NationStates Jolt Archive

we need to regroup and strike the left or debate with them.

We do debate with them. However, some of them do not listen. Most of them are reasonable and will have a civil debate.

i'm a left county

Capitalista credo

We do debate with them. However, some of them do not listen. Most of them are reasonable and will have a civil debate.
yeah true but then the stuipd people show up and keep posting stuipd stuff, it drives me mad I read 4 pages so I can join the disscusions and then people show up and post the same arguement that was posted on page 2.

once I read ten pages, that time I yelled at the poster former account thou.

Most liberals on this board are willing to have arguements, but they tend to listen with half an ear out of habit and arent going to change anything if you win or lose the debate. Theres a few major wierdos (MKULTRA, Lietila) who wont listen to even the most logical of arguements, even by the other leftists.
There are a few subjects that all but a few refuse to be argued about, IE: Bush is evil, US govornment sucks, that sort of thing.
Im sure you can debate whether, for example, the Thai govornment sucks, but its not really a fixed issue.

As a leftist, I can't exactly fight myself, but:

You're hopelessly outnumbered. Since by "left" you mean "American Left", which is a fancy name for a moderate, you have most of the populace against you that isn't American.
Plus that Bush's policies alienate conservatives, too, so you have even less support.

You're also fighting uphill, since most Neoconservative arguments are considered "in the wrong" by the internet public with few exceptions. Especially religious ones...

And I listen to arguments, but I usually only debate evolution and/or religion here so most liberals must be less agreeable on politics or something.

As someone who believes the political spectrum to be a complete and utter joke, i'll just say that ignorance and unwillingness to discuss rather than argue is a problem of both of these artificial sides.

we need to regroup and strike the left or debate with them.

I say we just strike them.

the conservatives remind me of a dilbert strip, since i cant find a picture i will describe it

in the first cell dilbert is talking to dogbert, dogbert says "from now on when some one says something dumb i will say 'bah' and dismiss it with a wave of my hand"

in the next cell diblert replies "just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it is stupid"

in the last cell dogbert waves his hand and says "bah"

if they dont agree with it they just dismiss it with a wave of their hand and pretend its stupid

^Agrees with above, but replace 'conservatives' with 'most on NS'.

I love that Dilbert comic.

I being a "conservative," I guess, get a kick out of imaging a dog saying "bah" and waving his hand, eh, paw.

Both sides can hold up their hands and say "bah" because both sides believe their world view is correct and to heck with the other's view.

I say "bah" to all labels, and let's get back to discussing issues and not labeling each other liberal, conservative and moderate. Those terms don't tell you everything about a person. They are divisive and non explanatory.
You can be conservative on some issues and liberal on others. Then where on Earth on the political spectrum would you put yourself? In the middle? under the letter "r" (a letter both conservative and liberal have)?

we need to regroup and strike the left or debate with them.
Ok. I debate, but its not like we need to regroup or anything or strike. Were not fighting a war, so to speak.

This thread is a joke. We debate constantly.

I think our problem is that we aren't being listened to by some. I've noticed that liberals in the US, while they don't agree with us, they seem to know where we're coming from. Those on the left that are foreign, however, seem to be less understanding. They look at the conservative politicians over the decades, and their policies seem alien from many of their leaders. Thus, they are conditioned to think, more or less so, that we are stupid. There are exceptions on this board, of course, but quite a few think we are nothing but common pickpockets crusading to the Middle East.

liberal = socialist (rob from the rich to help the poor)
conservative = capitalist (everyone gets a fair chance to succeed and get ahead)

I'd rather be a capitalist than a socialist. As an American I can find the best school I can afford and with some government help (loans, grants, etc) I can get a higher education. I can become a doctor or lawyer or educator and help others. I can spend more money that helps with the expansion of the economy, and that gives money to smaller companies who give jobs to others and they in turn afford to live and spend their incomes and so goes the cycle.

If I lived in a socialist country (France or Canada), right off the top 50% of my income goes into the government's hands to spend as they want. The supposed National health care system is bankrupt and many ill people must wait MONTHS to see a doctor. In the US I can see my very good physician within a day or two and get excellent health care.

