Just because I say one positive thing about Christianity does not mean you have to act like this. I'm not even going to try to defend my point, because your reaction seems just based on hatred.
My reaction was based entirely on the fact that your statement was absolutely factually incorrect.
I am certainly VERY glad the people who built this country had it for a religion.
While, I, actually knowing something about the subject am extremely glad that that is another complete falsehood. The people who settled the land were largely Christian. The people who built this country were absolutely, emphatically not Christian. Their utter rejection of religion in any form having any place in the functioning of the government of a free society is what set this country apart more than anything. Democracy is ancient. So is the Republic. A system of government based explicitly on reason and with the specific rejection of *any* religion is what made this country free.
If the nonsense that you're being "glad" for were true, then there would be nothing to be glad of. Maybe you should actually read the Bible before you start wishing that hate on us?
Maybe not. But as I said, I thank God, the christian God, for the country I live in.
Again, your complete ignorance isn't anything to be proud of. If you want to see what a "Christian" America would look like, move to Saudi Arabia for a year. The differences between Islamic law and Christian law are trivial at best compared to the differences between theocracy and the Liberal ideal which *is* in fact the basis of America. Most Christians don't actually follow Christian law, though, as the Enlightenment put that disease largely to rest, not due to anything positive about Christianity, but due to the positivity created by rejecting it's antique and deluded baggage.
Yeah, I didn't say I don't believe it, I just meant that they never seem to mention regions that have gotten colder when they're trying to 'educate' the masses.
Heck, dude, you're so far out of touch that you think Australia is in the tropics so "educate" isn't a word that you should even be using. That's especially true considering that it's only the people who aren't at all educated on the matter that don't know that some regions are very likely to get colder.
Having said that, christians have been predicting the rapture for centuries. And jesus comes right out and says that it's going to seem like it's taking forever and should be any minute when it's really far in the future.
Of course, he also comes right out and says that he'd be back within the lifetimes of those who were currently alive. If you're just going to pick and choose random parts of what he said to believe, why not just do the sane thing and deal with the fact that it's all a fairy tale? Seriously. Be a thinker, not a believer.
Must be either an extra helping of crazy, dumb, or both.
We're talking about people who believe that there's a magical, invisible fairy in the sky blaming us for his decisions and constantly changing his mind about what is or is not an offense requiring people to be brutally murdered for. It's both and they are both an inherent part of religious faith.
So they claim to follow the current fashionable fad. 200 years ago all of them (except Christianity) sang the praises of slavery.
Leave off the exclusion of Christianity and you'll be pretty much correct. Putting that blatantly false statement in makes you look like just another nutter trying to claim his fairies are real unlike everyone else's fairies.
While there were Christians using the bible as an excuse to eliminate slavery in the US, the opposing team was doing the same thing and every bit as legitimately. After all, "Jesus" was a supporter of slavery.
Because clearly a reasoned voter could easily choose between one party that wants government out of your pocket book but in your womb and the other party that wants government out of your womb but in just about every other personal decision.
Well, you're helping make the OPs point with that. If you think the Republican party wants government out of your pocket, then you are stupid. They are a bigger big government party than the Democrats are and have been for 30 years. "Actions speak louder than words", is a phrase that more people should learn and apply to real life. Then they would look far less stupid than they do.
If your concern is the actual function of government rather than some inane rhetoric, then there is nothing to suggest that either candidate will really restrain spending much or that personal liberties will be particularly respected.
See, you do get it, but you fail to apply it to reality, otherwise you wouldn't be repeating the obviously false "fiscally responsible" Republican talking point.
It is a complete trade off. You either choose to restrain the economy in the short term via higher taxation on the people that have/had enough money to actually provide others with jobs. Or you keep the taxes near where they are and try to restrain government spending in order to stabilize the value of our currency and thus keep hyper-inflation in check.
Absolutely false, and the biggest problem with Republicans. There is *no* restraint at all on government spending. They always want to massively increase spending. They just do not want to honestly raise taxes to do it. They want to put it all on the credit card and stick us with the bill and massive interest with the hopes that the bill will come due when a Democrat is in power so that they can blame their own mistakes on others. It's their standard MO and has been for decades.
Since our international credit line is probably not going to get extended perpetually or much longer, neither candidate will have the option to simply borrow our way out of this like Bush has done.
Yet that's the entirety of McCain's economic plan. How else does he plan on paying for his war against Iran, and the perpetual occupation of Iraq? He's certainly offered nothing realistic, since he keeps talking about how he wants to murder Iranians for political purposes..which is terrorism by definition. Of course, the Republican party has a long and sordid history as active supporters of terrorism like their boy Osama bin Laden for an obvious example.
Whereas it meant something much more like libertarianism 30-50 years ago, it seems to have mutated into the above in the past 10-20 years.
