Poly is making me right wing

[Wezil]

What's the problem with that? I'm not worth $6 an hour some days.

[C0ckney]

i don't recall signing up to be a special needs teacher, but here goes...

it's funny how you link ben and i, it's just like the way you link the conservatives and the BNP. the logic (in a manner of speaking) is 'i don't like 'x' and i don't like 'y', so i'll link them together'. it's an interesting insight in to the way your mind works. i remember thinking in similar terms myself once, back when i was in primary school.

Originally posted by 'special' MOBIUS
You invited me to back up this particular premise:

Probably why for example that whenever the BNP does well in this country, it is at the expense of the Conservative vote.

i thought you were just trolling to be honest. however it seems that you seriously believe this, which frankly is a lot worse. still fair play to you for nailing your colours to this particular mast.

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...

"They won a lot of seats here!"

ok so let us seriously examine your example then. the 2002 council election results:

42 Labour
4 Chadwell Heath Residents Association
3 Liberal Democrat
2 Conservative

and compare with the 2006 results:

38 Labour
12 British National Party
1 Conservative

so by your logic (and i use the term loosely), all those liberal voters must be closet fascists and the people of the chadwell heath residents association (whoever they are) must have positively goose-stepped their way to the polling stations in 2006.

if you care to look at results for the two parliamentary seats you will see that labour got around 50% of vote. the two MPs are government ministers. clearly, this is a solidly labour area, the other mainstream parties barely get a look in, either in local government or parliament and yet this is the area where the BNP won a record number of seats. of course i am not suggesting that this means labour voters, or indeed the voters of any mainstream party, are really fascists in disguise, because that would be ridiculous. it does however show us the socio-economic group who are most likely to vote for the BNP, which i have pointed out enough times now.

you may recall margaret hodge (labour MP for barking) giving us an insight into the subject of why people are turning to the BNP in 2006. well perhaps not, as you haven’t a clue. however, there has been a lot written in recent years about the disaffection and frustration the white working class often feels with mainstream parties, if you wish to educate yourself.

"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!"

oh the delicious irony etc.

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...

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!

where my parents live (in rural somerset), labour does not run a candidate, because they have no chance of winning. if the BNP were to enter, does mean that their candidate would be 'the labour alternative'? following your logic (heh) the answer would clearly be yes.

let me explain something about elections to you. parties do not enter a candidate for every single possible seat. they enter them based upon an efficient allocation of resources, i.e. where they have a reasonable chance of winning (or at the very least being competitive). to give an example, the ward in which i live, castle (the centre of swansea), has 4 council seats. labour and the lib dems will enter 4 candidates, the independents @ swansea 2 or 3, and the conservatives and plaid cymru will enter 2 each, with some small left wing parties entering 1 apiece.

as we have already seen the tories have very little chance of winning in dagenham and barking, therefore it should not be an earth shattering revelation when they don't enter a candidate for every council seat. one would like to think this would go without saying, but once again i am obliged to point out the blindingly obvious to you.

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

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...

so the labour party gets more votes in 2006 in a rock solid labour area, than in 2002. what are you doing here my son, you need to get on and call the papers with this extraordinary piece of news. i wonder though, could it perhaps have something to do with the fact that the turnout in 2002 was 22.76% and the turnout in 2006 was 38.3%. you complete and utter imbecile.

the subtext of this last point is that mobius can't read or comprehend even the most basic of statistics. a sad reflection on the welsh education system.

i could go on, but if that's the best example you can find to prove your theory, then there's really not much point.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wezil
What's the problem with that? I'm not worth $6 an hour some days.

You need at least $6/hour to live just about everywhere. Some places you need much more than that. So if you aren't worth $6/hour you aren't worth anything.

[Kidlicious]

Sorry Ben. I won't have time again today to spend on a long post. Anyone can take over for me if they like.

[Ben Kenobi]

You need at least $6/hour to live just about everywhere. Some places you need much more than that. So if you aren't worth $6/hour you aren't worth anything.

No, hardly. If you are working full time on 5 bucks an hour you will be making roughly 800 a month. Out where I am that will pay for your rent and groceries and still leave you with about half for other things.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You need at least $6/hour to live just about everywhere. Some places you need much more than that. So if you aren't worth $6/hour you aren't worth anything.

Don't make me come visit you.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

That's a big difference. The idea that by lowering taxation you can increase government revenue is very much a classical liberal idea.

Contrast this to Clinton who raised taxes and public spending at the same time. That is the hallmark of a statist.

