NationStates Jolt Archive

This country has some serious problems. A two-party system whose parties are only different in the sense that Republicans are generally more distasteful than Democrats. Our elite do not herald from the working-class. The last president who had humble roots was Lincoln. Corporations will say jump, and the government will say, how high? Corporate welfare is the norm, the combined worth of our 50 richest people is 489.5 billion dollars, close to the national debt. Americans are raised with the values of the elite. Socialism is considered a problem from the eyes of the wealthy, and everyone believes it. We are indoctrinated from an early age with the belief that all of us will some day, become as rich as Bill Gates, the only thing you have to do is try. 80% of people think that they are middle-class, which is a designation properly given only to people who own businesses. So what should we do? Accept that America will remain a country of the elite, by the elite, and for the elite? Legislate, trying to do what we have been doing? Should we rebel and win some of the socializations that have helped Europe and Canada so much? Or what about outright revolution? Take the constitution and white out the part that talks about free trade and property rights?

What would be best for us on the left side of the fence? Post your opinion, don't flame me for my thoughts, and let's see what liberals really think about how we should better America!

I was under the impression that Clinton came from relatively humble roots. And though he was beaten in the primaries, Edwards parents were mill workers.

I remember when people on the left-side of the political spectrum were called "Democrats" and people on the right-side were called "Republicans", but I guess those days are over.

America needs to be much more Socialist. And Socialism isn't Communism, you rightist wackos.

We need government control of utilities. We need a much better tax system. We need universal healthcare. We need more programs to help the needy and less fortunate. We need a lot more than we already have, and we have the capability to do so.

Outright revolution tends to be a bit too messy IMHO, best off trying something else.

I remember when people on the left-side of the political spectrum were called "Democrats" and people on the right-side were called "Republicans", but I guess those days are over.


In political realities terms, Hitler is considered right, Che Guevara is considered left, democrats and republicans are millimeters away, next to the middle.

The Democratic and Republican party are really gradients of the same political ideology, they are just voted for by liberals or conservatives, while us radicals fume about how wimpy the two parties are.

Outright revolution tends to be a bit too messy IMHO, best off trying something else.

Indeed. I suggest we all wear black berets, go to coffee shops and complain about everything in specific while smoking unfiltered cigs. It worked in the last century.

America needs to be much more Socialist. And Socialism isn't Communism, you rightist wackos.

We need government control of utilities. We need a much better tax system. We need universal healthcare. We need more programs to help the needy and less fortunate. We need a lot more than we already have, and we have the capability to do so.


I wholeheartedly agree with you, but what I must ask, is how would we best pull off these changes? From what I can see, it will be too hard to legislate, so should we rebel a bit?

We know what the governmental problems are, so how do we go about getting a solution if playing by the rules doesn't get us anywere? Our buddies on the right often don't play by the rules, should we regardless?

Viva la libertarian revolution!

I wholeheartedly agree with you, but what I must ask, is how would we best pull off these changes? From what I can see, it will be too hard to legislate, so should we rebel a bit?

We know what the governmental problems are, so how do we go about getting a solution if playing by the rules doesn't get us anywere? Our buddies on the right often don't play by the rules, should we regardless?

There is simply no "clean" way of going about it. I would recommend a "soft/hard" approach to the problem of government reform, no matter who's side you're on.

The trick is to have or make friends within the government structure who can work with you to apply pressure within and make your voice heard within the circles of power. This can be as simple as having a single voice highly placed or a patsy you can buy to make your case for you.

That's soft power, massaging the system to make sure you are not blocked from power when tension comes.

Then you need hard power; in this case it would take the form of mass protests, government shut-downs, highlighting mass-dissatisfaction and government ineffectiveness. You also need angry people to play the part of outraged intellectuals; hard power relies a lot on anger over reason, those who fire up crowds and raise new points of contention are very important. To make sure they stay on message and don't split off your own team, you'll need at least some control over them.

People will see reasonable voices within the government advocating your reforms, angry intellectuals who blast the system's faults and massive mobs of voters and protesters who can interrupt the government's daily functions.

Its a one-two punch; you need both hard and soft power or it simply fizzles out. Mass protests do nothing without voices within the government to react to them, intellectual movements are two quickly isolated or marginalized by themselves. Government officials can do nothing without political backing and the prospect of political gain.

Now, you CAN play this by the rules, but to a certain extent rules are being re-written by these very actions. You don't need to do anything illegal for this to work, but it may mean doing things that are dishonest or mean.

In political realities terms, Hitler is considered right, Che Guevara is considered left, democrats and republicans are millimeters away, next to the middle.

The Democratic and Republican party are really gradients of the same political ideology, they are just voted for by liberals or conservatives, while us radicals fume about how wimpy the two parties are.

So ...

.. if you are not a fascist, you are not really conservative

...if you are not a Marxist revolutionary, you are not really a liberal

No wonder you think the Democrats and Republicans are the same.

And, yes, American politics involve primarily "gradients of the same political ideology." Big differences between the two major parties. Huge differences. But they fit within the same broad spectrum. Unless we seriously need a revolution, so what?

As to needing a revolution, please name 3 desirable policies that require a revolution to change.

(And be sure to explain how these policies can be achieved by revolution, but not within our system.)

Once you've named your 3 policies that require revolution, we can weigh them against the benefits of our constitutional system. I bet revolution loses.

Viva la libertarian revolution!
I'm with you! It'll be too fun to ovethrow both the left, and right whackjobs. :D

Revolution may be messy but its time for Americans to overthrow their govt and restore Democracy

And though he was beaten in the primaries, Edwards parents were mill workers.


LOL!! Yes that is right, his father did work in a mill....as the manager!! (info. from chris matthews on hardball--don't ask me for a link please).

LOL!! Yes that is right, his father did work in a mill....as the manager!! (info. from chris matthews on hardball--don't ask me for a link please).

i guess a link wasn't too hard to find, wikipedia

"His father was a textile mill production manager"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards

Chris Matthews is a big fat disgusting sellout pig with a tacky dye job--someone should shove a boot in that fat red screaming face of his

"It’s time to change
It can’t stay the same
Revolution is my name
It will never change
So here it stays
Forever is my name"
-"Revolution Is My Name", by Pantera

Chris Matthews is a big fat disgusting sellout pig with a tacky dye job--someone should shove a boot in that fat red screaming face of his

To whom has he sold out....and what was the price?

LOL!! Yes that is right, his father did work in a mill....as the manager!! (info. from chris matthews on hardball--don't ask me for a link please).

My dad works in a concrete factory as a manager, but that doesn't exactly make him an executive or anything. Are Edwards' roots not humble enough if his father was one step above the lowest and still very far from the elite? Or do only coal miners and the homeless qualify as "humble"?

I was under the impression that Clinton came from relatively humble roots. And though he was beaten in the primaries, Edwards parents were mill workers.


NO,no no, Clinton, Bush, Kerry and all those others in DC are all part of the same group. There are no Democrats, Republicans. It's all a ruse. There is only one party. They take turns as President and just further along there world agendas. It's a big scam! Wake up people!

NO,no no, Clinton, Bush, Kerry and all those others in DC are all part of the same group. There are no Democrats, Republicans. It's all a ruse. There is only one party. They take turns as President and just further along there world agendas. It's a big scam! Wake up people!

I seriously hope you're kidding.

To whom has he sold out....and what was the price?
hes a fat sow feeding at the trough of the corporate pig media

I seriously hope you're kidding.

With a name like that can you be sure?

My dad works in a concrete factory as a manager, but that doesn't exactly make him an executive or anything. Are Edwards' roots not humble enough if his father was one step above the lowest and still very far from the elite? Or do only coal miners and the homeless qualify as "humble"?

Obviously, humble is a relative term, especially when compared to Edwards/Kerry's current level of comfort. However, ask anyone in a union what they think of management and I doubt they will consider them one of their own. According to salary.com, the median pay for assembly workers (binding, canning, etc.) in NC is $20,000-23,000, while a level I foreman is paid $40,000. A level II production manager is paid roughly $53,000. So even a foreman, let alone a manager, lives comfortably.

Regardless, I don't think he grew up in a home that was as 'humble' as he built it up to be in his '2 americas' speeches. Even so, this is America and millions of people have come from 'humble' beginnings and are more successful than their parents.

hes a fat sow feeding at the trough of the corporate pig media

haha...so anyone who is employed by a tv station or newspaper is corporate pig media? where do you get your info. from?

haha...so anyone who is employed by a tv station or newspaper is corporate pig media? where do you get your info. from?
from the Relevant Media and the foreign media

from the Relevant Media and the foreign media

foreign media is either controlled by corporations or governments...given the choice i'll take the former!

foreign media is either controlled by corporations or governments...given the choice i'll take the former!

More so than American media? Now I really hope you're kidding.

Obviously, humble is a relative term, especially when compared to Edwards/Kerry's current level of comfort. However, ask anyone in a union what they think of management and I doubt they will consider them one of their own. According to salary.com, the median pay for assembly workers (binding, canning, etc.) in NC is $20,000-23,000, while a level I foreman is paid $40,000. A level II production manager is paid roughly $53,000. So even a foreman, let alone a manager, lives comfortably.

Regardless, I don't think he grew up in a home that was as 'humble' as he built it up to be in his '2 americas' speeches. Even so, this is America and millions of people have come from 'humble' beginnings and are more successful than their parents.

From your own source, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards):

Edwards was born in Seneca, South Carolina. His name at birth was Johnny Reid. He spent his formative years in the town of Robbins, North Carolina. His father was a textile mill production manager, while his mother was a postal employee. Edwards was the first person in his family to attend college, first attending Clemson University and then later transferring to (North Carolina State University) when his family moved to North Carolina.

John Edward's dad was a textile mill production manager and his mother was a postal employee. He was the first person in his family to attend college.

Not the poorest folk in America, but pretty damn humble. The fact that people are successful by the time they run for President is irrelevant. If they weren't, they'd be unlikely to be qualified and/or people wouldn't vote for them.

And you did a nice job of ignoring Bill Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton):

Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe IV in Hope, Arkansas and raised in Hot Springs, Arkansas. He was named after his father, William Jefferson Blythe III, a travelling salesman who had been killed in a car accident in Scott County, Missouri between the towns of Sikeston and Morley just three months before his son was born. His mother, born Virginia Dell Cassidy, remarried in 1950 to Roger Clinton. Billy, as he was called, was raised by his mother and stepfather, using the last name "Clinton" throughout elementary school, but not formally changing it until he was 15. Clinton grew up in a turbulent family. His stepfather was a gambler and alcoholic who regularly abused his wife, and sometimes Clinton's half brother Roger, Jr. (born 1956).

Clinton excelled as a student and as a saxophone player. At one time, he considered becoming a professional musician. As a delegate to Boys Nation while in high school, he met President John F. Kennedy in the White House Rose Garden. This encounter has often been romanticized as a crucial factor in leading Clinton to begin a life of public service.

He rose from poverty to graduate from the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University with a degree in International Politics. While attending Georgetown, he was a congressional aide for Senator William Fulbright. After graduation, he attended England's prestigious Oxford University (University College) on a Rhodes Scholarship, and received a law degree from Yale Law School. At Yale, Bill Clinton met Hillary Rodham, and they married in 1975. They have one daughter, Chelsea, born in 1980.

The original argument (which I recognize was not yours) was that no President since Lincoln had come from humble beginnings. That is hogwash.

As to needing a revolution, please name 3 desirable policies that require a revolution to change.

Once you've named your 3 policies that require revolution, we can weigh them against the benefits of our constitutional system. I bet revolution loses.I believe the point made in the maiden post was that revolution was required because of the plutocratic/oligarchic/corporate-owned nature of the government; the poster implied, I think, that the changes that might normally be possible in a government that works like it should on paper would stymie any attempt at true reform. Because the people in power are essentially conservatives in the sense that they wish to maintain their power structures and, to do so, supposedly prevent true reform, it would follow that perhaps a revolution - violent or otherwise - is required.

I believe the point made in the maiden post was that revolution was required because of the plutocratic/oligarchic/corporate-owned nature of the government; the poster implied, I think, that the changes that might normally be possible in a government that works like it should on paper would stymie any attempt at true reform. Because the people in power are essentially conservatives in the sense that they wish to maintain their power structures and, to do so, supposedly prevent true reform, it would follow that perhaps a revolution - violent or otherwise - is required.

Intelligent response, but it neatly avoided the question.

What reform? Why? Why can't we get it democratically?

If we assume we want some reform and if we assume that reform is impossible without revolution, then perhaps a revolution is required. But that assumes to much. It is essentially assuming the conclusion.

Name the reform. Name why it can only be achieved by revolution. Then we can weigh the advantages of the reform against the disadvantages of revolution.

Otherwise, you are just whistling in the wind.

Going back to the point, a revolution can not occur in a functioning democracy without creating oppression. Look through history and you will find very few occasions where revolution has resulted in a fairer system for all.

I do agree though that FOX news prevents accurate news stories from being presented and this does influence the way people vote. Did you know that in the UK, Al Jazeera is to be given a licence to broadcast from the country, yet FOX has been deemed to biased!

Despite that I qualify as a certified left wing crazy I'm dead set against revolution, reason being is that it's primary function is to reinforce the powers of the state. Plus all that icky blood.

Historically most positive social change has come through wide spread social movements, universal suffrage for instance, abolishment of slavery, elimination of Jim Crow laws etc. etc.

So, get active. Go to meetings, meet like-minded individuals, educate those around you.

Read some Howard Zinn, it's uplifting.

snip

That has to be one of the most annoying fonts ever.

Don't. Do Not. Do That. Again. Ever. Please.

That has to be one of the most annoying fonts ever.

Don't. Do Not. Do That. Again. Ever. Please.

You said it, man... That's some annoying shit.

That has to be one of the most annoying fonts ever.

Don't. Do Not. Do That. Again. Ever. Please.


Seconded.

What about Jimmy Carter? He came from a peanut farm background and went to public schools. His brother was an alcoholic, his sister a Harley Davidson motorcyclist and his other sister an evangelist. How much more working class can you get.l

Historically most positive social change has come through wide spread social movements, universal suffrage for instance, abolishment of slavery, elimination of Jim Crow laws etc. etc.

So, get active. Go to meetings, meet like-minded individuals, educate those around you.

Read some Howard Zinn, it's uplifting.

that is all just part of the process of revolution. you can't get anywhere without a social revolution. but when push comes to shove, you are going to have to stand and fight to defend the gains of the social revolution against the reactionary backlash. and all the meetings in the world can't do that for you.

Outright revolution tends to be a bit too messy IMHO, best off trying something else.

revolution does not mean revolutionary terror or bloody coups.

that is all just part of the process of revolution. you can't get anywhere without a social revolution. but when push comes to shove, you are going to have to stand and fight to defend the gains of the social revolution against the reactionary backlash. and all the meetings in the world can't do that for you.

Ah, I misunderstood you. I thought you were asking whether the violent revolution should be instituted. I believe that there is some doubt about a violent reactionary backlash, when you consider that Milosovic and Ceaceascu (sp?) were overthrown by general strikes and popular movements.
Same goes for Chavez thwarting the military coup and the Bolivians recent wins against corporate robber barons.

The reason I think is this, once a social movement has gained enough momentum the amount of state sponsored violence required to suppress it is too great - it'll trigger a REAL revolution. What usually happens is once the movement has sufficiently advanced the establishment will try to co-opt and subvert it so they can claim success for themselves and for the system. "See! The two party system works! Now come and join our party and dissipate all your energy campaigning and fundraising for the party."

The workers, the unemployed, the marginalized and all those who are exploited by the elite need to take conscience of their common interests. The internet is a wonderful tool for a revolution, as the struggles globalises. The american proletariat is not alone. We were more than 75 000 to protest in Brussels this week end from every corners of Europe. We need to unite more closely with every corners of the globe in order to form a massive progressive power of change.

Seconded.

Thirded.

There are days (like yesterday when I went on my rant) when I would've said: "Absolutely! Let's grab some molotovs and organize! Down with the government!"

But, most of the time I'm pretty chill. I understand that our country is fucked up. I hope to fix it in my own way. Revolution is only a neccessity when the government decides to go too far with its power.

Seconded.

Fine, I have changed it.

Corporate welfare is the norm, the combined worth of our 50 richest people is 489.5 billion dollars, close to the national debt. [/B]
489.5 billion is not remotely close to the national debt. The US national debt is over 7.7 trillion and growing.

489.5 billion is not remotely close to the national debt. The US national debt is over 7.7 trillion and growing.
Don't worry. Thank god, they lowered the taxes for the rich. There may be some people starving but fortunatelly some people make billions and billions of dollars faster and faster. You don't have to worry their future is very bright.

This country has some serious problems. A two-party system whose parties are only different in the sense that Republicans are generally more distasteful than Democrats. Our elite do not herald from the working-class. The last president who had humble roots was Lincoln. Corporations will say jump, and the government will say, how high? Corporate welfare is the norm, the combined worth of our 50 richest people is 489.5 billion dollars, close to the national debt. Americans are raised with the values of the elite. Socialism is considered a problem from the eyes of the wealthy, and everyone believes it. We are indoctrinated from an early age with the belief that all of us will some day, become as rich as Bill Gates, the only thing you have to do is try. 80% of people think that they are middle-class, which is a designation properly given only to people who own businesses. So what should we do? Accept that America will remain a country of the elite, by the elite, and for the elite? Legislate, trying to do what we have been doing? Should we rebel and win some of the socializations that have helped Europe and Canada so much? Or what about outright revolution? Take the constitution and white out the part that talks about free trade and property rights?

What would be best for us on the left side of the fence? Post your opinion, don't flame me for my thoughts, and let's see what liberals really think about how we should better America!
What surprises me is that more far-leftists haven't gone public with the idea of armed revolution. That historically seems to be the elitist position taken by leftists ... "since the masses have been deluded into believing something other than what we know they should, we will revolt, overthrow the evil capitaists, and re-educate the masses to believe as we know they should."

Personally, I'd love to see the revolution happen ... I could use the target practice. :)

I think a revolution would be a good idea, as long as a good dictator was put in charge.
Dictatorships bring much more progress and change than democracy.

I think a revolution would be a good idea, as long as a good dictator was put in charge.
Dictatorships bring much more progress and change than democracy.
"Good dictator" is an oxymoron.

Kinda like "leftist logic." :D

It's not an oxymoron.