Try 30 years. Barry Goldwater was a conservative, but he got the heave ho in favor of massive government Reagan. It had been going that way for some time, but electing Reagan was the final death of old school Republicanism. It's a testament to the power of delusion that so many Republicans were surprised when Bush came in as he just did pretty much everything the same as Reagan did.
Liberals, meet liberalism. It costs money. Don't bitch. You're in favor of all the programs, f'in pay for it.
Just because the common use of "Liberal" is now totally unrelated to the actual meaning of the word doesn't change the meaning of "Liberalism", the philosophy which was the basis on which this country was founded.
Seriously when you slag Liberalism like that I'm forced to ask why you hate America and everything it was supposed to stand for?
The word you're looking for is "Leftism" or "Socialism". Totally unrelated to "Liberalism". "Liberalism" is what "Conservatives" claim to support but don't actually support either.
But isn't that what voters in Blue States want -- to pay more in taxes than the Red States? After all, they keep electing folks who keep raising the taxes.
Massive borrowing accompanied by far more massive spending than even the Democrats is the Republican M.O. That *is* absolutely a huge raise in taxes. It's just an extremely sleazy, unethical and far more expensive way to go about it.
So, no, that's not at all what they want which would be quite obvious to you had you paid any attention at all in the last 30 years or so. Devaluing the currency as Republicans are so fond of doing is an easy way to take the value right out of your bank account while leaving the balance unchanged.
It's pathetic how Repugnicunt shitbags keep falling for the same tricks time after time. It's Pavlovian. "Raise taxes baaaad" "Lower taxes goooood" automatically without addressing spending, services or any of the actual relevant facts. Lowering taxes is great if you lower spending, not if you jack it through the roof because you pissed your pants over a largely made up threat and therefore sell out our country to China by pissing away all our wealth and begging them for loans to keep doing it.
Blue states are the ones with residents who desperately want taxes to go up, and go up they do.
Which is why Republicans are the party of biggest government and have been since that fascist cunt Reagan? Right, the opposite of the truth is the truth. Wow, you are deeply disturbed and delusional.
In red states, they avoid passing state tax laws.
Right. Because why would they pay for their own lives when they can live off the hard work of others through leeching off of the federal government? I wish I were so completely lacking in integrity as to feel comfortable being a lazy welfare leech but I was born with a backbone.
I think the key test would be to stop taxing so much (therefore sending less back to all states) and see if the red states complain. I bet they don't.
Most of them will go bankrupt and be basically third world countries. Now, granted, I'd love to see them show that kind of integrity for once instead of leaching off of my work and then not only lying about it but trying to tell me how I can live my life as they are so overwhelmingly eager to do, but obviously, they'd declare civil war before they'd even try to pull their own weight.
Blue states would go nuts about welfare, but I bet red states would be fine not getting much money as long as taxes were low.
Which just demonstrates that you haven't even grasped what the issue actually is. The red states are living off of welfare. They *need* my money to pay for their *current* lifestyle. Also, their taxes are low. Very low. As in less than zero. That's what it means to be a welfare state. When a state gets back $1.50 for each $1.00 in taxes, that means that they do not pay anything *at all* and instead receive welfare payments.
Now it's disgusting enough that somebody could live with themselves being such worthless greedy leeches, but to continually spout blatant lies about "personal responsibility" "small government" and "free markets" when their lifestyle depends completely on the rejection of all of those things is truly disgusting beyond all decency.
"Our cosmonauts have reported to have seen from space that Italy looks like the boot of Allah striking the Zionist regime. Soon we will harvest the moon for cheese and will no longer rely on the vile cartoon-drawing Danish."
Come on, look a little closer. If you nuke Rome, the reflex would make the boot boot Sicily straight through the border between Spain and France causing it to drift over to Morocco bringing it back into Islamic territory.
Seriously, what could be more obvious than that?!?
Re:Thankfully not talking about Australian Magpies
on
Magpies Are Self-Aware
·
· Score: 1
Just like so much in Australia, they're like a normal magpie except they want to kill you.
Some women who bother to learn about and understand men should know this (and I have had the odd girlfriend who does, and tolerated it with an eye-roll and a shake of her head), and that merely looking at other women in a non-disrespectful manner is not "wrong," just the nature of the male.
Heck, my wife told me that she'd consider putting me in an institution if I ever stopped looking since it would be so out of character for a human being. She'll even point out a particularly nice rack if I happen to miss it. Why would anybody be together with somebody who was so completely delusional as to not recognize such a simple basic fact and deal with it like an adult?
so, you agree with me, you are just wanting to further the conversation about the exact type of two axis spectrum to use.
