|
|
On October 23 2012 02:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 00:44 silynxer wrote:On October 23 2012 00:35 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 00:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 00:17 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 22 2012 23:59 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 23:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 23:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2012 22:20 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 21:24 DoubleReed wrote:
No, Roe v Wade is not the end-all be-all of the abortion debate and any conservativewho argues differently is being intellectually dishonest. This is big government mandating ridiculous financial regulations on abortion clinics to get them shut down, mandating unnecessary medical procedures (which I have no idea how so-called conservatives could ever defend) and weird, creepy shaming tactics trying to misinform women about their bodies.
It actually pisses me off that people try to sweep this under the rug. I suppose it's because as conservatives this is the government being so incredibly invasive in your personal life that it would be impossible for them to condone, so they just pretend it's not happening.
It's really quite sickening. Put yourself in a woman's shoes for once. We've been over this before. It's a perspective thing. If you're not willing to put yourself in their shoes, then of course it makes no sense to you. Perspective thing? Mandating unnecessary medical procedures is a perspective thing??? Tell me. If this was literally any other circumstance, would you seriously not be angry over the government mandating an unnecessary medical procedure? I cannot take a perspective that is bafflingly inconsistent. Our constitution is framed for the protection of three things: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. As you know, they happen in that order. If the claim is that abortion is a deprivation of that first point to the unborn, then logically it trumps any other government ideology you might hold. In other words, you are justified to use government to enforce that right for the unborn. The argument for the use of government enforcement is actually quite sound if you come at it from the perspective that you are depriving the right of life by supporting abortion. Um, the Constitution is framed to form a more perfect union, establish justice, provide for the common defense, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. Edit: The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of the new government is to secure safety and happiness, too. The Founders knew that the only things the government should protect are the right to life, liberty, and property. Though this idea actually started with John Locke; an English philosopher who influenced the Founding Fathers greatly. That's true, but that's not how the Constitution is framed at all...and they also obviously knew the government should protect domestic tranquility and promote (which is more than protect) the general welfare. Edit: The "right to life" is as much a part of the framing of the constitution as the "right to privacy." They both are implicit and not part of the framing of the document. While I agree with you, one could use the Fifth Amendment as an argument for the so-called "right to life." The Constitution, at least in terms of the judicial system, recognize that individuals have the right to life. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The Constitution only limits government (and originally only the federal government), so the "right to life" doesn't apply when a private individuals murder each other (abortion). I'm just pointing out that there is a reference to it in the Constitution. Well a fetus is not a person and I want any person who believes he thinks it is to answer this: If you believe a fetus is a person and an abortion is murder, then you are looking at the biggest crime in human history, the perpetual murder of millions of the most defenseless members of society right now. And your reaction to that is: well better vote Republican this time. Really? I mean really? I call bullshit, either you don't believe a fetus is a person and aborting is murder or you are full of shit. In a sense those who bomb abortion clinics are the only consistent ones. Btw would you support invading other countries because they abort? I mean so many more "persons" die this way than in all the conflicts where intervention was deemed necessary... let me ask you something. during the genocide of Rawanda... where were you? how dare you call it a genocide if you didn't go over there and try to stop it? people were being slaughtered in the hundreds of thousands and your answer was: "oh, I better go to that U2 concert?" Really? I mean really? I call bullshit. either you don't believe the Tutsi are human beings and that wiping them out was genocide, or you are full of shit. or, you know, you could use your fucking head... that works too.