I believe the word "Tyran" would be better suited in this case. A dictator is not necessarily one person. For instance it can be a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, or a dictatorship of the clergé.

It's not an oxymoron.
Name one dictatorship that ended in something other than disaster.

I believe the word "Tyran" would be better suited in this case. A dictator is not necessarily one person. For instance it can be a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, or a dictatorship of the clergé.
Calling something a "dictatorship" doth not a dictatorship make. Try a definition first. :)

This country has some serious problems. A two-party system whose parties are only different in the sense that Republicans are generally more distasteful than Democrats. Our elite do not herald from the working-class. The last president who had humble roots was Lincoln. Corporations will say jump, and the government will say, how high? Corporate welfare is the norm, the combined worth of our 50 richest people is 489.5 billion dollars, close to the national debt. Americans are raised with the values of the elite. Socialism is considered a problem from the eyes of the wealthy, and everyone believes it. We are indoctrinated from an early age with the belief that all of us will some day, become as rich as Bill Gates, the only thing you have to do is try. 80% of people think that they are middle-class, which is a designation properly given only to people who own businesses. So what should we do? Accept that America will remain a country of the elite, by the elite, and for the elite? Legislate, trying to do what we have been doing? Should we rebel and win some of the socializations that have helped Europe and Canada so much? Or what about outright revolution? Take the constitution and white out the part that talks about free trade and property rights?

What would be best for us on the left side of the fence? Post your opinion, don't flame me for my thoughts, and let's see what liberals really think about how we should better America!

Antidisestablishmentarianism for all!!

Name one dictatorship that ended in something other than disaster.

Name one democrat capitalist society that has ended that has ended in something other than disaster.

Name one democrat capitalist society that has ended that has ended in something other than disaster.
The United States of America.

Now will you anwer the question?

Name one democrat capitalist society that has ended that has ended in something other than disaster.

Shoot. Barring the 4th French Republic, I can't name one!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_French_Republic

Calling something a "dictatorship" doth not a dictatorship make. Try a definition first. :)
Well I believe it comes from the word "dictat", derived into "dictate". I believe a dictatorship is the product of dictating. The subject of the dictatorship is not defined, and I believe it can be anything. I think you could even correctly talk about the dictatorship of the weather. A tyran on the other hand is defined as one ruling person. I think it is a more precise word for what PurpleMouse wants to say, but I can't be sure.

Don't worry. Thank god, they lowered the taxes for the rich. There may be some people starving but fortunatelly some people make billions and billions of dollars faster and faster. You don't have to worry their future is very bright.

Yep. It's a pity that the bottom 50% pay 4% of the taxes.

The poor don't pay taxes!! That's why they don't get tax breaks!!
http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html

"Revolution" to overthrow democracy is a crock of shit. Revolution is supposed to be the rising up of the oppressed majority against a tyrant or ruling elite. If the majority wants something in a democracy they vote for it. A revolution which takes place in a democratic society is just a thinly disguised coup d'etat.

To say that the majority actually are oppressed but are tricked into thinking they're not by the evil capitalist media is redundant as well. The evil capitalists are convincing the populace to vote for economic freedom? Well nobody's stopping you from trying to convince them otherwise. Start a socialist radio broadcast or publish socialist books.

Staging a coup and censoring "the evil capitalist pig media" is just going to piss off everybody who isn't a socialist revolutionary, and we outnumber you sufficiently that a counter-revolution would certainly occur. We [the non-revolutionary club] outnumber you because if we didn't, your leaders would win elections and you wouldn't have anything to whine about.

The only reason the majority of people aren't socialists is because most people are stupid.
It is very simple.

Then how would a revolution work if most of the people don't support you?

This country has some serious problems. A two-party system whose parties are only different in the sense that Republicans are generally more distasteful than Democrats. Our elite do not herald from the working-class. The last president who had humble roots was Lincoln. Corporations will say jump, and the government will say, how high? Corporate welfare is the norm, the combined worth of our 50 richest people is 489.5 billion dollars, close to the national debt. Americans are raised with the values of the elite. Socialism is considered a problem from the eyes of the wealthy, and everyone believes it. We are indoctrinated from an early age with the belief that all of us will some day, become as rich as Bill Gates, the only thing you have to do is try. 80% of people think that they are middle-class, which is a designation properly given only to people who own businesses. So what should we do? Accept that America will remain a country of the elite, by the elite, and for the elite? Legislate, trying to do what we have been doing? Should we rebel and win some of the socializations that have helped Europe and Canada so much? Or what about outright revolution? Take the constitution and white out the part that talks about free trade and property rights?

What would be best for us on the left side of the fence? Post your opinion, don't flame me for my thoughts, and let's see what liberals really think about how we should better America!

I'm not American, but I think you should opt for the fourth option. Be more protesting than you have been until now, but don't use any form of violent revolution. I know it's tempting, but it only annoys people.

IMO education is the best way to go. You educate the people, you form a political left wing party. You get the people to vote you in. Isn't that what democracy is about?

The only reason the majority of people aren't socialists is because most people are stupid.
It is very simple.

It is even more simple: most people don't care about Socialism, since their basic needs are taken care of in a capitalist society.

Historically, revolution comes from the middle, not the upper or lower classes. The American, French, and Russian Revolutions *all* were brought about by a middle class afraid of losing their status/being treated unfairly.

The only reason the majority of people aren't socialists is because most people are stupid.
It is very simple.

The problem with an elitist philosophy like that is that you'll have a hard time forcing it onto everyone else - the majority - who don't agree with you.

As for the idea that socialists are clever and capitalists are stupid, well, that's crap if ever I heard it. Bill Gates, what a dumbass right? Oh wait.

IMO education is the best way to go. You educate the people, you form a political left wing party. You get the people to vote you in. Isn't that what democracy is about?

Exactly. If everybody really is so oppressed, and all it takes it to educate them, well, nobody's stopping you from running a private school, or publishing a book, or starting up a radio station or whatever. That's one of the joys of capitalism in fact. You can do pretty much whatever you want.

foreign media is either controlled by corporations or governments...given the choice i'll take the former!
but your not given the choice-The corporate media in America is owned by the govt

but your not given the choice-The corporate media in America is owned by the govt

Huh?

If anything the reverse is true... the gov't is owned by the corporations!

Else, don't you *think* that little incident with the prison in Iraq would have been stifled?

The government needs to be smaller and stop trying to control everybody.

I'm not American, but I think you should opt for the fourth option. Be more protesting than you have been until now, but don't use any form of violent revolution. I know it's tempting, but it only annoys people.

Ya, if you become violent, then you loose popular support. You have to provoke the non-revolutionaries into violence, which provokes the government into violence.

If more people saw the measures that the police took at the WTO confrence in Seatle and the NYC Republican convention then the Repubs would never have taken the White House again. If you get the same sort of thing to happen when the government is split with Repubs and Dems, then you've got revolution brewing.

but your not given the choice-The corporate media in America is owned by the govt

I'm not sure I often agree with Markreich :p, but you do have it backwards.

The government needs to be smaller and stop trying to control everybody.

I can go with this I guess.

Huh?

If anything the reverse is true... the gov't is owned by the corporations!

Else, don't you *think* that little incident with the prison in Iraq would have been stifled?
Ok Ill go with that--theres an incestuas relationship there and the republican party now controls the US mainstream media

"What surprises me is that more far-leftists haven't gone public with the idea of armed revolution. That historically seems to be the elitist position taken by leftists ... "since the masses have been deluded into believing something other than what we know they should, we will revolt, overthrow the evil capitaists, and re-educate the masses to believe as we know they should."

The formula we Maoists like to use is.. "Create Public Opinion, Seize Power!", not the other way around.

A revolution can't be made unless you have the people, in the millions and millions, on your side - especially not in an advanced capitalist country like the United States. And that's not going to happen until you have a revolutionary situation. Of course, for a good portion of the population the situation is already pretty fucked up, to make a gross understatement, but revolution can't happen until there is some kind of crises in the system - when things become not only just fucked up, but absolutely intolerable for the majority of people. A crises of confidence in capitalism, so to speak. We don't have to create this crises ourselves; because of the nature of capitalism (economic instability, the unpredictableness of a market economy, etc), they HAPPEN whether anyone likes it or not.

So, when we talk about revolution, we've not talking about some kind of putsche by a handful of armed men that's going to happen tomorrow before people get on our side, carried out by some sort of elite communist warrior caste. Even if that objectively COULD be successful in the US - which is unlikely - the kind of system that comes out of something like that wouldn't be something worth fighting for. Any revolution that hopes to succeed in the initial seizure of power and the creation of a new, better society afterward HAS to rely on the broad masses of people or doom itself to failure.

Ya, if you become violent, then you loose popular support. You have to provoke the non-revolutionaries into violence, which provokes the government into violence.

If more people saw the measures that the police took at the WTO confrence in Seatle and the NYC Republican convention then the Repubs would never have taken the White House again. If you get the same sort of thing to happen when the government is split with Repubs and Dems, then you've got revolution brewing.

WTO in Seattle was during the Clinton Administration. Not only that, but it was in Seattle which has... one republican politician, and he's not the mayor, county executive, or Governor.
If anything, WTO/Seattle was an indictment of the Left-Coast Left-wing, since the state-sponsored response was dictated by Mayor Nickels, (now County Executive Nickels.) and orchestrated in part by liberal-democrat State Attorney General (and Phony Governor of Washington State, now) Christine Gregoire (Voted in by Felons, fictional People, and the Dead in Seattle on the third "Recount"-which included such lovely shenanigans as the "Discovery" of over nine hundered ballots that hadn't been counted, an 1800 vote discrepancy between registered voters and votes counted, documented incidents of ballots altered in districts with disproportional change-rates during the recount...)
So... WTO '99 is a perfect example of how the local Left Wing Establishment copes with protests.

Note also that NYC is a Democratic Stronghold-or was, at least, before someone smashed two airliners into a pair of office-blocs that just happened to include a large number of democratic contributors.

I'll point out one other thing: You Leftward Radicals would do well, if you would simply stop treating the people you claim you represent with utter and complete contempt.

Over and over, in conversations with real-live-in-person leftists, I come across this impression that if you don't have your face on People, or a PhD. You don't have an opinion worthy of consideration by your Left-Leaning intellectual betters.

This makes it REAL hard for working-class people to tolerate, much less embrace, the statements made by such examples of careful thought and probidity as Michael Moore, Ward Churchill, and Howard Dean.

In fact, it's your worst weakness, because your opponents have repeatedly found it easy to communicate their ideas, by simply being respectful of the views and concerns of the people whose votes they are trying to get.

Put it this way: Most Military People come from lower-middle-class backgrounds, and they have relatives and family members who vote.
Calling American Soldiers "War Criminals" and implying that they are, put bluntly, dupes, isn't going to score points-except for your opponent, who isn't saying that kind of thing. Putting up a barroom Rambo for president won't help you either. it didn't take the 527's to bring Kerry down-he did that all by himself with his braggart swagger phoney-patriot act.
Bill Clinton was, at least, a genuine War-protestor who didn't try to rewrite his history to play off a marginal military record. (beleive it, you don't get out of Vietnam with all your pieces still working early if you're doing a good job over there. It didn't happen, anymore than a guy could get out of Iraq with all his bits in place before the end of his tour if he's being Audie Murphy. Most of middle America, that piece you Leftists insist is too stupid to know what's best for them, knows better through something called 'experience'.)

So... WTO '99 is a perfect example of how the local Left Wing Establishment copes with protests.

Well that argument is correct if you accept that the Democrats are actually left wing. Generally the Republicans side with major finance and the Democrats side with the owners of industrial labour, any benefits industrial workers get is just a byproduct of Democrats helping out their buddies who own the plants.


I'll point out one other thing: You Leftward Radicals would do well, if you would simply stop treating the people you claim you represent with utter and complete contempt.
Over and over, in conversations with real-live-in-person leftists, I come across this impression that if you don't have your face on People, or a PhD. You don't have an opinion worthy of consideration by your Left-Leaning intellectual betters.
This makes it REAL hard for working-class people to tolerate, much less embrace, the statements made by such examples of careful thought and probidity as Michael Moore, Ward Churchill, and Howard Dean.
In fact, it's your worst weakness, because your opponents have repeatedly found it easy to communicate their ideas, by simply being respectful of the views and concerns of the people whose votes they are trying to get.

Put it this way: Most Military People come from lower-middle-class backgrounds, and they have relatives and family members who vote.
Calling American Soldiers "War Criminals" and implying that they are, put bluntly, dupes, isn't going to score points-except for your opponent, who isn't saying that kind of thing. Putting up a barroom Rambo for president won't help you either. it didn't take the 527's to bring Kerry down-he did that all by himself with his braggart swagger phoney-patriot act.
Bill Clinton was, at least, a genuine War-protestor who didn't try to rewrite his history to play off a marginal military record. (beleive it, you don't get out of Vietnam with all your pieces still working early if you're doing a good job over there. It didn't happen, anymore than a guy could get out of Iraq with all his bits in place before the end of his tour if he's being Audie Murphy. Most of middle America, that piece you Leftists insist is too stupid to know what's best for them, knows better through something called 'experience'.)

You've got a point, again if you consider Democrats left wing... But are they really? On what major economic or foreign policy issues do Democrats and Republicans differ? Free trade, nope. Invasion of Iraq, nope. Universal health care, nope.

As far as working types are concerned I think the Republicans are better liars that's all, they hate you as much as the Democrats, though.

Well that argument is correct if you accept that the Democrats are actually left wing. Generally the Republicans side with major finance and the Democrats side with the owners of industrial labour, any benefits industrial workers get is just a byproduct of Democrats helping out their buddies who own the plants.



You've got a point, again if you consider Democrats left wing... But are they really? On what major economic or foreign policy issues do Democrats and Republicans differ? Free trade, nope. Invasion of Iraq, nope. Universal health care, nope.

As far as working types are concerned I think the Republicans are better liars that's all, they hate you as much as the Democrats, though.

Get. A. Grip.

"Democrats" are not a uniform body, but the Democrats generally do disagree with Republicans on both the Invasion of Iraq and Universal Health Care. The Democrats are somewhat split on Free Trade (--is the side of the people for or against?)

Other Economic issues: Social Security, minimum wage, tax cuts for the wealthy versus lower and middle class tax cuts, college tuition assistance, increasing aid to the poor, ending corporate welfare, support for unions, stopping outsourcing, etc.

Foreign policy: support for the UN, Clinton's Isreal-Palestine peace plan, Latin American - including Cuba, Clinton's Belfast agreement, foreign aid, international efforts to fight HIV/Aids, Kyoto Treaty, the Hague, and just about every other treaty.

(And you conveniently ignore Civil Rights, Education, Environmental protection, and a host of other topics.)

These are just a handful of examples off the top of my head. The Democratic Party and Republican Party are hardly the same.

WTO in Seattle was during the Clinton Administration. Not only that, but it was in Seattle which has... one republican politician, and he's not the mayor, county executive, or Governor.

I didn't know that this was a Bush v. Clinton thread. And you seem to be under the impression that Clinton was a left wing politician. He wasn't. He signed and supported NAFTA and the telecommunications deregulation act. He was a fairly conservative politician. The only good thing I have to say about Clinton was that he was supremly compotent. He wasn't nice, he wasn't morally good, he wasn't liberal. But he was a damn fine politician who knew how to run a country. Every fault I lay at Clinton's feet I lay at Bush's feet manyfold, plus he's an incompotent leader.

If anything, WTO/Seattle was an indictment of the Left-Coast Left-wing, since the state-sponsored response was dictated by Mayor Nickels, (now County Executive Nickels.) and orchestrated in part by liberal-democrat State Attorney General (and Phony Governor of Washington State, now) Christine Gregoire (Voted in by Felons, fictional People, and the Dead in Seattle on the third "Recount"-which included such lovely shenanigans as the "Discovery" of over nine hundered ballots that hadn't been counted, an 1800 vote discrepancy between registered voters and votes counted, documented incidents of ballots altered in districts with disproportional change-rates during the recount...)
So... WTO '99 is a perfect example of how the local Left Wing Establishment copes with protests.

The left leaning, relative to neo-cons, is not what we're talking about. This is a thread about revolution, not electioneering. Just because you're a Democratic politician doesn't mean you actually occupy the left. How leftist do you think that mayor would be compared to the protesters?

Note also that NYC is a Democratic Stronghold-or was, at least, before someone smashed two airliners into a pair of office-blocs that just happened to include a large number of democratic contributors.

You don't know much about our politics, do you? We have a Republican governer who has had fairly comfortable re-elections. We have had two republican mayors in a row. Though most people here acknowledged that Guliani was an arrogant prick, he'd have won re-election even without 9/11 if we didn't have term limits. We're fairly conservative here, in the classical sense of small government and individual freedom. It's only in national elections that we send out Democrats, but even that is because we realize that in national politics "conservatives" are more repressive.

I'll point out one other thing: You Leftward Radicals would do well, if you would simply stop treating the people you claim you represent with utter and complete contempt.

Over and over, in conversations with real-live-in-person leftists, I come across this impression that if you don't have your face on People, or a PhD. You don't have an opinion worthy of consideration by your Left-Leaning intellectual betters.

It's a bit hard to respect the opinions of people who are so determined to vote against their best interests just because they are so easy to manipulate by their most base and vulgar impulses and their ignorance.

This makes it REAL hard for working-class people to tolerate, much less embrace, the statements made by such examples of careful thought and probidity as Michael Moore, Ward Churchill, and Howard Dean.

And since you've demonstrated your inability to understand their ideas and your willingness to embrace those of the rightist politicians just because they know how to speak in sound-bites some of us are driven to ask "just how bad to things have to get before even a republican voter will have to admit that these guys don't have the right idea."

In fact, it's your worst weakness, because your opponents have repeatedly found it easy to communicate their ideas, by simply being respectful of the views and concerns of the people whose votes they are trying to get.

They respect their ideas, but not their intelligence. BTW I'm working class myself. I'm the son of a construction worker, I've worked as a laborer (commoner even by construction worker standards).

Put it this way: Most Military People come from lower-middle-class backgrounds, and they have relatives and family members who vote.
Calling American Soldiers "War Criminals" and implying that they are, put bluntly, dupes, isn't going to score points-except for your opponent, who isn't saying that kind of thing. Putting up a barroom Rambo for president won't help you either. it didn't take the 527's to bring Kerry down-he did that all by himself with his braggart swagger phoney-patriot act.
Bill Clinton was, at least, a genuine War-protestor who didn't try to rewrite his history to play off a marginal military record. (beleive it, you don't get out of Vietnam with all your pieces still working early if you're doing a good job over there. It didn't happen, anymore than a guy could get out of Iraq with all his bits in place before the end of his tour if he's being Audie Murphy. Most of middle America, that piece you Leftists insist is too stupid to know what's best for them, knows better through something called 'experience'.)