You don't seem to understand that I was never talking about anything else. Regardless of whether you talk about the social or economic left or right, the definitions I gave work equally well. Take, for example somebody with one of the numerous different interpretations of Christianity. Socially, they feel the power of the state should be used against gays to prevent equality because they feel that gays are inferior and hence don't deserve the equal rights the constitution guarantees. Socially they are far to the right. Now say they also go with Jesus's statement that a camel will fit through the eye of a needle before a rich man goes to heaven and that helping the poor is critical to being a good person. They might well demand purely redistributive taxation and hence are on the economic left. Do you see how the definitions are properly applied, even if you don't agree that they provide a more accurate framework for discussion?
About that link...that guy is doing the same thing you are...he uses language like he's out to re-invent the wheel when all he brings is a suggestion about improving it. And he uses the word 'post-modern'...whenever someone uses this word, be prepared to hear pretentious, effusive bullshit pedaled as insight.
When you need to jump directly to ad hominem, you demonstrate the weakness of your position.
No contradiction here: regulation (slaves=legal property) in this case is contradictory to freedom.
Yes, it is. That's what he said. Banning slavery is a regulation which is not contradictory to freedom and in fact increases it. All you did was repeat a small part of his point.
Here the author directly misunderstands how the political spectrum works. Fascism and Communism both deprive their citizens of social freedom (authoritarian), as he admits. Fascism gives more economic freedom (to the ones deemed worthy) while Communism is more collectivist minded. Ex: One of the things the Soviet Union prided itself on is their guarantee of employment. Fascism would never do that, by definition. Hence they are both authoritarian but at opposite ends of the other axis.
By the fact that you have to specify that economic freedom is only given to the ones deemed worthy, you demonstrate the validity of the position that I am arguing. You can't claim to increase freedom while requiring that that definition only apply to a select few. That is one of the major flaws in your position, and why your spectrum fails to accurately address reality.
The author of that link seems to me to be trying to compensate for the fact that the two axis political spectrum accurately contextualizes the behavior of neo-con and Reagan/Bush republicans in the global comparative context. There's no denying the facts.
No, he made valid points about the failure of the other systems to provide a useful context in which to discuss the real political arena. Points which I demonstrated your failure to grasp.
You're describing what the Olympics are. My idea of Olympic athletes as models is the way I think it should be.
Ahhh, ok.
At that point I'll just respectfully disagree with you as I feel someone who can run around or swim or whatever still isn't doing anything worthwhile. Everyone can do those things and nobody who has a normal life can do them at that level, so pointing a child toward them as a role model seems pretty silly to me. You are, of course, welcome to find it reasonable rather than silly;-)
you missed the whole point of my post...modern politics is too complicated for a one axis 'left' and 'right' classification, that's why I linked to the two axis political spectrum.
I saw that, and I don't think that it does a good job of explaining the realities either. I'm not considering it in some simplistic right/left thing as should be obvious by how I explained my position. You might have considered pointing out where you think my position is somehow ignoring the important distinctions rather than just claiming I'm making one dimensional points. I'm not. Either I didn't explain that clearly enough, or you didn't read clearly enough;-)
It also does a good job of demonstrating the flaws and omissions of the standard 2 axis spectrum and the Nolan chart as well as the simplistic one dimensional right/left.
Of course it turns out I did get my Nobel Prize, but it was just in some other universe, this universe sucks....
Don't sweat it. In that universe what they call the Nobel Prize is just a good sportsmanship award which everyone gets just for playing so it isn't actually worth anything;-)
If you'd have told me up front that you hated all political parties and were a professional troll I wouldn't have bothered feeding you.
Ahh because I don't like your party, or your party light (which by the way, does not constitute all political parties.Just though you should know that too) and am therefore non partisan, you don't have pat answers to the actual criticisms of your party and your complete ignorance of our system of government and am therefore a troll.
As in Christianity, Deutschland Über Alles, and Uniform Pasty Arianism. Not left wing collectivism.
opposition to economic liberalism
Hence either left wing, which, given that they were pretty much defined by their hatred of communism it isn't...or right. Like I said.
Liberalism is the center. Left and right are probably best defined by their opposition to liberalism now that there actually is such a philosophy ("left" and "right" predated liberalism). Liberalism can pretty much be summed up in one sentence from the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal".
The left fundamentally agrees with this point. They, however, feel that the power of the state should be used against the individual in order to promote, enforce, redistribute, etc. that equality. Typically executions/exterminations are based on idealogical purity and therefore might be avoidable if you're willing to immediately start believing everything the state tells you to. Then everyone gets a bowl of rice a day (no cold rat meat unless you bring enough for everyone) and everyone would sit around singing kumbaya..well they would if someone hadn't decided it had anti state overtones and broken all the guitars and shot all the musicians.