You do realize that my country says Germany, so it's safe to assume that I was in Germany. And that's really far away from Rwanda. Whatever your particular set of morals entails there is a practical difference whether you are in the direct vicinity of some abhorrent event or not.
|
On October 23 2012 02:42 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 02:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 01:56 radiatoren wrote:On October 23 2012 01:36 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 01:27 farvacola wrote:On October 23 2012 01:23 Swazi Spring wrote:
I like how the socialists here have to resort to name-calling and appeals to ignorance instead of actually trying to counter my argument in rational and civilized manner. Please see the first rule of this thread. You haven't presented an argument, you've simply thrown around buzzwords in the hope they coagulate into something coherent. Go ahead, give us a definition of socialism and apply it. Otherwise stop blowing hot air. Socialism doesn't really have a clear-cut definition, but it effectively means government control, primarily in economics. Unfortunately, many (if not most) socialists go beyond just economic control and also support insane social and foreign policies, including, but not limited to the erosion of our civil liberties. That being said, there are plenty of socialists out there who ONLY support a state-controlled economy, while also supporting civil liberties. There are also various different types of socialists, from communists to democratic socialists to social democrats (US liberals) to anarcho-socialists, and many more. I think you are painting with far too broad stroke in these definitions. Without "socialism" in your definition, we are in a very extreme libertarian dream! I don't think that socialist works in that context, when you are talking about politics. You could just as well call xDaunt and DeepElemBlues for socialists, which doesn't make much sense. Ideologically you might be right about the overall definitions, but in terms of reality you need to flesh it out more specifically! I see what you're saying and you made a few great points. By definition though, something is either socialist (statist) or capitalist (stateless), neither ideal would work by itself in reality; we should strive for a middle-ground somewhere. Where we (as a society) disagree is just what the middle-ground should be. I doubt you'll find many conservatives who want to completely abolish the state, just as there are probably not many socialists who want to completely do away with individualism. Capitalism isn't statelessness. lol Consider the source of the term. When Marx wrote of the "capitalist mode of production" he wasn't writing about some hypothetical system. He was writing about a system of government privilege and plutarchy that actually existed. The East India Company was a perfect example of capitalism in action. So too are all other state-created private monopolies and government bailouts of privately owned industries.
Yes, I'm well aware that capitalism isn't statelessness, many argue that private property rights cannot exist without the state to enforce them; though such individuals often overlook the possibility of private entities enforcing private property rights.
I used the term capitalism to primarily refer to economics, for instance, industries being led by the free-market, as opposed to being led by the state.
|
On October 23 2012 02:47 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 02:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 00:44 silynxer wrote:On October 23 2012 00:35 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 00:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 00:17 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 22 2012 23:59 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 23:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 23:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2012 22:20 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
We've been over this before. It's a perspective thing. If you're not willing to put yourself in their shoes, then of course it makes no sense to you. Perspective thing? Mandating unnecessary medical procedures is a perspective thing??? Tell me. If this was literally any other circumstance, would you seriously not be angry over the government mandating an unnecessary medical procedure? I cannot take a perspective that is bafflingly inconsistent. Our constitution is framed for the protection of three things: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. As you know, they happen in that order. If the claim is that abortion is a deprivation of that first point to the unborn, then logically it trumps any other government ideology you might hold. In other words, you are justified to use government to enforce that right for the unborn. The argument for the use of government enforcement is actually quite sound if you come at it from the perspective that you are depriving the right of life by supporting abortion. Um, the Constitution is framed to form a more perfect union, establish justice, provide for the common defense, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. Edit: The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of the new government is to secure safety and happiness, too. The Founders knew that the only things the government should protect are the right to life, liberty, and property. Though this idea actually started with John Locke; an English philosopher who influenced the Founding Fathers greatly. That's true, but that's not how the Constitution is framed at all...and they also obviously knew the government should protect domestic tranquility and promote (which is more than protect) the general welfare. Edit: The "right to life" is as much a part of the framing of the constitution as the "right to privacy." They both are implicit and not part of the framing of the document. While I agree with you, one could use the Fifth Amendment as an argument for the so-called "right to life." The Constitution, at least in terms of the judicial system, recognize that individuals have the right to life. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The Constitution only limits government (and originally only the federal government), so the "right to life" doesn't apply when a private individuals murder each other (abortion). I'm just pointing out that there is a reference to it in the Constitution. Well a fetus is not a person and I want any person who believes he thinks it is to answer this: If you believe a fetus is a person and an abortion is murder, then you are looking at the biggest crime in human history, the perpetual murder of millions of the most defenseless members of society right now. And your reaction to that is: well better vote Republican this time. Really? I mean really? I call bullshit, either you don't believe a fetus is a person and aborting is murder or you are full of shit. In a sense those who bomb abortion clinics are the only consistent ones. Btw would you support invading other countries because they abort? I mean so many more "persons" die this way than in all the conflicts where intervention was deemed necessary... let me ask you something. during the genocide of Rawanda... where were you? how dare you call it a genocide if you didn't go over there and try to stop it? people were being slaughtered in the hundreds of thousands and your answer was: "oh, I better go to that U2 concert?" Really? I mean really? I call bullshit. either you don't believe the Tutsi are human beings and that wiping them out was genocide, or you are full of shit. or, you know, you could use your fucking head... that works too. You do realize that my country says Germany, so it's safe to assume that I was in Germany. And that's really far away from Rwanda. Whatever your particular set of morals entails there is a practical difference whether you are in the direct vicinity of some abhorrent event or not.