There you have it. Do you honestly believe that "swift boat veterans for truth" crap? Republican voters have proven that their intellect cannot be appealed to. Their virtue cannot be appealed to. They lack both of those qualities. Some people are going to ask themselves "if republicans are this stupid, and liberals are this powerless then the whole system is fucked up and needs to be fixed?"

There you have it. Do you honestly believe that "swift boat veterans for truth" crap? Republican voters have proven that their intellect cannot be appealed to. Their virtue cannot be appealed to. They lack both of those qualities. Some people are going to ask themselves "if republicans are this stupid, and liberals are this powerless then the whole system is fucked up and needs to be fixed?"

There you have it. Do you honestly believe that "vast right wing conspiracy" crap? Democratic voters have proven that their intellect cannot be appealed to. Their virtue cannot be appealed to. They lack both of those qualities. Some people are going to ask themselves "if democrats are this stupid, and conservatives are this powerless then the whole system is fucked up and needs to be fixed?"

BTW: I'm an Independent. GOPs and DEMs are the 85-95% the same. :(
Think it over.

Republican voters have proven that their intellect cannot be appealed to. Their virtue cannot be appealed to. They lack both of those qualities.

And the Democrats, of course, have a monopoly on both of these qualities. Right?

Ok Ill go with that--theres an incestuas relationship there and the republican party now controls the US mainstream media

Er... no. That's not quite right. It's not about GOP or DEM.

And the GOP certainly does *not* control mainstream media. Fox News? Maybe.

There you have it. Do you honestly believe that "swift boat veterans for truth" crap?

As a former military person, I find it interesting that such a large number of people who served with Kerry felt compelled to come forward with any accusations of misconduct at all - when they weren't being paid to do so.

The only veteran who served with Kerry who said anything good about him was a paid member of his campaign staff.

For 30 or more people who served with you and knew you to think you're a complete dick, and only one person says "he's great", and that one person is paid to say so - that's rather hard to ignore.

As a former military person, I find it interesting that such a large number of people who served with Kerry felt compelled to come forward with any accusations of misconduct at all - when they weren't being paid to do so.

They didn't serve with him. They lied. Some of them served in the same place at a different time, some of them served at the same time in a totally different place. Everyone who served with him described his performance as the closest thing this world has to Rambo. Even the guy who said that he treated John Kerry's injuries was proven to be lying. And now those same people are lying about the AARP. They're a professional slander group, not a veterans' group.

Ok, a bit of sleep (instead of being up at 0200 in the morning) Let me try this again:

In the UNITED STATES the Left has a serious problem communicating its ideas to the people it alleges to be looking out for. This is called a Communication Problem. It is quite serious.

In particular, it's a Salesmanship issue. If you're selling something, and you treat your potential customers like they're (censored) morons, you're not going to sell much.

Condescension doesn't motivate people to take you seriously in a good way. (at least, not in the United States... it may work elsewhere, I don't know.)


The Right in the U.S. is making its gains mainly because the Right in the U.S. doesn't treat the voter base like they're stupid or irresponsible.

The second problem the Left has, is that they're in a timewarp politically-most of the rhetoric would play better in 1961, than it does today. The anti-war rhetoric would play more effectively in 1968, than it does today.

When people aren't buying into your message, you might want to consider the question of "WHY?" and examine your methods, message, and beliefs to see if there is something about them that Joe Average finds repulsive.

Over all, the American culture is 'moderate' on the American scale. Advocacy of extreme shifts, whether right-or-left (Pat Buchanan anyone? John Dean?)
tends to leave you in the Lunatic Fringe-if you're lucky.
It garners no votes.

Similarly, treating the voters like they're stupid (Bush Sr., Bob Dole, John McCain, Al Gore Jr., John Kerry, Howard Dean, and John Edwards) won't win the election for you either.

Think about the tone of my last post, and this one. Ask yourself: "Would I vote for this condescending bastard?" If the answer is 'yes' you're a Sycophant, if the answer is 'no', you might consider analyzing why, and applying the same to people who work with their hands for a living, because most of them are not as stupid or irresponsible, as you seem to think they are.

If you want people to listen to your message, you need to find out if they already have, but simply rejected it-and why they rejected it.

And the Democrats, of course, have a monopoly on both of these qualities. Right?

Not a monopoly on both. Most Republicans have either one or the other. An intelligent person who votes Republican knows that, for example, the conservative position on law enforcement, to build bigger and bigger jails and lock more and more people up, is nothing but harmful to society because it costs more to prevent crime that way than to invest in social welfare programs which encourage people to invest in society. They prefer the conservative way not because it's effective, but because they prefer to hurt people than to help them. This is a sort of pro-active, selfless evil, but there are more lazy evil Republicans who think that they're saving money by being cruel and take joy in suffering that they think is justifiable.

Those conservatives who think that it would be nice to help these people, but too costly are simply ignorant, because you save more by solving the causes of crime than responding to it.

Democrats who are ignorant or unintelligent are kind hearted enough to support investment in social welfare programs, even if it will cost a little more, which it won't but they think it will. Democrats who are callous are willing to invest in social welfare programs because it costs them less than simply escalating the prison industry. They might not care about the suffering of those in the prison system, but they don't want to have to pay for it.

There you have it. Do you honestly believe that "vast right wing conspiracy" crap? Democratic voters have proven that their intellect cannot be appealed to. Their virtue cannot be appealed to. They lack both of those qualities. Some people are going to ask themselves "if democrats are this stupid, and conservatives are this powerless then the whole system is fucked up and needs to be fixed?"

Look into this book. (http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0312273193.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)

One of the writers was a researcher for that "vast right wing conspiracy." The neo-con right in this country is actually very well organized.

Conservatives are actually quite powerful, so I don't see how you think that your "plug-and-play" argument works. Democratic politicians are fairly inept for the most part, but as for the voters there is a demonstrable causal link between being well educated and being a liberal voter. I.E. the more ignorant you are, the more conservative you are. There's also a strong corralation between coming from a rich family and being conservative, I.E. the further away from the working class you are the more likely you are to vote conservative. The only people left for conservatives are those who oppose the working class and those who don't know what is harming the working class. Fortunatly for conservative politicians there seems to be no end to these people.

BTW: I'm an Independent. GOPs and DEMs are the 85-95% the same. :( Think it over.

On average, perhaps. But there is a world of difference between the Dennis Kucinniches and the Howard Deans of the Democratic party and the Tom DeLay's and the Bill Frists of the Republican party. It would be nice if you could have evolution, where each generation is a little, but not noticibly, better than the previous one, but unfortunatly we're moving in the wrong direction, and with Bush it isn't even incremental degradation. He's just a fuck up.

Ok, a bit of sleep (instead of being up at 0200 in the morning) Let me try this again:

In the UNITED STATES the Left has a serious problem communicating its ideas to the people it alleges to be looking out for. This is called a Communication Problem. It is quite serious.

In particular, it's a Salesmanship issue. If you're selling something, and you treat your potential customers like they're (censored) morons, you're not going to sell much.

Condescension doesn't motivate people to take you seriously in a good way. (at least, not in the United States... it may work elsewhere, I don't know.)


The Right in the U.S. is making its gains mainly because the Right in the U.S. doesn't treat the voter base like they're stupid or irresponsible.

Actually that's exactly how they treat them. If they thought that their voter base was intelligent they wouldn't come out complaining about gay cartoons and telling them that a tax that only affect millionaires will cause Anna Mae to loose the family farm. They think that their voter base is full of idiots, they treat them as such, and they're well rewarded for it.

Similarly, treating the voters like they're stupid (Bush Sr., Bob Dole, John McCain, Al Gore Jr., John Kerry, Howard Dean, and John Edwards) won't win the election for you either.

John McCain didn't treat his voters like they were stupid. Bush did. His campaign called people up asking questions like "if you found out that McCain had an illegitimate black child would you be less likely to vote for him?" You have to think someone is pretty stupid and fairly evil if you think that that will get them to vote for you. It worked. Bush treats his voters like they're stupid evil assholes. Not in that he gave them what stupid evil assholes deserve mind you, rather when trying to appeal to them his campaign asks itself "what is it that stupid evil assholes want?" and then gives it too them.

Think about the tone of my last post, and this one. Ask yourself: "Would I vote for this condescending bastard?" If the answer is 'yes' you're a Sycophant, if the answer is 'no', you might consider analyzing why, and applying the same to people who work with their hands for a living, because most of them are not as stupid or irresponsible, as you seem to think they are.

Well the problem is, when democrats vote we ask "what's this guy going to do when he gets into office, and what will the effect be?" when republicans vote they ask "would I like to have a beer with this guy, maybe share a meatloaf?" If those things appeal to you in a politician you're an idiot.

If you want people to listen to your message, you need to find out if they already have, but simply rejected it-and why they rejected it.

Democrats are offering the better plan and the better results. If republicans are voting against it then it's not the democrats fault. All the democrats need to start asking is "how to we make good ideas sound palatable to stupid evil assholes?" because right now all their asking is "what's a good idea?"

But again, this isn't a thread about electioneering. It's a thread abourt revolution. Wiping away the old system to correct the fundamental flaws. Right now the fundamental flaw is that the country is full of right wing idiots who are entitled to a vote. This thread does not concern itself with "how do we fix the democrats to get republicans to vote for them?" the question is "what the fuck is wrong with conservatives that they keep putting these assholes in office and keep falling for this retarded shit?"

The Right in the U.S. is making its gains mainly because the Right in the U.S. doesn't treat the voter base like they're stupid or irresponsible.

oh yes they do. its pretty much the entirety of their strategy - "we can do whatever the hell we want and directly contradict ourselves and lie and cheat and steal, just as long as we use a couple of key magic words that the people who vote for us want to hear".

they don't say that they think their voter base is stupid. but they certainly treat them as if they were. and they do seem to get away with it. draw what conclusions you will.

oh yes they do. its pretty much the entirety of their strategy - "we can do whatever the hell we want and directly contradict ourselves and lie and cheat and steal, just as long as we use a couple of key magic words that the people who vote for us want to hear".


To claim that the entire right act in that way is ludicrous bias. Left wing politicians often lie too, some right-wingers don't. Actually, it's my opinion that most politicians on both sides are often lying bastards, which is one reason government should have as little power as possible.

To claim that the entire right act in that way is ludicrous bias. Left wing politicians often lie too, some right-wingers don't. Actually, it's my opinion that most politicians on both sides are often lying bastards, which is one reason government should have as little power as possible.

Damn, if only we had people like you in politics. :(

Though the situation is grim and civil rights are on the fall, revolution isn't an option. A revolution should only occur when the government fails to fulfill its side of the social contract and that is to protect the freedoms of its citizens.

Liberals are in a bind. In 2004 the two parties TRULY represented in the electionw ere the Republicans and the Constitutionals. The Constitutionals won (but to Bush's credit, he isn't quite a Peroutka). John Kerry wasn't even a "Democrat." The only people worth voting for were Nader and Badnarik, and Badnarik's economics were iffy.

However, due to the wild popularity (again) of Neo-Conservativism, the Republicans are likely to remain in power until the whole cutting taxes but still spending more thing wears off and the problems with such a system are absolute... Absolute meaning biting America in the ass as China and Japan only strengthen to crush our industries.

This country has some serious problems. A two-party system whose parties are only different in the sense that Republicans are generally more distasteful than Democrats.
Feh, the left has given this libertarian just as much (even more) trouble than the right.

Corporate welfare is the norm, the combined worth of our 50 richest people is 489.5 billion dollars, close to the national debt.
Actually, corporate welfare is anti-capitalist in nature - as a hardcore capitalist I actually consider it to be quite socialist

Legislate, trying to do what we have been doing?
All you lefists think that laws will solve the problem - it is my humble opinion that the fewer unnecessary laws, the better.

Even though I'm libertarian I couldn't help but respond.

The only reason the majority of people aren't socialists is because most people are stupid.
It is very simple.
Then why are some of the most intelligent people in the world not socialists? Or would you disagree with that premise?

Ok Ill go with that--theres an incestuas relationship there and the republican party now controls the US mainstream media
Nonsense. The parties have almost nothing to do with it.

Then why are some of the most intelligent people in the world not socialists?
That depends entirely on your definitions of "the" and "not", and the concept of being.

:D

Look into this book. (http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0312273193.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)

One of the writers was a researcher for that "vast right wing conspiracy." The neo-con right in this country is actually very well organized.

Ah. And the DEMs aren't well organized? C'mon now. Both parties have their strengths and weaknesses. It just happens that the GOP is reaping the benefit of 20 years of poorly run DEM Presidential bids. Seriously: Had Gulf War 1 been 6 months later, Bush Sr. would have beaten Clinton in 92' with ease.

Conservatives are actually quite powerful, so I don't see how you think that your "plug-and-play" argument works.

I did the PnP to show it's all in one's perspective. The GOP played the game a bit better. But to say that the DEMs are in any way superior to the GOP (or vice versa) is to me silly.

Democratic politicians are fairly inept for the most part, but as for the voters there is a demonstrable causal link between being well educated and being a liberal voter.
Elitist bull plop.

I.E. the more ignorant you are, the more conservative you are.
More bull plop.
As an example, take my state: Connecticut. The cities (6 of 'em) vote DEM. The towns vote GOP. You want to tell me that Bridgeport is smarter than Greenwich?

There's also a strong corralation between coming from a rich family and being conservative, I.E. the further away from the working class you are the more likely you are to vote conservative.
Also bull plop.
You're saying that if you're rich you're ignorant, or if you're ignorant, you're rich??
Counter examples: Hollywood. The Kennedys. Manhattan. All rich, all DEM.
Washington DC: 70% voted for Kerry, but has the worst education system in the nation.

The only people left for conservatives are those who oppose the working class and those who don't know what is harming the working class.
Yet most blacks vote DEM. Go figure.

Fortunatly for conservative politicians there seems to be no end to these people.
I think it has more to do with the fact that Gore managed to lose his own state and Kerry couldn't speak "American". Had either of them have won, this GOP hegemony would not have happened.

On average, perhaps. But there is a world of difference between the Dennis Kucinniches and the Howard Deans of the Democratic party and the Tom DeLay's and the Bill Frists of the Republican party.
World? Nah. They're the same on 85%-95% of the issues, and polar opposites on the rest. That's all.

It would be nice if you could have evolution, where each generation is a little, but not noticibly, better than the previous one, but unfortunatly we're moving in the wrong direction,

I disagree.

and with Bush it isn't even incremental degradation. He's just a fuck up.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I think you're doing yourself a disservice. Any President is worthy of some respect, even wasteoids like Grant or Hoover.
Also, I have yet to see anyone criticize Bush that didn't lambast his speech impediment or just call him a monkey or a fuck up or something. :(

Though the situation is grim and civil rights are on the fall, revolution isn't an option. A revolution should only occur when the government fails to fulfill its side of the social contract and that is to protect the freedoms of its citizens.Then revolutions should occur frequently.

Actually, corporate welfare is anti-capitalist in nature - as a hardcore capitalist I actually consider it to be quite socialist

we need to come up with better terms

a capitalist is a person that can live off of their ownership of capital through charging workers rent to use it. you are almost certainly not a capitalist in this sense.

corporate welfare is not free-market, but it is certainly pro-capitalist and capitalists certainly are in favor of it. not all things that are not free-market are socialist. and conversely, there are such things as free-market socialists.

Feh, the left has given this libertarian just as much (even more) trouble than the right.


Actually, corporate welfare is anti-capitalist in nature - as a hardcore capitalist I actually consider it to be quite socialistWhile I don't see any real moral difference between social welfare and coporate welfare, I don't really think it's fair to the socialists to use their label for something they don't generally support. Corporate welfare spending can be considered more of an element of facism or corporatism. We free-market types should be able to agree with the lefties that corporate welfare is a bad thing instead of us calling it socialism and them calling it capitalism.

we need to come up with better terms

a capitalist is a person that can live off of their ownership of capital through charging workers rent to use it. you are almost certainly not a capitalist in this sense.

corporate welfare is not free-market, but it is certainly pro-capitalist and capitalists certainly are in favor of it. not all things that are not free-market are socialist. and conversely, there are such things as free-market socialists.

Being a capitalist doesn't depend on social standing, it depends on philosophy. A capitalist doesn't have to own a factory to be a capitalist, and the same in reverse is true of socialists. Marx's dad was a captain of industry, so Marx was certainly very rich, but he wasn't a capitalist.

A capitalist believes in free-market economics. A capitalist can be a mansion-dweller or a hobo, it's not about wealth, but about political ideals.

I'm a capitalist, and I think corporate welfare is just as bad as social welfare.

That depends entirely on your definitions of "the" and "not", and the concept of being.

:D
:confused:

"The" is a pretty insignificant word, many language do without an equivalent.

"Not" is very significant word which modifies the following words to mean the opposite of their meaning. Example: "The door is not closed." means the door is open since a door can only be either open or closed.

I can't help you with the concept of being. Maybe you can find an objectivist and ask them about the law of identity

Being a capitalist doesn't depend on social standing, it depends on philosophy. A capitalist doesn't have to own a factory to be a capitalist, and the same in reverse is true of socialists. Marx's dad was a captain of industry, so Marx was certainly very rich, but he wasn't a capitalist.
Thank you. This is a common misperception. Apparently the thinking is that only the rich would actually favor capitalist wealth distribution. I'm not rich, never have been, and probably never will be, but I'm a free-market capitalist and always will be.

A capitalist doesn't have to own a factory to be a capitalist

yes, they do (not necessarily a factory, but definitely capital). that is what the historical usage of the term has been. those are the people socialists have been fighting against.

as the online oed says,

One who has accumulated capital; one who has capital available for employment in financial or industrial enterprises. Also attrib. and Comb., as capitalist-imperialist.

