America /= US government

[taekwondave]

I could argue reality for a very lomg time here, but I know that nothing will change jv's liberal viewpoint, no matter how logical and correct the argument, so I will just leave it at that.

You amaze me with that comment. JV is NO liberal. He's a TRUE conservative, to the CORE. To the point that he irritates everybody (myself excluded) on this board with his remarkably consistent reasoning along those truly conservative lines. He irritates people because he points out their philosophical and political inconsistencies. He comes on this board, I think, because he KNOWS the vast majority on here THINK themselves conservative, and he tries to help them actually become so. But you couldn't be more wrong with this comment.

[SpiffCoug]

I'd put JV as a libetarian before I label him as a conservative. He's about maximum freedom with no limits and no regard for consequences. The single most important thing to him is freedom and if people are trying to limit your freedom, then they're free to do anything (to include cheat, lie and steal) to maximize their freedoms.

[taekwondave]

I'd put JV as a libetarian before I label him as a conservative. He's about maximum freedom with no limits and no regard for consequences. The single most important thing to him is freedom and if people are trying to limit your freedom, then they're free to do anything (to include cheat, lie and steal) to maximize their freedoms.

I consider libertarians the ULTIMATE conservatives.

In my mind, conservatism SHOULD be defined as: The inevitable line of reasoning which stems from the premise that since all men are created equal they should interact with each other on strictly voluntary terms.

[taekwondave]

He's about maximum freedom with no limits and no regard for consequences.

I don't get that from him.

The single most important thing to him is freedom and if people are trying to limit your freedom, then they're free to do anything (to include cheat, lie and steal) to maximize their freedoms.

I've heard his say things to that effect, but it's the principle he's seemed to stress and not the practice. You could even say it is scriptural:

"Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded; But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you" (D&C 98:23-24).

If you asked me, I would say Gandhi was the kind of guy that would have taken the high road spoken of in this scripture (and in the subsequent scriptures immediately following it in section 98), Jesus as well, but it is interesting to hear it opine that we are well within our rights to fight fire with fire, so to speak. I don't think JV is too far off on this. What would be WISEST? I think the scripture makes it clear. But are you JUSTIFIED in retaliating? Apparently so.

Anyway. I've given my two cents on JV. I'm going to withdraw back into the abyss now. Been fun.

[bigbluepuma]

I could argue reality for a very lomg time here, but I know that nothing will change jv's liberal viewpoint, no matter how logical and correct the argument, so I will just leave it at that.

You amaze me with that comment. JV is NO liberal. He's a TRUE conservative, to the CORE. To the point that he irritates everybody (myself excluded) on this board with his remarkably consistent reasoning along those truly conservative lines. He irritates people because he points out their philosophical and political inconsistencies. He comes on this board, I think, because he KNOWS the vast majority on here THINK themselves conservative, and he tries to help them actually become so. But you couldn't be more wrong with this comment.

I was considering him a liberal because of his viewpoint that the way to end the war was to wait around for diplomacy to do the job (and a few other assertions that I consider ridiculous). I guess that, just as extreme left and extreme right got Stalin and Hitler to the same point, extreme left and extreme right can get peace activists to the same point.

[BOID]

bigblue, I agree with your reasoning in general, but I must comment on your catagorization of Hitler as being extreme right. American liberals created that false impression (Hitler being right-wing), in order to try to relate him to their political opponents, the Republicans. Extreme repetition of this senseless metaphorical description has given it some effect with the general public.

However, Hitler was as far from "right wing" as you can get. He was actually very similar to Stalin, including the cruelty. Both men were very facist, which has nothing to do with right-wing politics. Compared to Stalin, Hitler's facism included more of the racial variety, but that does not make him "right-wing." Hitler believed in oppressive, totalitarian government, which would allow close, official management of citizen's lives, which makes him as left-wing as they come. It would be most accurate to describe him as a vicious and intolerant socialist, having made himself dictator over his victimized people. As you know, there is no such thing as "rightwing" dictator. Monarchies are not right wing, either. To be right wing, there must be limitation of government power. Pushing the concept of conservatism to the extreme will bring a condition of inadequate government police management, in other words, anarchy. Hitler was a heavy handed socialist, not an anarchist.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[SpiffCoug]

I'd put JV as a libetarian before I label him as a conservative. He's about maximum freedom with no limits and no regard for consequences. The single most important thing to him is freedom and if people are trying to limit your freedom, then they're free to do anything (to include cheat, lie and steal) to maximize their freedoms.

I consider libertarians the ULTIMATE conservatives.

In my mind, conservatism SHOULD be defined as: The inevitable line of reasoning which stems from the premise that since all men are created equal they should interact with each other on strictly voluntary terms.

I can see that, but once again, you're going to run into difficulty when your definition of something does not meet what the generally accepted of something is.

