Poly is making me right wing

[MOBIUS]

Wow, I do believe you are actually trying to out Ben Ben...

OK, I'll play the game with you just because doing so makes you look even more of a mug than you already are and I will enjoy doing so...

You invited me to back up this particular premise:

Originally posted by C0ck
Please tell me YET AGAIN why you think that whenever the BNP does well in this country, it is at the expense of the Conservative vote? Because I is thick as pig****...

Well, as it happens, this is what I said earlier:

OK, let's look at the elections in Barking and Dagenham where the BNP won 12 councillors and became the 2nd largest party in the borough then - i.e., their most successful campaign so far...

Translation for mentally defective morons (i.e. C0ckney and Ben)

"They won a lot of seats here!" (as proved by the link you provided, thus pwning yourself!)

http://www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/...ctions-menu.cfm

Translation for mentally defective morons (i.e. C0ckney and Ben)

"Look, it's a link! Maybe if you'd actually bothered to check it, you wouldn't have looked so silly proving my points for me later on!"

The BNP contested wards where the Tories were weak or non-existent, at no point did they go head to head against strong Tory opposition...

Translation for mentally defective morons (i.e. C0ckney and Ben)

"Difficult as it is to believe, even in solid working class areas blighted by immigrants (Every single Labour seat in the country according to C0ckney's map link! ), there are still natural Tory voters. Because the BNP actually wanted to WIN - they obviously avoided splitting the voters who would naturally vote for them (the Tory voters!!!), as many would still stay loyal to already established candidates."

In the seats that they won, they either did so against zero Tory opposition (in effect they were the Tory alternative!), or in 3 seat wards they fielded two candidates to the Tories' one - in effect allowing the voter to vote for both the BNP candidates AND the Tory!

Translation for mentally defective morons (i.e. C0ckney and Ben)

"They maximised the likelihood for sympathetic voters to vote for them without being conflicted about who to vote for."

Also, in EVERY ward the BNP contested, the Labour vote did not fall but actually ROSE!

Translation for mentally defective morons (i.e. C0ckney and Ben)

"OMG, the Labour voters actually hate the BNP so much that they all actually got off their lazy arses to vote against them!"

The subtext of this last point is interesting insofar as it is obvious that if the local Tories were more organised in this borough, they would be more successful. Instead, the BNP have neatly occupied this power vacuum and taken over this reservoir of sympathetic voters from themselves...

(this concept is far too complicated for C0ckney to understand, therefore I haven't bothered to translate it...)

[Kidlicious]

Ok, I'll finish up my thought about your assertion that people who are harder to replace should get more money.

When we started this discussion you claimed that people who produce more should be compensated more. For example, if we are both apple pickers and you pick more apples than I do you should get paid more. You assumed, incorrectly, that I would disagree with you about that. We both agree on that. Now you are saying that the compensation should depend on how hard it is to be replaced. So If we are both apple pickers and you pick more apples than I do that you will be paid more than me, but if there is a third person who picks oranges and he is harder to replace that he should be paid more than both of us regardless of the amount of apples that we both pick.

Wow! We started out agreeing on something but now we disagree more than ever! I think that's totally ridiculous.

Furthermore I don't think "difficulty to replace" has as much to do with it as you claim. Let's go back to CEOs and nurses. Do you think CEOs are harder to replace than nurses? I hardly think so. The HUGE difference in compensation is do to the differences in personalities between the two types of people. Nurses generally don't have the ego to demand as much money as CEOs. The CEOs think they deserve the money they get paid simply because they can get it. The difference is ego. So do you think people should get paid for their egos?

quote:

That's not to say that being dependent on others makes you inferior. That's just some subjective bull**** that you made up.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
*I* made up? Dude, I don't believe that at all. Wow. What makes you think that I believe staying home and looking after kids is a bad thing?

Ummm.. Duh! You said that CEOs deserve more pay because other people depend on them for jobs.

I don't know where taking care of kids comes into this. But it doesn't pay. So that just adds more confusion to the claim that you are denying making.

quote:

But the real issue here is that you are clearly judging different values to people based on their weatlh, but you are still saying they are equal.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes, they are equal. Why do you believe that rich people are more valuable then poor people? I don't understand why you don't agree with me here that they are fundamentally equal no matter how much they make.