If I lived in a socialist country, I could go to college and not pay for it, but then I could also not work and just live off the government and never get a degree, never increase my net worth, never make more money, and never afford to help others.

I like a modified socialist-capitalist government. Modified in that if you are at the high end of income and can afford to do so, you can be taxed at a higher rate knowing your extra tax money will go to support those poor in your neighborhood.

I like the flat tax system. Those who make less the poverty level pay no taxes, but from there, everyone pays the same percentage. I like fairness and charitableness in my country.

Balance out the incomes of lawyers, athletes and entertainers. These folks don't save lives, they should not be able to make more than $1 million a year, max. Doctors and teachers should be paid 5 times more than they are, if they are good and follow strict guidelines and do their job right. And people that build homes, are farmers, and provide materials to help house and feed people should be given all the help they need in the times of disasters like floods, tornados, hurricanes and wildfires. They help us all live good lives, they should be compensated for it.

Madonna, MArk Geragos and Kobe Bryant shouldn't be able to make millions and millions every year. The price of movie tickets, CDs and writing wills and other legal things should be reduced and Hollywood needs an attitude adjustment. The US does not revolve around celebrities and high profile attorneys.

To quote that glorious band/movement Crass,

"vicious mindless violence that offers nothing new left wing violence, right wing violence all seems much the same bully boys out fighting, it's just the same old game boring fucking politics that'll get us all shot left wing, right wing, you can stuff the lot keep your petty prejudice, i don't see the point"

those are all wrong ideas in an uncontrolled and fairy land capitalist socialist state, not a real one

ok, lets live in REAL capitalism

the big businesses control EVERYTHING, you barely get paid anything by the company you work for, and what you do get paid only goes torward food an clothing, your life is devoted to the company sicne they provide a slum for you to live in which nothign is kept up because the fat cats dont care. no children go to school, the yare raised in the factories with their parents and are taught to use the dangerous machines which have no safety standards because that would cost money, which the fat cats wont pay, they rather live their plush lives with minimal effort and money loss. hundreds if not thousands of people die each day across the country in the factories and slums of the corporations because of poor health and safety standards. you work 14 hour days to get enough money to buy your bread and milk and maybe some other food, your whole family works that much for maybe a few dollars a week, which all goes torward food and occasionally new clothes, dont count on that though (and if you think this is bullshit, please see the decades around the 1940s)

now how socialism would be carried out:
everyone works for the same amount, but all necesities are provided. you are guaranteed food and water and shelter and medical aid. the government would probably eventually have to assign professions to keep people from beign corrupted by whiners into doing useless jobs, but they could be assigned off what the children want to be when they are younger, so everyone lives their dream, and it can be changed sicne the first several years of learning are the same anyway. those people who arel azy and dont work would be jsut how they are now. they arnt guaranteed food or shelter or medical care, not guaranted medical care but i doubt it would be denied in extreme situations, and this is because they do not work and contribute to the community and the nation, leeches arnt welcome in a controlled socialist state.

You are both talking in extreme fairytales in order to rubbish the others arguement.

liberal = socialist (rob from the rich to help the poor)
conservative = capitalist (everyone gets a fair chance to succeed and get ahead)
*cough cough* sorry, but last time I checked:
liberal=
a.Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b.Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c.Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d.Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

conservative=
1.Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2.Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3.Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4.a.Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
b.Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
6.Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.

(dictionary.com)
Hmm, seems like perhaps we should change our labling system. While some values that the parties in the US have may seem to lean towards a different political structure, they are really a loose grouping of people with somewhat similar mindsets. Both parties are part of the USA's republic. Find out what someone's specific views on the topic at hand are, and debate them as best you can (please please please let it be mature) with your own views on that topic. Now that would be a good debate!

