never existed, we would not have some of the problems we do today with terribly misguided policies. 911 is one of them. Ron Paul is about the only candidate who would stand up to this menacing foreign influence. Palin and Bachmann would only re-inforce this sort of thing.
We need a Tea Party for foreign policy.
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 1:26:05 PM
|
On most issues, far from being "in sync" Christian Right and Neocon voters strongly disagree. Are You Nuts??? Look at education policy for one, Neocons prefer govt schools pretty exclusively. and try to load things in favor of them, while the Christian Right is strongly for home schooling. That makes them the same?? There are about 30 issues going on at the same time. You are not attacking the real multi-issue Neocons, you come back to one minor point over and over again, out of dozens. Buit it is a point that is shared by the majority of Republicans in other factions.
Your view is warped by putting too much emphasis on just one issue-complex. Even there, you make huge errors. The Christian Right does not "take direction" from Israel that I have ever seen. Rather, they support similar policies for very different reasons, and would continue with them if Likud disappeared because they view them as being bible-based. Israel has been extremely surprized at picking up support they never originally asked for. Israel gets donations FROM them, not donating TO THEM.
Obama is losing alot of the Jewish vote by his new MidEast positioning, especially on Israel. Obama just ensured a bigger Republican pro-Israel tilt without the R's lifting a finger to earn it.
This is an example of the fluidity of party-politics that you seem not to grasp. In that one there are no Neocons to blame. Obama screwed up badly with the general American electorate.
The key unbeatable question is whether Hamas will negotiate with Israel. If they do get into talks, peace is possible, if they refuse, they kill the current chances and we go on as is for awhile more.
The Neocons started out as primarily Jewish, but there have been many others like Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Jeanne Fitzpatrick, and Condi Rice, who were not. Since the movement joined the Republicans piecemeal, the Jewish component has faded some, and as the Neocons are being destroyed recently by the Palin-Bachmann Tea Party mainstream, they will disappear in a few more elections.
The Neocon group is rapidly disappearing, and their voters are getting disperate without a possible President to support.
So the main Tea Party figures defend each other? This is a surprize?? When the primaries come, and the general, the whole Republican Party needs to unite to defeat the Democrat. Each possible primary candidate must get their opponents' voters to win in Nov. 12.
We strongly do have a Tea Party for foreign policy! The defeat of the "second jet engine" shows that, and many elements of corporate welfare are under the gun. Both Palin and Bachmann are known for strong positions on foreign policy, like China Trade, reorganizing NATO, etc. We've got a strong foreign policy Tea Party going on now.
Romney has zero chance to get the nomination.
By the way, I'm just out from a week in the Hospital.
|
Edited by - balataf on 05/21/2011 1:39:10 PM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 5:42:53 PM
|
W, Don't you find it extremely frustrating that the vast majority of American political figures who agree with you on the Arab-Israeli complex of issues are on the socialist, ultraliberal left fringe who are diametrically opposed to you on about every domestic issue? I mean people like Rep. Ellison of Minn.
Since Nixon vs McGovern in '72, the more pro-Arab voters have gradually migrated to the Democratic far left, while the pro-Israel forces, including Christian Right, Neocons, and others have slowly taken over the Republicans. Even as the Neocons are rapidly fading away, other pro-Israel political groups are consolidating control for this generation.
36 year cycle
1752-1788, Loyalists Vs. Revolutionaries
1788-1824, Federalist vs Jeffersonian Democrats
1824-1860, Whigs Vs Jacksonian Democrats
1860-1896, Civil War Era Republicans vs Democrats
1896-1932, Progressive Republicans vs. Populist Democrats
1932-1968, New Deal Era Republicans vs. Democrats
1968-2004, Southern Strategy Republicans vs. Democrats
2004-(2040?) Tea Party Republicans vs Democrats
Each era is punctuated later by two terms of the secondary party, like Eisenhower, Wilson, etc
Third-Party activity is much stronger in alternate eras: Jacksonian, Progressive, Southern.
Almost all American wars were clustered near the 23rd year of the 36. 1812, Mexican, WW1, Korea.
This is one of my cycles in Politicometrics, and I've charted it in about 30 other nations, and at least one non-government organization.
Russia
1881 Narodnik Reforms, including serfdom abolished.
1917 Russian Revolution
1953 Reforms at Death of Stalin
1989 Perestroika and breakup.
2025 ??
By this same system, I am forecasting extreme problems for China around 2021.
|
Edited by - balataf on 05/21/2011 5:44:04 PM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/22/2011 : 06:59:20 AM
|
I have noticed this too, but I rely on James Madison's theory of "concurrent majorities," made up of people who may take opposing points of view on many other topics.
I think back over the decades, and I would go along with Ike's attitudes regarding the outside world, although I would have abstained some of his interjections of troops. Still he never massively invaded a nation while in office, and that was when Russia was a menace to us.