As I said the CEO type has the ego (to think himself superior) to demand to be rich. The nurse type, on the other hand, doesn't have the ego to make the same demand. She believes in equality.

Look, the contradiction is on you. You need to show why people are equal but deserve different amounts of money. Common sense dictates otherwise.

quote:

All you are doing is saying rich people are more productive because they make more money. See any circularity there?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the position of a CEO has greater responsibilities then other positions, and by that token they ought to be compensated more then positions with less responsibility. The amount of their compensation beyond this principle should correlate with the profits of the business, the better the manager, the more he should be paid. If the manager is making poor decisions he should be fired.

Now responsibility is what you are using to differentiate between workers. So a more responsible person should be paid more. But then they are equal in your eyes regardless of how responsible they are and how much they get paid right?

So a CEO is more responsible than a policeman, fireman, teacher, childcare worker, nurse, etc..? Try again bud. Everything you try just shows a personal bias towards the rich. So far you have shown your prejudice towards the classes with lower income in two ways. 1) They aren't as productive, and 2) They aren't as responsible. I suppose you might add a third, they aren't as difficult to replace, since that's hardly true in many cases.

quote:

A nurse saves lives! What could be more productive than that?

No argument from me here. This gets back to my point about productivity. By your argument, couldn't you argue that a mom who stays at home and has kids is far more valuable then anyone else?

Exactly, so why don't they get paid for it? A stay at home is more productive than a CEO, but you demand that they CEO be a millionare and the stay at home mom struggle through life trying to make ends meet.

quote:

You can't make those kinds of comparisons. Jobs just need to be done. The ditch needs to be dug, and some ******* needs to run the company and tell everyone what to do. They are both equally needed. Productivity talk about comparing the two is stupid.

Fair enough, but what they are compensated ought to be deteremined by the market, not some arbitrary measure concocted to try to establish equality. Do you not agree with me that this would be a superior method of compensation?

If your way unjustly creates both the idea of inequality and material inequality why do you insist that it be used? Do you not believe in minimum wages and progressive income tax? We don't really use the market at all do decide compensation. We decide compensation through laws that create limited equality.

quote:

Let's see I applying to 10 CEO jobs this week. They said they will contact me later if anything came up. Are you ****ing serious dude?! Get real. The question isn't what's stopping me. I'm just NOT A CEO!

Why aren't you? Is there a CEO class? Do you have to be born a CEO in order to become one?

I'm not an egotistical maniac. I don't think I deserve to be a milionaire, while thousands of people scrape by in life.

To be fair, I have a lot of admiration for some CEOs. But I stand by my accusations for most greedy ****s who care more about getting ahead in life than anything else.

quote:

What do you think? All the people who work 12 hours a day and try to get ahead of everyone else is like Jesus or something.

No, I think they are hardworking folks trying to provide for their family and earn a better life for themselves.

They want to provide for their families, but they just don't want to spend anytime with them. That's rich dude. These people have on average much smaller families, and they aren't driven by the desire to provide for them. The people who love their families (as well as the rest of humanity) like to spend time with them. They aren't trying to work their lives away.

How much work did Jesus do? Did he work 12 hours a day? What if he did? That would certainly change things now wouldn't it.

quote:

I doubt Jesus would be working 12 hours a day to get to the top anyway. I don't think Jesus had anything to prove to himself, did he?

No, but he did work 24/7 at his mission. So if we wanted to be Jesus, we would have to do his work all the time.

We just deserve to live under a bridge I guess.

[Arrian]

Arrian is a moderate Republican?

Followed by lots of laughing.

Well, not right now, no. I used to be. The Republican party abandoned me, however, and now I spit on it. But not so long ago, I'd be a pretty normal New England Republican. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

But, given your general ignorance of US politics and the complexity of subdivisions like "NE Republican" I can understand why you found it so ridiculous.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

Ok, I'll finish up my thought about your assertion that people who are harder to replace should get more money.

For starters, it isn't either/or but it's both. One of the factors of compensation is productivity. Another is experience, and still another are qualifications. If a job requires certain technical skills, then it is both harder to find an appropriate employee and when you find one, they will be harder to replace.

I'm glad to hear that you agree if one apple picker picks more that they should be paid more. That's progress.

If there is a third person who picks oranges and he is harder to replace that he should be paid more than both of us regardless of the amount of apples that we both pick.