those are all wrong ideas in an uncontrolled and fairy land capitalist socialist state, not a real one

ok, lets live in REAL capitalism

the big businesses control EVERYTHING, you barely get paid anything by the company you work for, and what you do get paid only goes torward food an clothing, your life is devoted to the company sicne they provide a slum for you to live in which nothign is kept up because the fat cats dont care. no children go to school, the yare raised in the factories with their parents and are taught to use the dangerous machines which have no safety standards because that would cost money, which the fat cats wont pay, they rather live their plush lives with minimal effort and money loss. hundreds if not thousands of people die each day across the country in the factories and slums of the corporations because of poor health and safety standards. you work 14 hour days to get enough money to buy your bread and milk and maybe some other food, your whole family works that much for maybe a few dollars a week, which all goes torward food and occasionally new clothes, dont count on that though (and if you think this is bullshit, please see the decades around the 1940s)

now how socialism would be carried out:
everyone works for the same amount, but all necesities are provided. you are guaranteed food and water and shelter and medical aid. the government would probably eventually have to assign professions to keep people from beign corrupted by whiners into doing useless jobs, but they could be assigned off what the children want to be when they are younger, so everyone lives their dream, and it can be changed sicne the first several years of learning are the same anyway. those people who arel azy and dont work would be jsut how they are now. they arnt guaranteed food or shelter or medical care, not guaranted medical care but i doubt it would be denied in extreme situations, and this is because they do not work and contribute to the community and the nation, leeches arnt welcome in a controlled socialist state.

You have some misunderstanding about America my friend.
My husband and I live quite nicely, have good benefits, and owe less on our income taxes thanks to the Bush tax reduction. My company is fairly big and have a good income, a new home, 2 cars, a big yard, a month of vacation time, paid sick leave, paid personal days, paid birthday off, and many other benefits. We get all kinds of perks thanks to some of the companies we buy products from, and I like that companies that do good support other companies. The economy is driven by people buying things. We that buy things want big companies to supply the zillions of things we can use and consume. Get a life if you think Big Business runs my life. I have choices between hundreds of things to eat, drink, watch on tv, and do on my weekends. I like American way of life and capitalism. Why are people from all over the world still moving here?

And you ignore that Canadians are suffering with a bankrupt health care system. My gosh do you always stick your head in the sand?

now how socialism would be carried out:
everyone works for the same amount, but all necesities are provided. you are guaranteed food and water and shelter and medical aid. the government would probably eventually have to assign professions to keep people from beign corrupted by whiners into doing useless jobs, but they could be assigned off what the children want to be when they are younger, so everyone lives their dream, and it can be changed sicne the first several years of learning are the same anyway. those people who arel azy and dont work would be jsut how they are now. they arnt guaranteed food or shelter or medical care, not guaranted medical care but i doubt it would be denied in extreme situations, and this is because they do not work and contribute to the community and the nation, leeches arnt welcome in a controlled socialist state.
Um you assume that you would have dreams in a socailism after the first generation, you forget some people are mentally defictent, and they might dream of being doctors. when such a country is faced with outer threats not many will go to war, you face famine becasue not many people want to be farmers, sickness spreads becaue lazy people spread sickness with no medical help, smart kids become artist becasue they really don't have to do anything, the only intersting job to me would diplomat, technology would go nowhere. thats all I got right now

Um you assume that you would have dreams in a socailism after the first generation, you forget some people are mentally defictent, and they might dream of being doctors. when such a country is faced with outer threats not many will go to war, you face famine becasue not many people want to be farmers, sickness spreads becaue lazy people spread sickness with no medical help, smart kids become artist becasue they really don't have to do anything, the only intersting job to me would diplomat, technology would go nowhere. thats all I got right now
learn to read, i said the govenrment would eventually have to assign jobs

You have some misunderstanding about America my friend.
My husband and I live quite nicely, have good benefits, and owe less on our income taxes thanks to the Bush tax reduction. My company is fairly big and have a good income, a new home, 2 cars, a big yard, a month of vacation time, paid sick leave, paid personal days, paid birthday off, and many other benefits. We get all kinds of perks thanks to some of the companies we buy products from, and I like that companies that do good support other companies. The economy is driven by people buying things. We that buy things want big companies to supply the zillions of things we can use and consume. Get a life if you think Big Business runs my life. I have choices between hundreds of things to eat, drink, watch on tv, and do on my weekends. I like American way of life and capitalism. Why are people from all over the world still moving here?

