Unconstitutional

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

It's common sense. The South voted primarily Democrat until the civil rights era with Johnson (a democrat), and since they didn't like them niggras, they all started voting republican. They're not voting republican based on economic issues, they're voting republican on social issues.

You rely way too much on your common sense. Your guess as to how many people want to live in a socialist commune isn't any more valid than mine or anyone elses here.

The point however was not if exactly 50% of the people agree with your radical socialist views or not, it was that you, among other oddities, think a substantial portion of the population is either a lying sociopath, or a complete moron zombie slave to those liars. This viewpoint highlights your narcissism and your paranoia. Im not at all joking when I suggest you seek some professional help. These two flaws have to be a tremendous burden on your psyche. Im worried about you, bro.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Copernicus and Galileo said that the Earth was flat. Those were way more extreme views than mine in their day. Does that make them wrong? Call my views extreme all you want, it doesn't make them false. How many times have I said that. Like I keep saying, two sides could say the world is flat and the world is round, and you would come in and say that both extremes MUST be wrong, the Earth is a hexagon.

I love it when you claim I misquote you because I dont include the paragraphs before and after what I did quote, and then you turn around and quote me by literally cutting my sentence off to alter the meaning of what I was saying. My point you side stepped wasn't that you make extremist remarks, that point goes without saying by now. My point was you make them, but then refuse to accept you are a socialist. Even after I make the point that you sidestep it, you do so again by literally cutting it out of my sentence. lol You refuse to accept it because our society has demonized socialism so much that we walk on eggshells saying it, people run from the word, and we even have to remind each other that many aspects of our society, like cops and the mail service, are forms of socialism (like ooohhh aaahhh socialism!). Its sad really. I dont agree with a radical socialist like yourself, but I feel you should be able to say it, and understand what it means, instead of hiding it in the closet. Come out of the closet. And once you've done that, do some reading on Carl Marx's beliefs.... I think you'll like them.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

As long as it's understood what you mean when you call me a socialist, call me a socialist, that's fine. I wouldn't describe myself as one, but under the right context, that's fine. Socialism defined is state ownership of property, and of course I'm not for that at all. Are there some aspects of socialism I want? Absolutely. So as long as it's understand that while I may be a socialist, I'm not for pure socialism, I won't deny being called a socialist.

My problem is I suspect you want to call me a socialist to imply I want pure socialism in an effect to prove me wrong somehow. Ad hominem at it's best.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

As long as it's understood what you mean when you call me a socialist, call me a socialist, that's fine. I wouldn't describe myself as one, but under the right context, that's fine. Socialism defined is state ownership of property, and of course I'm not for that at all. Are there some aspects of socialism I want? Absolutely. So as long as it's understand that while I may be a socialist, I'm not for pure socialism, I won't deny being called a socialist.
My problem is I suspect you want to call me a socialist to imply I want pure socialism in an effect to prove me wrong somehow. Ad hominem at it's best.

Typical Marxist propagandist..its how it all starts. You think Hitler started out by being a tyrant?

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

As long as it's understood what you mean when you call me a socialist, call me a socialist, that's fine. I wouldn't describe myself as one, but under the right context, that's fine. Socialism defined is state ownership of property, and of course I'm not for that at all. Are there some aspects of socialism I want? Absolutely. So as long as it's understand that while I may be a socialist, I'm not for pure socialism, I won't deny being called a socialist.
My problem is I suspect you want to call me a socialist to imply I want pure socialism in an effect to prove me wrong somehow. Ad hominem at it's best.

Frankly, you have no clue what you are. Stop pretending you are smarter than you are, you have a lot to learn.