1792 A. YOUNG Trav. France 529 A gross evil of these direct imposts is, that of moneyed men, or capitalists, escaping all taxation. 1823 COLERIDGE Table-t. 27 Apr., The poor-rates are the consideration paid by..capitalists for having labour at demand. 1845 DISRAELI Sybil (1863) 95 The capitalist flourishes, he amasses immense wealth; we sink, lower and lower; lower than the beasts of burthen. 1845 J. S. MILL in Edin. Rev. LXXXI. 525 This is true of capitalist farmers..but not of labourer-farmers. 1867 J. B. KINNEAR Quest. for Refd. Parlt. 213 The capitalist class. 1937 ‘G. ORWELL’ Road to Wigan Pier xii. 247 The capitalist-imperialist governments..will not fight with any conviction against Fascism.

the "capitalists as any advocate of a free-market system" usage is a later extension of the term that serves mainly to muddy the debate. oddly enough, it seems to have come mainly from the same people who also took up the terms 'anarchism' and 'libertarianism' to use in ways completely at odds with historical usage. funny that.

Thank you. This is a common misperception. Apparently the thinking is that only the rich would actually favor capitalist wealth distribution. I'm not rich, never have been, and probably never will be, but I'm a free-market capitalist and always will be.

no, it's your side holding the misperception. you may be a free-marketeer or an advocate of a system of capitalism or whatever, but unless you own capital you are not a capitalist.

no, it's your side holding the misperception. you may be a free-marketeer or an advocate of a system of capitalism or whatever, but unless you own capital you are not a capitalist.

My political philosophy is capitalism. My level of accumulated wealth does not detract from my political ideas.

Capitalism today, in the 20th and 21st century, is a political and social ideology which has nothing to do with the circumstance of the person who believes it.

I imagine that there are many on this board, capitalist or otherwise, who will agree on this point.

Capitalism today, in the 20th and 21st century, is a political and social ideology which has nothing to do with the circumstance of the person who believes it.

whatever, arguments about definitions aren't much fun anyways. just remember that nearly every time you encounter an anti-capitalist talking about capitalists, they will be refering to the owners of capital (unless the context makes clear otherwise) and not to neo-liberals or whatever.

oh yes they do. its pretty much the entirety of their strategy - "we can do whatever the hell we want and directly contradict ourselves and lie and cheat and steal, just as long as we use a couple of key magic words that the people who vote for us want to hear".

they don't say that they think their voter base is stupid. but they certainly treat them as if they were. and they do seem to get away with it. draw what conclusions you will.

First, turno off the Michael Moore tape, take it out of the VCR... okay. now...
Go back, and READ THE TRANSCRIPTS. Use your non-political education, and check the claims item-by-item, from the transcripts of the speeches themselves.

Don't rely on the Cliff's Notes versions.

When you've done that (which I had to do, being as teevee reception out here sucks, and my system won't handle that level of Multimedia), when you've done that... then talk about who's lying. "Talking Points" don't work, reading for content works. One of the biggest parts of your side's communication problem, is that you hear only what you want to hear, and only know what you've heard from other members of your 'community'.

The other portion of it, is the assumption (made on this very thread) that Conservatives are either Evil, or Stupid.

This is a dangerous assumption to make, because it alienates anyone who might be wavering, and it seeps through your rhetoric. IF someone sits there telling you how much they hate you, are you going to take any suggestion they give you seriously???

Be Honest now.

Ah. And the DEMs aren't well organized? C'mon now. Both parties have their strengths and weaknesses. It just happens that the GOP is reaping the benefit of 20 years of poorly run DEM Presidential bids. Seriously: Had Gulf War 1 been 6 months later, Bush Sr. would have beaten Clinton in 92' with ease.

You mean if it wasn't more immediatly obvious how awful Bush was he'd have won? Ya, probably. Unfortunatly it's even more obvious how awful Bush Jr. is and he's winning anyway.

I did the PnP to show it's all in one's perspective. The GOP played the game a bit better. But to say that the DEMs are in any way superior to the GOP (or vice versa) is to me silly.

Yes, but you're using the same type of debate stile that I always criticize conservatives for. Saying two sentences that have a similar cadence and acting as if that cadence makes the two statements similar despite the fact that one is clearly false.

Elitist bull plop.

More bull plop.

Also bull plop.

If you don't believe it just check the statistics.

You're saying that if you're rich you're ignorant, or if you're ignorant, you're rich??

No, I'm saying that conservative politics only help the rich. If you think that they help you and you're not rich then you're ignorant.

Counter examples: Hollywood. The Kennedys. Manhattan. All rich, all DEM.
Washington DC: 70% voted for Kerry, but has the worst education system in the nation.

I pointed out earlier that New Yorkers vote Republican in local elections. You can't pigeonhole them as Democratic voters, but they know that on the national level that conservatives are dangerous to the interests of the Northeast.

Yet most blacks vote DEM. Go figure.
It's quite clear to blacks that Republicans don't represent the interests of the working class, not because blacks get a better education, but because however bad Republican politicians make things for the white working class they make it exponentially worse for minorities.


I think it has more to do with the fact that Gore managed to lose his own state and Kerry couldn't speak "American". Had either of them have won, this GOP hegemony would not have happened.

Well Gore loosing a single state has nothing to do with loosing the others. You're saying that people don't vote Dem because of irrelevancies. Window dressing decides whether or not the conservativly inclined will vote for their best interests, or for Republicans. And you still defend the intelligence of the Republican voters?


World? Nah. They're the same on 85%-95% of the issues, and polar opposites on the rest. That's all.
In that those on neither side want to Nuke Canada or mandate a daily heroin intake, sure, there's some common ground, but the Tom DeLay's and John Ashcrofts are against all American values while dressing up things like corporate welfare as pro-capitalism and allowing hospitals to unplug life support against the families wishes as being pro-civil rights.

I disagree. (on slowly moving the country in the right political direction)

Well perhaps you could tell me something about Bush that you think is moving the country in the right direction? I don't mean bland platitudes like "culture of life" or "small government" because he stands for neither of those things. Tell me something he's accomplished, some good that's come out of something he's done.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I think you're doing yourself a disservice. Any President is worthy of some respect, even wasteoids like Grant or Hoover.
Also, I have yet to see anyone criticize Bush that didn't lambast his speech impediment or just call him a monkey or a fuck up or something. :(

That's because he IS a fuck up. I never call him a monkey, or make fun of his lack of speaking skills except to point out that when he's trying to sound compasionate or incisive he stutters and stammers, when he's trying to sound like a bully and an arrogant prick (because his voters do like that) he not only sounds lucid, but almost eloquent. A fairly good indication that he's a naturally evil person trying to put a good face on his evil decisions.

Just because 50+ million idiots and jerks voted for him doesn't mean I have to respect him. He's an evil cruel heartless excuse for a human being. He deserves neither respect nor allegience.

The other portion of it, is the assumption (made on this very thread) that Conservatives are either Evil, or Stupid.

This is a dangerous assumption to make, because it alienates anyone who might be wavering, and it seeps through your rhetoric. IF someone sits there telling you how much they hate you, are you going to take any suggestion they give you seriously???

Be Honest now.

That's the problem you see. We haven't been making that assumption. We've been trying to appeal to their intelligence and their virtue. When we try to appeal to their compassion over the criminal justice system we're told that "bad folks" don't deserve our compassion. When we try to argue that it costs less to educate in poor neighborhoods than allow degrading educational systems to turn out criminals then we're told "why should MY property taxes for MY school district go to some n****r school?"

We assume that they're intelligent and compassionate and that if they get all the facts they'll make the right choice. They then turn back on us by rejecting the facts and embracing intolerance and revenge.

Our assumption in the basic goodness of human beings has been our weakness. We think that because we're reasonable and compassionate then so are the conservatives, but they're not. The assumption has cost us, but we're starting to wake up from that dreamland.

Then revolutions should occur frequently.

From time to time it is necessary for the tree of liberty to be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.-- Thomas Jefferson.

While I don't see any real moral difference between social welfare and coporate welfare, I don't really think it's fair to the socialists to use their label for something they don't generally support. Corporate welfare spending can be considered more of an element of facism or corporatism. We free-market types should be able to agree with the lefties that corporate welfare is a bad thing instead of us calling it socialism and them calling it capitalism.

You don't see a moral difference by organizing the laws in which the economy functions so that rich people get even richer by giving less back to the community and a system in which money is encouraged to go into the hands of those who are least able to accumulate it on their own?

Note, those who are least able to accumulate money are not those who do no work. Take music for example. What does Simon Cowel contribute to the music he produces? There are many many talented makers of music out there, but all the money accumulates in the hands of those who do the marketing. As Robin Leech put it, going platinum can mean going broke.

First, turno off the Michael Moore tape, take it out of the VCR... okay. now...
Go back, and READ THE TRANSCRIPTS. Use your non-political education, and check the claims item-by-item, from the transcripts of the speeches themselves.

Don't rely on the Cliff's Notes versions.

When you've done that (which I had to do, being as teevee reception out here sucks, and my system won't handle that level of Multimedia), when you've done that... then talk about who's lying. "Talking Points" don't work, reading for content works. One of the biggest parts of your side's communication problem, is that you hear only what you want to hear, and only know what you've heard from other members of your 'community'.

The other portion of it, is the assumption (made on this very thread) that Conservatives are either Evil, or Stupid.

This is a dangerous assumption to make, because it alienates anyone who might be wavering, and it seeps through your rhetoric. IF someone sits there telling you how much they hate you, are you going to take any suggestion they give you seriously???

Be Honest now.

And you have persistently assumed that liberals and/or Democrats are Evil or stupid. Way to take the moral high ground. :rolleyes:

That's the problem you see. We haven't been making that assumption. We've been trying to appeal to their intelligence and their virtue. When we try to appeal to their compassion over the criminal justice system we're told that "bad folks" don't deserve our compassion. When we try to argue that it costs less to educate in poor neighborhoods than allow degrading educational systems to turn out criminals then we're told "why should MY property taxes for MY school district go to some n****r school?"

We assume that they're intelligent and compassionate and that if they get all the facts they'll make the right choice. They then turn back on us by rejecting the facts and embracing intolerance and revenge.

Our assumption in the basic goodness of human beings has been our weakness. We think that because we're reasonable and compassionate then so are the conservatives, but they're not. The assumption has cost us, but we're starting to wake up from that dreamland.


No, examine your own rhetoric... ask yourself what you said that got rejected.

See, Your opponents look into what you have to say. They almost can't avoid it-anyone that attends public school in the U.S. will get healthy doses of it on a daily basis. (My Niece is an example of this-she repeats 'talking points' faithfully about subjects she genuinely doesn't understand...she's 12)

But the Left never bothers to look at what the underpinnings of their opponents are based on, or what experiences might have reinforced those impressions.

It takes 30 to 45 minutes for the Police to arrive, on average, where I live, on an 911 call. It's sheer distance. Owning a gun is probably a good idea (I've held a man for the cops before. Took them longer than the average-about an hour-and yes, I did time it. My hand felt like lead by the time they arrived, and the adrenaline took most of the night to burn off.)

Gun-Control is not a winning issue out here.

Increased education is fine-if you're actually educating them. Our schools out here are third highest for spending, and something like fifth lowest for performance in the nation.

I don't think spending more money is going to help. firing some demagogues and finding real educators might work-but the positions are protected, a teacher practically has to be a kiddie-pornographer to get canned.

Naturally, one of the big issues with the conservatives is "School Choice", and districts have to really promise something serious before they get their property-tax increase.

Ever tried to start a business? I have. (Please note: Washington State has one of the highest Liberal/Democrat percentages at the local and county level of anywhere west of the Mississippi, and a long tradition of Left-wing politics).
Sixty thousand dollars later, I gave up. this was not money I could afford to spend, either.
Most of it was trying to comply with regulations that mean little to outfits the size of Microsoft or Boeing, but they're applied at the small-scale as well, and that kills your chance if you aren't a multimillionaire.

Leftists Love Regulation, so does Big Business. It keeps the Competition away. Anyone else, gets screwed.

Moving from Local to national...

"So, We invaded Iraq." The diffference between a Lie and an Error needs to be noticed here, along with something else: The Sanctions were doing a bang-up-job of starving Iraqi Civilians into submission. They had no effect on the Iraqi Government or their cronies. Further, they were being circumvented (Oil for Food, only it didn't buy much in the way of food, did it?), while we were Obligated/i] to maintain the blockade, (which, ifn you don't know, isn't real good for foreign relations in that part of the world...and isn't all that great for the guys on the ships, just ask the crew of the USS Cole.)
Americans as a whole don't like to lose. You'll note that our guys are more likely now, to come home, and stay home, than they were three years ago.
AND we don't have to maintain an eternal guard on yet-another-crackpot.

AND, the aid is finally going to the people who were supposed to be recieving it in the first place.

The only downside, being the passage of the 'Patriot Act'-which the left has, apparently, forgotten they can gain some goddamned traction on.

This abomination of the law should be-but isn't being-challenged at every turn, it's virtually [i]Imperium for anyone in the White House-particularly with the suspension of Habeas Corpus, and some of the other provisions.

Ask yourself why the organized left in this country not mounted a serious, organized, challenge of this law?

The answer-the only answer that adds up, should scare the bejeezus out of you (but probably won't).

They're hoping to use it in 2008.

Here's one where the Left could build a bridge to the rank-and-file on the right, but they won't, because they want it for themselves.

See, I've read it, a person who wants to become a Tyrant and impose their will can use it-quite easily- to do so, and nothing can stop them.
They can declare any group a "Terrorist threat", and use it to arrest, detain, and strip anyone they choose-without a trial. anyone can be held for any length of time without being charged.

It's a presigned hunting license for anyone that wants to impose their utopia on the rest of us.

Yet, there is no concerted effort by the Left to address this...

See, I view all politicians as essentially venal, dangerous, irresponsible little men. (and women), but I especially have suspicions about those that tell me that I need their 'help'.

And you have persistently assumed that liberals and/or Democrats are Evil or stupid. Way to take the moral high ground. :rolleyes:

I don't see anyone assuming that here. I actually don't think that most liberals are evil, nor stupid. Matter of fact some of them are very smart! I even like Bill Clinton...now that he's out of office...

The point is, you don't have to be evil (or stupid) to be wrong. I think we can safely say that both sides are wrong on some issues. The REAL debate here is, which issues are important?

On a side note, there is one other thing that can get you in trouble as a teacher at a public school: if a an atheistic parent should find out that you practice mainstream Christianity, you might as well start filing resumes. This, in the land of the free...

And the Democrats, of course, have a monopoly on both of these qualities. Right?
alot more so then republicans who only appeal to peoples basest instincts

Er... no. That's not quite right. It's not about GOP or DEM.

And the GOP certainly does *not* control mainstream media. Fox News? Maybe.
republicans hijacked the corporate media thru consolidation and an organized campaign of character assassination of any reporter who dares to criticize the current regime

As a former military person, I find it interesting that such a large number of people who served with Kerry felt compelled to come forward with any accusations of misconduct at all - when they weren't being paid to do so.

The only veteran who served with Kerry who said anything good about him was a paid member of his campaign staff.

For 30 or more people who served with you and knew you to think you're a complete dick, and only one person says "he's great", and that one person is paid to say so - that's rather hard to ignore.
the ONLY veterans who criticized Kerrys war record were all on the GOP payroll and their latest lies for the GOP include making ads to justify destroying social security

Nonsense. The parties have almost nothing to do with it.
Foxnews is an arm of the RNC

America is still standing. Will it ever fall? Or just evolve?

America is still standing. Will it ever fall? Or just evolve?
it will fall or devolve if the nazis currently in power succeed with their anti-human agenda

it will fall or devolve if the nazis currently in power succeed with their anti-human agenda
okay, so now republicans and conservatives are nazis?
i dont see your reasoning...

regarding the start of the thread, i believe it is a necessary evil.
if there is a person in power that acts as the only political body (such as monarchs) that degrades upon the basic civil rights that people have, then they, as a law, have the right to rebel against such an oppressive govt.

read some of John Locke to get more from this subject.

Foxnews is an arm of the RNC

The same way NPR, CNN, CBS, and ABC are arms of the DEMs? :rolleyes:

it will fall or devolve if the nazis currently in power succeed with their anti-human agenda

I'm just wondering how the government will collapse.

republicans hijacked the corporate media thru consolidation and an organized campaign of character assassination of any reporter who dares to criticize the current regime

Translation: That's great rhetoric. Who'd you steal it from? Franken? :rolleyes:

What consolidation?
What character assassination? The kind ala Whoopi Goldberg/Michael Moore? (Read: both sides do that.)

okay, so now republicans and conservatives are nazis?
i dont see your reasoning...
the links are pretty clear for those willing to do the research with an open mind

The same way NPR, CNN, CBS, and ABC are arms of the DEMs? :rolleyes:
nope not at all--the ONLY media outlet that favors the dems in any capacity at all is AirAmerica and theyre brand new

Depression, Uprising, Revolution, New Government, with me in power. My like minded consorts are planning as I type.

Revolution is neither good nor evil it is merely an exchange of power between two parties through what ever means possible.

I'm just wondering how the government will collapse.
It may not collapse but it will become a tyrannical death dealing monster

nope not at all--the ONLY media outlet that favors the dems in any capacity at all is AirAmerica and theyre brand new
okay, no...
MSNBC and NBC favor dems so bad...
they had kerry ahead almost the whole election coverage, though bush was up for mostly the whole thing.

the links are pretty clear for those willing to do the research with an open mind
thats evidence...
i want to know why you feel that way

okay, no...
MSNBC and NBC favor dems so bad...
they had kerry ahead almost the whole election coverage, though bush was up for mostly the whole thing.
MSNBC is virulently pro-war and rightwing and NBC purged all its liberal reporters and is part of the cowed media. The only reason they with held declaring a winner for so long is cause they remeber the kind of shananigans Bush pulled during the 2000 election and didnt want to be embarrassed again

MSNBC is virulently pro-war and rightwing and NBC purged all its liberal reporters and is part of the cowed media. The only reason they with held declaring a winner for so long is cause they remeber the kind of shananigans Bush pulled during the 2000 election and didnt want to be embarrassed again
then why do they continue to report about the death toll in Iraq? or is that CBS?

then why do they continue to report about the death toll in Iraq? or is that CBS?
prly to throw a bone to the families of soldiers whose kids died in Iraq for Bushs greed but youll notice they wont show any soldiers coffins and one of these corporate stations last year wouldnt even allow a program that was devoted to reading off the names of dead soldiers on the air and even censored showing Saving Private Ryan for fear it may spark antiwar sentiments

it will fall or devolve if the nazis currently in power succeed with their anti-human agenda

I don't think it's fair to call Dianne Feinstein a Nazi, nor is it fair to characterize Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, or Charles Schumer with such an inflammatory tag, nor would it be fair to characterize their opposite-numbers in the Senate and House as Nazis. National Socialism revolves around State Control. Neither the Left, nor the Right, taken rank-and-file and slicing the extremists off both, (which leaves you with some small, but very vocal, scraps on the floor) is quite willing (yet) to impose state-control over every aspect of the citizen's life.
The left, it's true, wants the state to control your economic life, and the extreem right has 'social' issues it wants to impose on your private life-but neither one is quite so crazy as to think that the STate should control BOTH.