was it impossible for you, and every other person in the Western world who condemned the genocide, to go over to Rwanda? Obama had money at that time, why didn't he go over there? Ted Kennedy had money, why didn't he go over there? If every person in the Western world who condemned the genocide had pooled their money and resources, they could have done so much more in stopping it from happening.
you can go ahead and argue practicality, but then again, that's my argument. none of the actions that you suggested (you only suggested bombing clinics) would be practical or even moral. it would not solve the problem, it would not help the problem, and it might hurt the problem (turn people off of the pro-life position). you've established a bullshit standard and then have the gall to call me full of shit because I reject your idiotic standard.
|
But it doesn't work like that. Government has an important role to play in Capitalism.
|
'When I use a word,' Swazi Spring said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
|
On October 23 2012 02:48 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 02:42 Mindcrime wrote:On October 23 2012 02:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 01:56 radiatoren wrote:On October 23 2012 01:36 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 01:27 farvacola wrote:On October 23 2012 01:23 Swazi Spring wrote:
I like how the socialists here have to resort to name-calling and appeals to ignorance instead of actually trying to counter my argument in rational and civilized manner. Please see the first rule of this thread. You haven't presented an argument, you've simply thrown around buzzwords in the hope they coagulate into something coherent. Go ahead, give us a definition of socialism and apply it. Otherwise stop blowing hot air. Socialism doesn't really have a clear-cut definition, but it effectively means government control, primarily in economics. Unfortunately, many (if not most) socialists go beyond just economic control and also support insane social and foreign policies, including, but not limited to the erosion of our civil liberties. That being said, there are plenty of socialists out there who ONLY support a state-controlled economy, while also supporting civil liberties. There are also various different types of socialists, from communists to democratic socialists to social democrats (US liberals) to anarcho-socialists, and many more. I think you are painting with far too broad stroke in these definitions. Without "socialism" in your definition, we are in a very extreme libertarian dream! I don't think that socialist works in that context, when you are talking about politics. You could just as well call xDaunt and DeepElemBlues for socialists, which doesn't make much sense. Ideologically you might be right about the overall definitions, but in terms of reality you need to flesh it out more specifically! I see what you're saying and you made a few great points. By definition though, something is either socialist (statist) or capitalist (stateless), neither ideal would work by itself in reality; we should strive for a middle-ground somewhere. Where we (as a society) disagree is just what the middle-ground should be. I doubt you'll find many conservatives who want to completely abolish the state, just as there are probably not many socialists who want to completely do away with individualism. Capitalism isn't statelessness. lol Consider the source of the term. When Marx wrote of the "capitalist mode of production" he wasn't writing about some hypothetical system. He was writing about a system of government privilege and plutarchy that actually existed. The East India Company was a perfect example of capitalism in action. So too are all other state-created private monopolies and government bailouts of privately owned industries. Yes, I'm well aware that capitalism isn't statelessness, many argue that private property rights cannot exist without the state to enforce them; though such individuals often overlook the possibility of private entities enforcing private property rights. I used the term capitalism to primarily refer to economics, for instance, industries being led by the free-market, as opposed to being led by the state.