The right fundamentally disagrees. They feel some people are born better than others (generally based on race, religion, national origin, parentage, etc.) They feel that the power of the state should be used against the individual for the benefit of these elite groups. Hereditary power, church and state overlap, corporate welfare. And of course, war, which is always bad for most people and very good for a few. Typically executions/exterminations are based on accidents of birth thus avoidable only through stealth and speed (and having somewhere to go).
Now Hitler started more to the center than he ended up. The industrialists/aristocracy set him straight. Socialized costs and privatized profits makes for right wing looting of the populace. They did quite well for a while building war materials and the like. Granted, they ended up getting a lot of shit blown the fuck out of, but, you know, it really couldn't have happened to meaner people;-)
As far as economic right specifically, I'd say the US went right of Germany/Italy a while ago. After all we've been able to keep the war machine going all through WW2 and up to now, so you're unelectable if you even talk about reducing the military. We have no credible military threats, just lots and lots of people in the military and all the associated industries who'd all have to hit the streets and find jobs that don't require wars and tax dollars to stay working if we did.
If half of the country is conservative, then they can't be unamerican, becaase they are HALF OF AMERICA!
Wow, what a completely ignorant statement which clearly demonstrates your complete lack of even the most basic knowledge of the foundation of this nation.
Hot tip, dipshit. This country is not a democracy for *exactly that reason*. What you obviously support is mob rule or the tyranny of the majority. That is a totally anti-American position. The constitution exists for the purpose of preventing what you and the rest of your scumbag fellow traveling traitors are trying to fuck us over with. Would you please read the fucking constitution. It's really not that long and it is your god damned responsibility as a citizen. I am sick to death of having to wipe the asses of you ignorant fucking babies.
Religion, political opinion, and other perspectives that relate to world view are primarily influenced by the household someone grew up in. I gave examples of religious, and political persecution as well as racial persecution, and I didn't even mention sexual preference.
Yes, you conveniently left out sexual preference as it's what you and your fellow scum are so ardently trying to illegally persecute.
This to you means I'm a closet racist and trying to project those beliefs on you. Once again you are claiming knowledge not in evidence. My step father is part cherokee, my Mother's maiden name is Gonsalves, my wife is half Korean, and my biological father is 100% Polish (racial jokes about Pols were very common in my neighborhood growing up, and I kept my fathers heritage a secret for many years). I chose to work with a Nigerian professor for my MS and PhD in a lab where over 6 years I've worked with, and befriended 3 Nigerian, 2 Ghanaian, 1 Korean, and only 2 American graduate students. I've experienced the pain and suffering that is caused by prejudice in general and racism specifically, and will not accept it from anyone! So FUCK YOU YOU IGNORANT PRICK.
The only question this complete non sequitor raises is so fucking what? You accused me of bigotry even though there is no evidence whatsoever for such a position. It is the default Republican claim against anybody who calls them out for what they are when they know that their positions are entirely indefensible. I despise you and your fellow treasonous scum due to the fact that you have willfully chosen to be treasonous scum and for no other reason. As to you not accepting it from anyone, that is a bald faced lie. You have willfully and with malice aforethought chosen to ally yourself with the party who has as one of its most important defining agendas the discrimination against gays, and atheists as well as anybody who disagrees with your fascist agenda. So don't even try to claim you won't accept it when you signed up for it. You are a liar and you have proven that yourself.
You are full of irrational hate for individuals that disagree with you. You want my opinion on political issues? ASK ME! Don't put words in my mouth, I'm more than capable of taking responsibility for expressing my own beliefs.
My hatred is entirely rational. It is based solely upon *actions*. Not accidents of birth, not national origin. Actions and actions alone. You already gave your political views. You are a Republican. You seem to think that you can make this claim and then cowardly deny the rightful consequences of that decision. You can talk all day long about how you don't hate gays how you don't hate America and how you don't love fascism, but all you do is demonstrate yourself to be a liar. You can not sign up for the party who has all of those things as their agenda and then deny your support for them. So, no, you aren't taking responsibility. You are trying to dodge it like the coward that you have demonstrated yourself to be.
I don't judge individuals based on their religious/political/ethnic/sexual affiliations or preferences. YOU on the other hand do. Your judgement of me based solely
Slashdot Mirror
Just because I say one positive thing about Christianity does not mean you have to act like this. I'm not even going to try to defend my point, because your reaction seems just based on hatred.
My reaction was based entirely on the fact that your statement was absolutely factually incorrect.
I am certainly VERY glad the people who built this country had it for a religion.
While, I, actually knowing something about the subject am extremely glad that that is another complete falsehood.