I'd agree that there is a certain anti-human agenda out there, though: Greenpeace, PETA, ALF, the Sierra Club, etc. are very anti-human, and very anti-technological human. (though they, like virtually every other fruitcake, Moonbat, and lunatic-fringe extremist, still use the Internet.)

The debate from right-to-left comes down to priorities, and where the government has a right to intrude.
The Right wants the government to leave you alone economically, it bases its moral ground on the idea that you, as an individual, are smart enough to handle your own finances without interference.

The Left (in its more benign form) wants the government to get the hell out of the bedroom, kitchen, and ideally out of the yard. They also would like it if we were all nicer to each other. This is a good thing.

Where the Right falls down, is that it thinks maybe imposing some morals by government will make everyone get along better. Usually, those morals are dictated by older, more established organizations of morality, commonly termed "Religion".

The Left, on the other hand, wants to use the power of government to directly dictate THEIR idea of how to make people get along better-this has a whole lot of names, but the most commonly encountered one is 'Political Correctness'. Like the right, Demogogues on the Left discount their opposition's ideas out-of-hand, and without consideration.

Extremes on both sides paint the other as 'evil', 'morally bankrupt' and 'corrupt'.

When discussing the Extremes on both sides, they are correct.

Radical Leftists are every bit as morally bankrupt as Jerry Falwell and his phanatic phollowers.

Neither should be allowed access to what is commonly considered 'real power', both will impose some form of their brand of Utopia to the detriment of the rest of us, both will use the same "We're doing it to you for your own good" line of B.S.

Both are willing to dispose of Morality, Honour, and the better angels of our natures to impose their will on the rest of us.

Neither is fit to be trusted further than you can confirm, because both will use hyperbole, soundbites, accusations and outright lies to further their goals.
The further out on the spectrum you go, moreover, the more likely both are to use violence, criminal actions, dirty tricks, and Lawyering to get what they desire-usually at the expense of some innocent bystander.

In the more mainstream side of things, the American brand of Leftist is inclined to use tax-money to subsidize his vision of a better society, this inclination is stronger on the left, than on the current brand of the right, but it exists there too. Again, neither should be entirely trusted, but then again, anyone who desires Political Power should, by definition, not be trusted.

Government is a big, vicious, animal, that should be restrained as heavily as possible, and only turned on those that would attack its masters (that, incidentally, would be, in the case of the United States, the Citizens of the United States. We're the Sovereigns here, by law.)

Neither major political party is willing to restrain that animal as strongly as it ought to be-because letting it run loosely-bound grants them power, power that is addictive, destructive, and corrupting.

The basic difference between American Leftists, and the American right, when you get down to the rank-and-file, is that one trusts Government to solve problems, and the other does not. Government has not gotten smaller, not even when Mr. Clinton said the era of big government was over.

Government is, by its nature, then, a necessary evil. We Have to have it, but this does not mean we have to trust it.

This goes back to my first point in this thread. What is it, that the Left has proposed, that the American People so reject, and was it how the proposal was made?

The answer is two parts:
1. The idea that more government, in more places, can fix problems that, for the most part, were caused by more government.

2. That people aren't responsible enough to handle their own affairs, and need government to do it for them.


The first part insults the intelligence of the average person, whose life has not been materially helped by increasing intrusions, added laws, zoning restrictions, more paperwork, and more taxes.

The second part insults the Honour and Moral character of the average person, by saying that he's irresponsible/lacks compassion/can't take care of himself or attend to his or her own affairs.

At over 18000 pages, the U.S. Tax code may contain provisions that assist most people-but you need a lawyer to find them. Further, at that level of complexity, only the wealthiest .5% of citizens can afford the staffing to take advantage of those provisions.
Incidentally, that .5% is the level that provides the bulk of Legislators, Lawyers, Judges, and other Political scum, along with their masters in the boardrooms of big-business and big-labour.

Ask a worker whose job went to China if his Labour Union did a damned thing to keep him employed, to keep the jobs here, where the members were. The AFL-CIO is dominated by Civil Service unions, and Civil Servants are almost NEVER laid off or outsourced.

Machinists, Millwrights, Factory workers, and refinery workers are.
In the last twelve years, I've had three companies go out from under me-two went to China, the third folded up tents and went under-because of conflicting regulations.

My brother-in-law "Works" for the State. He's pulling down what I was pulling down at the best of the three jobs-only he neither has to work particularly hard, nor use much brainpower in what he does. In the private sector, his job would have been automated or outsourced twenty years ago. His benefits are three times what I got at Boeing, for instance.

I'm not the only person out here that's had the opportunity to make this comparison. Nor am I the only working-class person who's learned how to read a Shareholder's report, expense report, or prepare an environmental impact statment/application for land use.
I can also compare something called "Operating Costs", and being that most of my experience is in a field that involves competition from overseas, I am somewhat more aware of both regulations at home, and treaty provisions abroad.

Carrot-and-stick, over the last thirty years, it's gotten more expensive to operate anything that involves manufacturing in the U.S., at the same time, thanks to treaties like GATT, companies are encouraged to move overseas, where those regulations don't exist. The Kyoto Protocols would have accellerated this flight of jobs overseas enormously.

It's almost excuseable if the party doing it is openly friendly to big-business.
Under those conditions, you at least know what you're getting.

It's inexcuseable when they claim to represent the working man. It's highly inexcuseable when the answer given to this, is yet more regulation at home, which encourages businesses to go elsewhere even faster.



:headbang:

you can't have it all-you have to choose. If you choose wrongly, expect to lose at the polls.
That is how it works. The Left favours things that, taken together, are toxic, therefore, they have begun losing, and losing badly.

I don't think it's fair to call Dianne Feinstein a Nazi, nor is it fair to characterize Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, or Charles Schumer with such an inflammatory tag, nor would it be fair to characterize their opposite-numbers in the Senate and House as Nazis. National Socialism revolves around State Control. Neither the Left, nor the Right, taken rank-and-file and slicing the extremists off both, (which leaves you with some small, but very vocal, scraps on the floor) is quite willing (yet) to impose state-control over every aspect of the citizen's life.
The left, it's true, wants the state to control your economic life, and the extreem right has 'social' issues it wants to impose on your private life-but neither one is quite so crazy as to think that the STate should control BOTH.


I'd agree that there is a certain anti-human agenda out there, though: Greenpeace, PETA, ALF, the Sierra Club, etc. are very anti-human, and very anti-technological human. (though they, like virtually every other fruitcake, Moonbat, and lunatic-fringe extremist, still use the Internet.)

The debate from right-to-left comes down to priorities, and where the government has a right to intrude.
The Right wants the government to leave you alone economically, it bases its moral ground on the idea that you, as an individual, are smart enough to handle your own finances without interference.

The Left (in its more benign form) wants the government to get the hell out of the bedroom, kitchen, and ideally out of the yard. They also would like it if we were all nicer to each other. This is a good thing.

Where the Right falls down, is that it thinks maybe imposing some morals by government will make everyone get along better. Usually, those morals are dictated by older, more established organizations of morality, commonly termed "Religion".

The Left, on the other hand, wants to use the power of government to directly dictate THEIR idea of how to make people get along better-this has a whole lot of names, but the most commonly encountered one is 'Political Correctness'. Like the right, Demogogues on the Left discount their opposition's ideas out-of-hand, and without consideration.

Extremes on both sides paint the other as 'evil', 'morally bankrupt' and 'corrupt'.

When discussing the Extremes on both sides, they are correct.

Radical Leftists are every bit as morally bankrupt as Jerry Falwell and his phanatic phollowers.

Neither should be allowed access to what is commonly considered 'real power', both will impose some form of their brand of Utopia to the detriment of the rest of us, both will use the same "We're doing it to you for your own good" line of B.S.

Both are willing to dispose of Morality, Honour, and the better angels of our natures to impose their will on the rest of us.

Neither is fit to be trusted further than you can confirm, because both will use hyperbole, soundbites, accusations and outright lies to further their goals.
The further out on the spectrum you go, moreover, the more likely both are to use violence, criminal actions, dirty tricks, and Lawyering to get what they desire-usually at the expense of some innocent bystander.

In the more mainstream side of things, the American brand of Leftist is inclined to use tax-money to subsidize his vision of a better society, this inclination is stronger on the left, than on the current brand of the right, but it exists there too. Again, neither should be entirely trusted, but then again, anyone who desires Political Power should, by definition, not be trusted.

Government is a big, vicious, animal, that should be restrained as heavily as possible, and only turned on those that would attack its masters (that, incidentally, would be, in the case of the United States, the Citizens of the United States. We're the Sovereigns here, by law.)

Neither major political party is willing to restrain that animal as strongly as it ought to be-because letting it run loosely-bound grants them power, power that is addictive, destructive, and corrupting.

The basic difference between American Leftists, and the American right, when you get down to the rank-and-file, is that one trusts Government to solve problems, and the other does not. Government has not gotten smaller, not even when Mr. Clinton said the era of big government was over.

Government is, by its nature, then, a necessary evil. We Have to have it, but this does not mean we have to trust it.

This goes back to my first point in this thread. What is it, that the Left has proposed, that the American People so reject, and was it how the proposal was made?

The answer is two parts:
1. The idea that more government, in more places, can fix problems that, for the most part, were caused by more government.

2. That people aren't responsible enough to handle their own affairs, and need government to do it for them.


The first part insults the intelligence of the average person, whose life has not been materially helped by increasing intrusions, added laws, zoning restrictions, more paperwork, and more taxes.

The second part insults the Honour and Moral character of the average person, by saying that he's irresponsible/lacks compassion/can't take care of himself or attend to his or her own affairs.

At over 18000 pages, the U.S. Tax code may contain provisions that assist most people-but you need a lawyer to find them. Further, at that level of complexity, only the wealthiest .5% of citizens can afford the staffing to take advantage of those provisions.
Incidentally, that .5% is the level that provides the bulk of Legislators, Lawyers, Judges, and other Political scum, along with their masters in the boardrooms of big-business and big-labour.

Ask a worker whose job went to China if his Labour Union did a damned thing to keep him employed, to keep the jobs here, where the members were. The AFL-CIO is dominated by Civil Service unions, and Civil Servants are almost NEVER laid off or outsourced.

Machinists, Millwrights, Factory workers, and refinery workers are.
In the last twelve years, I've had three companies go out from under me-two went to China, the third folded up tents and went under-because of conflicting regulations.

My brother-in-law "Works" for the State. He's pulling down what I was pulling down at the best of the three jobs-only he neither has to work particularly hard, nor use much brainpower in what he does. In the private sector, his job would have been automated or outsourced twenty years ago. His benefits are three times what I got at Boeing, for instance.

I'm not the only person out here that's had the opportunity to make this comparison. Nor am I the only working-class person who's learned how to read a Shareholder's report, expense report, or prepare an environmental impact statment/application for land use.
I can also compare something called "Operating Costs", and being that most of my experience is in a field that involves competition from overseas, I am somewhat more aware of both regulations at home, and treaty provisions abroad.

Carrot-and-stick, over the last thirty years, it's gotten more expensive to operate anything that involves manufacturing in the U.S., at the same time, thanks to treaties like GATT, companies are encouraged to move overseas, where those regulations don't exist. The Kyoto Protocols would have accellerated this flight of jobs overseas enormously.

It's almost excuseable if the party doing it is openly friendly to big-business.
Under those conditions, you at least know what you're getting.

It's inexcuseable when they claim to represent the working man. It's highly inexcuseable when the answer given to this, is yet more regulation at home, which encourages businesses to go elsewhere even faster.



:headbang:

you can't have it all-you have to choose. If you choose wrongly, expect to lose at the polls.
That is how it works. The Left favours things that, taken together, are toxic, therefore, they have begun losing, and losing badly.
this post is so far off the charts of reality Id have to take acid to try and formulate a response to such a hallucination

I don't think it's fair to call Dianne Feinstein a Nazi, nor is it fair to characterize Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, or Charles Schumer with such an inflammatory tag, nor would it be fair to characterize their opposite-numbers in the Senate and House as Nazis. National Socialism revolves around State Control. Neither the Left, nor the Right, taken rank-and-file and slicing the extremists off both, (which leaves you with some small, but very vocal, scraps on the floor) is quite willing (yet) to impose state-control over every aspect of the citizen's life.
The left, it's true, wants the state to control your economic life, and the extreem right has 'social' issues it wants to impose on your private life-but neither one is quite so crazy as to think that the STate should control BOTH.


I'd agree that there is a certain anti-human agenda out there, though: Greenpeace, PETA, ALF, the Sierra Club, etc. are very anti-human, and very anti-technological human. (though they, like virtually every other fruitcake, Moonbat, and lunatic-fringe extremist, still use the Internet.)

The debate from right-to-left comes down to priorities, and where the government has a right to intrude.
The Right wants the government to leave you alone economically, it bases its moral ground on the idea that you, as an individual, are smart enough to handle your own finances without interference.

The Left (in its more benign form) wants the government to get the hell out of the bedroom, kitchen, and ideally out of the yard. They also would like it if we were all nicer to each other. This is a good thing.

Where the Right falls down, is that it thinks maybe imposing some morals by government will make everyone get along better. Usually, those morals are dictated by older, more established organizations of morality, commonly termed "Religion".

The Left, on the other hand, wants to use the power of government to directly dictate THEIR idea of how to make people get along better-this has a whole lot of names, but the most commonly encountered one is 'Political Correctness'. Like the right, Demogogues on the Left discount their opposition's ideas out-of-hand, and without consideration.

Extremes on both sides paint the other as 'evil', 'morally bankrupt' and 'corrupt'.

When discussing the Extremes on both sides, they are correct.

Radical Leftists are every bit as morally bankrupt as Jerry Falwell and his phanatic phollowers.

Neither should be allowed access to what is commonly considered 'real power', both will impose some form of their brand of Utopia to the detriment of the rest of us, both will use the same "We're doing it to you for your own good" line of B.S.

Both are willing to dispose of Morality, Honour, and the better angels of our natures to impose their will on the rest of us.

Neither is fit to be trusted further than you can confirm, because both will use hyperbole, soundbites, accusations and outright lies to further their goals.
The further out on the spectrum you go, moreover, the more likely both are to use violence, criminal actions, dirty tricks, and Lawyering to get what they desire-usually at the expense of some innocent bystander.

In the more mainstream side of things, the American brand of Leftist is inclined to use tax-money to subsidize his vision of a better society, this inclination is stronger on the left, than on the current brand of the right, but it exists there too. Again, neither should be entirely trusted, but then again, anyone who desires Political Power should, by definition, not be trusted.

Government is a big, vicious, animal, that should be restrained as heavily as possible, and only turned on those that would attack its masters (that, incidentally, would be, in the case of the United States, the Citizens of the United States. We're the Sovereigns here, by law.)

Neither major political party is willing to restrain that animal as strongly as it ought to be-because letting it run loosely-bound grants them power, power that is addictive, destructive, and corrupting.

The basic difference between American Leftists, and the American right, when you get down to the rank-and-file, is that one trusts Government to solve problems, and the other does not. Government has not gotten smaller, not even when Mr. Clinton said the era of big government was over.

Government is, by its nature, then, a necessary evil. We Have to have it, but this does not mean we have to trust it.

This goes back to my first point in this thread. What is it, that the Left has proposed, that the American People so reject, and was it how the proposal was made?

The answer is two parts:
1. The idea that more government, in more places, can fix problems that, for the most part, were caused by more government.

2. That people aren't responsible enough to handle their own affairs, and need government to do it for them.


The first part insults the intelligence of the average person, whose life has not been materially helped by increasing intrusions, added laws, zoning restrictions, more paperwork, and more taxes.

The second part insults the Honour and Moral character of the average person, by saying that he's irresponsible/lacks compassion/can't take care of himself or attend to his or her own affairs.

At over 18000 pages, the U.S. Tax code may contain provisions that assist most people-but you need a lawyer to find them. Further, at that level of complexity, only the wealthiest .5% of citizens can afford the staffing to take advantage of those provisions.
Incidentally, that .5% is the level that provides the bulk of Legislators, Lawyers, Judges, and other Political scum, along with their masters in the boardrooms of big-business and big-labour.

Ask a worker whose job went to China if his Labour Union did a damned thing to keep him employed, to keep the jobs here, where the members were. The AFL-CIO is dominated by Civil Service unions, and Civil Servants are almost NEVER laid off or outsourced.

Machinists, Millwrights, Factory workers, and refinery workers are.
In the last twelve years, I've had three companies go out from under me-two went to China, the third folded up tents and went under-because of conflicting regulations.

My brother-in-law "Works" for the State. He's pulling down what I was pulling down at the best of the three jobs-only he neither has to work particularly hard, nor use much brainpower in what he does. In the private sector, his job would have been automated or outsourced twenty years ago. His benefits are three times what I got at Boeing, for instance.

I'm not the only person out here that's had the opportunity to make this comparison. Nor am I the only working-class person who's learned how to read a Shareholder's report, expense report, or prepare an environmental impact statment/application for land use.
I can also compare something called "Operating Costs", and being that most of my experience is in a field that involves competition from overseas, I am somewhat more aware of both regulations at home, and treaty provisions abroad.

Carrot-and-stick, over the last thirty years, it's gotten more expensive to operate anything that involves manufacturing in the U.S., at the same time, thanks to treaties like GATT, companies are encouraged to move overseas, where those regulations don't exist. The Kyoto Protocols would have accellerated this flight of jobs overseas enormously.

It's almost excuseable if the party doing it is openly friendly to big-business.
Under those conditions, you at least know what you're getting.

It's inexcuseable when they claim to represent the working man. It's highly inexcuseable when the answer given to this, is yet more regulation at home, which encourages businesses to go elsewhere even faster.