Interesting statistics and phenomona you have. Perhaps it takes that long for the inception of a theory of politics to reach a point of non-viability, and thus incurs the impatience of the people of that country, where they have a voice and some degree of control of who is in office. One thing of note is that that cycle does not exceed the average person's length of lifespan. The same person has to see an idea come to fruition, see it in practice, notice the failures, and then demand it be stopped.
As this nation slumps into ever deeper debt and deficits that may go out of control, one can wonder about the future of modern party politics and the efficacy of their respective philosophies.
Neither major party has had a firm hand on the keeping income and expenditures equalized, not to mention in a state of surplus. The Tea Party at least has brought up a newly born emphasis on rational budgeting. It's the establishment that is at fault, no matter to which party one can reference, when it comes to even beginning to address the budget.
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/23/2011 : 5:57:55 PM
|
Warmskin wrote
I have noticed this too, but I rely on James Madison's theory of "concurrent majorities," made up of people who may take opposing points of view on many other topics.
///////////////
Warmskin,
Finally, after dozens of posts, you seem to understand. The general political balance, which you disagree with, is pro-democracy and pro-Israel (under current conditions.)
The "concurrent majority" on this issue includes several major and minor factions, of which, at this time, the most powerful is the Christian Right. This latter faction overlaps, and is also the strongest group within the Tea Party as well as within the Republicans.
Added up, the CR is the most likely single faction to be able to form a wider coalition, IF IT WILL ACCEPT ENUF COMPROMISES.
Additionally, your economic/social position is politically marginal, but in a radically different electoral direction from the marginal support for your Mideast position. This is likely to be very frustrating.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/24/2011 : 05:32:59 AM
|
I have been quite coherent and in harmony with our Founders throughout this thread. Washington's Second Farewell and I are in complete agreement. Passionate attachments to nations and having permanent allies are a menace and an evil for America. If one cannot bring themselves to agree with our Founders, then what country does one belong, too, in their heart.
I'm not pro-democracy and never have been. It's never been part of the American experience. We are a representative republic with fully recognized rights. Democracies do not acknowledge rights, because the only things one can do is obey the majority. Your rights come and go, depending who got elected. That is not my kind of government. A republic is much to be preferred. I'm not sure where you picked up the idea that democracy is something I believe in, or that is something desirable.
My economics position is the only one that has ever worked. You are entitled to think up any dialectical term you want.
Are you saying you are completely happy with the nation's economy since the days of 1914, when the FED began? I'm not. I would say your statements reflect an odd idea that a few people, in the FED, should have absolute power over us, monetarily. Where does the US Constitution say they can even exist? That concept is not weird; it's the law.
So, you, by your own admission, cling to the status quo and the establishment, with all of its palpable failures. That is hard to fathom. I prefer change to what we have now. Before Woodrow Wilson's time there was much more stability and lower cost of operating the government. There were money manipulations by the rich and powerful, and some of these folkd ended up helping design the FED. The farces after then are what can be called conventional thinking which your statements are in agreement with. The FED was established to stabilize the money, if one neglects the Depression they caused during the late '20s and and throughout the '30s. Well, the $ is worth only about 3% of what it was worth back in 1914. Some stability!!!
You can like that if you want, but I don't. Timid, and marginal actions will not solve these gargantuan problems, and that is what the establishment politicians will give us -- no solutions, because we need something radically different from cheap campaign slogans, and timid policiticians.
I never cease to be amazed at how people avoid solutions that have characteristically worked in the past. Money and math does not change, but reckless policies can come forth with plenty of promises that do just the opposite of what is claimed.
I don't really care if someone thinks I'm radical, marginal, or whatever. I'm simply stating the truth about things like monetary policy, as an example. If you want to continue on with exactly what we have today, vote for the well-greased big-media-approved establishment politicians. You'll end up with the severe, disasters we have had in recent and distant past.
The status quo will not get rid of the $75 trillion mandates we carry today. It will not get rid of the staggering deficits, or the national debt of $14 trillion debt. So, call in all the establishment, AIPAC approved, non-statesmen politicians you want at any political convention, and I guarantee you, the horrible problems will go on.
It's about time we did have some of those "marginal" candidates who can get off the pot and do something besides find more wars to get into, and more social spending that has yet to work.
It's not a matter of how establishment one is, but rather how right a person is. Indeed all real, actual progress comes from the non-conventional, non-me-too people.
There is no use in getting into a "formation" of sorts and obeying the entrenched bureaucrats and politicians who are fearful of doing other than playing it safe. In other words, they will never stick their necks out and take a stand that will solve a problem. Andrew Jackson did, but the current crop of politicians never will.
