Sir Mittington Willard III appoints Ayn Rand -- excuse me, Andrew Ryan -- no wait...

[Salad Snake]

Originally Posted by gufftroad

i dont mind paying tax to support the government but not to support other citizens having lived next to section 8 housing for a few years i have grown out of my liberalism

Originally Posted by Warborn

Cynicism is the root of all conservatism, isn't it?

I agree, and I don't blame them honestly, some of the things one sees....but I still have hope in people, and want to help them. And thus I'm a liberal. I can see how a particularly bad episode in your life could change that though, again I don't blame you, and I'm not saying that patronizingly.

[p0intman]

I have not seen a single thing that gives Romney or any other republican any merit to hold any office higher than that of congress in this nation. Not surprised. Not voting for him, either.

I'll vote obama, because he at least has a clue.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by gufftroad

left supports more government with more social programs yup anarchist totally fill that bill with all the government they want

Me thinks you don't have a good grasp on the political spectrum. Totalitarianism vs Individualism has nothing to do with right or left. Take military dictatorships. Anarchists are leftist extreme individualists who believe in a local community safety net and the community taking care automatically of those who fail to take care of themselves. Libertarians are right wing extreme individualists who believe in no community safety net, but everyone taking care of themselves and nothing more. Tbh, I find both utopian folly.



Traditionalists and nationalists are far right wing collectivists (state imposed religion / "own populace first").

Conservatives are right wing individualists ("maintain status quo")

Liberals are moderate right wing individualists ("individual freedom").

Democrats and social-liberals are dead center ("individual freedom with responsibility for others").

Social-democrats are moderate left wing collectivists ("individual freedom with a lot of self-imposed responsibility for others".

Socialists are left wing collectivists ("responsibility for others trumps individual freedom, collective over individuals").

Communists are extreme left wing collectivists ("state imposed responsibility for others, collective is all").

[Baneblade]

I don't like Paul Ryan, to me he seems to be basically a younger Romney with his platform molding itself to whatever he thinks is popular at the time.

My vote was going to Ron Paul anyway, and it still is.

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by gufftroad

the problem is the majority of the people who get welfare have no reason other then laziness to receive it

[citation needed]

i've lost 2 jobs lately (one basically being forced out and one being laid off) i took $0 of unemployment

So, what, because you didn't require assistance a couple times therefore nobody should ever require assistance? What if you got into a car accident and lost your sight and had to learn a totally new way to make a living? What if you lost your job and then got cancer? What if you developed schizophrenia and lost your job, and then required ongoing medication to prevent you from being yet another homeless person? These are all scenarios that play out every day, where people either get help from others or the government until they get reestablished or they become homeless. And there you go but for the grace of Allah.

Originally Posted by Baneblade

I don't like Paul Ryan, to me he seems to be basically a younger Romney with his platform molding itself to whatever he thinks is popular at the time.

My vote was going to Ron Paul anyway, and it still is.

He actually seems much more ideological. The Ryan Budget was almost unreal. It would fuck over the #1 constituent of the Republican Party (old white people) while enshrining government overreach of the Patriot Act as a permanent tool to use against dissidents. Romney just panders to whatever seems popular and would be little different than Obama is, but Ryan seems to be a true believer who genuinely wants to do away with social programs, whether social security or medicare or anything else.

[Neurotoxin]

Originally Posted by gufftroad

the problem is the majority of the people who get welfare have no reason other then laziness to receive it i've lost 2 jobs lately (one basically being forced out and one being laid off) i took $0 of unemployment

That is your own decision. Or maybe it wasn't, but that is how things went anyhow. Some people can't get unemployment though, and nobody truly wants to live off unemployment except the most back-water folks with zero aspirations. Too many people want jobs, nobody wants to set people up for careers when they can have people as general first-to-go laborers instead.

The problem is that there's an overabundance of labor, so its cheaper to keep turning over unskilled / semi-skilled workers (hell even highly skilled workers with the lack of jobs these days) than retain them and build their careers at the company. Some industries are immune to this (police, private prisons, and military, can't seem to employ enough) but most are not. It isn't just supermarkets and kitchen either, the Blizzard 600 is one of many cases showing that entertainment technology-related industry is the same way, dropping skilled workers who liked their jobs to enforce profit margins.

Welfare nothing. People want jobs where they aren't harassed, treated as expendable, exploited by bosses above and beyond the normal worker/employer relationship, and paid criminally low wages. If we were to increase minimum wage in America, starting from 1968's $1.60, and increase that by inflation and consumer price index increases every year, minimum wage would be AT LEAST $13.50 / hour right now. And that is for the MINIMUM, for an unskilled worker starting day 1 of their first job, skilled and educated workers deserve more for the work they do.

The way to end crime and war isn't over-policing and military action, it is good jobs and infrastructure that supports everybody. Nobody is going to give up their good job to go commit violent crimes or crimes of desperation. Few will join a militarily when they already have access to good jobs where they aren't being sent overseas to shoot at / get shot at workers from another nation. When everyone's conditions are met in a way that is fair and equitable, crimes of desperation disappear, violent crimes drop significantly, and people will have more motivation to keep the nice jobs they have.


That's why I can't vote Democrat or Republican. Two names for the same ruling Capitalist party, they both tow the party line in a different way, but nothing they do is meant to upset the control that Capitalism has in America. "Obamacare" is just a way to enforce profits for medical insurance companies, for example. At the same time, Libertarians are too obsessed with corporate rights and reducing social safety nets, ignoring how those systems work in other nations. As well, Greens are way too soft, they have some decent leftward-leaning policy but still fall short in many ways. It doesn't matter who it is, Ron Paul, Paul Ryan, more Obama, they all represent the interests of Capitalism. Keeping wages low and taking no steps towards guaranteeing employment and housing for all citizens, while propping up police and prisons and military to keep the public and the world in check, is all I can expect from these goons.

