Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (141804)	1/17/2002 5:55:18 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1585099

Tim, the terminology I am using did not originate with me. Bad terminology is bad terminology whatever the origin. Tim, its bad by your standards; not by mine. I never said that Hitler's conservatism is emblematic of American conservatism. I said their roots or seed are the same. If you mean they had some of the same sources then there might be some truth in that but only in the sense that homo sapiens, and oak trees have a common ancestor if you go back far enough. No, I think there are common personality/character traits that provide a basis or foundation for a person's views. If that person stays within normal parameters, his/her views will develop along normal lines and he/she will express his/her philosophies in a relatively normal way. Gingrich........although I don't know him at all, I will use as an example since it seems you guys think he is a fairly typical conservative. Hitler, who most likely shared the same values as an early twentieth century Gingrich and started from the same base as that conservative, had those values stretched and distorted by his psychosis. But his initial views/philosphy came from conservative roots and not liberal. Hitler took his philosophy to lengths that American conservatives do not. That is true but also the fact that he had a different philosophy. His aims and ideas where different. In a sense, but only because his aims became distorted and taken to an extreme. For an example, he wanted the German population to return to its ethnic purity. The American conservative of that time shared to some degree that same view...whites should marry whites, Jews should marry Jews etc. However, Hitler took it one step further, he not only wanted the German race to be pure by his psychotic standards but he wanted to insure that standard by killing off the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc. Now there are few American conservatives of that time [I hope] who would have proposed going that far. So what was a fairly unpleasant but benign standard turned into something very sick and horrific. Taking American conservatism to an extreme might result in the US spending half again more on the military, banning abortion, and just maybe restricting immigration (but conservatives are divided on that issue). It would not result in death camps or an attempt to invade Russia. I agree. A central point of Hitler's philosophy was that some people where genetically inferior and would weaken the state. This is not a more extreme version of American conservative thought, it isn't part of American conservative thought at all. It was at the time of Hitler.........American conservatives may not have used the term genetic but they meant the same thing. (Yes some conservatives are racists, but racism is not part of conservatism, and some liberals are racist as well).Actually as much as they hate each other fascists and communists have more in common with each other then they do with American conservatives or liberals. American conservatives are not exactly classical conservatives anyway. They take aspects of classical conservatism and aspects of classical liberalism. Your judging Hitler thru 21st century eyes..........that's why I think we disagree on this issue. I am comparing the 1930's American conservative with Hitler. For example they mostly argue for a smaller federal government which a couple of centuries ago would have caused them to be considered liberal. I think the word "conservative" is somewhat muddled, and the word "liberal" actually has diametrically opposed meanings.What is the point of going into this kind of detail? I am going to be really candid here. I have never seen you this defensive. What gives? I'm not sure if it is accurate to discribe supporting my position strongly as defensive. You are also supporting your own. I certainly have argued just as strongly for or against other ideas on SI. Some of those conversations have even been with you. I guess it feels defensive to me. The terminology I am using is not new and I certainly am not coming up with any original ideas. This stuff is what's discussed in political theory and philosphies. Its not new but it is very muddled and often inaccurate. It often isn't discussed much in political theory discussions or classes. It is rather often just assumed. Liberals have been trashed as well, but if you notice I just made a post defending liberals against one of these attacks (that they have no core beliefs). I'm not looking to fight a conservative vs liberal war in this conversation as much as I am pushing for accuracy and fairness from both sides. In my major courses, liberal vs conservative philosophies were discussed all the time. Overtime both philosophies have become more liberal because accepted standards have changed and evolved over time. But the basic belief systems for both sides remain about the same. You see me as a liberal and so you see me on the other side. But I do share some conservative traits particularly when it comes to the spending of money. That comes from the conservative side of my personality. It wants strong controls over the spending of money so that right now, it feels to me like American gov't spending is out of control. That side also motivates my environmental views. Using another personal example, sometimes I need to loosen by purse strings in order to make some money......"it takes money to make money". It provides a healthy balance to my conservative money views. My point is that conservatism like any philosophy needs to be kept in the proper perspective. You all seem to feel its the only way to go and repeat it like a mantra ad infinitum...I do not necessarily you but "you conservatives" in general. So my comments today are provided as a balance. I think conservatism has its place but so does liberalism. I think liberalism moves us forward while conservatism keeps us safe and in the money. A real simplistic way of showing how I view the two philosophies. ted