It depends. Which crop is more valuable? Oranges or apples? If it's oranges, then yes, orange pickers will be more likely to pick more. If they have only one person willing to pick oranges, then they will also get paid more, just because of that fact. How much more will depend on other factors.

Furthermore I don't think "difficulty to replace" has as much to do with it as you claim. Let's go back to CEOs and nurses. Do you think CEOs are harder to replace than nurses?

Yes, I do. I think there is a very small pool of people who are willing to take the risks and the responsibility of running a large business, and an even smaller number that can do so successfully.

I hardly think so. The HUGE difference in compensation is do to the differences in personalities between the two types of people. Nurses generally don't have the ego to demand as much money as CEOs.

Why then are hospital administrators also compensated more? Why are school administrators paid more. It's the general rule that administrators in any situation are paid more then the people they are managing. If a nurse screws up she could kill a patient. If an adminstrator screws up, they could destroy a whole OR.

The CEOs think they deserve the money they get paid simply because they can get it. The difference is ego. So do you think people should get paid for their egos?

No, I think in most cases the administrator had (or at least should have had), the jobs of the people that they are managing and worked their way up the ladder. If they have that experience, why shouldn't they be compensated for it?

As I said the CEO type has the ego (to think himself superior) to demand to be rich. The nurse type, on the other hand, doesn't have the ego to make the same demand. She believes in equality.

Umm, ok. I think that's a pretty sad argument. A CEO generally makes more because they have more responsibilities, and they are expected to manage the entire department under them. They also tend to have more experience in having done the jobs of the folks below them.

Those are two of the main reasons why nursing administrators make more then nurses.

Look, the contradiction is on you. You need to show why people are equal but deserve different amounts of money. Common sense dictates otherwise.

Because the administrators have chosen to take on more responsibility and they have more experience.

Now responsibility is what you are using to differentiate between workers. So a more responsible person should be paid more. But then they are equal in your eyes regardless of how responsible they are and how much they get paid right?

Because compensation doesn't equate with a person's worth or value as a person. I don't see why you cannot understand this point Kid.

So a CEO is more responsible than a policeman, fireman, teacher, childcare worker, nurse, etc..?

In terms of where they are in the business world, yes. They are responsible for managing the department and the work of everyone else. That is what I meant by having a greater responsibility.

Everything you try just shows a personal bias towards the rich.

How so? If anything I have just the opposite. You probably make a considerable amount more then me. Why are you saying that I'm the one with an antipathy to the poor? I don't believe they are worse people because they are less compensated.

So far you have shown your prejudice towards the classes with lower income in two ways. 1) They aren't as productive,

It has nothing to do with class! Don't you understand that? I don't even believe in classes anyway, it's just a bunch of hooey. Some people choose to work hard, while others do not. That has nothing to do with whether you are rich or poor. Work ethic knows no such distinction. I believe that people can improve their life if they are willing to work hard, but sadly not everyone desires to do so.

2) They aren't as responsible. I suppose you might add a third, they aren't as difficult to replace, since that's hardly true in many cases.

If a poor person goes back to school, gets their degree, works in an office, I don't see why they cannot after all of this, end up as the CEO of the firm where they started. There are all kinds of stories of people with their feet in the door who pulled this off, including Carnegie who I mentioned earlier. That's the American dream.

Exactly, so why don't they get paid for it?

Who would pay for them? The state? The father? That's the problem. Just because one form of work is more compensated only correlates with the fact that under a market economy that work is considered to be more valuable.

A stay at home is more productive than a CEO, but you demand that they CEO be a millionare and the stay at home mom struggle through life trying to make ends meet.

I demand? Kidicious, I asked you a question. If you believe that a stay at home mom should be a millionaire, who is going to pay them? The only reason a CEO is compensated to that amount is because a business feels he is worth the fee and pays him accordingly. Who is a stay at home mom working for? I don't believe a stay at home mom should suffer, I think they ought to be well supported by their husband and be happy in the life that they chose.

If your way unjustly creates both the idea of inequality and material inequality why do you insist that it be used?

Material inequality isn't an injustice. Back to the example of the apple picker. If you are faster and more effective, why should I say that the disparity in our wages reflected injustice?

Do you not believe in minimum wages and progressive income tax? We don't really use the market at all do decide compensation. We decide compensation through laws that create limited equality.