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/24/2011 : 5:40:58 PM
|
W,
I am describing how our Republic works, and the nature of our "concurrent majority." You are desribing how you think it SHOULD work. Our Republic ACTUALLY IS a balance, (over time,) of both Founding Fathers, Hamilton and Jefferson. It seesaws back and forth with generation-long oscillations, currently moving in the more Jefersoniam direction for a decade or so.
You accuse me of an attitude toward the Fed. I have never discused the issue with you, and you do not know my positions yet.
If I "cling to the status quo," how come my platforms as a previous candidate call for reforms.
I put alot of time and effort into supporting people with Tea Party tendencies, especially Pat Toomey, here. That was hardly "status quo." and was very anti-establishment. Tea Partiers, including the Christian Right are very much opposed to the Establishment, as well as anti-Neocon.
But then, there are easily eight or so other factions "in play."
You seem to have some odd and baseless ideas about what I believe, Any candidate or political manger is not going to agree 100% with any other. That is why groups form temporary ever-shifting coalitions on each issue as it comes up. Often the real choice is between two proposals, both of which have some drawbacks, when one is slightly better.
Sometimes, by the nature of a representative republic, you go along with an issue on which you disagree, in order to get support later for another issue that is important to your constituents.
Look at the bargain that Jefferson made with the New York group including Geo. Clinton and Burr. Clinton was NY Governor during the Revolution.
You can only accomplish anything political by forming coalitions with groups you share SOME issues with. That has nothing to do with any "establishment", OR bureaucrats, and is equally true of ANY political position or direction. I don't know what you mean by "taking orders" from bureaucrats, what the hell, but you'd better "take orders" from your constituents.
I am reminded of an article in another forunm I participate in, a very left-wing, socialist one. I love to sit back and throw bombs at their stupid ideas. The author was passionately in favor of a drug policy for Obamacare. He admonished a particular Congressman, "he'd better pay attention to his constituents," believing that they would prefer an anti-industry point.
I did some research, knowing that the Congressional district is centered in the largest concentration of pharmacutical research and production in the World. I pointed out in the thread that, far from disregarding "the people" I estimated that his District had around 38,000 voters who were employees, their families, and supporters of pharmaceutical firms. 5 huge plants for Merck alone, and about 20 others, plus a bunch of small ones. He did not vote "with the bureaucrats." That's how you "pull strings" on a politician, by having the voters backing your issue.
This example is EXACTLY the model of a representative republic, and how it works. It is also a working example of democracy. The Founding Fathers would be pleased. Nor was this really nn example of the corporations pulling strings, because the "little guy" employees were the real Jeffersonian driving force.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 01:43:23 AM
|
If someone says I'm on the fringe, or I'm marginal, I would like to know -- based on what standard.
If you judge who I am by the standards or organic America, I'm in the mainstream. If I am judged by the standards of neocon hegemony, and high-level spending, then I am simply opposed to everthing about that abuse of America represents.
Personally, I'm a bit eccentric, compassionate, quite humorous, and see things from a different side.
Compare the nation's behavior today with Washington's Second Farewell address, and one is startled by the wonderful statements found in the farewell address.
The neocon urge for hegemony, military extremism that is foreign to America, and their insane drive to expand Israel's borders, puts them in charge, based on what some politicians say today.
The standards of today are:
War, and more war
Federal Reserve manipulation of our money
Worshipping Israel no matter what crimes thay commit
Thinking that we are on God's mission when we facilitate more killings of Paletinian children in order to make more room for the Israelis(Bachmann)
Thinking Israel needs to steal more land because Israel will have an explosion of population (Palin)
Not as much opposition to socialism as there use to be
Running up huge deficits
Media trash dominating the airwaves, e.g. MTV
Ultra materialistic Americans (credit card debt)
Substandard schools
Coarse language
and much more
Far from opposing neoconism, Palin and Bachmann are the head cheerleaders for whatever neocons want. It's not so much what a person's name is, but rather what thoughts they entertain. Most of the GOP candidates speak as though they had just gotten out of a neocon training seminar.
Contrast all this with Ron Paul's views:
Limits on spending across the board
No lobbyists
No foreign alliances
No passionate attachments to other coutries
Trade with all countries (you can't be an isolationist when you advocate free trade with all nations)
Getting rid of whole departments of the executive branch
No wars without a formal declaration (Constitutional requirement)
No more disrespect for the US Constitution
and much more
Those are two very different visions of America, and I might add, only Paul's vision is truly one of the real America.
By a very narrow, peculiar view point, I might be seen as marginal. I see the GOP as a counterfeit of what it should be. It's not the GOP of Ike, Reagan, or Goldwater. It's the GOP of Kristol, Perle, Cheney, Bush Jr., Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Norman Poderhetz (sp?) Elliot Abrams, Doug Feith, and too many more to mention here. Their philosophies govern the GOP like few others can. They intensely dislike Ron Paul. That tells me about all I need to know about them. Fake Americans versus one real one. Wherever your heart is, there is your country.