:headbang:

you can't have it all-you have to choose. If you choose wrongly, expect to lose at the polls.
That is how it works. The Left favours things that, taken together, are toxic, therefore, they have begun losing, and losing badly.

this begs the question: Why are we so fanatically divided by the two sides...
Republicans and Democrats... Conservatives and Liberals... When did politics become so detrimental to the American cause altogether? And why?

this begs the question: Why are we so fanatically divided by the two sides...
Republicans and Democrats... Conservatives and Liberals... When did politics become so detrimental to the American cause altogether? And why?
when neocon nazis decided to use divide and conquer tactics to takeover the world

when neocon nazis decided to use divide and conquer tactics to takeover the world
so no one that you hate/loved so much has ever used their political power to do something that was deemed as wrong.
and a nazi is a fascist. i dont see bush holding mass rallies in the white house while shouting anti-human propaganda, saluting his party, and parading throught the streets, do i?
or do i not have liberal vision yet?

You mean if it wasn't more immediatly obvious how awful Bush was he'd have won? Ya, probably. Unfortunatly it's even more obvious how awful Bush Jr. is and he's winning anyway.

No, I mean that if the DEMs could have gotten a candidate that didn't talk down to people, Bush would have lost. I voted for Bush, even though Connecticut was DEM lock in the last election. Why? Because voting for Kerry had all the allure of sleeping with a halibut.

Yes, but you're using the same type of debate stile that I always criticize conservatives for. Saying two sentences that have a similar cadence and acting as if that cadence makes the two statements similar despite the fact that one is clearly false.

The fact that you believe it to not be true in reverse is why the DEMs of the post Clinton-era keep loosing: you think your shit doesn't stink.

(Note: for the record, I have voted in 5 Presidential elections. In that time, I've voted DEM twice, GOP twice, and Independent once. So please do not accuse me of being partisan.)


If you don't believe it just check the statistics.
I refuted each of your points. Telling me to go look at some statistics you don't even provide links for is weak.


No, I'm saying that conservative politics only help the rich. If you think that they help you and you're not rich then you're ignorant.

And pray, whom are the rich? I'd like to hear an exact definition on this one.


I pointed out earlier that New Yorkers vote Republican in local elections. You can't pigeonhole them as Democratic voters, but they know that on the national level that conservatives are dangerous to the interests of the Northeast.

a) NY state, or NYC?
b) A whole *state* knows a party to be dangerous? I'm sorry, I just find that statement funny.

It's quite clear to blacks that Republicans don't represent the interests of the working class, not because blacks get a better education, but because however bad Republican politicians make things for the white working class they make it exponentially worse for minorities.

Uh huh. So please explain to me why since JFK the number of blacks voting GOP has gone UP?

Well Gore loosing a single state has nothing to do with loosing the others. You're saying that people don't vote Dem because of irrelevancies. Window dressing decides whether or not the conservativly inclined will vote for their best interests, or for Republicans. And you still defend the intelligence of the Republican voters?

I'm saying that the DEMs keep patting themselves on the back as an elite, and can't effectively reach out to the "common folk" these days. Which your post seems to bear out.

I'm saying you're a maroon if you really believe that what party you vote for is a measure of intelligence.

In that those on neither side want to Nuke Canada or mandate a daily heroin intake, sure, there's some common ground, but the Tom DeLay's and John Ashcrofts are against all American values while dressing up things like corporate welfare as pro-capitalism and allowing hospitals to unplug life support against the families wishes as being pro-civil rights.

If you go look at their voting records, you'll find a far greater number of matches than not.

Well perhaps you could tell me something about Bush that you think is moving the country in the right direction? I don't mean bland platitudes like "culture of life" or "small government" because he stands for neither of those things. Tell me something he's accomplished, some good that's come out of something he's done.

Note: I will not mention Iraq, as that can be good/bad and has been several threads all on its own.
1. Tax cuts for the 50% of Americans that pay 96% of the taxes in the nation.
2. Freeing Afghanistan.
3. There has been exactly one terrorist strike on the US (9/11) since he took office. That's 4 less than during the Clinton Administration. (USS Cole, Embassy Bombing, WTC part 1, Oklahoma City)
4. Has the most diverse cabinet of all time.
5. Did not renew the weak Assault Weapons Ban, a joke law if there every was one.
6. Is not coddling North Korea.
7. Eliminated the Estate Tax.
8. No Child Left Behind. Finally something to bring Education in line for all the money that is spent on it. (I'm all for Education, but test scores in my state haven't improved in 20 years, despite obscene funding.)
9. Refuses to sign the Kyoto Pact until it's rewritten to not give nations like India and China unfair economic advantages and a free license to pollute.
10. Has stated that he is not against gay Civil Unions, and that it should be left to the states.

Note that there are few Presidents you can't get a list like this for. They've all been about the same. Except maybe Coolidge. Likewise, a list of bad things is just as easy to do.

That's because he IS a fuck up. I never call him a monkey, or make fun of his lack of speaking skills except to point out that when he's trying to sound compasionate or incisive he stutters and stammers, when he's trying to sound like a bully and an arrogant prick (because his voters do like that) he not only sounds lucid, but almost eloquent. A fairly good indication that he's a naturally evil person trying to put a good face on his evil decisions.

Just because 50+ million idiots and jerks voted for him doesn't mean I have to respect him. He's an evil cruel heartless excuse for a human being. He deserves neither respect nor allegience.

Then I'm sorry for you. That you revile the GOP/Bush to that extent, then you're just a pawn of the pundits.

so no one that you hate/loved so much has ever used their political power to do something that was deemed as wrong.
and a nazi is a fascist. i dont see bush holding mass rallies in the white house while shouting anti-human propaganda, saluting his party, and parading throught the streets, do i?
or do i not have liberal vision yet?
he passes laws to rape our constitution daily and seeks to blur the line between govt and religion

he passes laws to rape our constitution daily and seeks to blur the line between govt and religion
then why haven't these "laws" been deemed unconstitutional by the Court?
and how does his expression of religion "blur the line"? he is christian!! damn, people, get over the fact that he is a christian. just because he is doesnt mean he does things that nationializes christianity.

No, examine your own rhetoric... ask yourself what you said that got rejected.

lots and lots of stuff about "leftist politicians..."

See, I view all politicians as essentially venal, dangerous, irresponsible little men. (and women), but I especially have suspicions about those that tell me that I need their 'help'.

We don't have any leftist politicians in America. The neo-cons, the politicians that the so-called conservatives are voting for are the worst for business regulations, and you complain that regulation is what's destroying small business. "Conservative voters" are voting for talk and veneer, the neo-cons are so obvious in their insincerity and yet republican voters keep voting for those that offer the most of what they say they don't want. That's pretty stupid. Voting for it because they're getting their feelings hurt and are feeling "turned off" is also pretty stupid.

And in case you missed the point and my repititions of it, this isn't about voting and electioneering, it's about what it will take to get the people who keep voting for right wingers to either go "ah fuck it" or get them to switch sides. You seem to be proving my point in that all we have to do is point out how the republicans have nothing to offer them. All they have is genial eunuchs like John McCain and Colon Powell who used to have integrity but traded it for some magic beans and monsters whose agenda resembles comic book super villany when exposed to the harsh light of day.

First, turno off the Michael Moore tape, take it out of the VCR...

for being a thread nominally about revolution, people sure seem hung up on reformist rightwingers like moore.

not a democrat, not a 'liberal', don't care about them.

The other portion of it, is the assumption (made on this very thread) that Conservatives are either Evil, or Stupid.

well, their leaders could easily be considered 'evil' under most understandings of the term. i don't think the actual voters are evil or stupid. but they are quite certainly ignorant. we have all the data (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf) we could ever want on that account. of course, saying this makes one an 'elitist' or 'biased'. because we've taken up living in fantasyland, and facts are to be discouraged.

'night...

he passes laws to rape our constitution daily and seeks to blur the line between govt and religion

Er... rape the Constitution... how?

Oh? I wasn't aware we were swearing in priests as judges... :rolleyes:

then why haven't these "laws" been deemed unconstitutional by the Court?
and how does his expression of religion "blur the line"? he is christian!! damn, people, get over the fact that he is a christian. just because he is doesnt mean he does things that nationializes christianity.
the courts do overrule some things but it takes years to go thru the courts and his pandering to christian fundamentalists thru legislation is well documented

Er... rape the Constitution... how?

Oh? I wasn't aware we were swearing in priests as judges... :rolleyes:
Bush wants expanded Patriot Acts and opposes all sunset provisions

for being a thread nominally about revolution, people sure seem hung up on reformist rightwingers like moore.

not a democrat, not a 'liberal', don't care about them.



well, their leaders could easily be considered 'evil' under most understandings of the term. i don't think the actual voters are evil or stupid. but they are quite certainly ignorant. we have all the data (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf) we could ever want on that account. of course, saying this makes one an 'elitist' or 'biased'. because we've taken up living in fantasyland, and facts are to be discouraged.

Hmmm.. (how to respond without demogogueing the issue...)

There are some very impressive names in that poll you've linked to... but I really have to question it. None of the "Bush Supporters" I talked to had any illusions about him being a Greenie and supporting the Global Warming fallacy.
Nor did most of the Bushies I know have any illusions about WMD. So I have to wonder which 'bush supporters' they were polling, and if this wasn't more or less confined to the East Coast or something.

There's also the question of how the question is phrased. But what struck me most, was the way the Conclusions were phrased.
I've taken classes on Propoganda before, and I know (Since taking Statistics) that a carefully selected sample can alter the outcome significantly, and that the 'partnership' that did this study is a centre-left outfit.

I'm not sure I buy the conclusions, and I'm not sure I trust their methodology.

But... I'm pretty sure they got the Kerry Supporters just about right.

Bush wants expanded Patriot Acts and opposes all sunset provisions

for ghod's sakes, write your congresscritter!! The only saving grace that turd of a law has, is that portions of it are set to expire!

No, I mean that if the DEMs could have gotten a candidate that didn't talk down to people, Bush would have lost. I voted for Bush, even though Connecticut was DEM lock in the last election. Why? Because voting for Kerry had all the allure of sleeping with a halibut.

What did Kerry seem to stand for that you found so odius?



The fact that you believe it to not be true in reverse is why the DEMs of the post Clinton-era keep loosing: you think your shit doesn't stink.
No, we think it's pretty obvious that the politics of the so called conservatives don't work. The numbers back us up. The Republicans campaign on "morals" and "integrity" i.e. cultural homogeneity and aversion to compromise, and when Democrats try to point out that there are actual facts that have to be looked at republicans criticize them for being "mealy mouthed" and "fence sitters."


(Note: for the record, I have voted in 5 Presidential elections. In that time, I've voted DEM twice, GOP twice, and Independent once. So please do not accuse me of being partisan.)



I refuted each of your points. Telling me to go look at some statistics you don't even provide links for is weak.

No you didn't. You just said they were bull flop. That's not a refutation.


And pray, whom are the rich? I'd like to hear an exact definition on this one.

Those who earn over 500,000 a year, or those who own enough capital that they don't actually have to work for a living.


Uh huh. So please explain to me why since JFK the number of blacks voting GOP has gone UP?

Memories are short. Every year there are people who don't realize how it was liberals that put civil rights into law and conservatives who fought it. More and more blacks have no memory of how blacks were treated in the 60's the way republicans argue for treating homosexuals now.

I'm saying that the DEMs keep patting themselves on the back as an elite, and can't effectively reach out to the "common folk" these days. Which your post seems to bear out.

And Republicans keep claiming to be the party of the common man when most of their money comes from huge corporations. Remember Bush Sr. trying to go grocery shopping as a photo op and was so out of touch with the common man that he didn't even know how to check out at a supermarket?

I'm saying you're a maroon if you really believe that what party you vote for is a measure of intelligence.

No, but if you think that Bush is doing anything for you and you earn less than 500,000 a year then that's a clear sign that you lack intelligence, or you're just an intolerant bigot. Because money and intolerance is all he stands for.

1. Tax cuts for the 50% of Americans that pay 96% of the taxes in the nation.
But for most of the nation state taxes had to go up to pay for the Federal funds the states were not getting. Average taxes have gone UP, not down. You may be among the few that are paying less taxes total since Bush came up, but if you take this to be a national good then you'd be in the intelligent, but evil catagory.
2. Freeing Afghanistan.
He didn't free it, he took it out of the hands of one band of warlords, the religous extremists, and put it into the hands of another, the international drug smugglers. Before 9/11 he actually gave huge amounts of money to the Taliban because they were anti-heroin.

3. There has been exactly one terrorist strike on the US (9/11) since he took office. That's 4 less than during the Clinton Administration. (USS Cole, Embassy Bombing, WTC part 1, Oklahoma City)
If you count attacks on our interests oversees there have been many many bombings. Also, when Clinton was in office he caught the people responsible for the WTC bombing in 93, Bush has done nothing to catch the guys responsible for the one that he let happen. BTW Counter terrorism was a high priority when Clinton was in office, and several plots were foiled. When Bush came into office he didn't make counter terrorism a priority at all, and Ashcroft took agents off of counter terrorism and put them on investigating prostitution in New Orleans.

4. Has the most diverse cabinet of all time.
I don't consider putting a general in charge of diplomacy, a chemical salesman in charge of the military, a guy who thinks that calico cats are agents of satan in charge of law enforcement, and the Governor of New Jersey in charge of the environment to be a plus. It's not so much diverse as motley.
5. Did not renew the weak Assault Weapons Ban, a joke law if there every was one.

And yet when it was in effect crimes commited with those weapons went down. And he has yet to do anything about allowing concealed carry, the only softening of gun control laws that has done anything to lower violent crime rates.
6. Is not coddling North Korea.
Ya, talk tough and let them make all the nukes they want, that'll show'em. I did say accomplishments. North Korea has done nothing but escalate it's nuclear program since Bush ended the diplomatic relations that Clinton put in effect that were actually keeping them from escalating their nuclear program.
7. Eliminated the Estate Tax.
HUGE negative. The estate tax loss stands to cost the national government 256 billion dollars over Bush's term. That could have paid for the entire friggin' war to date. The tax only affects millionaires, and fairly slightly at that.

8. No Child Left Behind. Finally something to bring Education in line for all the money that is spent on it. (I'm all for Education, but test scores in my state haven't improved in 20 years, despite obscene funding.)

That would have been helpful if he'd funded it. It was introduced as "we'll provide these funds for states to make these upgrades" and then they decided not to provide the funds, but demand the upgrades anyway. Schools that can't afford the upgrades, or don't have the infrastructure to support them will loose funds until their student performance rises. Then the schools will be less able to meet their goals than ever before.

Then the schools get privatized, and all the research to date indicates that privatized publics schools are less able to educate their students than the schools they've been replacing.

9. Refuses to sign the Kyoto Pact until it's rewritten to not give nations like India and China unfair economic advantages and a free license to pollute.

He's just opposed to environmentalism in general. Why do you think he picked the governer of New Jersey to be head of the EPA? And SHE resigned in PROTEST!

And there's the clear skies initiative. He touts it as increased environmental standards, but it's actually relaxed environmental standards compared the the Clean Air Act, which was well on its way to being met. He also dropped most of the lawsuits against polluters that the Clinton administrators had begun. When he talks about research into hydrogen fuel he advocates making it by burning coal and oil! WTF!!!
10. Has stated that he is not against gay Civil Unions, and that it should be left to the states.
He said that the issue of gay MARRIAGE should be left to the states. Then when it looked like some of them were going to allow it he changed his tune. Flip Flopped if you will. He never said a word about favoring civil unions until a week before the election and has done nothing to make it a part of the GOP platform, even though as president he is supposed to be the leader of his party.

Then I'm sorry for you. That you revile the GOP/Bush to that extent, then you're just a pawn of the pundits.

You have shown me absolutly no reason NOT to revile him. He has accomplished absolutly nothing to the good of this country, and has caused it tremendous harm.

this begs the question: Why are we so fanatically divided by the two sides...
Republicans and Democrats... Conservatives and Liberals... When did politics become so detrimental to the American cause altogether? And why?

Because by the time a politician gets any power in government he has a vested interest in seeing to it that the base of his power, the government, does not go away.

It's like taking steroids so that you'll be strong enough to beat up all the people who take and sell steroids. Sooner or later you become a part of the problem.

so no one that you hate/loved so much has ever used their political power to do something that was deemed as wrong.
and a nazi is a fascist. i dont see bush holding mass rallies in the white house while shouting anti-human propaganda, saluting his party, and parading throught the streets, do i?
or do i not have liberal vision yet?

He talks in code. Like when he said "Dredd Scott" he's actually talking about abortion.

He does hold large rallies that are open only to his loyal supporters. He does not allow dissent in his speeches. Right now he's holding a series of rallies trying to promote his anti-human social security reforms. Rest assured, humans stand to loose, it is only corporations that stand to gain.

No, corporations are not humans, they are artificial legal persons.

He has a huge propoganda machine. He gets PR firms to make fake news pieces and then distributes them to the local news network affiliates. They've said as much, that they're trying to get around the "media filter." Now the news networks are just corporate mouth pieces, they're not liberal. For the administration to put out pre-recorded news pieces and have the local news air them as "reporting" is propoganda. I don't care if you have another name for it, calling steak, onions, and Cheese Whiz on a roll a "processed cheese sandwich" doesn't mean it isn't also a Philly Cheesesteak.

the courts do overrule some things but it takes years to go thru the courts and his pandering to christian fundamentalists thru legislation is well documented

What about the office of faith based initiatives which was designed specifically to allow religous institutions that discriminate (not just against those of other religons, but against those whom the religon teaches are sinful) and prosylatize to recieve Federal aid money.

That's the government taxing the people to promote religion. Specifically what the Framers had in mind when they wrote the first amendment.

What about the office of faith based initiatives which was designed specifically to allow religous institutions that discriminate (not just against those of other religons, but against those whom the religon teaches are sinful) and prosylatize to recieve Federal aid money.

That's the government taxing the people to promote religion. Specifically what the Framers had in mind when they wrote the first amendment.

Actually, Bush is trying to protect the integrity of religious free speech. Because if a faith-based organization is forced to hire a person who does not follow their faith, and then further forced to put that person in a position of leadership, then this illegitimate individual could brainwash children or followers of that religion to their own beliefs.

Actually, Bush is trying to protect the integrity of religious free speech. Because if a faith-based organization is forced to hire a person who does not follow their faith, and then further forced to put that person in a position of leadership, then this illegitimate individual could brainwash children or followers of that religion to their own beliefs.

