Members outtahear Posted April 16, 2009 Members Share Posted April 16, 2009 To suggest that Tim McVeigh somehow defines the right is ignorant and adolescent. No, but the fact that a Republican pundit tried to link Timmy Mac to Al Queida on national TV says a lot about what the party has (unfortunately) become. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members syscrusher Posted April 16, 2009 Author Members Share Posted April 16, 2009 Gee, why do you suppose they aren't "worth mentioning or carry any weight"? Certainly not because they're not hard fact. Because they don't fit into your precious pet dogma, perhaps? :poke: Jeez, yet another mindless partisan sucker who refuses to think for himself, why am I not surprised? Come on man, you hardly know me. No need to insult another person. So what is my precious pet dogma since you got me figured out? Partisan? Hardly! Considering how I always end up voting across party lines every time. Actually, I think my biggest problem is not following the crowd of sheep like every one else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members syscrusher Posted April 16, 2009 Author Members Share Posted April 16, 2009 If you compare... the republican states have a much lower per capita income... but what's easily missed is our cost of living is much, much lower. That and the lack of employment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members "sasquatch" Posted April 16, 2009 Members Share Posted April 16, 2009 You're not a dickhead because you have screaming low self esteem, and lack reading comprehension,However,You are a dickhead who has screaming low self esteem, and lack reading comprehension.Difference...... perhaps i jumped the gun, as i tend to do on political issues. i really try to stay away from them, especially on internet forums. this is why a lot of places ban political talk from their forums, and it is probably, in most cases, a good thing. however, resulting to personal attacks is a bit over the top, dontcha think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members outtahear Posted April 16, 2009 Members Share Posted April 16, 2009 perhaps i jumped the gun, as i tend to do on political issues. i really try to stay away from them, especially on internet forums. this is why a lot of places ban political talk from their forums, and it is probably, in most cases, a good thing. however, resulting to personal attacks is a bit over the top, dontcha think? Agreed:p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members somata Posted April 16, 2009 Members Share Posted April 16, 2009 Please tell me again what the second "S" in USSR stood for again, I could've sworn it was "Socialist". Or are you insinuating they weren't a fascist regime? Also, I'd challenge your definition of Socialism. Socialism only removes the middle ground between the proletariat and the elite and ensures that you're either one of the even smaller, more powerful group of the aforementioned elite, or a base working class schmoe with little or no levels between the two for those not working for the government. Also, why is it then that all fascist Communist regimes are based upon extreme Socialist and Marxist concepts if the two are allegedly so mutually exclusive? Nice try... So why is it then that the actual, tactile result of Marxism/Socialism is an even greater disparity between those in power and those who aren't? Not to mention, while I'm certainly all for everyone having the same right to either succeed or fail based ENTIRELY on their own merit, the TRUTH of the human condition is that all people are NOT "equal" in terms of their abilities, motivation, desires and inclinations. This is my fundamental issue with Marxism and Socialism, it flies in the very face of human nature and is the most unrealistic and ultimately un-sustainable pie-in-the-sky pipe-dream of reality-bereft, idealistic poot ever conceived as a system of government. Also, on the human nature front, it's in our {censored}ing DNA to want to own and acquire things, yet another reason why it just doesn't work. i hate to get picky here....but Marxism is not a system of government, generally it is a utopian ideology rooted in an examination of conditions of power, and the discrepancies inherent in a capitalist mode of production. Marx's ideas are also very much tied to his historical condition, the background of the industrial revolution, and the widespread phenomenon that it brought of people selling their time (as workers for others), thereby divorcing them from their means of production. there has yet to be a truly Marxist revolution, as his ideas of the emancipation of the worker depend on a middle class. specifically, he thought that revolution would occur in the UK, because of the working/manufacturing conditions of the mid 19th century. the russian revolution depended on the artificially constructed "party" to serve as a middle class, which is why (along with the terrifically corrupted leaders who were carrying it out) it wasn't sustainable. i'd also point out that Marxism isn't Communism...true our wide understanding of Communsim is that of Marxist Communism, but they are not necessarily the same thing. and what kind of Marxism are we talking about? Leninist Marxist Communism? Trotskyist Marxist Communism? Stalinist Marxist Communism? Maoist Marxist Communism?or are we talking about Marxism as a philosophical/theoretical ideological system? Marxist language theory? Marxist Feminism? Marxist Political Theory?as for being somehow genetically predisposed toward acquiring things, i'm not sure that's 100% true. there are plenty of cultures that don't privilege the owning of things...pre-European contact Native Americans spring to mind. certainly we're conditioned to want to acquire things by our culture (whoops, there's a Marxist perspective) and that disallows the possibility of an egalitarian existence, but it's not genetic, its learned (whoops, Marxism again).*nerd rant off* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members "sasquatch" Posted April 16, 2009 Members Share Posted April 16, 2009 Agreed:p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members peehoo Posted April 16, 2009 Members Share Posted April 16, 2009 Please tell me again what the second "S" in USSR stood for again, I could've sworn it was "Socialist". Or are you insinuating they weren't a fascist regime? Also, I'd challenge your definition of Socialism. Socialism only removes the middle ground between the proletariat and the elite and ensures that you're either one of the even smaller, more powerful group of the aforementioned elite, or a base working class schmoe with little or no levels between the two for those not working for the government. Also, why is it then that all fascist Communist regimes are based upon extreme Socialist and Marxist concepts if the two are allegedly so mutually exclusive? Nice try... So why is it then that the actual, tactile result of Marxism/Socialism is an even greater disparity between those in power and those who aren't? Not to mention, while I'm certainly all for everyone having the same right to either succeed or fail based ENTIRELY on their own merit, the TRUTH of the human condition is that all people are NOT "equal" in terms of their abilities, motivation, desires and inclinations. This is my fundamental issue with Marxism and Socialism, it flies in the very face of human nature and is the most unrealistic and ultimately un-sustainable pie-in-the-sky pipe-dream