And you ignore that Canadians are suffering with a bankrupt health care system. My gosh do you always stick your head in the sand?
WE. DO. NOT. LIVE. IN. PURE. CAPITALISM.


idiot

learn to read, i said the govenrment would eventually have to assign jobs
I read aside then it takes away personal freedom creating a dictatorship you discribed almost exactly what cuba did, I think we both agree cuba didn't do well

WE. DO. NOT. LIVE. IN. PURE. CAPITALISM.


idiot
duh she knows that git, but pure socailism wouldn't do better.

Balance out the incomes of lawyers, athletes and entertainers. These folks don't save lives, they should not be able to make more than $1 million a year, max. Doctors and teachers should be paid 5 times more than they are, if they are good and follow strict guidelines and do their job right. And people that build homes, are farmers, and provide materials to help house and feed people should be given all the help they need in the times of disasters like floods, tornados, hurricanes and wildfires. They help us all live good lives, they should be compensated for it.

Madonna, MArk Geragos and Kobe Bryant shouldn't be able to make millions and millions every year. The price of movie tickets, CDs and writing wills and other legal things should be reduced and Hollywood needs an attitude adjustment. The US does not revolve around celebrities and high profile attorneys.
Intersesting point but entertainers keep morals up comdey in particular Comdey people shuold be able tp make 2 million a year and other entertainers 1.5 mill becasue if we have low morals we screwd and 1.5 mill should make alot of people not be mad, and 2 mill is really good so you would be safe allowing high moral keepers to support those who are out saving lives, yeah for the last part thou.

Intersesting point but entertainers keep morals up comdey in particular Comdey people shuold be able tp make 2 million a year and other entertainers 1.5 mill becasue if we have low morals we screwd and 1.5 mill should make alot of people not be mad, and 2 mill is really good so you would be safe allowing high moral keepers to support those who are out saving lives, yeah for the last part thou.

Well, the amounts were really abitrary. I just made them up to make a point. I think it is sad that teachers and those that save lives make little compared to some that make millions because they can hit, kick, catch, and throw a ball. And some make millions because they can memorize lines and look good on screen.

I cannot do any of the above, I don't expect to be rich and making millions. If I invented a great device that saved lives, I still wouldn't expect to be rich. I would like some royalties based on the number sold, but it doesn't have to be extravagant amount. Some folks like to invent for the sake of being the first one to create something. They get their thrill out of that.

When money is concerned, people can become dishonest, greedy and selfish. Politicians and lawyers are known for the high percentage of them that are this way when the money carrot is dangling in front of them.

And thanks for standing up for me. I am not an idiot. I know the US is not pure capitalist. Pure anything has its problems. That is why I said modified socialism and capitalism combined would be good. Pure socialism is unfair and puts no pressure on anyone to do their best. They'd only care they had food and a home. They wouldn't make anything, they wouldn't necessarily help anyone from a altruistic standpoint.

I am Catholic, we tend to be quite socialistic when it comes to helping the less fortunate. But I am allowed to do what I want with my income. I give money to my church, to the United Way, to Komen breast cancer groups, and several other organizations. I help people when they need it or ask for it. If I don't know how to do what they need, I help them find the help they need. Many of the better off people at my Church donate time, talent and money to a lot of things in the community. That is wonderful. When and if I ever had more money than I would know what to do with, I would give a lot away.

To help others is to help yourself. You help yourself by taking your eye off yourself (egocentric) and putting your time and interest into others (altruistic).