Free speech is protected by the fact that these organizations are allowed to exist in the first place. Why do my tax dollars have to subsidise them? If my religous views are opposed to theirs why is the government forcing me to pay them for it? This is neo-con corporate socialism at it's worst.

The Catholic Medical Centers have settled this issue long ago. If you want public money then it has to go to a division that does not discriminate based on religous views. Catholic hospitals have to provide emergency contraception, and treat gays, just like any other medical emergency. That's what the constitution forbiding laws respecting an establishment of religion is all about.

And if this is trying to protect free speech, why have only Christian organizations gotten money from it? It's about stealing your money and giving it to Bush's favorite religous groups and nothing else. He's instituting a theocracy.

nope not at all--the ONLY media outlet that favors the dems in any capacity at all is AirAmerica and theyre brand new

That's the silliest thing I've read in the forums in the past five minutes.

Originally Posted by Skapedroe
he passes laws to rape our constitution daily and seeks to blur the line between govt and religion

Originally Posted by Markreich
Er... rape the Constitution... how?

Oh? I wasn't aware we were swearing in priests as judges...


Bush wants expanded Patriot Acts and opposes all sunset provisions

That doesn't answer my question. I asked how Bush "rapes the Constitution". Him wanting something doesn't do that. You need to show me a law he's signed (which means, it's passed through Congress) that takes away any Constitutional rights by was of nullification.

What did Kerry seem to stand for that you found so odius?

1. Gun control.
2. National Health Care. I don’t believe in it.
3. Opposed Gulf War 1.

Note that I preferred him in terms of stem cell research and abortion rights, but neither is a pressing issue to me.

No, we think it's pretty obvious that the politics of the so called conservatives don't work. The numbers back us up. The Republicans campaign on "morals" and "integrity" i.e. cultural homogeneity and aversion to compromise, and when Democrats try to point out that there are actual facts that have to be looked at republicans criticize them for being "mealy mouthed" and "fence sitters."

I don't see that at all. I see both parties fighting in the political arena for their own sides, lining their pockets along the way. From my POV, I don't see either party's propaganda being worth a Taco Bell Special Value Meal.

No you didn't. You just said they were bull flop. That's not a refutation.

Um? http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8510649&postcount=97
The first point didn't need any more than "Elitist Bull Plop". The other two I cited counter examples. :)

Those who earn over 500,000 a year, or those who own enough capital that they don't actually have to work for a living.

Okay, so:
If, as you say, conservative politics only help those people, what about people like me who earn a LOT less, but got back more taxes than ever before? Why is homeownership at an all time high?

Memories are short. Every year there are people who don't realize how it was liberals that put civil rights into law and conservatives who fought it. More and more blacks have no memory of how blacks were treated in the 60's the way republicans argue for treating homosexuals now.

My family came to the country in 1970. That's as much ancient history as me pointing out that the Republicans freed the slaves. :D

And Republicans keep claiming to be the party of the common man when most of their money comes from huge corporations. Remember Bush Sr. trying to go grocery shopping as a photo op and was so out of touch with the common man that he didn't even know how to check out at a supermarket?

I recall Kerry asking someone if they wanted beers, and then had his butler fetch them. Gephardt had no idea what milk cost. It's the same thing, man. Once you hit that level, you *do* lose track of things like that. My point is that the DEMs have failed to make themselves as appealing as the GOP to Joe America.

No, but if you think that Bush is doing anything for you and you earn less than 500,000 a year then that's a clear sign that you lack intelligence, or you're just an intolerant bigot. Because money and intolerance is all he stands for.

Ironic, that that is a bigoted statement in and of itself. :rolleyes:
Personally, I've had no economic hindrances under Bush (nor had I under Clinton), and have gotten more tax dollars back, and refinanced my mortgage at a much lower rate.
If that's lacking in intelligence, I'd love to know what you're using for a test! ;)

How is Bush an intolerant bigot? He has the most diverse cabinet in history! He only refused to speak at the NAACP *after* their organization spoke against him! http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/9121914.htm?1c

Also, insulting me is no way to keep this friendly. “Intolerant bigot”… them’s fightin words. :p

But for most of the nation state taxes had to go up to pay for the Federal funds the states were not getting. Average taxes have gone UP, not down. You may be among the few that are paying less taxes total since Bush came up, but if you take this to be a national good then you'd be in the intelligent, but evil catagory.

Um, no. My taxes are less than they were in the Clinton years, and I’ve had a modest income raise (read: about 5% over 8 years.) And no, I have no new deductions.

Further, please show me a link where I can see what you claim? I’m open minded, but you have to show me the data.

He didn't free it, he took it out of the hands of one band of warlords, the religous extremists, and put it into the hands of another, the international drug smugglers. Before 9/11 he actually gave huge amounts of money to the Taliban because they were anti-heroin.

Um, last I checked they had elections and aren't blowing up Buddahs and treating women sligtly better than dogs. That's a quantum leap of progress.

As did the rest of the world.

If you count attacks on our interests oversees there have been many many bombings. Also, when Clinton was in office he caught the people responsible for the WTC bombing in 93, Bush has done nothing to catch the guys responsible for the one that he let happen. BTW Counter terrorism was a high priority when Clinton was in office, and several plots were foiled. When Bush came into office he didn't make counter terrorism a priority at all, and Ashcroft took agents off of counter terrorism and put them on investigating prostitution in New Orleans.

Remember: you asked for good points. We haven’t been hit since September ’01. QED.

I don't consider putting a general in charge of diplomacy, a chemical salesman in charge of the military, a guy who thinks that calico cats are agents of satan in charge of law enforcement, and the Governor of New Jersey in charge of the environment to be a plus. It's not so much diverse as motley.

I suppose Jimmy Carter having his brother around was a shrewd move? And Janet Reno & Madeline Albright were good picks *why*? Sorry, but it simply is the most ethnically diverse cabinet ever. That’s a good thing.
Read: You can pick apart the people on it, but that can be done with any cabinet.

And yet when it was in effect crimes commited with those weapons went down. And he has yet to do anything about allowing concealed carry, the only softening of gun control laws that has done anything to lower violent crime rates.

Um… no. The “Assault Weapons” listed have never accounted for even 1% of 1% of crimes committed in America. Simply put, the ban was poorly written and mostly useless. All it did was keep citizens from legally owning things, not prevent crime.

Concealed carry prevents crime. This is undisputable: places (yes, per capita) without it have high crime rates, places with it, a lower one.

Ya, talk tough and let them make all the nukes they want, that'll show'em. I did say accomplishments. North Korea has done nothing but escalate it's nuclear program since Bush ended the diplomatic relations that Clinton put in effect that were actually keeping them from escalating their nuclear program.

Er…NK stopped allowing inspections while Clinton was in office. All Clinton did was give them food and let them continue to make stuff.

HUGE negative. The estate tax loss stands to cost the national government 256 billion dollars over Bush's term. That could have paid for the entire friggin' war to date. The tax only affects millionaires, and fairly slightly at that.

Um… you’ve obviously never actually read the estate tax.
Take a look: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/2001.html

The estate tax effected ANYBODY whom inherited ANY sum! Supposed you inherited $1000 from somebody. You owe $180 in taxes for money that was already taxed.

Please tell me how getting rid of a tax on stuff your family/friends *already* owned is bad? It was back door double taxation!

That would have been helpful if he'd funded it. It was introduced as "we'll provide these funds for states to make these upgrades" and then they decided not to provide the funds, but demand the upgrades anyway. Schools that can't afford the upgrades, or don't have the infrastructure to support them will loose funds until their student performance rises. Then the schools will be less able to meet their goals than ever before.

Education is over-funded already. I worked for three years in a Board of Education. The graft and waste were amazing. If this forces them to actually budget somewhere closer to reality, great.

He's just opposed to environmentalism in general. Why do you think he picked the governer of New Jersey to be head of the EPA? And SHE resigned in PROTEST!

That’s her right. My point was he refused to sign a treaty that would hurt the US economy, not that he was pro-environment per se.
BTW, Kerry never said he would sign Kyoto, either. And Clinton also did not sign. Doesn’t that make the DEMs just as opposed to environmentalism?

And there's the clear skies initiative. He touts it as increased environmental standards, but it's actually relaxed environmental standards compared the the Clean Air Act, which was well on its way to being met. He also dropped most of the lawsuits against polluters that the Clinton administrators had begun. When he talks about research into hydrogen fuel he advocates making it by burning coal and oil! WTF!!!

Right. But I still didn’t say he was pro-environment. :D

He said that the issue of gay MARRIAGE should be left to the states. Then when it looked like some of them were going to allow it he changed his tune. Flip Flopped if you will. He never said a word about favoring civil unions until a week before the election and has done nothing to make it a part of the GOP platform, even though as president he is supposed to be the leader of his party.

You are mistaken. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6338458/
“I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so,” Bush said in an interview aired Tuesday on ABC.”
“I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights,” said Bush, who has pressed for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. “States ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others.” (bold mine)


You have shown me absolutly no reason NOT to revile him. He has accomplished absolutly nothing to the good of this country, and has caused it tremendous harm.

That’s your opinion and you’re certainly entitled to it. I'm not here to say one party or the other is better; I'm trying to point out that anybody that sees one party as right or wrong is (IMHO!) fooling themselves.

America needs to be much more Socialist. And Socialism isn't Communism, you rightist wackos.

We need government control of utilities. We need a much better tax system. We need universal healthcare. We need more programs to help the needy and less fortunate. We need a lot more than we already have, and we have the capability to do so.

no we don't

people need to get up and do for themselves... good old protestant work ethic. its legacy is why we are among the most productive countries in the world.

if you give people things, some will simply vedge. so it would be if we granted universal healthcare. it is much, much better for our economy to make people work for it.

if we used your plan our unemployment would skyrocket (it would likely double or even triple) and our economy would go way down due mainly to the loss in PRODUCTION. Also, our taxes would be increased. Or the penalty for becoming successful would increase (taxes on the rich and upper-middle-class might have to approach Swedish heights). Yeah, live the American Dream and then pay the government 70% of your hard-earned income so that lazy mofos you don't even know can sit on their asses all day.

Rather than taxing the rich... private donation should be encouraged. Because... in a free country, people have control over their property, money and possessions. Your plan would greatly reduce the amount of control people have over their money, which is wholly unamerican.

America is the land of the free... not the land of the government-dependent, not the land of socialism.

(sorry, I know that this is a socialist/lefty/democrat thread, but i could not help myself

he passes laws to rape our constitution daily and seeks to blur the line between govt and religion

Oh, because an extreme socialist revolution wouldn't rape the U.S Constitution, would it? Life, liberty, property? Freedom of speech? The right to bear arms?

People, people....

It's useless to try and debate with Skapedroe, all you'll get is hyperbole and propaganda. He has no intention of debating in good faith. Just try to get legitimate sources or statistics from him. All he'll provide are links to DemocracyNow and other left-wing propagandists. Promises of sources and proof are lied about and then forgotten. I've seen thread after thread of his lies and incriminations, and am sick and tired of seeing his drivel.

Skapedroe, when will you admit you're nothing but a liar and character assassin? It's not enough to rant and call names. You'll never convince anyone you're not a liar and propagandist until you follow through on your claims. One sentence replies filled with venom and lies are useless. YOU are a useless partisan hack and that's all you'll ever be.

no, it's your side holding the misperception. you may be a free-marketeer or an advocate of a system of capitalism or whatever, but unless you own capital you are not a capitalist.
So, one can be both a capitalist and a socialist? And by your definition, 'capitalist' is not to 'socialist' as 'capitalism' is to 'socialism'. That's too counter-intuitive for me.

You don't see a moral difference by organizing the laws in which the economy functions so that rich people get even richer by giving less back to the community and a system in which money is encouraged to go into the hands of those who are least able to accumulate it on their own?Phrase it however you want. I don't support any forced wealth redistribution and see it all as wrong.

I remember when people on the left-side of the political spectrum were called "Democrats" and people on the right-side were called "Republicans", but I guess those days are over.

americas liberals are still considered right wing by the rest of the world, even though you call them commies.

See, I view all politicians as essentially venal, dangerous, irresponsible little men. (and women), but I especially have suspicions about those that tell me that I need their 'help'.
<KNOCK> <KNOCK> <KNOCK>
I'm from the government.
I'm here to help.

republicans hijacked the corporate media thru consolidation and an organized campaign of character assassination of any reporter who dares to criticize the current regime
So ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, GANNET, and the AP all belong to the Republicans?

MSNBC is virulently pro-war and rightwing and NBC purged all its liberal reporters and is part of the cowed media. The only reason they with held declaring a winner for so long is cause they remeber the kind of shananigans Bush pulled during the 2000 election and didnt want to be embarrassed again
Apples and oranges. He's talking about the 2004 election coverage and you're talking about war. Bush launched an illegal war against a nation that had not attacked and posed no threat to the US. John Kerry supported that illegal war, but he "would've done it differently." What's the fucking difference?

this post is so far off the charts of reality Id have to take acid to try and formulate a response to such a hallucinationYou quoted that whole post to say nothing? You're abusing the bandwidth, man.

we dont need more government or social programs. what we need is the wealthy upper class to remove their choke-hold on the rest of the nation and really give us the true chance to rise to riches that they claim we all have (while simotaneously putting measures into affect to limit the number of elite.) in order to become rich you either have to be really smart and have an original idea,or you have to have heroic levels of ambition in order to climb past all the red tape and political games. the system is set up for a few to walk on the backs of others. its not easy to become rich,and thats the way they want it. in order to become elite,you have to be super-ambitious and willing to step on anyone who gets in your way. there is no honesty or integrity within the elite. they want us controlled and dependent on the system. it works well too,because most people are too lazy,selfish,and apathetic to keep the government and corporations in check. they dont vote,dont pay attention,dont read,and they believe everything they see in the news. no critical thinking skills at all,and they are afraid to question authority. revolution?! not likely. americans are spoiled little kids who are more concerned with the latest episode of "survivor" than what games the lying government is playing with our lives and hard earned tax money. we wouldnt need a revolution if "we the people" would just get their heads out of their collective asses.....

we dont need more government or social programs. what we need is the wealthy upper class to remove their choke-hold on the rest of the nation and really give us the true chance to rise to riches that they claim we all have (while simotaneously putting measures into affect to limit the number of elite.) in order to become rich you either have to be really smart and have an original idea,or you have to have heroic levels of ambition in order to climb past all the red tape and political games. the system is set up for a few to walk on the backs of others. its not easy to become rich,and thats the way they want it. in order to become elite,you have to be super-ambitious and willing to step on anyone who gets in your way. there is no honesty or integrity within the elite. they want us controlled and dependent on the system. it works well too,because most people are too lazy,selfish,and apathetic to keep the government and corporations in check. they dont vote,dont pay attention,dont read,and they believe everything they see in the news. no critical thinking skills at all,and they are afraid to question authority. revolution?! not likely. americans are spoiled little kids who are more concerned with the latest episode of "survivor" than what games the lying government is playing with our lives and hard earned tax money. we wouldnt need a revolution if "we the people" would just get their heads out of their collective asses.....
Hoo-Rah!

<KNOCK> <KNOCK> <KNOCK>
I'm from the government.
I'm here to help.

The third scariest words known to man.

The second scariest words are, of course: "Do you think this makes me look fat?"

and the scariest is "I'm doing it for your own good."

So ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, GANNET, and the AP all belong to the Republicans?
no...
1)CBS has dan rathers
2)ABC is so blatantly anti war. i was watching the first minute of their "world news tonight" broadcast and the most of what they were airing that night had to do with the war in Iraq and its death toll on "america's youth."
3)im pretty sure NBC is demo sided... its a little less extreme than ABC, though

So, one can be both a capitalist and a socialist? And by your definition, 'capitalist' is not to 'socialist' as 'capitalism' is to 'socialism'. That's too counter-intuitive for me.

a capitalist who thought we ought to have a socialist society would be a big frelling hypocrite, unless they gave the capital they owned to either the state or directly to the people who work it. at which point they would cease to be a capitalist. so not really.

and it's not my definition. its the definition in the oxford english dictionary (and is both the first definiton here (http://hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=capitalist) and the one from webster's quoted a bit farther down), that has the longer historical usage, and fits with both the original and major current uses of the term. you see, the word 'capitalist' predates the word 'capitalism' by around 60 years - the system was named for the people it was run by and for, rather than the system being named and then advocates of it calling themselves after it.

I'm going to refer you to the song Revolution No. 1 on the Beatles white album.

I'm going to refer you to the song Revolution No. 1 on the Beatles white album.
Dude, you totally stole my thunder. On page 2, I already used a song(albeit not by the Beatles).

:D

Dude, you totally stole my thunder. On page 2, I already used a song(albeit not by the Beatles).

:D
Songs are always fun, you know? Even if our songs have different positions on Revolutions.

I might also refer you to Revolution No. 9 from the same group and the same album. Not as much message, but still a...fun and weird song.

Now you're probably asking what happened to Revolutions 2-8, and frankly I cannot tell you. But I think Ringo ate them.

Actually, Bush is trying to protect the integrity of religious free speech. Because if a faith-based organization is forced to hire a person who does not follow their faith, and then further forced to put that person in a position of leadership, then this illegitimate individual could brainwash children or followers of that religion to their own beliefs.
Oh bullshit. You can't justify sending money to religious institutions.

Now you're probably asking what happened to Revolutions 2-8, and frankly I cannot tell you. But I think Ringo ate them.
I think they happened in an alternate LSD dimension. They were probably really good too, but they all got mashed together into the 9th one.

:D

Oh bullshit. You can't justify sending money to religious institutions.

I said nothing about money. I wouldn't even advocate taking money from the government if I was in an FBO. But the fact of the matter is the slippery slope... even if an FBO was funded by private money, an FBO could be forced to hire someone who would subvert it from the inside. Hence why I appreciate the President's attempt to protect them.

and it's not my definition. its the definition in the oxford english dictionary (and is both the first definiton here (http://hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=capitalist) and the one from webster's quoted a bit farther down), that has the longer historical usage, and fits with both the original and major current uses of the term. you see, the word 'capitalist' predates the word 'capitalism' by around 60 years - the system was named for the people it was run by and for, rather than the system being named and then advocates of it calling themselves after it.

capitalism.org (http://www.capitalism.org/) is the first result I find when I google the term "capitalism", and it describes the philosophy as having no necessary relation to the circumstances of the person who believes it.

