General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

In article , Chad Irby
wrote:

In article ,
Robey Price wrote:

Exactly how is voting for ANY liberal a vote against freedom?

"Liberals" think we should leave nasty dictators in place forever and
let them kill and abuse millions, while "conservatives" think we should
kick out folks like Hussein and free those folks.

Tell us again about that "freedom" thing.

Tell us again about coherent, non-binary, non-demonizing definitions of
"conservative" or of "liberal". Responses of I'm an XXX and everyone who
disagrees with me is a YYY are not responsive.

For extra credit, reconcile your above statement with the ideas of
Jeremy Bentham.

In message , Chad Irby
writes
"Liberals" think we should leave nasty dictators in place forever and
let them kill and abuse millions, while "conservatives" think we should
kick out folks like Hussein and free those folks.

I got a degree from University College London, and have seen Jeremy
Bentham's preserved body (he sits in one of the hallways, and is a
required presence at meetings of the governing body).

I'm not sure that you mean by "liberal" what many other people
understand by "liberal".

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Robey Price" wrote in message
...

Exactly how is voting for ANY liberal a vote against freedom?


Simple. Liberalism is about controlling people and people that are
controlled by others are not free.



I anticipate an illuminating discourse...or not.


Oh, somehow I doubt you're open to illumination.

"Robey Price" wrote in message
.. .

Exactly how is voting for ANY liberal a vote against freedom?


Simple. Liberalism is about controlling people and people that are
controlled by others are not free.


I think I will have to chime in on Stevens side here.

Sure liberals like freedom at home, but to some of us, freedom is not just
something for domestic consumption, but something that everyone deserves, no
matter what their country. Its not just something you are glad you have, but
lament the fact that others in the world do not have it, while having your wine
and cheese.

The American and Euro leftists were content, even at times even happy with
conditions in countries such as the USSR and its enslaved Baltic and Eastern
European countries, Cuba, Nicaragua. People like Marx, Lenin, Ortega and Castro
were and have been darlings of the USA leftists for that matter. Look at the
ongoing love affair between Hollywood leftists (redunant) and Castro.

The left and liberals were thought it was foolish to confront the USSR, and
just plain stupid to have such folly ideas as rolling back Communist/Marxist
totalitarian states in the world. Sen Kerry opposed every, or nearly every
Reagan initative that helped roll defeat the USSR. He certainly ran quickly to
make friends with Ortega in the mid 80s. The American and Euro leftists even
ridiculed Reagan for daring Gorby to tear down the wall, and thought it just
was indicative of their pointy headed intellectual views of him being a
simpleton. The left has not just opposed efforts give other states freedom,
but often actively tried to support those states.

No political party or person has a perfect record in these matters. But when
it comes to trying to help countries that were under totalitarian or marxist
rule, the American and Euro left has a pretty abyssmal record.






Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
Silver City Tanker Base

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Steven
P. McNicoll" confessed the following:

Simple. Liberalism is about controlling people and people that are
controlled by others are not free.

Examples of liberalism...(historical) giving women the right to vote,
Lincoln's emancipation of slaves, desegregation of schools, the end of
"separate but equal", (current) pro-choice (versus pro-life), gay
rights, greater environmental protection (against industrial
polluters), maintaining a separation of church and state (see
Alabama's judge Moore)...and not believing everything the government
says is true simply because gwb or Rumsfeld says it's so.

These are all good things in my book.

Feel free to give me as many examples (as you can) think of that
demonstrate liberalism "is about controlling people." This should be
fun.

I anticipate an illuminating discourse...or not.


Oh, somehow I doubt you're open to illumination.

sincerely...give it your best shot...feel free to use multi-syllabic
words and compound complex sentences.

Let the games begin!

Robey

A vote for Socialism (in even it's weaker forms) is a vote for
Totalitarianism.

Socialism must be supported by the forced confiscation of the labor of the
citizenry. This is done by the power of the state. The power of the state
is embodied in Totalitarianism.

You can vote for "a little bit of Socialism" and many believe that the
"little bit of Totalitarianism" is acceptable, as long as hte resulting
Socilaism is "for the greater good."

These folks generally believe that there is a "sweet spot" in the tradeoff
between liberty and security.

So go ahead and answer your own question: is a vote for Kerry (or Bush, for
that matter) a vote for Totalitarianism?

Steve Swartz



"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
It's amazing how so many WWII vets risked life and limb to save the
French
from Totalitarianism, then scurry back to the U.S. and try to ram it down
our throats . . .

Why don't you elaborate on that statement some. Who is doing that? How
many
WWII veterans have done that?

When I vote for Kerry, is that a vote for totalitarianism?

Walt

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 12:56:18 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

A vote for Socialism (in even it's weaker forms) is a vote for
Totalitarianism.

The trend world-wide is for what is referred to as "mixed
economies"--some aspects of communism in that there is central
planning and governmental interference with the natural flow of supply
and demand; and some aspects of free market in which trade of goods
and services for profit by individuals is tolerated. Good example
would be the current state of China.