The people who settled the land were largely Christian. The people who built this country were absolutely, emphatically not Christian. Their utter rejection of religion in any form having any place in the functioning of the government of a free society is what set this country apart more than anything. Democracy is ancient. So is the Republic. A system of government based explicitly on reason and with the specific rejection of *any* religion is what made this country free.
If the nonsense that you're being "glad" for were true, then there would be nothing to be glad of. Maybe you should actually read the Bible before you start wishing that hate on us?
Maybe not. But as I said, I thank God, the christian God, for the country I live in.
Again, your complete ignorance isn't anything to be proud of. If you want to see what a "Christian" America would look like, move to Saudi Arabia for a year. The differences between Islamic law and Christian law are trivial at best compared to the differences between theocracy and the Liberal ideal which *is* in fact the basis of America. Most Christians don't actually follow Christian law, though, as the Enlightenment put that disease largely to rest, not due to anything positive about Christianity, but due to the positivity created by rejecting it's antique and deluded baggage.
Yeah, I didn't say I don't believe it, I just meant that they never seem to mention regions that have gotten colder when they're trying to 'educate' the masses.
Heck, dude, you're so far out of touch that you think Australia is in the tropics so "educate" isn't a word that you should even be using. That's especially true considering that it's only the people who aren't at all educated on the matter that don't know that some regions are very likely to get colder.
Having said that, christians have been predicting the rapture for centuries. And jesus comes right out and says that it's going to seem like it's taking forever and should be any minute when it's really far in the future.
Of course, he also comes right out and says that he'd be back within the lifetimes of those who were currently alive.
If you're just going to pick and choose random parts of what he said to believe, why not just do the sane thing and deal with the fact that it's all a fairy tale? Seriously. Be a thinker, not a believer.
Must be either an extra helping of crazy, dumb, or both.
We're talking about people who believe that there's a magical, invisible fairy in the sky blaming us for his decisions and constantly changing his mind about what is or is not an offense requiring people to be brutally murdered for. It's both and they are both an inherent part of religious faith.
So they claim to follow the current fashionable fad. 200 years ago all of them (except Christianity) sang the praises of slavery.
Leave off the exclusion of Christianity and you'll be pretty much correct. Putting that blatantly false statement in makes you look like just another nutter trying to claim his fairies are real unlike everyone else's fairies.
While there were Christians using the bible as an excuse to eliminate slavery in the US, the opposing team was doing the same thing and every bit as legitimately.
After all, "Jesus" was a supporter of slavery.
It's like a person who can only hear noises below 400 Hz and then insists that in Bach, high notes are uncommon.
It's well known that Bach was a mute rapper.
Because clearly a reasoned voter could easily choose between one party that wants government out of your pocket book but in your womb and the other party that wants government out of your womb but in just about every other personal decision.
Well, you're helping make the OPs point with that. If you think the Republican party wants government out of your pocket, then you are stupid. They are a bigger big government party than the Democrats are and have been for 30 years.
"Actions speak louder than words", is a phrase that more people should learn and apply to real life. Then they would look far less stupid than they do.
If your concern is the actual function of government rather than some inane rhetoric, then there is nothing to suggest that either candidate will really restrain spending much or that personal liberties will be particularly respected.
See, you do get it, but you fail to apply it to reality, otherwise you wouldn't be repeating the obviously false "fiscally responsible" Republican talking point.
It is a complete trade off. You either choose to restrain the economy in the short term via higher taxation on the people that have/had enough money to actually provide others with jobs. Or you keep the taxes near where they are and try to restrain government spending in order to stabilize the value of our currency and thus keep hyper-inflation in check.
Absolutely false, and the biggest problem with Republicans. There is *no* restraint at all on government spending. They always want to massively increase spending. They just do not want to honestly raise taxes to do it. They want to put it all on the credit card and stick us with the bill and massive interest with the hopes that the bill will come due when a Democrat is in power so that they can blame their own mistakes on others. It's their standard MO and has been for decades.
Since our international credit line is probably not going to get extended perpetually or much longer, neither candidate will have the option to simply borrow our way out of this like Bush has done.
Yet that's the entirety of McCain's economic plan. How else does he plan on paying for his war against Iran, and the perpetual occupation of Iraq? He's certainly offered nothing realistic, since he keeps talking about how he wants to murder Iranians for political purposes..which is terrorism by definition. Of course, the Republican party has a long and sordid history as active supporters of terrorism like their boy Osama bin Laden for an obvious example.
Whereas it meant something much more like libertarianism 30-50 years ago, it seems to have mutated into the above in the past 10-20 years.
Try 30 years. Barry Goldwater was a conservative, but he got the heave ho in favor of massive government Reagan. It had been going that way for some time, but electing Reagan was the final death of old school Republicanism. It's a testament to the power of delusion that so many Republicans were surprised when Bush came in as he just did pretty much everything the same as Reagan did.