of reality-bereft, idealistic poot ever conceived as a system of government. Also, on the human nature front, it's in our {censored}ing DNA to want to own and acquire things, yet another reason why it just doesn't work. Again, the major and most powerful fascist governments currently in power in the world today and for the last 100 years ALL base their political dogma upon Socialism and Marxism, this is an irrefutable fact. So in short: To claim that fascism is purely right-wing shows a complete lack of common sense, not to mention an utter divorce from reality, "historical and political understanding" (oh, the irony!) and a depressingly myopic and obviously dogma-centric worldview. Fixed! The problem you two have here is largely semantics. He understands fascism the way it's defined in political science and you in it's popular meaning. Fascism supposes an autocratic and totalitarian state, yes, but it's not just that. It's just that in popular terms fascism became a synonym for authoritarianism and this is how it's often used. But really as ideology it's quite the opposite of communism. Communism supposes internationalism and class struggle, fascism wants a strong national state in which there's no internal tensions just tensions with other states. Main communist concept is class, while fascist is nation or race. Fascist economic model is corporatism and communist is developed from dialectical materialism, fascists want a strong government while the communist end ideal is the abolition of government and so on and on. It's true that some countries following either of these two ideologies turned out to be really authoritarian but that doesn't mean that the basic concept was the same.Just like how totally different music can sound {censored}ty but the way it came to that can be quite different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bengerm77 Posted April 16, 2009 Members Share Posted April 16, 2009 The problem you two have here is largely semantics. He understands fascism the way it's defined in political science and you in it's popular meaning. Fascism supposes an autocratic and totalitarian state, yes, but it's not just that. It's just that in popular terms fascism became a synonym for authoritarianism and this is how it's often used. But really as ideology it's quite the opposite of communism. Communism supposes internationalism and class struggle, fascism wants a strong national state in which there's no internal tensions just tensions with other states. Main communist concept is class, while fascist is nation or race. Fascist economic model is corporatism and communist is developed from dialectical materialism, fascists want a strong government while the communist end ideal is the abolition of government and so on and on. It's true that some countries following either of these two ideologies turned out to be really authoritarian but that doesn't mean that the basic concept was the same.Just like how totally different music can sound {censored}ty but the way it came to that can be quite different. What a longwinded and excruciating answer.:poke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John Busbee Posted April 16, 2009 Members Share Posted April 16, 2009 Joe Satriani is getting upset with the current situation too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BusterBuster Posted April 16, 2009 Members Share Posted April 16, 2009 As I read this thread I'm loading ammo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Uncle_Milton Posted April 17, 2009 Members Share Posted April 17, 2009 Not all Muslims are terrorists But Islam is a religion based on war... it's right there in the Koran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members soapbladder Posted April 17, 2009 Members Share Posted April 17, 2009 The constitution is overrated. You think it actually exists??? Have you ever seen it??? Eh?? Just words whose meaning is shaped/re-shaped by the context of the times. SB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zozobra Posted April 17, 2009 Members Share Posted April 17, 2009 But Islam is a religion based on war... it's right there in the Koran So? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pioneerprogress Posted April 17, 2009 Members Share Posted April 17, 2009 Political media {censored}storm has done nothing but to divide us further...during a time it is quite clear we need to be united against a complete Federal takeover of our entire lives. All it takes is a little reading comprehension to see that the report does not label people holding these certain values to be extremist, in fact the report does the inverse. It says that right-wing extremists tend to hold these particular values near and dear to them. Someone else told me this morning that HS said that CHRISTIANS are rightwing extremists. It took nothing more than a little reading to find out that's not what it said at all. Christian Identity Groups are NOT your typical Christian. What this article SHOULD make us concerned about is the nature of the upstanding criminals..er, representatives we have in Washington, the way they like to stretch things to make it convenient for them to reach their goals. And while this report may not be calling out your typical sane person, it can most certainly be stretched by these idiots to be used as a weapon against us in a manner most similar to the scenario initially painted early in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members soapbladder Posted April 17, 2009 Members Share Posted April 17, 2009 Political media {censored}storm has done nothing but to divide us further...during a time it is quite clear we need to be united against a complete Federal takeover of our entire lives.All it takes is a little reading comprehension to see that the report does not label people holding these certain values to be extremist, in fact the report does the inverse. It says that right-wing extremists tend to hold these particular values near and dear to them.Someone else told me this morning that HS said that CHRISTIANS are rightwing extremists. It took nothing more than a little reading to find out that's not what it said at all. Christian Identity Groups are NOT your typical Christian.What this article SHOULD make us concerned about is the nature of the upstanding criminals..er, representatives we have in Washington, the way they like to stretch things to make it convenient for them to reach their goals. And while this report may not be calling out your typical sane person, it can most certainly be stretched by these idiots to be used as a weapon against us in a manner most similar to the scenario initially painted early in this thread. Get the pitchforks. Time to storm the headquarters of the New World Order!!! SB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pioneerprogress Posted April 17, 2009 Members Share Posted April 17, 2009 Get the pitchforks. Time to storm the headquarters of the New World Order!!! SB I was thinking more like we burn crosses in their front yard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members again with this Posted April 17, 2009 Members Share Posted April 17, 2009 Right wing extremist, on a watch list, checking in. :poke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Phishmonkey Posted April 17, 2009 Members Share Posted April 17, 2009 But Islam is a religion based on war... it's right there in the Koran Have you ever read the relevant passages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.