I don't believe in either actually. I think the state should not collect taxes at all, and that minimum wages stifle employment. Some people are not productive enough to justify their employment at 6 bucks an hour, whereas they would be productive enough at 4. Would it be better that they do not work at all or that they can make some money until they gain the experience and the ability to make more later on?

The market does decide compensation for the most part. Very, very few people make the minimum wage because they are unwilling to work for those small wages. So what's the use of having a minimum wage at all, if it doesn't benefit anyone?

I'm not an egotistical maniac. I don't think I deserve to be a milionaire, while thousands of people scrape by in life.

To be fair, I have a lot of admiration for some CEOs. But I stand by my accusations for most greedy ****s who care more about getting ahead in life than anything else.

Fair enough, and I would agree with your assessment.

They want to provide for their families, but they just don't want to spend anytime with them.

Why wouldn't they? Why do you assume they value money over everything else?

That's rich dude. These people have on average much smaller families, and they aren't driven by the desire to provide for them.

My boss has like 7 kids and he's driven to provide for them.

The people who love their families (as well as the rest of humanity) like to spend time with them. They aren't trying to work their lives away.

At the same time, a husband has a responsibility to provide for his family. If the wife stays at home, he has to make sure that they have enough to survive on just his income?

How much work did Jesus do? Did he work 12 hours a day? What if he did? That would certainly change things now wouldn't it.

Why would Jesus need to sleep? He worked 24/7, at his job which was to save the lost.

[Ben Kenobi]

Martin Luther King specifically called himself a socialist in his later years. He was reviled by conservatives (hence, you know, his assassination),

Actually all the conservatives I know appreciate him for his stance of non-violent direct action, and use his restraint as a model. They do not consider him the same as a radical Malcolm X, and they see his rejection of Malcolm X as significant.

As for whomever murdered Dr. King, there is still speculation. The man arrested was pardoned by the King's themselves because they did not believe he shot Dr. King.

seen as a demagogue who riled up black people to riot. At the time of his death, he was ginning up support for a "poor peoples' campaign" to secure billions from the federal government for jobs. At the specific event where he was assassinated, he was speaking in support of a garbage workers' strike.

Yes, but he also rejected Malcolm X. He also believe that men and women should be judged by the content of their character, not by the colour of their skin.

I don't see why you feel that conservatives couldn't recognise him for his restraint. He also insisted that the law ought to be followed, even if injust to highlight the injustice of the law. He said that breaking an injust law did not make it right to break other just laws.

[Ben Kenobi]

And yet, she was known to have sympathies with the pro-choice movement. A shift to the right, but not really all that much on social issues. Someone a bit more unambiguously anti-abortion would have shown that Reagan really cared about the issue (seeing as how the Senate was Republican controlled at the time, he could have gotten just about anyone in).

Sure, they had a slight advantage in the Senate, but the Democrats dominated the Representatives. He did well to appoint Scalia in those conditions.

They are very similar. Libertarians were formed to resurrect classical liberalism. Milton Friedman, as I've pointed out, considered himself a classical liberal and is a libertarian hero.

Yes, and hes more moderate, in approving of some state funding whereas libertarians are more radical on the issues.

Teddy a classical liberal? The guy who was majorly into anti-trust and government parks?

Where else would you classify him? He was a progressive, but he wasn't a statist.

Traditional now, a radical then. For the times, far more radical than some feminists of today are in their times.

So why wouldn't a conservative be considered radical today? I don't think things have changed all that much.

You realize that Dr. King put Jackson in charge of Operation Breadbasket and promoted him to National Director of SCLC in 1967, right? Jackson was also with King when he was assassinated. King trusted Jackson very much and Jackson was indeed a close disciple.

And Jackson has gone his own way. He has repudiated many of the things that King stood for.

Why do you think Jackson has so much sway in the black community today?

Obama is getting 99.99 percent of the black vote. Does that make him a disciple of Dr. King?

You may want to ask them to reimburse you for your degree, but you haven't learned ****. Being that I'm far from the only American who has said this to you, from both sides of the political spectrum, you may wish to take it to heart.

Oh I know plenty of Americans who do respect what I have said. It just tends to be the folks on Poly who are 'special'.

I'll ask again Imran, where's your History degree? Otherwise don't pull credentialism on me.