I agree with you that Bush has increased domestic spending but the key here is in what he has chosen to do so. I would say this makes him more of a conservative then a classical liberal, because of where he has directed the spending.

[Ben Kenobi]

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?

No, that was to keep his base happy.

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.

Yes, and look at the obstruction we are getting now from the Democrats. They are refusing to put through the current nominees. I am sure that they would be putting pressure on Reagan to nominate a 'moderate'.

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

Then why don't you define them for me? That is a pratical difference between the two.

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.

Usually, but not always. The homeschool/public schooling, is one example where they will not agree. This is what makes Obama a statist. He is all in favour of defending the unions, and making them stronger through the expansion of the state. A progressive will see the expansion of the state as a ancillary to social justice, but the statist will see the expansion of the state as a good in itself.

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).

Reactionaries are the counterpart of Radicals and tend to be more willing to use more immediate means to achieve their goals. Conservatives prefer democratic means and slow change, whereas reactionaries want to push things back now.

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.

There are certain characteristics of him that make him popular among conservatives. I think the fact that he explicitly rejected violence and held conservative social ideals counterbalances the other things you mentioned.

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.

It really doesn't matter who it is. If they are prominent and black they will get around 90 percent of their vote and support. It's the way of the world. I don't think it matters what ties they have to Dr. King.

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

I am not only college educated but a graduate. You'll have to come up with another way to dismiss my views, Imran rather then being an elitist.

White supremacists are trying to keep their old traditions alive.

Oh sure. Where does Margaret Sanger fit? Is she a conservative because she wanted to keep the white race pure?

This is really where I wanted to tackle. I don't think white supremacists have historically been conservatives at all.

So you admit you made it up.

Arrian knows what he said and since he's posted in the thread, he could be honest about his support for sharia.

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

He wasn't, why would a socialist care about character?

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

I never said he was 'firmly' a conservative. I said he was a moderate conservative, and close to the centre.

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.

Exhibit A- FDR. This is hyperbole by someone who has Bush derangement syndrome.

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.

I agree wholeheartedly. However, I also believe that the primary goal should be to save souls. I think it is unfortunate that what tends to happen is the saving souls get shunted and then people are just doing things for their own benefit. This is why I say socialism and Christianity don't work well together. If socialism focusses on the act, it loses the motivation for the act.

What did they want to go back to?

A more moral time. They believed that society had been corrupted and ought to be restored.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


No, hardly. If you are working full time on 5 bucks an hour you will be making roughly 800 a month. Out where I am that will pay for your rent and groceries and still leave you with about half for other things.

btw... where do you live, as if you can pay the rent and groceries for 400USD (£200) Zimbabwe looks expensive comparing to those rates...

[Wezil]

If he's making that $800 in Canada he will only be taking home about $650.

[Ben Kenobi]

btw... where do you live, as if you can pay the rent and groceries for 400USD (£200) Zimbabwe looks expensive comparing to those rates...

Rural BC, and I just have a room, so it isn't a house or anything.

[Ben Kenobi]

If he's making that $800 in Canada he will only be taking home about $650.

Depends if you work for yourself or not, which I do. I just keep track of what I make over the year and then pay taxes at the end of it.

[Ramo]

I don't see why you feel that conservatives couldn't recognise him for his restraint.

The point is, is that they didn't. Contemporary conservatives - your Barry Goldwaters, Strom Thurmonds, and Ronald Reagans - all were opponents of the civil rights legislation of the 60's that ended de jure segregation and enshrined the right to vote. Nixon built the new Republican coalition on white resentment over open housing and busing to schools. They didn't like King, particularly after he came up North and the opponents to equality weren't quite Bull Connor-like caricatures. He made quite a few enemies during the five years after his "I have a dream" speech.

But, again, you missed the point. King considered himself a socialist. The policy programme that he pushed was that of a left wing social democrat, and advocated massive public demonstrations to achieve those ends. He was a vocal opponent of the Vietnam War, and broke with LBJ over it. He was emphatically not a conservative. It true that he was not a black nationalist (indeed, he was an internationalist), but that's hardly germane to the point here. The distinction between conservatives and socialists in the US is not whether one approves of Malcolm X.

He also insisted that the law ought to be followed, even if injust to highlight the injustice of the law.

No, he didn't insist that the law ought to be followed. He said that unjust laws should be resisted non-violently, but that is a very different thing from following the law. Why do you say such ridiculous nonsense?

He said that breaking an injust law did not make it right to break other just laws.

That's quite the tautology you constructed...

[Ramo]

It really doesn't matter who it is. If they are prominent and black they will get around 90 percent of their vote and support. It's the way of the world.