The Collins English dictionary has this to say on capitalism:

Capitalism n economic system based on the private ownership of industry. Capitalist adj of capitalists or capitalism; supporting capitalism. n supporter of capitalism; person who owns a business.


And my copy of the Concise Oxford English dictionary Fifth edition has this to say on the political meaning of capitalism.

...(mod., Pol.) dominance of private capitalists (opp. socialism).

Abbreviations are obviously Pol. as Politcal, mod. as modern and opp. as opposite.

The fifth edition of the Oxford English dictionary was first published in 1964, so it's not as if the "modern" usage of the word was coined yesterday or anything.

Face it, the meaning of capitalism has changed. The political philosophy of capitalism has nothing to do with the circumstances or wealth of the person who holds the view.

I said nothing about money. I wouldn't even advocate taking money from the government if I was in an FBO. But the fact of the matter is the slippery slope... even if an FBO was funded by private money, an FBO could be forced to hire someone who would subvert it from the inside. Hence why I appreciate the President's attempt to protect them.
Then perhaps I don't understand the issue.

capitalism.org (http://www.capitalism.org/) is the first result I find when I google the term "capitalism", and it describes the philosophy as having no necessary relation to the circumstances of the person who believes it.

and capitalism.org is a randroid site - the very same people i claimed earlier are largely responsible for the change in meaning. and given that their ideological associates are also responsible for taking other words, such as 'libertarian' and 'anarchist', and using them in ways completely at odds with their historical usage, i don't exactly find this surprising. though i do find it a bit suspicious.

but anyway, so what?

And my copy of the Concise Oxford English dictionary Fifth edition has this to say on the political meaning of capitalism.
...(mod., Pol.) dominance of private capitalists (opp. socialism).

Abbreviations are obviously Pol. as Politcal, mod. as modern and opp. as opposite.

The fifth edition of the Oxford English dictionary was first published in 1964, so it's not as if the "modern" usage of the word was coined yesterday or anything.

Face it, the meaning of capitalism has changed. The political philosophy of capitalism has nothing to do with the circumstances or wealth of the person who holds the view.

except that that definition actually backs up my claim better than your's. or is it customary for you to speak of being dominated by just some person holding a certain set of beliefs, whether that particular person has any power or not?

and we aren't even talking about the meaning of 'capitalism', we are talking about the meaning of the noun form of 'capitalist'. look that up in it. or i could quote from my copy of "the new shorter oxford english dictionary" (4th edition, 1993). i already quoted from the online version of the full 2nd edition oed (http://www.oed.com/) (unfortunately, the free online edition of the compact oed (http://www.askoxford.com/dictionaries/?view=uk) doesn't have a seperate entry for 'capitalist' - i guess a few things have to be cut to get a 20 volume thing down to a thousand pages or so).

according to the new shorter oed:
capitalist
a person who has capital, esp. one who uses it in (large-scale) business enterprises.


if 'capitalist' predominantly means any bum who supports the system of capitalism, then what exactly is a 'venture capitalist'?

and capitalism.org is a randroid site - the very same people i claimed earlier are largely responsible for the change in meaning. and given that their ideological associates are also responsible for taking other words, such as 'libertarian' and 'anarchist', and using them in ways completely at odds with their historical usage, i don't exactly find this surprising. though i do find it a bit suspicious.


Names are defined by those who use them. If an organization or political group or ideology is given a name, it is fairly common practice to refer to them by this name, regardless of its meaning in other contexts. "Conservative", "Liberal", "Green" and countless other political words have different, non-political usages which don't necessarily reflect their political uses, yet I don't hear you whining about those.


except that that definition actually backs up my claim better than your's. or is it customary for you to speak of being dominated by just some person holding a certain set of beliefs, whether that particular person has any power or not?


I think in this context "dominance" implies political prevelance, like saying "cuban politics is dominated by supporters of socialism", since the meaning is described as "Pol." (political). According to the Oxford dictionary, capitalism is the dominance of supporters of capitalism, because makes perfect sense that a supporter of capitalism could be called a capitalist, just as a supporter of buddhism is a buddhist, or a supporter or isolationism is an isolationist, or a supporter of communism is a communist.


if 'capitalist' predominantly means any bum who supports the system of capitalism, then what exactly is a 'venture capitalist'?

Yes, "capitalist" also means someone who owns capital, or someone who runs a business. This is by no means the sole usage of the word. Language is not static, and in the last 100 years, "capitalist" has accquired new meaning, as "somebody who supports the political philosophy of capitalism". As I said earlier in this post, words can take on different meanings according to context.

In that case, prepare to tear up the Constituion:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

...It is not reasonable to seize something because you think that they have too much. In common parlance, that's called "theft".

I was under the impression that Clinton came from relatively humble roots. And though he was beaten in the primaries, Edwards parents were mill workers.

I believe if you look at Reagans childhood you will also see fairly humble beginnings.

He was a self-made man.

http://www.tampicohistoricalsociety.citymax.com/page/page/790749.htm

Regards,
Gaar

So ...

.. if you are not a fascist, you are not really conservative

...if you are not a Marxist revolutionary, you are not really a liberal

No wonder you think the Democrats and Republicans are the same.

And, yes, American politics involve primarily "gradients of the same political ideology." Big differences between the two major parties. Huge differences. But they fit within the same broad spectrum. Unless we seriously need a revolution, so what?

As to needing a revolution, please name 3 desirable policies that require a revolution to change.

(And be sure to explain how these policies can be achieved by revolution, but not within our system.)

Once you've named your 3 policies that require revolution, we can weigh them against the benefits of our constitutional system. I bet revolution loses.

1) You do not think we need revolution because you are a Conservative and the current system works well if not perfectly for you.

2) Die Capitalist Pig did not say anything about reform in the post you quoted. Potaria said nothing about reform either. He said we need universal healthcare. That is not a reform from what we have now. A reform involves something that already exists. The current healthcare system is not start if we want universal healthcare. That we would have to start from scratch. Of course, you are not going to find thie to be a valid argument towards healthcare reform because you do not rely on government healthcare and so it does not affect you.

3) I honestly do not find any possible reform happening before 2008. Whether or not allegations against Bush is true, I do not think he is a good president at all. He has done very little.

4) Social security should be substituted for universal healthcare. Social security funding should stop. It is not going back to the citizens as it is. We should combine government healthcare and social security funding to start a foundation for universal healthcare.

5) There should be a military spending cap.

6) Education programs need to urgently be reviewed before there are any future increases in funding. Schools are finding themselves short of funding. However this seems to be a chronic problem and intelligent cuts in some programs would relieve some pressure. ie. junior kindergarten

1) You do not think we need revolution because you are a Conservative and the current system works well if not perfectly for you.

2) Die Capitalist Pig did not say anything about reform in the post you quoted. Potaria said nothing about reform either. He said we need universal healthcare. That is not a reform from what we have now. A reform involves something that already exists. The current healthcare system is not start if we want universal healthcare. That we would have to start from scratch. Of course, you are not going to find thie to be a valid argument towards healthcare reform because you do not rely on government healthcare and so it does not affect you.

3) I honestly do not find any possible reform happening before 2008. Whether or not allegations against Bush is true, I do not think he is a good president at all. He has done very little.

4) Social security should be substituted for universal healthcare. Social security funding should stop. It is not going back to the citizens as it is. We should combine government healthcare and social security funding to start a foundation for universal healthcare.

5) There should be a military spending cap.

6) Education programs need to urgently be reviewed before there are any future increases in funding. Schools are finding themselves short of funding. However this seems to be a chronic problem and intelligent cuts in some programs would relieve some pressure. ie. junior kindergarten

OK. Most of this is aimed at the wrong target.

I am not a Conservative. I am extremely liberal.

I support all kinds of radical changes. I don't support a revolution.

I fully support universal healthcare. I would drastically cut military spending.

I have utter contempt for President Bush. He is not just a barrier to progress, but regressive force.

Even with universal healthcare, I would not eliminate Social Security because it provides a safety net. Although its income is minimal, it is better than nothing for many.

I think we need many improvements in Education, but I am not an expert. I do think schools need more funding -- some more than others.

I don't think any of the changes you suggest and/or we agree on require a revolution or scrapping of our Constitution. I do think they need people to focus their energy on progressive change, rather than utopian revolution.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.

Yes Cat is as conservative as they come ;)

Names are defined by those who use them. If an organization or political group or ideology is given a name, it is fairly common practice to refer to them by this name, regardless of its meaning in other contexts. "Conservative", "Liberal", "Green" and countless other political words have different, non-political usages which don't necessarily reflect their political uses, yet I don't hear you whining about those.

...

Yes, "capitalist" also means someone who owns capital, or someone who runs a business. This is by no means the sole usage of the word. Language is not static, and in the last 100 years, "capitalist" has accquired new meaning, as "somebody who supports the political philosophy of capitalism". As I said earlier in this post, words can take on different meanings according to context.

i don't disagree that terms are defined by the people who use them. but for the sake of being mutually intelligble to each other we should not use the same word in the same context for radically different purposes. and we certainly shouldn't pretend that the newer, incompatible usage should get priority. when engaged in a longstanding argument it is just poor form to try to redefine the terms of the debate after a century of arguments and discussion. it only causes unnecessary confusion and long silly arguments about definitions. and i really do find it highly suspicious that this usage of 'capitalist' seems to have come mainly from the same people who also took up the terms 'anarchist' and 'libertarian' to use in ways completely at odds with historical usage - almost as if they were going out of their way to muddy the debate.

'capitalist' was already in use to mean something in the context of the argument between capitalism and anti-capitalism when the radical neoliberals and objectivists entered the fray and started using it differently. their usage has caught on in some sectors of society. that doesn't stop it from being a stupid usage that serves no good purpose. hell, these self-identified 'capitalists' often wind up having to use it both ways at the same time anyway, since it really is used to refer to people who serve a specific economic function in a capitalist society. so why bother?

Political Compass! (http://www.politicalcompass.org) (In other words, not just a left/right scale, but also fascism/anarchism scale! so that people who were left-wing and very liberal in their views of what people could do are seperated from people who were left-wing but had a totalitarian ideology) ... and, if this has not been already said, remember that the Nazi party was a Socialist party, though not very radical in terms of the socialism!

I believe if you look at Reagans childhood you will also see fairly humble beginnings.

He was a self-made man.

http://www.tampicohistoricalsociety.citymax.com/page/page/790749.htm

Regards,
Gaar
Yes, and he was a liberal like all his Hollywood friends in the early days. He only became a conservative after he got money. A self-serving flipflopper.

Yes, and he was a liberal like all his Hollywood friends in the early days. He only became a conservative after he got money. A self-serving flipflopper.

Well, we all start liberal and then become conservative with age. I used to proclaim myself to be a flaming liberal when I was much younger. Then I started looking at things differently...

Course that doesn't mean I'm conservative on ALL issues.

Yes, and he was a liberal like all his Hollywood friends in the early days. He only became a conservative after he got money. A self-serving flipflopper.

Source? All the history of Reagan I've read suggests he was generally pretty conservative his whole life. And there are plenty of people who don't have much capital who support capitalism as it's commonly thought of today. Which is to say capitalism as a free-market economy. Most modern supporters of capitalism subscribe to the belief that jobs are created by capitalists (those with capital) and not the government. This job creation puts into the hands of those willing to work the means to amass their own capital, and thus the means to invest and create more capital. The confusion lies in the misconception that only those with a great deal of capital have the power to drive the economy when in fact it's the multitudes of "small capitalists" spending their money that makes it work. Most recessions are caused in part by consumers witholding spending and capitalists (those with capital) from spending and investing their capital. Capitalism doesn't only involve those few with large amounts of money to invest, it involves everyone who spends money in a free-market.

i don't disagree that terms are defined by the people who use them. but for the sake of being mutually intelligble to each other we should not use the same word in the same context for radically different purposes. and we certainly shouldn't pretend that the newer, incompatible usage should get priority. when engaged in a longstanding argument it is just poor form to try to redefine the terms of the debate after a century of arguments and discussion. it only causes unnecessary confusion and long silly arguments about definitions. and i really do find it highly suspicious that this usage of 'capitalist' seems to have come mainly from the same people who also took up the terms 'anarchist' and 'libertarian' to use in ways completely at odds with historical usage - almost as if they were going out of their way to muddy the debate.

'capitalist' was already in use to mean something in the context of the argument between capitalism and anti-capitalism when the radical neoliberals and objectivists entered the fray and started using it differently. their usage has caught on in some sectors of society. that doesn't stop it from being a stupid usage that serves no good purpose. hell, these self-identified 'capitalists' often wind up having to use it both ways at the same time anyway, since it really is used to refer to people who serve a specific economic function in a capitalist society. so why bother?

I see what you're getting at, but without using any of those terms, it's extremely hard to label my political philosophy. If I'm not a capitalist or a libertarian (the two terms I would generally describe myself as), I really am going to struggle to define my political ideology. I'm not conservative, because I believe in maximal social and personal freedoms, but I'm not a liberal, because I believe in a laissez-faire free market economy. What am I?

I see what you're getting at, but without using any of those terms, it's extremely hard to label my political philosophy. If I'm not a capitalist or a libertarian (the two terms I would generally describe myself as), I really am going to struggle to define my political ideology. I'm not conservative, because I believe in maximal social and personal freedoms, but I'm not a liberal, because I believe in a laissez-faire free market economy. What am I?It's tough, isn't it? If you're just talking to Americans (besides Noam Chomsky), you can get away with 'libertarian'. To be a bit more and less specific at the same time you can call yourself an 'economic libertarian'. This is used to distinguish people from 'civil libertarians'. I'm not sure how that term works in Europe. You could similarly call yourself a capitalist libertarian, which should pretty much give people the right idea, where ever they're from. 'Classical liberal' is also used in the US, mainly to try and identify with the founders of the US.

I guess, to avoid confusion, you have to use at least two words.

And there are plenty of people who don't have much capital who support capitalism as it's commonly thought of today. Which is to say capitalism as a free-market economy.

and

Capitalism doesn't only involve those few with large amounts of money to invest, it involves everyone who spends money in a free-market.

Free Soviets: Clearly there are many people who accept this definition. Using the term "capitalist" to mean "one who supports a free-market economy" isn't just a term stolen yesterday by a tiny group of misinformed individuals. I think the terms "capitalist" and "capitalism" in this sense are now fairly widely accepted definitions of political ideology as well as, in a different context, of personal wealth.

I'm going to continue to call myself a libertarian capitalist, and I'm fairly sure most people will know what I mean.

I'm going to continue to call myself a libertarian capitalist, and I'm fairly sure most people will know what I mean.

fine by me.

as long as nobody disputes the non-contradictory nature of the term 'libertarian socialist', and everybody remembers that 90% of the time when talking to an anti-capitalist they are not talking about joe off the street who happens to agree with capitalism when they talk about 'capitalists', then we're in the clear.

it's the fact that arguments about these things occur that really bothers me. and which leads me to think the circle of people around rand, hayek, friedman, etc. used their new definitions to muddy, not clarify, the debate.

People, people....

It's useless to try and debate with Skapedroe, all you'll get is hyperbole and propaganda. He has no intention of debating in good faith. Just try to get legitimate sources or statistics from him. All he'll provide are links to DemocracyNow and other left-wing propagandists. Promises of sources and proof are lied about and then forgotten. I've seen thread after thread of his lies and incriminations, and am sick and tired of seeing his drivel.

Skapedroe, when will you admit you're nothing but a liar and character assassin? It's not enough to rant and call names. You'll never convince anyone you're not a liar and propagandist until you follow through on your claims. One sentence replies filled with venom and lies are useless. YOU are a useless partisan hack and that's all you'll ever be.
those who ask for proof when the truth is staring them straight-on in the face have no faith and are an abomination

So ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, GANNET, and the AP all belong to the Republicans?
yes--except the moderate wing of the GOp owns the NYT Im pretty sure

Apples and oranges. He's talking about the 2004 election coverage and you're talking about war. Bush launched an illegal war against a nation that had not attacked and posed no threat to the US. John Kerry supported that illegal war, but he "would've done it differently." What's the fucking difference?
the diff is Kerry wanted to correct Bushs carnage and Bush will end the world because hes a retarded tool for greedy globalist pigs

no...
1)CBS has dan rathers
2)ABC is so blatantly anti war. i was watching the first minute of their "world news tonight" broadcast and the most of what they were airing that night had to do with the war in Iraq and its death toll on "america's youth."
3)im pretty sure NBC is demo sided... its a little less extreme than ABC, though
all the studies disagree with your skewed perception. TV news in America under Bush is as biased towards the govt as the media in the USSR used to be

In that case, prepare to tear up the Constituion:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

...It is not reasonable to seize something because you think that they have too much. In common parlance, that's called "theft".
I agree --thats why all people must fight Bushs attempts to steal for the rich on every issue under the sun

I believe if you look at Reagans childhood you will also see fairly humble beginnings.

He was a self-made man.

http://www.tampicohistoricalsociety.citymax.com/page/page/790749.htm

Regards,
Gaar
theres no such thing as a self made man. EVERYONE gets help along the way

those who ask for proof when the truth is staring them straight-on in the face have no faith and are an abomination

I rest my case.

I agree --thats why all people must fight Bushs attempts to steal for the rich on every issue under the sun

Uh huh... can you name *one* instance of this stealing by the rich you're talking about?

all the studies disagree with your skewed perception. TV news in America under Bush is as biased towards the govt as the media in the USSR used to be

I hereby give you the NS "Glittering Generality" award.

theres no such thing as a self made man. EVERYONE gets help along the way

Hmm. I was given a free public education up to my graduation from high school.

But my parents didn't want to pay for me to go to college. And I couldn't get a student loan or grant (not bright enough for scholarship, and if your parents exist and have money, you can't get the money handed to you).

So there I was with no help. So I worked a lot of hours, Skap. I ate a lot of ramen. I lived in a basement. I paid for my own school, Skap.

I'm not black, so I didn't get any affirmative action after I graduated and sought employment.

Later, I joined the Army. I don't recall anyone handing me any bonus or extra money for that - in fact, if you work out the hours and pay, I made less than minimum wage at that time.

I got out of the Army - and on ramen once again, got my law degree. No loans, grants, scholarships, handouts, welfare, or anything in the form of help.

Skap, there isn't ANYONE who "helped" me along the way. I helped myself. Without a government program. Without affirmative action. Without loans, grants, handouts, or scholarships.