When people decide that they need to get up and do something or make something and help benefit society, then maybe they'll understand why some poor folks are content where they are at because they see what money and greed does to some folks. The only thing that is upsetting is when someone, born to a poor family, cannot get out of their community and go to a decent school and get a good education and give back to their home community. That is sad.

how 'bout we tax the crap out of athletes and muscicans? That could get the government another billion or so dollars a year to help those who aren't paid thousands of times more than they should be.

liberal = socialist (rob from the rich to help the poor)
conservative = capitalist (everyone gets a fair chance to succeed and get ahead)

Balance out the incomes of lawyers, athletes and entertainers. These folks don't save lives, they should not be able to make more than $1 million a year, max. Doctors and teachers should be paid 5 times more than they are, if they are good and follow strict guidelines and do their job right. And people that build homes, are farmers, and provide materials to help house and feed people should be given all the help they need in the times of disasters like floods, tornados, hurricanes and wildfires. They help us all live good lives, they should be compensated for it.

Madonna, MArk Geragos and Kobe Bryant shouldn't be able to make millions and millions every year. The price of movie tickets, CDs and writing wills and other legal things should be reduced and Hollywood needs an attitude adjustment. The US does not revolve around celebrities and high profile attorneys.

Fairy tale or not, I'd like to write you in as presidential candidate! :) It seems to me the world would be a better place if we could get things to work this way.

To quote that glorious band/movement Crass,

"vicious mindless violence that offers nothing new left wing violence, right wing violence all seems much the same bully boys out fighting, it's just the same old game boring fucking politics that'll get us all shot left wing, right wing, you can stuff the lot keep your petty prejudice, i don't see the point"
Yeah, but we can't all raise goats on a hippy commune in Epping Forest like Crass did. (Did you now both Steve Ignorant and Penny Rimbaund eventually rejected pacifism?)

On a general point, you don't need a large influx of conservatives onto NS to equal the odds. You need a handful who understanding the meaning of backing up their opinions with sources. That's your major problem at the moment. On NS people like MKULTRA and Letilia are minorties on the left. That kind of 'debating' style is the majority on the right here.

Most liberals on this board are willing to have arguements, but they tend to listen with half an ear out of habit and arent going to change anything if you win or lose the debate. Theres a few major wierdos (MKULTRA, Lietila) who wont listen to even the most logical of arguements, even by the other leftists.
There are a few subjects that all but a few refuse to be argued about, IE: Bush is evil, US govornment sucks, that sort of thing.
Im sure you can debate whether, for example, the Thai govornment sucks, but its not really a fixed issue.I only oppose the so-called "logical" arguments of other leftists when theyre being weak kneed wusses

NationStates, and the Internet, is haven for leftists. NationStates has a disporportionate amount of Liberals as compared to the world. My hypothesis is that they come here because they cant argue in the real world, and here they can only listen to arguments they want to. They can ignore some other important points.

I am a conservative, yet I am also liberal. That is because I believe that people have the right to marry who they want, and to have abortions etc ( I am a Catholic, and so those ideas are abhorrent to me. However, I realise that I should not impose my views upon others, but should go with what the majority of people want. That is where we conservatives fail most frequently- our intolerance). I am conservative in that i believe that the economy is more important than "human rights" and I do not believe that a convict has any human rights- they broke the law, and so they cannot then ask for protection under the law.

The term liberal has been twisted in America recently, until it has become almost a negative term. Conservatism was founded in British politics, and stands for the economy, not for the protection of religion (which is ironic, as a conservative is someone who resists change- but hey, I didnt make it up :P)

NationStates, and the Internet, is haven for leftists. NationStates has a disporportionate amount of Liberals as compared to the world. My hypothesis is that they come here because they cant argue in the real world, and here they can only listen to arguments they want to. They can ignore some other important points.
That and since they don't have to work and they rely on the government to feed them and their 19 kids, they have plenty of free time to spout their crap on the internet.

Kerry Fled

That and since they don't have to work and they rely on the government to feed them and their 19 kids, they have plenty of free time to spout their crap on the internet.

Kerry Fledmeanwhile 98% of all welfare in america goes to billionaires not to the deserving and Kerry didnt get a purple heart and all those medals for heroism by fleeing.Bush is the one whose is the real war coward and Cheney had 29 deferments from nam

meanwhile 98% of all welfare in america goes to billionaires not to the deserving and Kerry didnt get a purple heart and all those medals for heroism by fleeing.Bush is the one whose is the real war coward and Cheney had 29 deferments from nam
I certainly hope you are sterile.

