|
|
Post by MO on Jun 2, 2004 18:17:06 GMT -5
True, but hat is classical liberalism and it's worlds away from modern liberals.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 3, 2004 7:09:29 GMT -5
So what was "modern liberalism" before it was "hijacked by Marxism".
Very few people who actually follow Marx's beleifs would agree with you here. Most beleiving that Marxist revolutionary socialism, and the Marxist view of history as a conflict of social classes, is a world away from modern day centre left "liberalism" (which has become the new American term for the moderate left wing).
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jun 3, 2004 11:28:45 GMT -5
Modern liberals don't want a revolution because the conservatives are the ones with the guns. They favor a process of forcing Marxist principles on the people incrementally, much like the Fabian society. They have been at it for years and it's taking its toll. Many are too indoctrinated to see it. The schools were reformed by John Dewey, a leader in the Fabian Society, who made no secret of his goals to produce compliant little worker bees for the new world order.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 3, 2004 11:52:35 GMT -5
This sounds like plain paranoia to me. Is your argument here that every modern day liberal is actually a revolutionary communist in disguise?
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jun 3, 2004 12:23:31 GMT -5
No, you obviously lack a sense of humor and neglect to read a whole post, in favor of attacking one aspect of it. If you had actually read my post you would see that is not what I was saying at all!  |
|
|
|
Post by KGBagent on Jun 3, 2004 17:25:38 GMT -5
Bush never did well in a single class he took. He averaged C's in Yale which his daddy payed him to go to. Bush has values? You mean those same values that had him try to censor libraries? People change, society changes, ideas and perspectives change. Move on, or be trampled on. Bush's daughters = drinking raucous fun. Wow!  politicians' children are p..p...people too? And their fathers have no control over them? Kerry is in no way marxist. Socialism has nothing to do with communism, NOTHING. Those two statements are mutually exclusive. So what? So what? And here I thought that there should be a separation of church and state... meh... Screw the constitution!!! |
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jun 3, 2004 18:15:58 GMT -5
I doubt that you know that. I think you should try to get a Harvard MBA before you say anything like that. Most politicians are rich and have parents that put them through school. Daddy didn't take his tests for him.
Should I assume that is an uneducated poke at the Patriot Act?
Decent values and good character do not change with the times.
Well we'll have to wait to see if the Bush girls are sleaze bags in their thirties to be able to make a comparison.
I appreciate the fact that you're intellectually honest enough to admit that Kerry is a socialist.
"Democracy is the road to socialism. -Karl Marx."
"Democracy is indispensable to socialism." -Vladimir Lenin
"The goal of socialism is communism." -Vladimir Lenin
Liberals believe that America should have no culture of its own. That attitude is un-American and not in keeping with our history and principles. We welcomed people and encouraged them to assimilate.
There is nothing in the Constitution to suggest that our elected officials should forgo basic morality to buy votes and appease the death lobby.
"Death solves all problems - no man, no problem." -Josef Stalin
|
|
|
|
Post by scummybear on Jun 3, 2004 19:18:40 GMT -5
Ive never read the New York Times myself. But does it actually ADVERTISE a political party in such a shameless way? Newsmax isn't media, its a party election leaflet. Anyone feel like responding to my points? Yes, it does actually ADVERTISE it's party affilliation in such a shameless way. You don't have to read very far beyond the headlines to see that. Wow! You really blew the lid off the big secret about Newsmax. At least they're not posing as a major newspaper. I also can't believe that you haven't read the NYT's. You could identify with the pompousity, arrogance, and general B.S. that comes spinning off their presses. |
|
|
|
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 4, 2004 12:09:10 GMT -5
I cannot beleive the direction this "argument" is taking. A President cannot be judged on his/her children.
The father figure isn't the single reason as to why kids turn into good/bad people. The mother figure, thier socio-economic background, thier own personal make up (both mental and physical) and the experiences they have had all play equally if not more important roles.
So to judge kerry/bushs' skill in running the United States by comparing the personality of thier respective daughters is nothing but petty misguided populist "politics".
Secondly, as KG bagnet implied, as human beings they are allowed to wear what they want and drink if they want.
The word socialism has always been ambigious in definition. but are you implying by these three quotes that word socialism hasn't changed its meaning since the death of Lenin eighty years ago? That decades of the soviet union and of communist china and the gradual evolution of left wing politics away from a revolutionary standpoint has had no effect on the word "socialism".
A word is defined by its common usage. And you must agree that the term "socialism" in our society denotes a politics that is less severe than the word "communism" denotes. No?
What in gods name does that quote have to do with anything?