Problem is those private entities just become the "state" eventually.
|
On October 23 2012 02:45 Recognizable wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 02:33 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 02:30 Recognizable wrote:On October 23 2012 01:36 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 01:27 farvacola wrote:On October 23 2012 01:23 Swazi Spring wrote:
I like how the socialists here have to resort to name-calling and appeals to ignorance instead of actually trying to counter my argument in rational and civilized manner. Please see the first rule of this thread. You haven't presented an argument, you've simply thrown around buzzwords in the hope they coagulate into something coherent. Go ahead, give us a definition of socialism and apply it. Otherwise stop blowing hot air. Socialism doesn't really have a universally agreed upon and clear-cut definition, but it effectively means government control, primarily in economics. Unfortunately, many (if not most) socialists go beyond just economic control and also support insane social and foreign policies, including, but not limited to the erosion of our civil liberties. That being said, there are plenty of socialists out there who ONLY support a state-controlled economy, while also supporting civil liberties. There are also various different types of socialists, from communists to democratic socialists to social democrats (US liberals) to anarcho-socialists, and many more. You do realize you just defined socialism in a way that makes it so every country on this whole planet is socialist. To some degree, yes, it's a matter of just how socialist they are. Well obviously, and for good reasons. Show nested quote +Do you vote for the Mormon socialist or for the black socialist? It makes no real difference either way, both are so unbelievably far-left that we're doomed either way. Everyone is rallying behind Mitt Romney to get Obama out of office, but even if Romney is elected, we'll still be heading in the wrong direction (socialism). Romney isn't going to do anything to decrease the national debt, end the welfare state, or even touch the Federal Reserve. This post howevver, is completely batshit insane. You start off by being prejudiced towards mormons and slightly racist towards a black president. There was no reason whatsoever to point both of those things out, and then you describe the USA far-left. Which is rediculous on a global scale. I might argue that because the USA isn't socialistic enough you have to problems that you do. When the average pay of a CEO increases 700+ percent and that of a regular worker only 5 percent or so, you have a problem. The discrepancy between wealth is an issue. Many otherwise intelligent, hard working people aren't getting chances they otherwise would have in a more socialistic country with things like college being as expensive as it is. I am not saying the EU is a good example of a welfare state because I belief most European Country's to be too far left, but the USA being too socialist is not the problem, especially when the reason of the recent crisis was because of too little regulations.
I don't see how calling Romney a Mormon or Obama black to be "racist" or "prejudice." There was no reason, I was just using those two adjectives to make it clear who I was referring to. Also, using the European Union as "the default" scale is pretty ridiculous, you said yourself that it is too far-left. The modern American government is certainly far-left by American standards, you cannot deny that. America was never intended to be as socialist as it is today and the federal government was certainly never intended to be as powerful and large as it is now. We've even got politicians openly advocating in favor of "redistributing the wealth," banning guns, banning free-speech, nationalizing entire industries, and saying we need to "get rid of the Constitution." The president of the United States himself said he wants to nationalize every industry.
With all due respect, I think your "wealth disparity" argument is fundamentally flawed. You say that poor people "cannot rise up," which is absolutely ridiculous. We should strive for a society that is fair and people have a chance to succeed, but we shouldn't guarantee (or punish) success. If poor people work hard, they can become successful, I know plenty of people who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and are now doing pretty well for themselves (including members of my own family). There are some people out there who cannot provide for themselves, such as those with disabilities, and I actually do support government assistance for such people.