Liberals, meet liberalism. It costs money. Don't bitch. You're in favor of all the programs, f'in pay for it.
Just because the common use of "Liberal" is now totally unrelated to the actual meaning of the word doesn't change the meaning of "Liberalism", the philosophy which was the basis on which this country was founded.
Seriously when you slag Liberalism like that I'm forced to ask why you hate America and everything it was supposed to stand for?
The word you're looking for is "Leftism" or "Socialism". Totally unrelated to "Liberalism". "Liberalism" is what "Conservatives" claim to support but don't actually support either.
But isn't that what voters in Blue States want -- to pay more in taxes than the Red States? After all, they keep electing folks who keep raising the taxes.
Massive borrowing accompanied by far more massive spending than even the Democrats is the Republican M.O. That *is* absolutely a huge raise in taxes. It's just an extremely sleazy, unethical and far more expensive way to go about it.
So, no, that's not at all what they want which would be quite obvious to you had you paid any attention at all in the last 30 years or so.
Devaluing the currency as Republicans are so fond of doing is an easy way to take the value right out of your bank account while leaving the balance unchanged.
It's pathetic how Repugnicunt shitbags keep falling for the same tricks time after time. It's Pavlovian. "Raise taxes baaaad" "Lower taxes goooood" automatically without addressing spending, services or any of the actual relevant facts. Lowering taxes is great if you lower spending, not if you jack it through the roof because you pissed your pants over a largely made up threat and therefore sell out our country to China by pissing away all our wealth and begging them for loans to keep doing it.
Blue states are the ones with residents who desperately want taxes to go up, and go up they do.
Which is why Republicans are the party of biggest government and have been since that fascist cunt Reagan? Right, the opposite of the truth is the truth. Wow, you are deeply disturbed and delusional.
In red states, they avoid passing state tax laws.
Right. Because why would they pay for their own lives when they can live off the hard work of others through leeching off of the federal government? I wish I were so completely lacking in integrity as to feel comfortable being a lazy welfare leech but I was born with a backbone.
I think the key test would be to stop taxing so much (therefore sending less back to all states) and see if the red states complain. I bet they don't.
Most of them will go bankrupt and be basically third world countries. Now, granted, I'd love to see them show that kind of integrity for once instead of leaching off of my work and then not only lying about it but trying to tell me how I can live my life as they are so overwhelmingly eager to do,
but obviously, they'd declare civil war before they'd even try to pull their own weight.
Blue states would go nuts about welfare, but I bet red states would be fine not getting much money as long as taxes were low.
Which just demonstrates that you haven't even grasped what the issue actually is. The red states are living off of welfare. They *need*
my money to pay for their *current* lifestyle. Also, their taxes are low. Very low. As in less than zero. That's what it means to be a welfare state. When a state gets back $1.50 for each $1.00 in taxes, that means that they do not pay anything *at all* and instead receive welfare payments.
Now it's disgusting enough that somebody could live with themselves being such worthless greedy leeches, but to continually spout blatant lies about "personal responsibility" "small government" and "free markets" when their lifestyle depends completely on the rejection of all of those things is truly disgusting beyond all decency.
Now in my case, I also thought my hands were too small to play guitar, but Guitar Hero convinced me that I might be able to do it.
Heck, dude, just look here for all the convincing you need that big hands aren't required.
I don't think I'll ever be able to play an F chord
Sure you will.
"Our cosmonauts have reported to have seen from space that Italy looks like the boot of Allah striking the Zionist regime. Soon we will harvest the moon for cheese and will no longer rely on the vile cartoon-drawing Danish."
Come on, look a little closer.
If you nuke Rome, the reflex would make the boot boot Sicily straight through the border between Spain and France causing it to drift over to Morocco bringing it back into Islamic territory.
Seriously, what could be more obvious than that?!?
Just like so much in Australia, they're like a normal magpie except they want to kill you.
As documented here
Besides which, the general rule of thumb (at least in western countries) is that if the animal is cute, we won't eat it; otherwise it's fair game.
And if lobsters lived on land we sure as heck wouldn't eat them.
Some women who bother to learn about and understand men should know this (and I have had the odd girlfriend who does, and tolerated it with an eye-roll and a shake of her head), and that merely looking at other women in a non-disrespectful manner is not "wrong," just the nature of the male.
Heck, my wife told me that she'd consider putting me in an institution if I ever stopped looking since it would be so out of character for a human being. She'll even point out a particularly nice rack if I happen to miss it. Why would anybody be together with somebody who was so completely delusional as to not recognize such a simple basic fact and deal with it like an adult?
Yeah, but if there are no philosophers around to opine about it, did it really happen?
Meter is uniquely American. Everybody else spells it properly: metre.