Living in London myself its quite hard to get hold of....
|
|
|
|
Post by scummybear on Jun 4, 2004 12:24:54 GMT -5
Looks like you were able to get a couple of copies of Newsmax; unless you really haven't read that either.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 4, 2004 12:34:06 GMT -5
Someone linked an article from newsweb on this site. So I read the article and had a look at the site.
|
|
|
|
Post by scummybear on Jun 4, 2004 13:50:39 GMT -5
"A word is defined by its common usage. And you must agree that the term "socialism" in our society denotes a politics that is less severe than the word "communism" denotes. No?" No. "The only difference between communism and socialism is its method of imposition. Communism is forced upon the people against their will. Socialism on the other hand is entered into voluntarily by the majority of voters. Even though the goals are the same, socialism is much more dangerous because it gradually enslaves the people without the use of visible force, while artfully disguising its evil motives with a variety of so-called noble causes. The evils of socialiam and humanism cannot survive exposure unless "good men and women do nothing". " From Gary Mcleod Are we living under the Communist Manifesto? |
|
|
|
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 4, 2004 14:23:49 GMT -5
I think what we may have here is a cultural misunderstanding. Perhaps communism and socialism are interpreted a different way in America to the UK.
You would be hard put to find anyone here who agrees that socialism and communism are ideologically identical - different only in their pragmatics.
Especially seeing as a socialist party is in government at the moment and we are hardly killing off the kulaks over here...
How does marxism have evil motives? Surely the belief that each human being should be equal is not an evil idea?
This statement, among other things, is historically false. How many hundreds of thousands of people died in the white armies during Russian civil war to prevent Lenin from establishing control? Were they "doing nothing"?
|
|
|
|
Post by KGBagent on Jun 4, 2004 14:24:28 GMT -5
I doubt that you know that. I think you should try to get a Harvard MBA before you say anything like that. Most politicians are rich and have parents that put them through school. Daddy didn't take his tests for him. You dare to tell me that while Bush obtained Cs in college, rode around slinging crack in highschool, and ran away like alittle panzy from his warfare duties... and yet Kerry, who actually FAUGHT, and who actually STUDIED and did WELL is somehow worse? Instead of insulting me, why don't you engage me in an educated discussion? Can you? Bush's values include oil? Include killing people? Include causing us more terrorism? Include hiring Karl Rove? Kerry isn't a socialist, he's a democrat, that's why he's part of the democrat party. and if you are going to make such absurd accusations, then you should at least back them up with some facts. Ya know, facts? America doesn't have it's own culture. Get your head out of the gutter. "Death solves all problems - no man, no problem." -Josef Stalin[/quote]The quote has nothing to do with your statement. But then again, I am stupid... what do I know. Also, I take it from your post, that you are pro-corruption? Or you are just ready to excuse Bush's immense corruption... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Socialism is not what you think it is. I think that we can all agree that Europe is very much socialist. Now then, one complaint I've heard about it is that the taxes are too high. which is funny, b/c after you do actual research, you'll find out that as a whole, their taxes are just like ours. In fact, some countries' taxes are even less than ours. Our rates are 35%, where as tere are about 2 countries that have a maximum tax rate of 48% (I am talking about maximum tax rates for all of them). And that's just two. Now... somehow, some countries obtain less tax than we do, and yet, our schools suck major ass. China and Russia's schools are in fact incomparably better thanours. And if you dare to argue that than you are a complete and utter moron and have never been anywhere outside your precious homeland. but anyway, our schools, our social services, our healthcare, our social security, they all suck major major ass. And yet, our government takes more taxes than the other countries do. The American government takes in trillions upon trillions upon TRILLIONS of dollars every single year. now, I am not anti-tax, I am just anti-using-MYTAXMONEY-to-fund-SHIT. I think that's a rather fair stance... Now then, Europe's government does not own all property. They are not communist nor will they ever be. Plus, the people their choose to live like that. and you dare to tell them how to live? Fuck off. Any more arguments? and try to use some factual text in there, it might help make your arguments worthy of me actually responding to them. |
|
|
|
Post by KGBagent on Jun 4, 2004 14:27:07 GMT -5
True, but hat is classical liberalism and it's worlds away from modern liberals. how coould you possibly not uderstand that there are extremist conservatives, and there are extremist liberals? How can you not comprehend that nethier party is shit, just the extremists in that party? Every party has it's downfalls, just like every ideology. It doesn't matter if we speak of fascism, communism, democracy, or captialism, each system has it's downfalls, and it's "upfalls," so to speak. |
|
politicians' children are p..p...people too? And their fathers have no control over them?