As for lack of regulations causing the current economic crisis, that was indeed a small part of it. When Bill Clinton repealed (parts of) the Glass Steagall Act, it allowed banks to grow large ("too big to fail"), but that in it's own right didn't cause them to collapse. What primarily caused those banks to collapse was giving away loans to people who couldn't pay them off, which was actually encouraged by the federal government through Bill Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act. As for the national debt, that was caused by reckless spending, including socialist spending. As much as Democrats want to blame it all on George W. Bush, he certainly didn't travel back in time and create Social Security or Medicare or the EPA or the thousands of other big government agencies that drain our resources; though he is partially to blame for the national debt as well.
|
This stands as one of the great examples of why I do not aim to engage in debates and sometimes even discussions on the internet with strangers. The last 3 pages are people responding to a person of humorous intelligence, others spouting lines they heard on television (that were shitty soundbites to begin with), and a marginal dose of discussion on foreign policy. Which you'd think should be the focus of the thread before the debate in 6 or 7 hours.
Instead- this.
|
It's these sorts of people who give people like me a bad name. It's no wonder I have to wage war with straw men all day. -_-
|
On October 23 2012 02:54 sam!zdat wrote:
'When I use a word,' Swazi Spring said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
I apologize if something I said came across rather scornfully.
|
On October 23 2012 02:48 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 02:42 Mindcrime wrote:On October 23 2012 02:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 01:56 radiatoren wrote:On October 23 2012 01:36 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 01:27 farvacola wrote:On October 23 2012 01:23 Swazi Spring wrote:
I like how the socialists here have to resort to name-calling and appeals to ignorance instead of actually trying to counter my argument in rational and civilized manner. Please see the first rule of this thread. You haven't presented an argument, you've simply thrown around buzzwords in the hope they coagulate into something coherent. Go ahead, give us a definition of socialism and apply it. Otherwise stop blowing hot air. Socialism doesn't really have a clear-cut definition, but it effectively means government control, primarily in economics. Unfortunately, many (if not most) socialists go beyond just economic control and also support insane social and foreign policies, including, but not limited to the erosion of our civil liberties. That being said, there are plenty of socialists out there who ONLY support a state-controlled economy, while also supporting civil liberties. There are also various different types of socialists, from communists to democratic socialists to social democrats (US liberals) to anarcho-socialists, and many more. I think you are painting with far too broad stroke in these definitions. Without "socialism" in your definition, we are in a very extreme libertarian dream! I don't think that socialist works in that context, when you are talking about politics. You could just as well call xDaunt and DeepElemBlues for socialists, which doesn't make much sense. Ideologically you might be right about the overall definitions, but in terms of reality you need to flesh it out more specifically! I see what you're saying and you made a few great points. By definition though, something is either socialist (statist) or capitalist (stateless), neither ideal would work by itself in reality; we should strive for a middle-ground somewhere. Where we (as a society) disagree is just what the middle-ground should be. I doubt you'll find many conservatives who want to completely abolish the state, just as there are probably not many socialists who want to completely do away with individualism. Capitalism isn't statelessness. lol Consider the source of the term. When Marx wrote of the "capitalist mode of production" he wasn't writing about some hypothetical system. He was writing about a system of government privilege and plutarchy that actually existed. The East India Company was a perfect example of capitalism in action. So too are all other state-created private monopolies and government bailouts of privately owned industries. Yes, I'm well aware that capitalism isn't statelessness, many argue that private property rights cannot exist without the state to enforce them; though such individuals often overlook the possibility of private entities enforcing private property rights. I used the term capitalism to primarily refer to economics, for instance, industries being led by the free-market, as opposed to being led by the state.
