Poly is making me right wing

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Zevico
Well, then I've misunderstood you. Thank you for taking the time to tell me so.

No worries. It's not all aimed at you. I want Kenobi to respond, since he seemed to get sidetracked into 19th century British politics for a while.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I don't know many socialists today who would affirm a spiritual world.

Fixed

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


Given that Ben also claimed the anti-slavery movement in Britain wasn't supported by the Whigs, he's really on a roll in this thread.

So he's expanded his ignorance to two countries now.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
All I am saying is that if someone isn't productive then it isn't fair to reward them with an equal share. I would hope that is basic common sense. It doesn't assert that a) productivity is an essential characteristic of people, or that b) productive people are morally superior to unproductive ones.

You know I have no problem with compensating people for working harder to a limited extent. I don't think people should be compensated for working 12 hours a day. Instead I think they should be compensated fairly for working an 8 hour day.

But why do you seem to be implying that a nurse isn't productive and Paris Hilton is. Is a CEO 10 times as productive as a ditch digger. This productivity argument is totally bogus, because you can't measure it fairly. All you are really doing is making a claim that rich people are more productive than poor people and that's complete bull****. The claim itself shows how arrogant you are. It's impossible to get through to you. I just wish you would realise that you don't believe in equality at all. You will be a lot better off and your arguments will make some sense finally.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Neither were known entities with respect to abortion when they were nominated and trended left.

You are smoking something then. Right to Life groups were telling Reagan that O'Connor was pro abortion (which was, granted a bit much... personally O'Connor disliked abortion, but legally thought Roe shouldn't be overturned).

'strict constructionist' means nothing to you?

Strict constructionists have no believes on federalism?

And besides, Scalia considers himself more of a textualist than a "strict constructionist" (after all, Scalia has said he is "not a strict constructionist and no-one ought to be").

You feel the Lousiana Purchase had no connection with Manifest Destiny?

To some individuals perhaps who followed Jacksonian Democracy, but not to Jefferson... as he didn't consider some sort of God's plan to expand.

I mean, Hell, of the first people who advocated Manifest Destiny was John Quincy Adams, never to be confused with a liberal.

He was a typical classical liberal, in that he believed in the rights of states, lowered tariff barriers, etc.

Since when is the rights of states a classical liberal belief? The states can be just as tyrannical as the federal government.

Kennedy's proposed social programs which did not pass after his assassination.

So Reagan supported the New Deal, but Kennedy's New Frontier, which was much, much smaller and included tax cuts and tariff reductions (along with great increases in military expenditures) was too much for him?

And pssst, Stevenson was pretty liberal himself.

No, they are less left then radicals, and the statists, that's for sure, however they are still on the left, particularly socially.

Only socially. Economically they are on the right. Classic liberals are only on the left to wacko rightists. No one really considers Milton Friedman to be a leftist.

Well then we need to define socialism. I think the elevation of the material world over the spiritual is very much a socialist ideal, and contrary to Christianity. I also think the early Christians defy our current conventions.

Socialism has already been defined. You just have a problem admitting the definition because it challenges your world views.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Early Christianity was very socialist. Prior to Marx, most socialism was Christian in nature.

JM

Almost correct, but non-Christian socialism emerged in 18th century France.

[Jon Miller]

most

JM

[Kidlicious]

There are still Christian socialists, (like JM I think), but saying that Christians are the religion of socialist Jesus is like saying Republicans are the party of Lincoln.

[Kidlicious]

"Compensation!=morally superiority. Again, you are having trouble distinguishing the too. "

-Ben

Having more money than other people makes many people think they are superior. Although they feel inferior to others. Also, you have to make money to get respect in this country, if you care about that sort of thing. I have to say that I do actually, just because I like to date women. Look on myspace as you will see that you have to meet income requirements to date most women.

People don't earn money just for pleasure. They earn money for status. There are rich people with more crap than they can even remember having. They have cars they rarely drive. Having a lot of cars, a bigger house, or gold jewerly is all for status.

[falcon41]

I think the lack of fatherhood in the United States contributes to embracing a priori dominant social dogmas enforced by media. Those values are depicted in many hip hop videos and although they may seem more "refined" in other social venues they remain essentialy the same. This also happens the world over.

[falcon41]

This social dwarvinism could be acknowledged for possesing and promoting *some* positive aspects if it was not proven to be overwhelmingly numbing to the spirit and to thought in general.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Since when is the rights of states a classical liberal belief? The states can be just as tyrannical as the federal government.

So true -- look how well states like Alabama or Mississippi were still treating blacks in 1950s at beggining of civil rights movement.

Hell, Southern states often used the lovely rhetoric of "states rights" when they wanted to first preserve slavery, then later during 1950s and 60s, they used that rhetoric to preserve Jim Crow segregation and disfranchisement laws.

[snoopy369]

Social dwarvinism

Gold gold gold gold goldgoldgold gold

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by C0ckney
yes genius, let us only look at one local authority and ignore the national picture.

As I mentioned, I deliberately chose the council in which the BNP made its most impressive gains. But let's ignore that shall we...

now this is where the BNP have councillors in england:

united against facism

bradford, burnley, leeds, leicester, stoke.

God, you're dumb! You've just handed me a link absolutely proving my point!

On your link my ONE example has almost as many councillors as your five examples...

The 12 Barking and Dagenham councillors account for more than a quarter of ALL the BNP councillors in the ENTIRE COUNTRY!

And that, dear friends, is why I focussed on B&D in the first place - way to shoot yourself in the foot, Cockney Ben Kenobi!

...tory bastions for sure. if you look at the votes in the 2005 general election, it is no surprise to see that the BNP gathers most support in, wait for it, working class areas which have experienced high levels of immigration.

You mean areas just like Barking and Dagenham?

God, I'd be laughed out of the country if I EVER described B&D as a 'tory bastion', which is what you're implying...

it should be fairly obvious where a far right anti-immigration party is going to do well, even before you see the numbers, but feel free to look for yourself.

Yeah, you've posted a link to a map with colours on it! What are you trying to say, all the red bits (labour) are working class areas which have experienced high levels of immigration? What a ****ing muppet!

which is clearly false. i'll accept your apology.

I gladly apologise for sitting back and watching someone totally self-destruct and pwn themselves up the ass!

Highly entertaining! Er, sorry...

as for the pathetic strawmen in the second half of your post.

So, it's not important to you that a senior campaigner in the Tory party and member for over 50 years is the father of the leader of the BNP and thinks that the average Tory agrees with the BNP policies...?

Oh dear...

[Ben Kenobi]

Having more money than other people makes many people think they are superior.

So? If they are more productive should they not be paid for the work that they do?

Also, you have to make money to get respect in this country,

So what? If you want to make more money find yourself a job that will compensate you to the degree that you want. Why whine about what other folks are making?

Look on myspace as you will see that you have to meet income requirements to date most women.

I would laugh if I met a woman like that. I mean honestly. That would be like a guy saying that if your tit size is too small he wouldn't date her. That's a pretty big sign that I wouldn't want to be involved with her.

People don't earn money just for pleasure. They earn money for status. There are rich people with more crap than they can even remember having. They have cars they rarely drive. Having a lot of cars, a bigger house, or gold jewerly is all for status.

Cool. Go rich people. What is stopping you from being one of those? You seem to envy them, why aren't you out there busting your ass off so you can have the Lexus and the BMW and the trophy wife?