Cite please.

He cited the NYTimes and stated that he thought Shari'a should be used here, in the other thread.

Yes it does and someone who is very far on the right economically and far on the left socially... usually ends up close to the middle. Friedman, though was much more economically right leaning than he was socially left leaning.

It all depends on how you weight things. Like you said he was in favour of drug legalisation, which I think pushes him more towards the left. He wasn't religious.

Aside from Nixon believing in God (but not doing anything politically about it), what did he do? He may have been personally against abortion, but he really didn't anything about it.

How was he a liberal? Unlike Friedman he's more a centrist, which they single axis obscures.

Not particularly. No greater than Wall Street and Christian Coalition Republicans. We are talking about the party of Richard Nixon, Bob Dole, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Ron Paul, and Chuck Hegel. Do you not see the massive differences there?

Yes, I do see that, no different then the split up here. Most conservative coalitions are divided between conservatives and classica liberals, while the democrats are divided between progressives and statists.

Christian socialists and those influenced by Marxist teachings at least at looking at similar end goals (democratic socialists aren't interested in abolishing religion... only hardcore commies really are).

What are the end goals of Christian socialists? I would say their end goal is to bring people to Christ.

Stalin killed Trotsky. Shall we call them different ideologies? Socialists have killed socialists and communists have killed communists (in greater numbers than both have killed Christians, I'd bet)... but do we not consider them to be socialist or communists?

That's because Communists have that in their value system that purges are an appropriate way to deal with dissidents. Quakers do not. I don't see Quakers killing each other.

And I think those Quakers who consider themselves Christian socialists wouldn't be insulted if they were referred to as socialists. Hell, Liberation Theology followers aren't.

I was a Mennonite. You want to piss them off? Call them a Christian socialist.

[MrFun]

In seeking the presidential nomination, Nixon promised white Southerners that he would use whatever powers he had to obstruct the desegregation of public schools.

[Will9]

in 1960 or 1968?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sure, they had a slight advantage in the Senate, but the Democrats dominated the Representatives. He did well to appoint Scalia in those conditions.

Are you ****ing kidding me? You have no idea how SCOTUS judges are appointed?!! The House of Representatives have NO say on SCOTUS appointments. Only the Senate does. Its quite clear in the Constitution.

Wow.

Yes, and hes more moderate, in approving of some state funding whereas libertarians are more radical on the issues.

Which aspects of state funding does he support that libertarians out of bounds? A federal reserve system? Perhaps some, but not all. Libertarians aren't anarchists after all. They believe in a minimal state.

Where else would you classify him? He was a progressive, but he wasn't a statist.

How does progressive = classical liberal? These days I'd consider Senator Obama to be a progressive and Bob Barr to be a classical liberal. I don't think those are similar at all.

So why wouldn't a conservative be considered radical today? I don't think things have changed all that much.

Uh... perhaps because a conservative position in 1900, based on protecting the traditions of that time, would be going BACKWARDS in 2008... making him a "reactionary". It's part of the definition.

And Jackson has gone his own way. He has repudiated many of the things that King stood for.

He would argue that he has built on Dr. King's teachings (as would many). That doesn't minimize his prominent role in Dr. King's movement.

Obama is getting 99.99 percent of the black vote. Does that make him a disciple of Dr. King?

Do you really think Jesse Jackson has the sway he does without his association with Dr. King? Really? Why?

Oh I know plenty of Americans who do respect what I have said. It just tends to be the folks on Poly who are 'special'.

If by special you mean intelligent, you have it. There are also plenty of Americans who are white supremacists. They make as much sense as those claiming Dr. King was a conservative.

I'll ask again Imran, where's your History degree? Otherwise don't pull credentialism on me.

When someone is this ignorant (Hell, you didn't even know how SCOTUS justices are appointed for ****'s sake!), I'd have to question how well they were taught or whether they went to a deficient school.

You don't know American history. That much is obvious to everyone here.

He cited the NYTimes and stated that he thought Shari'a should be used here, in the other thread.

This is not what people mean when they ask for a cite. It is quite simple. We'll try again... cite?

It all depends on how you weight things. Like you said he was in favour of drug legalisation, which I think pushes him more towards the left. He wasn't religious.