SHOULD be and IS are different words. Conservatism is not currently defined that way.

[jvquarterback]

Perhaps Japan was considering surrender, but they were not surrendering, they were making kamakazi attacks on any American ship they could find, including hospital ships.

Japan offered surrender. Plain and simple. The only point in Potsdam they required a change with was the elimination of the emperor (although they wished to preside over their own disarmament as well). Instead of concede this point Truman murdered 200,000 innocents. Plain and simple.

Re: hospital ships. Americans had bombed plenty of Japanese civilian hospitals and you want to bring up military hospitals in defense. Come on, you can do better than that.

The US was fire bombing Japan, but to no avail. If you think the Japaneze would have rolled over in the face of a ground invasion, you are sorely mistaken. For the Japanese as a culture, surrender was disgrace.Japan could have been defeated in an invasion, but at a terrible price for both sides.

You are speaking of the Japanese military, not Japanese civilians. I tried to say this in other words so as not to offend before but now I'll give it to you simply. Accepting the lie that Japanese civilians would fight to the last (civilian) man, woman and child belies racism. Japanese "culture" as you use the term is simply the cover for this racism. Truman understood that a people willing to go along with the internment of US citizens of Japanese decent, would have less of an issue dropping a bomb on 200,000 innocent civilians of Japanese decent than those of German decent. He was and remains correct.

Was there not German propaganda saying the Germans would fight to the last man, woman and child? Of course. The German sense of honor was no different than the Japanese. Japanese civilians would have fought no more than German civilians (perhaps a review of Japanese history is in order). To think otherwise is a delusion based on racist thought.

The truth is Truman's best estimates were that of a ground invasion of Japan would end in 150,000 American military deaths (similar to the number of deaths in Europe). Truman knew Americans would not stand for that so he was faced with the option of murdering 200,000 innocents or allowing the emperor to remain. He chose the former. In fact, he was ready to continue murdering Japanese civilians until the emperor conceded the terms of Potsdam.

Remember also that Japan started the war with unprovoked attacks on innocents, and the death they inflicted wasn't too pleasant either (and I'm not just talking about Pearl Harbor).

Are you still interested in using 1940s morals to justify the acts of parties in the 1940s? If so you may like to know that the Japanese had told the Americans they would accept an embargo as an act of war (a generally accepted principle at the time). You might also like to read the memos that passed the desk of FDR who had already decided (prior to Dec 7) to use the US military against the Japanese and that he knew the Japanese would accept the embargo as a declaration of war, likely creating the incident needed for congress to declare war. But according to the rules of war (whatever you think about them) the US declared war when they started the embargo.

[jvquarterback]

I'd put JV as a libetarian before I label him as a conservative. He's about maximum freedom with no limits and no regard for consequences. The single most important thing to him is freedom and if people are trying to limit your freedom, then they're free to do anything (to include cheat, lie and steal) to maximize their freedoms.

I consider libertarians the ULTIMATE conservatives.

In my mind, conservatism SHOULD be defined as: The inevitable line of reasoning which stems from the premise that since all men are created equal they should interact with each other on strictly voluntary terms.

I can see that, but once again, you're going to run into difficulty when your definition of something does not meet what the generally accepted of something is.

SHOULD be and IS are different words. Conservatism is not currently defined that way.

Conservatism means to conserve or to do what has been done in the past. In that way a conservative in the US (attempting to preserve freedom) is very different than a conservative in Russia or England. If you consider emulation of the Creator as the ultimate conservatism, libertarianism is conservatism. Can you cite one instance when the Creator used force against those who did not first use force (ie break a covenant or cause physical harm) against Him or His followers?

[snoscythe]

I'd put JV as a libetarian before I label him as a conservative. He's about maximum freedom with no limits and no regard for consequences. The single most important thing to him is freedom and if people are trying to limit your freedom, then they're free to do anything (to include cheat, lie and steal) to maximize their freedoms.

I consider libertarians the ULTIMATE conservatives.

In my mind, conservatism SHOULD be defined as: The inevitable line of reasoning which stems from the premise that since all men are created equal they should interact with each other on strictly voluntary terms.

I can see that, but once again, you're going to run into difficulty when your definition of something does not meet what the generally accepted of something is.

SHOULD be and IS are different words. Conservatism is not currently defined that way.

Conservatism means to conserve or to do what has been done in the past. In that way a conservative in the US (attempting to preserve freedom) is very different than a conservative in Russia or England. If you consider emulation of the Creator as the ultimate conservatism, libertarianism is conservatism. Can you cite one instance when the Creator used force against those who did not first use force (ie break a covenant or cause physical harm) against Him or His followers?

I can't think of a single instance where the Savior broke any promises or covenants he made.