"In Marxist theory, communism is a specific stage of historical development that inevitably emerges from the development of the productive forces that leads to a superabundance of material wealth, allowing for distribution based on need and social relations based on freely-associated individuals"

 

Communist theory generally states that the only way to solve the problems existing within capitalism is for the working class, referred to as the proletariat, who is the main producer of wealth in society and is exploited by the capitalist class, as explained in theories such as surplus value, to replace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class to establish a society without class divisions, called socialism, as a prelude to attempting to achieve the final stage of communism.[1]

 

Pure communism, or the stage in history after socialism, refers to a classless, stateless society, one where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made in the best interests of the collective society with the interests of every member of society given equal weight in the practical decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life. - Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Class warfare based on jealousy is exactly what created, and perpetuates, socialism and communism. You are simply too young and naive ashamed, or just too stupid, to realize where your ideas lead.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

I don't worry about what I am or what my label is (of course you do, because if you didn't you wouldn't be arguing anything). My views are my views and they're not validated or falsified on what you call me or where my views "lead". What was that about always arguing with extremes? Why are you bringing up communism? More of your constant ad hominem bullshit.

Like I said, the real argument is over. Now you're just insulting me, and I'm defending those insults.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

And yeah, the desire for equality is just based on jealousy. I'm sure those niggers working the fields were just jealous that white people were able to go eat and **** wherever they wanted and all those lynching victims were just jealous that they were the ones who had to be killed just because of how they were born. The Jews in Germany were just jealous that everyone else worked hard enough to not have to be cooked in an oven. If you vote Democrat, you're just a jealous worthless fuck who wants everything paid for you by other people.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

And yeah, the desire for equality is just based on jealousy. I'm sure those niggers working the fields were just jealous that white people were able to go eat and **** wherever they wanted and all those lynching victims were just jealous that they were the ones who had to be killed just because of how they were born. The Jews in Germany were just jealous that everyone else worked hard enough to not have to be cooked in an oven. If you vote Democrat, you're just a jealous worthless fuck who wants everything paid for you by other people.

Do you have the audacity to equate yourself with slaves and then refer to them in that term? You are a puke. Your lack of reasoning behind history is an absolute joke.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

I don't worry about what I am or what my label is (of course you do, because if you didn't you wouldn't be arguing anything). My views are my views and they're not validated or falsified on what you call me or where my views "lead". What was that about always arguing with extremes? Why are you bringing up communism? More of your constant ad hominem bullshit.
Like I said, the real argument is over. Now you're just insulting me, and I'm defending those insults.

Ha, so you can falsely define your arguments and lable as you please and it is ok because it is YOU who is doing it? You didn't watch the video I posted on how leftist morons lie about their info did you? If they were in corporate offices they would be the very same people you say you are against.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

Do you have the audacity to equate yourself with slaves and then refer to them in that term?

I'm just getting in character. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

I'm just getting in character. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

You are totally delusional.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

gah, I was hoping for a response to my comments. I remember when I could make a thread like this go 40 pages in an afternoon.

saddy face.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

gah, I was hoping for a response to my comments. I remember when I could make a thread like this go 40 pages in an afternoon.
saddy face.

I just don't really know what your overall point was. I would disagree that emotional appeals generally come more from the left. In fact I would argue that the only arguments the right has are emotional.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I just don't really know what your overall point was. I would disagree that emotional appeals generally come more from the left. In fact I would argue that the only arguments the right has are emotional.

Your first point is debatable...your second is not. I hate how people generalize the nonsense on fox news as "the voice of conservatives".

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

Maybe not the voice of conservatism in general, but the voice of Republicans.

In terms of the economy, I see conservatism as the voice (good metaphor) of small government, and, by extension, low taxes (primarily on the rich, taxes on the lower classes will remain low in either case). Given how capitalism is driven by greed, government needs to act as the check of capitalist cruelty as it has in the past 100 years, much to the benefit of almost every person. It also provides an enormous amount of benefits, from unemployment benefits, welfare, safety/health regulation, protection of rights, etc. A rational argument would require saying that "small government = good", when there is no reality to that statement. So the only argument the right has are emotional arguments. Things like government shouldn't be involved in private business, "what would the founding fathers want!" or just anti government sentiment in general which is disguised as a rational argument, but in reality is simply provoking an emotional response. A perfect example of the latter is the list of government waste audioholic brought up, which obviously works on him hook line and sinker.