So you use the term in an ahistorical manner to refer to something that does not actually exist. gotcha
|
On October 23 2012 03:09 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 02:48 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 02:42 Mindcrime wrote:On October 23 2012 02:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 01:56 radiatoren wrote:On October 23 2012 01:36 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 01:27 farvacola wrote:On October 23 2012 01:23 Swazi Spring wrote:
I like how the socialists here have to resort to name-calling and appeals to ignorance instead of actually trying to counter my argument in rational and civilized manner. Please see the first rule of this thread. You haven't presented an argument, you've simply thrown around buzzwords in the hope they coagulate into something coherent. Go ahead, give us a definition of socialism and apply it. Otherwise stop blowing hot air. Socialism doesn't really have a clear-cut definition, but it effectively means government control, primarily in economics. Unfortunately, many (if not most) socialists go beyond just economic control and also support insane social and foreign policies, including, but not limited to the erosion of our civil liberties. That being said, there are plenty of socialists out there who ONLY support a state-controlled economy, while also supporting civil liberties. There are also various different types of socialists, from communists to democratic socialists to social democrats (US liberals) to anarcho-socialists, and many more. I think you are painting with far too broad stroke in these definitions. Without "socialism" in your definition, we are in a very extreme libertarian dream! I don't think that socialist works in that context, when you are talking about politics. You could just as well call xDaunt and DeepElemBlues for socialists, which doesn't make much sense. Ideologically you might be right about the overall definitions, but in terms of reality you need to flesh it out more specifically! I see what you're saying and you made a few great points. By definition though, something is either socialist (statist) or capitalist (stateless), neither ideal would work by itself in reality; we should strive for a middle-ground somewhere. Where we (as a society) disagree is just what the middle-ground should be. I doubt you'll find many conservatives who want to completely abolish the state, just as there are probably not many socialists who want to completely do away with individualism. Capitalism isn't statelessness. lol Consider the source of the term. When Marx wrote of the "capitalist mode of production" he wasn't writing about some hypothetical system. He was writing about a system of government privilege and plutarchy that actually existed. The East India Company was a perfect example of capitalism in action. So too are all other state-created private monopolies and government bailouts of privately owned industries. Yes, I'm well aware that capitalism isn't statelessness, many argue that private property rights cannot exist without the state to enforce them; though such individuals often overlook the possibility of private entities enforcing private property rights. I used the term capitalism to primarily refer to economics, for instance, industries being led by the free-market, as opposed to being led by the state. So you use the term in an ahistorical manner to refer to something that does not actually exist. gotcha
When discussing political philosophy, things that do not currently (and possibly never have) exist(ed) are generally the primary subjects of discussion.
|
On October 23 2012 03:04 Probe1 wrote:
This stands as one of the great examples of why I do not aim to engage in debates and sometimes even discussions on the internet with strangers. The last 3 pages are people responding to a person of humorous intelligence, others spouting lines they heard on television (that were shitty soundbites to begin with), and a marginal dose of discussion on foreign policy. Which you'd think should be the focus of the thread before the debate in 6 or 7 hours.
Instead- this.
The quality of the debate within this thread comes and goes; anyone who partakes in online discussions ought to know that value in online argumentation can be a fleeting thing. Oftentimes, this thread is full of partisan mockery and bile spitting; this does not bother me and I in fact enjoy reading the vitriol of the opposition, for the times when positions are properly clarified and debates are carried out properly more than make up for the bad. TL provides for a very unique amalgam of political opinion, and this necessarily comes with downsides. The wonderful thing about internet discussion is that one can simply walk away if they are angry or frustrated with the direction.
|
|
|
All I know is Romney will attack on Libya and Israel. For everything else, he'll say Obama is terrible while playing "America, FUCK YEAH!" in the background.