No, it isn't. Compare the rates at which black people voted for Jackson, Sharpton, and Obama for their Presidential bids (say, in an early primary like SC); they're quite different. You know nothing of the way of the subset of the world that constitutes the US.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No, that was to keep his base happy.

Do you even know what you are posting anymore? So he had to deal with Dems in the House and nominated O'Connor... but had to keep his base happy so he nominated Scalia. Wouldn't those be two opposite things?

Yes, and look at the obstruction we are getting now from the Democrats. They are refusing to put through the current nominees. I am sure that they would be putting pressure on Reagan to nominate a 'moderate'.

Please, go back and look at the vote in the Senate for Rehnquist as CJ and Scalia as Associate Justice. Then come back here with a real argument.

Then why don't you define them for me? That is a pratical difference between the two.

Usually, but not always. The homeschool/public schooling, is one example where they will not agree. This is what makes Obama a statist. He is all in favour of defending the unions, and making them stronger through the expansion of the state. A progressive will see the expansion of the state as a ancillary to social justice, but the statist will see the expansion of the state as a good in itself.

There is literally NO elected politician in the US that sees the expansion of the state as a good in itself. If you believe that, you are on crack. Plain and simple.

Senator Obama believes that the state can help with social justice far more than private actors.

There are certain characteristics of him that make him popular among conservatives. I think the fact that he explicitly rejected violence and held conservative social ideals counterbalances the other things you mentioned.

Ted Kennedy also rejects violence. True he isn't anti-abortion and all, but rejecting violence is a silly thing to hang your hat on when plenty on the left do that.

It really doesn't matter who it is. If they are prominent and black they will get around 90 percent of their vote and support. It's the way of the world. I don't think it matters what ties they have to Dr. King.

And how exactly do you get "prominent"? How did Jackson?

I am not only college educated but a graduate. You'll have to come up with another way to dismiss my views, Imran rather then being an elitist.

Your words do plenty to dismiss your views. You have the worst grasp of US history I've seen on this forum and that's saying quite a bit.

Oh sure. Where does Margaret Sanger fit? Is she a conservative because she wanted to keep the white race pure?

This is really where I wanted to tackle. I don't think white supremacists have historically been conservatives at all.

You mean wanting to keep the traditional elevated position of the white race isn't conservative? Isn't conservatism about tradition? Weren't abolitionists and then those against Jim Crow advocating for rapid change (or better put, radical change?)?

Arrian knows what he said and since he's posted in the thread, he could be honest about his support for sharia.

Frankly, because of your rejection to actually post the offending quote, I think you are lying.

He wasn't, why would a socialist care about character?

So, you are saying that people like che on our forum don't care about character?

Wow... you are an *******.

I never said he was 'firmly' a conservative. I said he was a moderate conservative, and close to the centre.

He isn't even that. He's firmly on the left.

Exhibit A- FDR. This is hyperbole by someone who has Bush derangement syndrome.

Please... tell me how large the US budget is today compared with 1940. Also try and tell me that the government is spying less on its citizens today, with all the technology at our fingertips than it was in 1940.

I agree wholeheartedly. However, I also believe that the primary goal should be to save souls. I think it is unfortunate that what tends to happen is the saving souls get shunted and then people are just doing things for their own benefit. This is why I say socialism and Christianity don't work well together. If socialism focusses on the act, it loses the motivation for the act.

Or rather they believe the state should advocate political and economic equality for all its people (ie, the socialist part) and then they personally have as their primary goal that they should save souls.

Or was Jesus shunting the saving of souls when he brought down his wrath on the moneylenders?

You aren't the arbiter of who is and who isn't a Christian.

A more moral time. They believed that society had been corrupted and ought to be restored.

Puritans felt that the Reformation of the Church of England had not gone far enough. In essense, they were advocating more reform.

Unless you believe the Reformation was reactionary... or that Calvinism was. Now perhaps you can say that the charge of going back to what the Bible says is reactionary, but what they came up definitely wasn't in the early Church.

Oh, and I know you hate wiki, but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritans

In modern usage, the word puritan is often used as an informal pejorative for someone who has strict views on sexual morality, disapproves of recreation, and wishes to impose these beliefs on others. None of these qualities were unique to Puritanism or universally characteristic of the Puritans themselves, whose moral views and ascetic tendencies were no more unusual than those of many other Protestant reformers of their time, and who were relatively tolerant of other denominations, at least in England. The popular image is slightly more accurate as a description of Puritans in colonial America, who were among the most radical Puritans and whose social experiment took the form of a Calvinist theocracy.