But then it would be pronounced "meh tree" and who could really give a shit about that?
so, you agree with me, you are just wanting to further the conversation about the exact type of two axis spectrum to use.
You don't seem to understand that I was never talking about anything else. Regardless of whether you talk about the social or economic left or right, the definitions I gave work equally well. Take, for example somebody with one of the numerous different interpretations of Christianity. Socially, they feel the power of the state should be used against gays to prevent equality because they feel that gays are inferior and hence don't deserve the equal rights the constitution guarantees. Socially they are far to the right. Now say they also go with Jesus's statement that a camel will fit through the eye of a needle before a rich man goes to heaven and that helping the poor is critical to being a good person. They might well demand purely redistributive taxation and hence are on the economic left. Do you see how the definitions are properly applied, even if you don't agree that they provide a more accurate framework for discussion?
About that link...that guy is doing the same thing you are...he uses language like he's out to re-invent the wheel when all he brings is a suggestion about improving it. And he uses the word 'post-modern'...whenever someone uses this word, be prepared to hear pretentious, effusive bullshit pedaled as insight.
When you need to jump directly to ad hominem, you demonstrate the weakness of your position.
No contradiction here: regulation (slaves=legal property) in this case is contradictory to freedom.
Yes, it is. That's what he said. Banning slavery is a regulation which is not contradictory to freedom and in fact increases it. All you did was repeat a small part of his point.
Here the author directly misunderstands how the political spectrum works. Fascism and Communism both deprive their citizens of social freedom (authoritarian), as he admits. Fascism gives more economic freedom (to the ones deemed worthy) while Communism is more collectivist minded. Ex: One of the things the Soviet Union prided itself on is their guarantee of employment. Fascism would never do that, by definition. Hence they are both authoritarian but at opposite ends of the other axis.
By the fact that you have to specify that economic freedom is only given to the ones deemed worthy, you demonstrate the validity of the position that I am arguing. You can't claim to increase freedom while requiring that that definition only apply to a select few. That is one of the major flaws in your position, and why your spectrum fails to accurately address reality.
The author of that link seems to me to be trying to compensate for the fact that the two axis political spectrum accurately contextualizes the behavior of neo-con and Reagan/Bush republicans in the global comparative context. There's no denying the facts.
No, he made valid points about the failure of the other systems to provide a useful context in which to discuss the real political arena. Points which I demonstrated your failure to grasp.
You're describing what the Olympics are. My idea of Olympic athletes as models is the way I think it should be.
Ahhh, ok.
At that point I'll just respectfully disagree with you as I feel someone who can run around or swim or whatever still isn't doing anything worthwhile. Everyone can do those things and nobody who has a normal life can do them at that level, so pointing a child toward them as a role model seems pretty silly to me. You are, of course, welcome to find it reasonable rather than silly ;-)
you missed the whole point of my post...modern politics is too complicated for a one axis 'left' and 'right' classification, that's why I linked to the two axis political spectrum.
I saw that, and I don't think that it does a good job of explaining the realities either. I'm not considering it in some simplistic right/left thing as should be obvious by how I explained my position. You might have considered pointing out where you think my position is somehow ignoring the important distinctions rather than just claiming I'm making one dimensional points. I'm not. Either I didn't explain that clearly enough, or you didn't read clearly enough ;-)
For a detailed explanation (if you're interested and have the time) I find the position put forward on this site to be quite illuminating.
It also does a good job of demonstrating the flaws and omissions of the standard 2 axis spectrum and the Nolan chart as well as the simplistic one dimensional right/left.
Of course it turns out I did get my Nobel Prize, but it was just in some other universe, this universe sucks....
Don't sweat it. In that universe what they call the Nobel Prize is just a good sportsmanship award which everyone gets just for playing so it isn't actually worth anything ;-)
4. Get voted out of office at the earliest opportunity.
It's a sad thing when standing up for the Constitution and working to greatly reduce violent crime guarantees someone would get voted out.
If you'd have told me up front that you hated all political parties and were a professional troll I wouldn't have bothered feeding you.
Ahh because I don't like your party, or your party light (which by the way, does not constitute all political parties.Just though you should know that too) and am therefore non partisan, you don't have pat answers to the actual criticisms of your party and your complete ignorance of our system of government and am therefore a troll.
Nice one. Just creep away.
collectivism,[
As in Christianity, Deutschland Über Alles, and Uniform Pasty Arianism. Not left wing collectivism.
opposition to economic liberalism
Hence either left wing, which, given that they were pretty much defined by their hatred of communism it isn't...or right. Like I said.
Liberalism is the center. Left and right are probably best defined by their opposition to liberalism now that there actually is such a philosophy ("left" and "right" predated liberalism).
Liberalism can pretty much be summed up in one sentence from the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal".