|
On October 23 2012 03:10 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:09 Mindcrime wrote:On October 23 2012 02:48 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 02:42 Mindcrime wrote:On October 23 2012 02:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 01:56 radiatoren wrote:On October 23 2012 01:36 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 01:27 farvacola wrote:On October 23 2012 01:23 Swazi Spring wrote:
I like how the socialists here have to resort to name-calling and appeals to ignorance instead of actually trying to counter my argument in rational and civilized manner. Please see the first rule of this thread. You haven't presented an argument, you've simply thrown around buzzwords in the hope they coagulate into something coherent. Go ahead, give us a definition of socialism and apply it. Otherwise stop blowing hot air. Socialism doesn't really have a clear-cut definition, but it effectively means government control, primarily in economics. Unfortunately, many (if not most) socialists go beyond just economic control and also support insane social and foreign policies, including, but not limited to the erosion of our civil liberties. That being said, there are plenty of socialists out there who ONLY support a state-controlled economy, while also supporting civil liberties. There are also various different types of socialists, from communists to democratic socialists to social democrats (US liberals) to anarcho-socialists, and many more. I think you are painting with far too broad stroke in these definitions. Without "socialism" in your definition, we are in a very extreme libertarian dream! I don't think that socialist works in that context, when you are talking about politics. You could just as well call xDaunt and DeepElemBlues for socialists, which doesn't make much sense. Ideologically you might be right about the overall definitions, but in terms of reality you need to flesh it out more specifically! I see what you're saying and you made a few great points. By definition though, something is either socialist (statist) or capitalist (stateless), neither ideal would work by itself in reality; we should strive for a middle-ground somewhere. Where we (as a society) disagree is just what the middle-ground should be. I doubt you'll find many conservatives who want to completely abolish the state, just as there are probably not many socialists who want to completely do away with individualism. Capitalism isn't statelessness. lol Consider the source of the term. When Marx wrote of the "capitalist mode of production" he wasn't writing about some hypothetical system. He was writing about a system of government privilege and plutarchy that actually existed. The East India Company was a perfect example of capitalism in action. So too are all other state-created private monopolies and government bailouts of privately owned industries. Yes, I'm well aware that capitalism isn't statelessness, many argue that private property rights cannot exist without the state to enforce them; though such individuals often overlook the possibility of private entities enforcing private property rights. I used the term capitalism to primarily refer to economics, for instance, industries being led by the free-market, as opposed to being led by the state. So you use the term in an ahistorical manner to refer to something that does not actually exist. gotcha When discussing political philosophy, things that do not currently (and possibly never have) exist(ed) are generally the primary subjects of discussion.
Yes, but generally one anchors one's discussion in history, if one wants to pretend to any modicum of intellectual honesty.
The discussion of political systems is necessarily wrapped up in a discussion of how political systems come about.
|
I think nothing is going to happen. I'm not even gonna watch this debate. It's foreign policy debate, which means absolutely nothing will be said. They might quibble over sanctions or something, but there is little difference. It's not like anyone is gonna blurt out "I wanna bomb Iran!" I'm anticipating both of them doing their best to fill an hour or more with dead air while giving lip service to a "strong American foreign policy," etc.
|
Word, JD. Gotta make sure we're staying "defended"
|
On October 23 2012 03:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I think nothing is going to happen. I'm not even gonna watch this debate. It's foreign policy debate, which means absolutely nothing will be said. They might quibble over sanctions or something, but there is little difference. It's not like anyone is gonna blurt out "I wanna bomb Iran!" I'm anticipating both of them doing their best to fill an hour or more with dead air while giving lip service to a "strong American foreign policy," etc.
I will now watch the debate with bated breath in hopes that Mitt Romney farts out a "I wanna bomb Iran!" or Obama whispers "I don't trust the Chinese....."
|
On October 23 2012 03:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I think nothing is going to happen. I'm not even gonna watch this debate. It's foreign policy debate, which means absolutely nothing will be said. They might quibble over sanctions or something, but there is little difference. It's not like anyone is gonna blurt out "I wanna bomb Iran!" I'm anticipating both of them doing their best to fill an hour or more with dead air while giving lip service to a "strong American foreign policy," etc.
I'm in the same boat as you, there's no difference between the two, I'm not even going to bother watching the debate. The only debate I watched was the vice presidential debate, and that was absolutely dreadful. These "debates" are just two mirror leftists talking about non-sense. These debates should be about the ideological differences between the candidates, but I guess that's pretty hard to do when there are no ideological differences to argue about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