Interesting to note that the most noteworthy examples of
totalitarianism include Stalin, Mao and Hitler--two from the political
left extreme and one from the political right.

Socialism must be supported by the forced confiscation of the labor of the
citizenry. This is done by the power of the state. The power of the state
is embodied in Totalitarianism.

Kudos to Ayn Rand.

You can vote for "a little bit of Socialism" and many believe that the
"little bit of Totalitarianism" is acceptable, as long as hte resulting
Socilaism is "for the greater good."

Certainly in the USA we love our little bits of socialism. Don't try
to take away our Social Security or Medicare. And be sure that we
include tax cuts for the "working poor" who pay no income tax to begin
with.

These folks generally believe that there is a "sweet spot" in the tradeoff
between liberty and security.

Actually there is. Rousseau's Social Contract says that if we are to
live with the benefits of society we will have to restrict our freedom
of action. The catch is where upon the spectrum you want to place the
line.

So go ahead and answer your own question: is a vote for Kerry (or Bush, for
that matter) a vote for Totalitarianism?

So voting is totalitarian? Probably not in the case of the upcoming
election. But, there are some clear choices and the appeal to class
warfare on the one side is distinctly off-putting for me. I'm a firm
believer that I can best choose how to spend my money.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Ed:

There are plenty of non-totalitarian options.

Libertarianism, for example.

Or Constitutionalism.

You do have an MS (or is it an MA?) in Political Science, right?

The choices are NOT just between "Welfare State" or "Police State."

Steve Swartz


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 12:56:18 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

A vote for Socialism (in even it's weaker forms) is a vote for
Totalitarianism.

The trend world-wide is for what is referred to as "mixed
economies"--some aspects of communism in that there is central
planning and governmental interference with the natural flow of supply
and demand; and some aspects of free market in which trade of goods
and services for profit by individuals is tolerated. Good example
would be the current state of China.

Interesting to note that the most noteworthy examples of
totalitarianism include Stalin, Mao and Hitler--two from the political
left extreme and one from the political right.

Socialism must be supported by the forced confiscation of the labor of
the
citizenry. This is done by the power of the state. The power of the
state
is embodied in Totalitarianism.

Kudos to Ayn Rand.

You can vote for "a little bit of Socialism" and many believe that the
"little bit of Totalitarianism" is acceptable, as long as hte resulting
Socilaism is "for the greater good."

Certainly in the USA we love our little bits of socialism. Don't try
to take away our Social Security or Medicare. And be sure that we
include tax cuts for the "working poor" who pay no income tax to begin
with.

These folks generally believe that there is a "sweet spot" in the
tradeoff
between liberty and security.

Actually there is. Rousseau's Social Contract says that if we are to
live with the benefits of society we will have to restrict our freedom
of action. The catch is where upon the spectrum you want to place the
line.

So go ahead and answer your own question: is a vote for Kerry (or Bush,
for
that matter) a vote for Totalitarianism?

So voting is totalitarian? Probably not in the case of the upcoming
election. But, there are some clear choices and the appeal to class
warfare on the one side is distinctly off-putting for me. I'm a firm
believer that I can best choose how to spend my money.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 17:35:48 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

Ed:

There are plenty of non-totalitarian options.

Most assuredly. While many dictatorships exist, most are authoritarian
rather than totalitarian. They simply don't have the resources to get
to the level of control required by totalitarianism.

Libertarianism, for example.

Many classifications list libertarianism as an "anti-government"
ideology. While less government is almost everyone's goal, few can
support the basic assumptions of libertarianism--that man is
inherently good and doesn't need government. Certainly privatization
is gaining favor and individual responsibility remains a touchstone of
one branch of American politcs, that is a long war from
libertarianism.

Or Constitutionalism.

And, which constitution would that be? Most who pattern themselves as
"American Constitutionalists" seem to ignore the 216 years of
Constitutional case-law that has adjusted the document to the current
world. I'm not inherently a judicial activist, but most who call
themselves "strict constructionist" or "original intent" choose to
apply their own interpretation to the document.

You do have an MS (or is it an MA?) in Political Science, right?

MPS, Auburn Univ (at Montgomery) 1978
MSIR, Troy State Univ (European Exension) 1981

The choices are NOT just between "Welfare State" or "Police State."

No one has said they were.

Steve Swartz


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

Certainly in the USA we love our little bits of socialism.


Many of us in the USA don't care at all for these not so little bits of
socialism.



Don't try to take away our Social Security or Medicare.


No! Do take them away! Please!

I have to chuckle when defenders of these programs claim they are popular
with Americans. If they're so damn popular why are we forced to
participate?



Actually there is. Rousseau's Social Contract says that if we are to
live with the benefits of society we will have to restrict our freedom
of action. The catch is where upon the spectrum you want to place the
line.


The only limit on any individual's freedom should be another individual's
freedom.