That is why I vote with PSL. I'll never throw another vote away to the Capitalist party. Socialism has been smeared in America for almost a century now, and some socialist groups really are fascist nationalists, but ones that are international Marxist-Leninists are a completely different stroke of the brush. The policies of PSL's campaign are definitely ones I agree with, and I recommend that you check them out as well before replying to call me a damn dirty socialist.

[Baneblade]

So, how did that Soviet Union work out for socialism?

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

So, how did that Soviet Union work out for socialism?

You mean extreme socialism including government ownership of the means of production and distribution? To explain the implications of socialism in the Soviet Union takes a long time. There are Russian history classes that actually cover this. If you don't know, you probably shouldn't bring it up, since it was an extremely complex set of events that attempted to bring Russia up to the modern times quickly. In a way it worked, since before that time there existed extreme class disparity that was ripping the country apart. They became a super power within a very short time.

Watch this

Watch this

.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

I was asking Neurotoxin, but I can understand how you might be confused about that.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

I was asking Neurotoxin, but I can understand how you might be confused about that.

You can't expect everyone to spoon feed you information about history was my point. Asking for essentially trivial stuff like this isn't going to help the conversation. If you have a point to make about socialism in the Soviet Union compared to the PLS organization then say it and cite your sources. Also I knew exactly who you were talking to, but your ignorance and lack of understanding about the Soviet Union and PLS was obvious was from your question, and I felt like pointing it out to try to force you to explain yourself. I see you can't do that though, so you might as well drop the comparison.

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

I was asking Neurotoxin, but I can understand how you might be confused about that.

Oh no, someone other than the person you intended answered your silly question. Quick, call the Internet police.

[Figment]

From those ten points, PSL sound like the Tea Party of Socialists, tbh. They are not social democrats, but radicals and are more leftist than any European Green Party. Some of it is about rights, others are just about irrealistic ideology. Some of them with worrying paranoia and unhindered by historical knowledge nor economic expertise. International communism (Leninism not so much as trotskism) aren't in the interest of a healthy society. Any society based on radicalism will always lead to coercion and totalitarianism is setting the populace up for systematic oppression. In such a society, Voltaire is dead because the radicals will treat you as a threat and enemy of the 'state'.

GUARANTEED job 'right' at minimum wage of $20,-? That is just asking for abuse. Confiscating wealth from 'wall street criminals' where any capitalist is labeled evil? No. Remove walls and allow for unhindered, unregulated immigration while jobs are guaranteed?

Uhm... Do you want the Mexican Republic of Texas back?

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

You can't expect everyone to spoon feed you information about history was my point. Asking for essentially trivial stuff like this isn't going to help the conversation. If you have a point to make about socialism in the Soviet Union compared to the PLS organization then say it and cite your sources. Also I knew exactly who you were talking to, but your ignorance and lack of understanding about the Soviet Union and PLS was obvious was from your question, and I felt like pointing it out to try to force you to explain yourself. I see you can't do that though, so you might as well drop the comparison.

Originally Posted by Warborn

Oh no, someone other than the person you intended answered your silly question. Quick, call the Internet police.

Wow, seriously? Neurotoxin was the one spewing about how great pure socialism is and I just wanted to see what he would say about the original 'pure' socialist nation. But you two typical liberals keep it up, eventually people will catch on to your game.

[ItsTheSheppy]

As usual, a presidential candidate nominates who is going to be his Cheerleader In Chief and I say "...who?"

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

Wow, seriously? Neurotoxin was the one spewing about how great pure socialism is and I just wanted to see what he would say about the original 'pure' socialist nation. But you two typical liberals keep it up, eventually people will catch on to your game.

Thing is you set yourself up for the default "socialist-hater based on only considering USSR".

That said, Neurotoxin seems to like the USSR based on Leninism, without accepting its excesses occured (from other thread). But the radicalism proposed by the PLS is wider (includes greens) and focuses on all social-economic poor while blaming everything on the system (crime). Simply emptying prisons without doing something about the gang culture inside and on the streets doesn't work. It also includes several liberal topics, such as self-determination on some parts, while unlike liberals wanting more control on personal life. At the same time it includes some anarchic paranoia elements like extreme anti-globalisation.

I'm sure it supports some good things, but the right to work is basically as silly as the right to a gun. Every party has certain elements to contribute, the main problem is that radicals of any group are irrealistic, don't care what other people think and are usualy unable to balance their ideas or compromise because they can't imagine alternatives. They often imagine and expect a state of total commitment to their ideals from the entire populace, think this is realistic and want to exclude people that aren't like them by considering them saboteurs, evil, etc.

Whether left (extreme socialists) or right (Tea Party), they are the worst enemies to their own ideals and the bigger threats to a respectful, fair and realistically sustainable society. Such societies will be able to sustain themselves for a while, but will eventually buckle under internal stresses. See USSR, see Chile, see Myanmar, see nazi and DDR germany, see Lybia, see how China and North-Korea struggle to maintain control (China makes a lot of concessions already and has to go to extremes to keep people from organizing and they seem to realise they can't keep that up). See any country pre-democracy.

You can't implement radical systems on people without forcefully enforcing it. Parties and political systems that expect only one side of a multifacetted society to be respected and represented are horrible. Without compromise you get frustration and radicalisation. With compromise, people gain mutual respect and understanding and appreciation of each other's position.