NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the question I would love answered; how come, when either extreme of the political spectrum fail with their grand vision, they always make up excuses like, "oh, we didn't go far enough!" or in the case of a communist, "It was that damn interfering decadent west interfering without vision for a utopia!"

In the case of those who advocate a theological state, aka, the Republican Party, they seem to use 'liberals' as the scape goat everytime one of their ideas is proven to be a failure - and the other extreme, we have the PC police who think we should ban everything that might offend someone - "DEAR GOD! DON'T SAY CHRISTMAS! IT MIGHT OFFEND SOMEONE!!!!!!!"

I guess the question I need to ask is this; have you, as an extremist, tried the moderate road? thought that maybe not all your policies will work, and maybe the best course of action is to adopt something from the centre ground rather than constantly making up excuses everytime your strict ideology fails.

we have the PC police who think we should ban everything that might offend someone - "DEAR GOD! DON'T SAY CHRISTMAS! IT MIGHT OFFEND SOMEONE!!!!!!!"

i really hate those guys.

Hmmm... If you didn't misrepresent some of what you question to make them seem extreme I might have taken you seriously...

Man, your topic title is insulting to them, so I don't think you'll get much of a response.

It's been my experience that most extremists are far too attached to their ideas to ever admit that they might be wrong. Granted, there's something to be said for perservering, but if something doesn't work, it doesn't work, and the situation needs to be examined to find out what's going on and what will work. Of course, this takes time, work, and honesty, all of which most people would rather not deal with.

Hmmm... If you didn't misrepresent some of what you question to make them seem extreme I might have taken you seriously...

Like what? the fact that the religious right have the Republicans by the balls, just like Hitler had the Catholic party by its balls.

It's been my experience that most extremists are far too attached to their ideas to ever admit that they might be wrong. Granted, there's something to be said for perservering, but if something doesn't work, it doesn't work, and the situation needs to be examined to find out what's going on and what will work. Of course, this takes time, work, and honesty, all of which most people would rather not deal with.

True, and many like the idea of having a pure ideology with a basic sum of if you do this, create this, that will happen, like some sort of computer programme - but like all ideologies when taken in their purist form, they lack taking into account human nature; in the case of communism, greed and competition, and in the case of a pure libertarian state, empathy for others.

Extremism, in the defense of liberty, is no vice.

there must always be a scapegoat

I guess the question I need to ask is this; have you, as an extremist, tried the moderate road?

Most extremists I've encountered believe that they *are* on the moderate road. Very few extremist seem to realize just how extreme they are. That's part of the problem.

Like what? the fact that the religious right have the Republicans by the balls, just like Hitler had the Catholic party by its balls.

The Catholic Party? :lmao:

Also, you seem to think "extremist" can only go between highly authoritarian Republican to highly authoritarian Communist (since communism is by its very definition, authoritarian), which simply just isn't the case.

Like what? the fact that the religious right have the Republicans by the balls, just like Hitler had the Catholic party by its balls.

I didn't think it possible to get so much flammage from so few words.....

The Catholic Party? :lmao:

Yes, Catholic Party claimed that they could easily control Hitler as he was a novice at politics - we all saw what the result was; hence the reason I warn that the Republicans are playing with fire when they think they can play the religious right line without expecting a backlash when the promises aren't delivered upon.

Also, you seem to think "extremist" can only go between highly authoritarian Republican to highly authoritarian Communist (since communism is by its very definition, authoritarian), which simply just isn't the case.

Because extremism by its nature needs a totalitarian system for it to 'achieve' its goals - do you really think that Stalin could have pushed the Soviet Union forward without the necessary gulags, and simply relied solely on propaganada?

I didn't think it possible to get so much flammage from so few words.....

How is it wrong? or is it so on the dot, it might piss some dyed in the wool Republicans who don't like being told they're the bitch of the religious right?

Some people might call some of the members here "libertarian extremist" though libertarianism is diametrically opposed to any sort of authoritarianism, and the idea that you can "moderate" freedom/liberty is pretty ludicrous. Also, I've never heard of the Catholic Party, so that's why I lmao'ed.

As an extreemist I know there are a few things that could screw up the things I like.

Making recreational drugs legal as to include majana, LSD, cocaine, etc. Wouldn't work very well without additional rules created. Employers would need to be able to reduce there risk of lose. The public would need to reduce it's risk of lose. Laws may need to be made or changed in order to allow employers to easily remove those who come to work high. Laws may need to made or changed to allow the public to not found some ones recreational drug past time.

If AOC laws where to be dropped through the floor. Laws would need to be made in order to protect the young from risks of STD and pregnancy. Laws may need to be made in order to protect childrens sociel status from the discovery of thier promiscuity.

Sociel Security would have to either run it's course or return funds to those who paid into it. medicare and medicade may need to help those on the programs find other aid.

Those are the places where there could be problems.

As to Bush's theocracy. His religion has no truth in it. Any laws based on it are wrong oppresive and doomed to fail.