The left fundamentally agrees with this point. They, however, feel that the power of the state should be used against the individual in order to promote, enforce, redistribute, etc. that equality. Typically executions/exterminations are based on idealogical purity and therefore might be avoidable if you're willing to immediately start believing everything the state tells you to. Then everyone gets a bowl of rice a day (no cold rat meat unless you bring enough for everyone) and everyone would sit around singing kumbaya..well they would if someone hadn't decided it had anti state overtones and broken all the guitars and shot all the musicians.
The right fundamentally disagrees. They feel some people are born better than others (generally based on race, religion, national origin, parentage, etc.)
They feel that the power of the state should be used against the individual for the benefit of these elite groups. Hereditary power, church and state overlap, corporate welfare. And of course, war, which is always bad for most people and very good for a few.
Typically executions/exterminations are based on accidents of birth thus avoidable only through stealth and speed (and having somewhere to go).
Now Hitler started more to the center than he ended up. The industrialists/aristocracy set him straight. Socialized costs and privatized profits makes for right wing looting of the populace. They did quite well for a while building war materials and the like. Granted, they ended up getting a lot of shit blown the fuck out of, but, you know, it really couldn't have happened to meaner people ;-)
As far as economic right specifically, I'd say the US went right of Germany/Italy a while ago. After all we've been able to keep the war machine going all through WW2 and up to now, so you're unelectable if you even talk about reducing the military. We have no credible military threats, just lots and lots of people in the military and all the associated industries who'd all have to hit the streets and find jobs that don't require wars and tax dollars to stay working if we did.
If half of the country is conservative, then they can't be unamerican, becaase they are HALF OF AMERICA!
Wow, what a completely ignorant statement which clearly demonstrates your complete lack of even the most basic knowledge of the foundation of this nation.
Hot tip, dipshit. This country is not a democracy for *exactly that reason*. What you obviously support is mob rule or the tyranny of the majority. That is a totally anti-American position. The constitution exists for the purpose of preventing what you and the rest of your scumbag fellow traveling traitors are trying to fuck us over with. Would you please read the fucking constitution. It's really not that long and it is your god damned responsibility as a citizen. I am sick to death of having to wipe the asses of you ignorant fucking babies.
Religion, political opinion, and other perspectives that relate to world view are primarily influenced by the household someone grew up in. I gave examples of religious, and political persecution as well as racial persecution, and I didn't even mention sexual preference.
Yes, you conveniently left out sexual preference as it's what you and your fellow scum are so ardently trying to illegally persecute.
This to you means I'm a closet racist and trying to project those beliefs on you. Once again you are claiming knowledge not in evidence. My step father is part cherokee, my Mother's maiden name is Gonsalves, my wife is half Korean, and my biological father is 100% Polish (racial jokes about Pols were very common in my neighborhood growing up, and I kept my fathers heritage a secret for many years). I chose to work with a Nigerian professor for my MS and PhD in a lab where over 6 years I've worked with, and befriended 3 Nigerian, 2 Ghanaian, 1 Korean, and only 2 American graduate students. I've experienced the pain and suffering that is caused by prejudice in general and racism specifically, and will not accept it from anyone! So FUCK YOU YOU IGNORANT PRICK.
The only question this complete non sequitor raises is so fucking what? You accused me of bigotry even though there is no evidence whatsoever for such a position. It is the default Republican claim against anybody who calls them out for what they are when they know that their positions are entirely indefensible. I despise you and your fellow treasonous scum due to the fact that you have willfully chosen to be treasonous scum and for no other reason. As to you not accepting it from anyone, that is a bald faced lie. You have willfully and with malice aforethought chosen to ally yourself with the party who has as one of its most important defining agendas the discrimination against gays, and atheists as well as anybody who disagrees with your fascist agenda. So don't even try to claim you won't accept it when you signed up for it. You are a liar and you have proven that yourself.
You are full of irrational hate for individuals that disagree with you. You want my opinion on political issues? ASK ME! Don't put words in my mouth, I'm more than capable of taking responsibility for expressing my own beliefs.
My hatred is entirely rational. It is based solely upon *actions*. Not accidents of birth, not national origin. Actions and actions alone. You already gave your political views. You are a Republican. You seem to think that you can make this claim and then cowardly deny the rightful consequences of that decision. You can talk all day long about how you don't hate gays how you don't hate America and how you don't love fascism, but all you do is demonstrate yourself to be a liar. You can not sign up for the party who has all of those things as their agenda and then deny your support for them. So, no, you aren't taking responsibility. You are trying to dodge it like the coward that you have demonstrated yourself to be.
I don't judge individuals based on their religious/political/ethnic/sexual affiliations or preferences. YOU on the other hand do. Your judgement of me based solely