|
|
Post by ItWillNeverWork on Sept 26, 2003 11:17:02 GMT -5
"You sound like a commie pinko hippy liberal! No wander no one likes you or you stupid beliefs! You are probaly on welfare or have a goverment job or something and probaly drive atyoyoto no wander no one listens to you nonsince! Get a job hippy! "
USA50 posted an intelligent, well balanced argument. If you disagree with his opinions (which you are quite entitled to do) then maybe you should respond in a similarly mature way in stead of throwing around drab old scripted insults.
|
|
|
|
Post by 'Guest' on Oct 3, 2003 6:54:08 GMT -5
take your medication please
|
|
|
|
Post by ItWillNeverWork on Oct 9, 2003 5:57:26 GMT -5
"take your medication please "
If thats not an abdication of of an opportunity to post an intelligent reply then I don't know what is.
Can we possibly raise the level of debate to one where converse actually occurs?
|
|
|
|
Post by queue1114 on Oct 9, 2003 10:22:15 GMT -5
What one must realize, is that the liberal is not un-educated. The real liberal [that is the liberal leaders] are very well educated. Many have huge sums of money. It is the goal of the liberal to make the mass populous dependent on them economically, so they have total control. It is the communist/socialist way.
The notion that "all were equal" in the old Soviet Union is a mis-understanding. Those in the "polit-bureau" were actually quite rich and well to do. They held the real power, because they held the money and economy under their strict control. The guise is that old saying: "We're from the government, and we're here to help you".
Yeah Right!!
Sleep well America - Q.
PS - Understanding this principle, and bringing it out into the open, really wrankles the liberals, especially the intelligent leaders, so I expect some hard core negative feedback, refuting this.
Q.
|
|
|
|
Post by ItWillNeverWork on Oct 9, 2003 11:17:36 GMT -5
It's interesting to see that your definition of a liberal is 'communist'. Well I can assure you that I am not a communist so I suppose I am not a liberal eighther.
What interests me is how many people on the US political landscape you consider to be liberal/communist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Q on Oct 9, 2003 18:48:29 GMT -5
Everyone who is for control of the mass populous through economic extortion and forced re-distribution. That is [of course] one of the pillars of the "Communist Manefesto".
|
|
|
|
Post by ItWillNeverWork on Oct 10, 2003 8:09:37 GMT -5
Just because social-democracy shows some influence from Karl Marx it does not make social-democracy Marxist. Re-distribution is indeed one method that Karl Marx cites as a stepping stone to communism, however, it is not as if the democrats are aiming for communism.
Politics is not simply black and right, left and right. Life is not that simple, people borrow ideas from each other and create new political systems.
To say that social-democracy is an attempt to control people simply because stalinist-communism was, is about as logical as saying that democracy itself is an attempt to implement an anarchist society because of the fact that both anarchism and democracy are based on the idea that the individual is sovereign.
|
|
|
|
Post by Q on Oct 10, 2003 13:47:38 GMT -5
What you must understand is that the goal of almost all politicians is control of the populous. If you put a dem in office, their goal is control through economy. If you put a rep in office, their goal is control through law. Pick your poison: Bush and his patriot acts, or Gore and his nationalization of farms and ranches.
Either way, "We the People" loose.
Sleep well America - Q.
|
|
|
|
Post by ItWillNeverWor on Oct 12, 2003 8:40:28 GMT -5
"What you must understand is that the goal of almost all politicians is control of the populous"
Thats a very cynical view. If all politicians are in it for power and not for the benefit of others then what hope do we have? what is the other option?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis on Oct 14, 2003 18:22:33 GMT -5
I'm proud to say that I'm a communist anarchist. My views are considered by many radical to say the least. Many describe me as anti-american, yet I follow some political beliefs of Noam Chomsky, an American, and Howard Zinn, a veteran of WWII. I don't hate others that don't agree with me, I only believe that their views are misguided. Also the political spectrum is defined in two ways; left/right and libertarian/authoritarian. You can be left will being an authoritarian (Stalin), and you can be a libertarian while being to the right (Friedman.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Chomsky hater on Oct 17, 2003 21:27:03 GMT -5
Noam Chomsky is a twit. Enemey of the state.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walter on Oct 18, 2003 10:12:18 GMT -5
ItWillNeverWork said: We may disagree philosophically on certain matters...but I gotta tell you, you hit a home run with this one. WELL SAID! 
|
|
|
|
Post by ItWillNeverWork on Oct 22, 2003 15:32:36 GMT -5
"We may disagree philosophically on certain matters...but I gotta tell you, you hit a home run with this one. WELL SAID! " Thankyou, it's good to see that despite our differing opinions we can still see common ground.  |
|
|
|
Post by Spetsnaz on Oct 23, 2003 15:21:54 GMT -5
Reading this topic I can't understand why Americans who I esteem very high are so frightened about everything which is 'liberal'.
I mean.. if weren't for the progressive powers in your country blacks still wouldn't have equal rights and women still won't have the right to vote.
In fact, I think if you think of it deeply you will find there's a relation between extreme (christian) fundamentalism and muslim fundamentalism which I despise: neither wants equal rights for women, etc...
Perhaps you should consider a bigger role of the goverment in your society might actually benefit: including the rich folks or do you think it's something to be proud of that the suburbs of some of the major US cities more look like third world slums ?
kind regards,
A European
|
|
|
|
Post by Walter on Oct 24, 2003 9:02:52 GMT -5
"...if weren't for the progressive powers in your country blacks still wouldn't have equal rights and women still won't have the right to vote. "
Where in the world did you come up with that one? The CRA of 1964 was passed ovrwhelmingly because Republicans supported it over strong and violent objections by Democrats.
In fact, the only support was from Southern Democrats who crossed over to vote with the GOP.
Going further back, Lincoln was a Republican; the Republicans in Congress forced through voting rights for women and bkacks, Republicans eliminated the poll tax, etc.
If the "progressive" Democrats had their way, the blacks (and women) would still be asking for the right to live equally and vote.
Perhaps you need to spend a few minutes on facts, not revisionist history.
|
|