Between the Founders and the neocons, I'll take the Founders anyday. Maybe Bachmann and Palin will swerve uncontrollably into the mindset of our Founders one day. Until the common GOP candidates publicly condemn the neocons, they will continue to do their bidding.
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 2:57:14 PM
|
W,
Marginal in terms, not only of the public opinion polls, but of the results of actual elections. The libertarian perspective among Republicans is about 35% of the Tea Party, being around 20% of Republicans, which is around 10% of voters.
Your positioning on Israel is around 4% of the voting public.
The above figures are "organic America." I expect those to be confirmed by the various primaries next spring.
Neocon influence peaked in Reagan's admin, with a smaller resurgence in Dubya's.
Obviously, it has pretty well disappeared under Obama, but that is natural since it is now only a minor Republican faction, with very little voting strength. While there might have been a Neocon elected somewhere in 2010, they got smashed by oposition groups like the Christian Right.
There is no logic in using anti-Neocons as a pretend example of their opponents. You are abusing the meaning of the word "neocon" to mean any Hawk pro-Israel.
Do you honestly believe in anti-Neocon Neocons or are you telling lies for a purpose? There are other factions in the real world's "concurrent majority," who partially agree on various issues.
Ron Paul is an excellent example of a marginal figure, and I doubt if his support level among Republicans will ever break 30%. The Neocons are far from the only ones who dislike Ron Paul.
Founders VS Neocons? Very odd phrasing! WHICH FOUNDERS? Hamilton, Adams, Pinckney, and Jay are equal founders to Jefferson, Geo. Clinton, Mifflin and Gerry. Madison, a founding Federalist, was President as a nominal Democrat, but governed halfway in between.
You prefer looking at only part of them. Looking at several random articles on "Founding Fathers", I found them actually dominated by discussions of the Federalist Papers of Hamilton, Madison and Jay. They seem to have a better claim than most of the later Jeffersonians.
You always oversimplify and try to force multi-polar realities into binary patterns that are unreal. Instead of a spectrum of eight Republican factions, to you there are only two. Instead of a spectrum from having observers, thru seurity patrols, up an occupation (running a military government,) you want to change accepted terms to make them all "occupation." You seem not to care about the accepted meaning of words.
Political parties are, not just owned by their voters, the ARE thoe voters. With each generation, they shift their party into new bases. The Jeffersonian Democrats were rather different from the Jacksonians. the Republicans of the New Deal time shifted to the Nixon-Reagan coalition based on Dixie. No one faction can control the whole Party, either D or R, but the base is always a kaleidoscope of groups in "concurrent majority" compromises.
The idea that this is a countfeit Republican Party is rather pathetic. Founding Father Republicans like Lincoln, Seward, Fremont and Chase were mostly extreme Whig Hamiltonians while the then-current core Jeffersonians mostly became rebel Confederates. There isn't ever any sharp break from Fremont, the first R nominee, thru to McCain. Once again, a dynamic, multi-polar reality, instead of an either/or split.
Look at the case in my last post of the one Congressman's vote on part of Obamacare. There is no way around it, the ordinary voters tightly control the process, and whoever the Republicans nominate will depend on how they vote. And that nomination process determines how the parties evolve.
You may decide that, to you, the Republican majority and the Democrats are "fake Americans", but that does not make them so. I, myself, sure as hell am not such a fake, Like most, my support of Israel is just one out of dozens of current issues, the most important of which is saving the US from Obamacare.
Once again, the stubborness of reality in be complex and not fitting into two neat false categories you can twist with unreal labels. One can be a tfue American either with or without supporting Israel, but that depends on what one does, not on your say-so. I, due to my political career in supporting people like Daniel Patrick Moynihan, will accept that I was a Neocon, altho it strongly appears that that faction has ended now. There are no Neocons running for President, and the Christian Right is not satisfactory to me.
Even if you can't see the differences, their voters sure can.
You will search your lifetime in vain if you look for any Palestine-based historic state on the maps. Only Judea, the Herodian Hebrew Kingdom, the Crusaders and Israel. Everything else in history is as a part of empires like Rome, Byzantium, several Persian, Arab Calipate, Seljuks, Mamelukes, Ottomans and British.
This debate has gone on long enuf for you to get to know me. And I have gotten to know you. Whenever I ask a key question, you never answer but always have a flimsy excuse.
Warmskin, Do you consider me a fake American? I'd love to know what you think. Please answer, unless you want to cowardly weasle out yet again. Note, I did not say that you are such, only that you can choose to be.
|
Edited by - balataf on 05/26/2011 3:28:33 PM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
Tea Party Ten Point Platform