Yet was very rightward leaning economically. Didn't push drug legalization all that much. Didn't push his atheism at all. He pushed economic issues. Hence why a vast majority of people consider him on the right.

How was he a liberal? Unlike Friedman he's more a centrist, which they single axis obscures.

Oh, his domestic economic policy is a bit leftward (look at how much he spent on welfare, and increased affirmative action).

Yes, I do see that, no different then the split up here. Most conservative coalitions are divided between conservatives and classica liberals, while the democrats are divided between progressives and statists.

Ole Dubya is quite the statist himself. You consider him a Democrat?

What are the end goals of Christian socialists? I would say their end goal is to bring people to Christ.

An government/society based on equality, where the poor are taken care of and not left destitute. Personally, they would like to move more people to Christian beliefs, but they wouldn't want the government to force that belief on the populace.

That's because Communists have that in their value system that purges are an appropriate way to deal with dissidents. Quakers do not. I don't see Quakers killing each other.

But the Puritans sure did. Ask Roger Williams about that. And purges don't always involve "killing". Look up the term.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you ****ing kidding me? You have no idea how SCOTUS judges are appointed?!! The House of Representatives have NO say on SCOTUS appointments. Only the Senate does. Its quite clear in the Constitution.

Did I say they did? The fact that the House was controlled by the Democrats meant that Reagan had to accommodate them or see his bills die.

[wuote]
How does progressive = classical liberal? These days I'd consider Senator Obama to be a progressive and Bob Barr to be a classical liberal. I don't think those are similar at all.
[/quote]

Obama is a statist. He favours the expansion of the government. A progressive is someone who is willing to try new things even if they result in a smaller government. A statist will try to expand the programs in order to increase the power of the federatl govenment.

Like for an example, a progressive would be willing to experiment with homeschooling their children with a liberal education. A statist would not, becuase it would be breaking the solidarity in the public school system.

Uh... perhaps because a conservative position in 1900, based on protecting the traditions of that time, would be going BACKWARDS in 2008... making him a "reactionary". It's part of the definition.

Reactionaries are conservatives who choose to reject democratic means in order to return things back to the way they were. It doesn't mean wants to turn the clock back further then others.

He would argue that he has built on Dr. King's teachings (as would many). That doesn't minimize his prominent role in Dr. King's movement.

Then why do conservatives extoll King and are disgusted with a race baiter like Jesse Jackson.

Do you really think Jesse Jackson has the sway he does without his association with Dr. King? Really? Why?

Jesse Jackson would have sway over black people even if he had no ties to Dr. King. Look at Obama, he has no ties to Dr. King and yet he has the support of the black community.

If by special you mean intelligent, you have it. There are also plenty of Americans who are white supremacists. They make as much sense as those claiming Dr. King was a conservative.

No, I mean special as in special ed. And why are white supremacists conservatives? Margaret Sanger wasn't a conservative.

When someone is this ignorant (Hell, you didn't even know how SCOTUS justices are appointed for ****'s sake!), I'd have to question how well they were taught or whether they went to a deficient school.

Where did I say that the House appointed the SCOC? All I said is that having the house in democrat control means that Reagan had to play ball with them on judges if he wanted his bills to pass.

This is not what people mean when they ask for a cite. It is quite simple. We'll try again... cite?

Find it yourself.

Yet was very rightward leaning economically. Didn't push drug legalization all that much. Didn't push his atheism at all. He pushed economic issues. Hence why a vast majority of people consider him on the right.

True, but just because a person pushes something doesn't mean we should ignore the other aspects.

Oh, his domestic economic policy is a bit leftward (look at how much he spent on welfare, and increased affirmative action).

He's sort of the opposite of Freidman, socially conservative but an economic liberal.

Ole Dubya is quite the statist himself. You consider him a Democrat?

Dubya is not a statist, because statists believe in raising taxes, not cutting them.

An government/society based on equality, where the poor are taken care of and not left destitute. Personally, they would like to move more people to Christian beliefs, but they wouldn't want the government to force that belief on the populace.

Then they aren't Christians. I'm sorry Imran. All this world here will fade away, what good will it do to take care of people's material needs and neglect the spiritual? The first goal should be to save others, if helping them out and looking after them does so, then do that.

But the Puritans sure did. Ask Roger Williams about that. And purges don't always involve "killing". Look up the term.