Kerry Fled

What's a conservative?

Sorry, I can't speak english all too well.

I certainly hope you are sterile.

Kerry Fled
theres 800,000 naked versions of me taking up 45 long city blocks in nyc protesting Bush rite Now
Kerry was saving the life of a republican in nam while the snivelling coward Bush was snorting coke after goin AWOL to avoid a drug test

What's a conservative?

Sorry, I can't speak english all too well.
a traitor

John Kerry Looks Like his face is melting off, It's so droopy. Not that that has anything to do with if he would be a good president or not... I just had to say it

Of course there are always exceptions to the rule that the left on here back up their points with sources and debate properly- as MKULTRA shows.

And then we have his right-wing mirror image Friends of Bill who speaks entirely in right wing sloganising. (Who I once caught complaining about how beastly we were being to him when a simple look at his posts showed he'd done precisely the same thing. :D)

the conservatives remind me of a dilbert strip, since i cant find a picture i will describe it

in the first cell dilbert is talking to dogbert, dogbert says "from now on when some one says something dumb i will say 'bah' and dismiss it with a wave of my hand"

in the next cell diblert replies "just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it is stupid"

in the last cell dogbert waves his hand and says "bah"

if they dont agree with it they just dismiss it with a wave of their hand and pretend its stupid

I actually have the original hanging on my wall at work!

Got it from Scott himself.

Some of my "experiences" in the goverment were used in the strip.....

I certainly hope you are sterile.

Kerry Fled


As friendly as ever Karl?

Kerry may have fled but your boy the shrub fled the whole war.

I wasn't aware that they sent Kerry bumber stickers to overseas supporters

My hypothesis is that they [Liberals] come here because they cant argue in the real world
Is that why you came here?

I think our problem is that we aren't being listened to by some. I've noticed that liberals in the US, while they don't agree with us, they seem to know where we're coming from. Those on the left that are foreign, however, seem to be less understanding. They look at the conservative politicians over the decades, and their policies seem alien from many of their leaders. Thus, they are conditioned to think, more or less so, that we are stupid. There are exceptions on this board, of course, but quite a few think we are nothing but common pickpockets crusading to the Middle East.
But that is also a problem of bad communication. And in that respcet the question would be why the US communicates its policy so badly. The fact that the Iraq war was in the international discussion mainly justified due to alleged WMDs - even with nuclear weapons (Niger - threat of a "mushroom cloud) and the reality doesn´t match does claims has not helped the credibility of the US.
Before the war WMDs who are ready for use, after the war WMD programs (which is already a difference) till statements that they may not be some after all.
Other reasons were not communicated appropiately.
Quite frankly spoken: they wouldn´t have been accepted since they go beyond that what belongs to the existing international law. Unprovoked attacks and regime change don´t belong to those things, traditionally.
But with a better explained concept which linked that to a Middle-East initiative regarding the conflict between Arabs and Israeli and a strong engagement of the US (like under Clinton) the US would be able to regain some of its credibility.
The damage doesn´t only exists in Europe. But if we look to Arab countries the results are even more scarry and the mood is even more anti-american than before. In Jordan for example 99% according to the Pew instituitions. Given that fact it is really good that they are no completly free elections since the results would be more anti-american governments.

And regarding the acusation of crusading: That is a wording President Bush is using. That this is causing outside the US that impression shouldn´t surprise anybody.
The PR strategy is really a desaster. But when a government states that it doesn´t care what other countries think or that they are irrelevant it shouldn´t wander anybody that such an attitude is causing the rise of anti-americanism.
The US should really improve its PR. Under Clinton that was much better.
There was even a majority for the Kosovo war in Europe for example.
But the Bush administration failed in that field of international PR completly in the Iraq question.

My hypothesis is that they come here because they cant argue in the real world, and here they can only listen to arguments they want to. They can ignore some other important points.I don't believe you ever answered my detailed post on George Orwell. Shall I start a new thread for you to argue them?

I wasn't aware that they sent Kerry bumber stickers to overseas supporters
That's good stuff.

Kerry Fled