why are you equating socialism with 'the worst'?
USA Federal government: CLOSED
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
why are you equating socialism with 'the worst'?
There's an image. I suspect they would have trouble campaigning, considering their traditional core voters.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
Because socialism is a crime against humanity. It's the 40 year old virgin who lives with his parents and doesn't have a job.
nah, it's better than capitalism
Capitalism is a good economic system, but it has to be tempered with the other systems. As I've said a number of times, no pure economic system is good on its own, and it is unrealistic to envision a world with people who have freedom where pure capitalism or socialism runs pure and are still truly free. In one you're a slave to business, in the other you're a slave to government. We need these two great forces to be opposed to each other, of equal strength, in order to keep both in check.
They had a very different traditional core of voters from the 1860's through the 1960's. A core who had very good opinions of the KKK and the "service" they performed.
Yeah, until the parties switched roles and the Republicans embraced the southern strategy.
Perhaps, but I was referring to the sorts of regions which presently tend to vote straight-ticket Democrat.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
Nah bro, capitalism is way better
I'd be happy if the pendulum just started swinging the other way a little bit. We're swinging faster and faster into the "slave to government" side. We're a hairs breadth from Wiemar Republic territory.
Well, except the most damning words came from a guy who is the president of the Tea Party Unity Group. Their position as actual tea partiers, I dunno. It's still shitty company.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/tea-...r-class-action-lawsuit-against-homosexuality/
Here's them actually speaking.
Who's that? I've never heard of them. Is this another extremist group claiming the "tea party" or "conservative" names to further their own agenda? Which of our senators or congresscritters claim strong affiliation with that specific group?
Are the other groups denouncing it? I guess I don't see much of that, it's it's hard to say this isn't representative when you don't hear any of the other tea party groups saying they find this kind of thing repulsive.
Not saying it equals consent, but I know if someone was using a brand name (lets face facts, Tea Party is a brand name) I identified with strongly while putting out a message I disagreed with, I sure as hell would be screaming from the rooftops about how offensive I found it.
Not saying it equals consent, but I know if someone was using a brand name (lets face facts, Tea Party is a brand name) I identified with strongly while putting out a message I disagreed with, I sure as hell would be screaming from the rooftops about how offensive I found it.
The assumption that there is a single winning method of governance and economics seems premature to me. There may be several stable approaches that are roughly on par.
Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk
Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk
Unlikely. Is it the responsibility of every Christian church to post publicly that they denounce the WBC's actions? All that does is serve to provide press to the extremists. Same with extreme feminists - other feminists aren't going to waste time denouncing them.
I could say the same about extreme liberals - why isn't the head of the DNC making a public address every month denouncing the latest idiocy from the far left?
So when someone comes and starts publicizing the extremists and suggesting they represent the tea party or republicans, it's not our job to say they aren't relevant, it's the job of the person bringing their viewpoint forward to prove that they are relevant.
Of course you may disagree, but then you can't complain when I post things from your far left that isn't actually relevant without explanation.
The guy running that "tea party" group, Rick Scarborough, was a featured speaker and co-sponsor of the Value Voters Summit (not just an exhibitor). If he were an exhibitor, or just a speaker who disappears among dozens of other speakers and is not a sponsor, that would be one thing, but clearly they're okay directly associating with him.
I should also clarify, @stienman I don't consider you far right. You're definitely what I would call a staunch conservative, but you're not a nutbag who supports blowing up abortion clinics or destroying the national economy in order to remove one piece of legislation you disagree with. There's a difference between these I feel, and it's important to differentiate between being left or right and being far left or far right.
Poor choice of phrasing. What I meant to say is that assuming you share the views of those very far left of you isn't appropriate.
And I would happily say I disagree with those people when they do things I find repulsive. And have. Multiple times.
Of course, that doesn't matter as I'm not part of an organization or leading an organization which has its name coopted by wackadoos.
You can't play defense against every crazy individual that does something stupid. It's not a good strategy. No organization could or does.
Fun-fact: if you replace Tea party with Isalm or Muslim in your post, you might be called a bigot in some circles.
GasBandit
Staff member
There's a whole lot of astroturf going on in the tea party movement, and the crazies come out of the woodwork to hitch their wagon to the populist movement of the moment because, really, there's been a leadership vacuum in it aching to be filled. Really, there is no one "tea party" organization with a national committee or caucus or anything like that. It's not an actual political party - it's a very nebulous movement. The one unifying drive of most people who call themselves "tea party" members is they want a weaker national government - and some of those who claim the name don't even want that. After all, you can't claim you want a less intrusive federal government in the same breath you call for a federal ban on homosexuality.
They also really, really, hate Obama.
GasBandit
Staff member
It's more complicated than that - true opposition comes because of Obama's policies, but there definitely are a lot of bandwagoners for whom the hatred of President Obama just for who he is is their starting point, with policy being a convenient excuse. Just as there are plenty of people who love and support Obama unconditionally regardless of his actual policy actions or goals.
But saying "moderate Muslims should be more open and active in distancing themselves from terrorists/extremists, otherwise they all get mixed together in one big bunch labeled "Islam"" has literally been deemed illegal in Belgium, as hate speech/racism, so errrr....I can see his point. I don't agree with that judgment and whatever, but yes, a political party here demanding "a clearer stance" on terrorism from the Muslim Executive Council (yes, it's called that, I can't help it) was found guilty, so....Egh.
Let me clarify- I don't expect them to. From what I've seen though when a tragedy occurs in which an extremest Muslim group has perpetrated the act, not long afterward I often find moderate groups are denouncing the action. It certainly doesn't hurt them when they help the moron American media and prevent them from lumping them all together. I also suspect Belgium doesn't have a Fox News posing as a news organization slinging misinformation to millions of your citizens, unhindered.
Depends on who you ask - quite a significant part of the people will tell you that the two main media concerns, both in the hands of leftist socialist commies, spend all of their time misinforming the public and slandering the right parties. Whether that's true....Well, hard to make out sometimes, given there's little to no "neutral" media to be found. Unless you consider them neutral. Heh
Nope, they're just repeating ad nauseam that everything further right than the social-democrats are racists, liking your region is discriminatory, everyone whose parents or grandparents were ever involved with the Nazis are obviously and definitely nazis themselves, being economically right is self-destructive, antisocial and makes you a horrible person,... It gets quite tiring. You have to understand - I'm considered a right wing nutjob by most of my Belgian friends and colleagues.
Ugh, gross. It's not easy being in the middle when everyone is on the edges of crazy town.
I consider myself fairly centrist with a more left-wing lean in some topics (especially ethics), a more right-wing lean in some others (economics) and quite centrist in many others. It always depends on perception and your frame of reference, of course. Even the most right-wing party in Belgium (y'know, the ones that actually campaigned with "go back to your own country, you semi-apes") is in favor of strict enforcement of gun policies and limited availability. We've had perfectly serious discussion about outright banning private gun ownership from center- and left wing parties in parliament. I don't think even Nader's that left in the US on that topic
I'd say that the bulk of us on this board, while leaning left or right in some way shape or form, are still fairly in the middle on most issues. I think that's probably the sanest view to have. Anything other than that is diving headlong into dogma without using your brains to actually think about things. Sure, there are going to be fundimental things that people disagree on , but for the most part, the average person generally just wants what's best for society as a whole. There are just many roads to get there.