Which is why the Puritans are reactionaries.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Did I say they did? The fact that the House was controlled by the Democrats meant that Reagan had to accommodate them or see his bills die.

Uh... so Reagan had to work with Democrats in the House, so he had to appease them with his SCOTUS selection? Are you freaking kidding me? So what, he decided the Hell with "accomodate" Congress when he nominated Scalia?

Not like he already pushed through his tax bill through the House by outmanuvering Tip O'Neill or anything. I'm sure that if anything would have made Democrats mad about his bills.

Obama is a statist. He favours the expansion of the government. A progressive is someone who is willing to try new things even if they result in a smaller government. A statist will try to expand the programs in order to increase the power of the federatl govenment.

Like for an example, a progressive would be willing to experiment with homeschooling their children with a liberal education. A statist would not, becuase it would be breaking the solidarity in the public school system.

You really have no idea what these terms mean and are just making these definitions up, right?

Obama is undoubtably a progressive politician. Progressivism is based upon social justice and left (but not far, far left) economic policies. Usually progressives tend to like expansive federal power... it tends to help with the social justice part.

Reactionaries are conservatives who choose to reject democratic means in order to return things back to the way they were. It doesn't mean wants to turn the clock back further then others.

Say wha? Reactionaries are those who want to turn the clock back. There is nothing in their ideology that makes them democratic or non-democratic (unless the turning the clock back is to non-democratic times).

Then why do conservatives extoll King and are disgusted with a race baiter like Jesse Jackson.

Because being against King is a bit like being against Mother Teresa (btw, a conservative). Some people just are too popular to be able to hate. Everyone extolls Dr. King.

Conservatives just think Jackson goes too far... especially since Jesse is a Democrat.

Jesse Jackson would have sway over black people even if he had no ties to Dr. King. Look at Obama, he has no ties to Dr. King and yet he has the support of the black community.

Obama, however, is a politician. Who is extremely charasmatic one. Jesse Jackson has held no political office. So why does Jackson have such sway? You can say Sharpton has sway over black people, but really... it's no where close to Jackson's. Not in the same ballpark.

No, I mean special as in special ed. And why are white supremacists conservatives? Margaret Sanger wasn't a conservative.

A highly concentrated group of college educated intelligent people are more "special ed" than the idiot masses. Yeeeeaah....

White supremacists are trying to keep their old traditions alive. Conservative. Or Reactionary as they want to go back to the good ole days when minorities had no rights.

Find it yourself.

So you admit you made it up.

True, but just because a person pushes something doesn't mean we should ignore the other aspects.

You are when you say Dr. King wasn't a socialist.

He's sort of the opposite of Freidman, socially conservative but an economic liberal.

Yet you put him firmly as a conservative. Are you "ignoring the other aspects"?

Dubya is not a statist, because statists believe in raising taxes, not cutting them.

Statists don't believe in increasing the power of the state? What's the use of the term then? No President has increased the power of the state to this level.

Then they aren't Christians. I'm sorry Imran. All this world here will fade away, what good will it do to take care of people's material needs and neglect the spiritual? The first goal should be to save others, if helping them out and looking after them does so, then do that.

I am glad that you are the arbiter of who is an who isn't a Christian, Jesus.

You CAN be a Christian (I hope you can agree with this) and think the government has no place in prosyltizing.

They believe they are following Jesus's message by caring for the poor and the sick. There is no reason that that and saving souls can't happen at the same time.

Which is why the Puritans are reactionaries.

What did they want to go back to?

[Arrian]

Dubya is not a statist, because statists believe in raising taxes, not cutting them.

This may be the silliest thing you've said in this thread, and that's really saying something.

Dubya CLAIMS to be for small government, but isn't. He's all about tax cuts, sure, but has been all for spending like a drunken sailor. The Federal government continues to expand, unchecked. Sounds like a statist to me. The only difference is that Dubya (and a compliant, cowardly congress) has financed it via loans instead of taxes. Whooptie ****ing do.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

/me cries

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm just helping Ben create sig worthy statements... all the lunacy he's spouted in this thread can really do wonders for sig quotes!

[Kidlicious]

"Some people are not productive enough to justify their employment at 6 bucks an hour"

Wow!

I read your post, but no time to respond today probably. Sorry. Maybe tomorrow. I will say that you are trully an amazing person though Ben.