Conquer Club

DangerBoy wrote:And here I give you...the ultimate little weasel, Woodruff. The person on this site who twists just enough of what someone else writes, redefines it, and then expounds on it as if it was what you wrote, to reach the conclusions he wants to.

And you're wrong, Woody...agreeing with a general criticism that I wrote in another thread against the Republicans doesn't even make you somewhat conservative.

While you're correct in your assessment of Woodruff, I seriously don't understand the use of interacting with him or even attempting discussion. He's deliberately parceling other peoples' posts in order to provoke or irritate. I'm of the belief he has a mild personality disorder where he gets off on getting a reaction, particularly from Viper. It mostly comes out against people who have a different economic worldview than himself, but sometimes even manifests against people who belong to his own side of the political spectrum. You've just got to ignore people like that. Like most socialists/progressives/liberals (whatever the hell they're calling themselves this week), he'll make this personal instead of debate the issue.

Getting back to the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqTu-MqCFbI

Shows you that they've really got no new ideas, and that they are indeed socialists. They can talk about "progressive" values all day long. It's just a semantical game they play. They want to take away from one "group" and redistribute it to another.

bradleybadly wrote:I'm of the belief he has a mild personality disorder where he gets off on getting a reaction, particularly from Viper.

Say what? All I've EVER asked of ViperOverLord is that he try to be honest in his discussions and read what the f*ck people write instead of making shit up that isn't there.

bradleybadly wrote:It mostly comes out against people who have a different economic worldview than himself

You don't appear to understand my "economic worldview" then, since I am largely a fiscal conservative. Or do you believe for some reason that DangerBoy and ViperOverLord AREN'T fiscal conservatives (I suppose they may not be, if they're fans of Bush...of that I'm not sure)?

bradleybadly wrote:but sometimes even manifests against people who belong to his own side of the political spectrum.

I'm curious...just what IS my "political spectrum", bradleybadly? Please...state it for me here, so that we can figure out just what the hell you're talking about and I can show you just how full of crap you are in making that statement.

bradleybadly wrote:You've just got to ignore people like that.

Yes, ignoring people who you disagree with is absolutely the right way to never get adequate information for making good decisions...an excellent move for all right-thinking Americans.

bradleybadly wrote:Like most socialists/progressives/liberals (whatever the hell they're calling themselves this week), he'll make this personal instead of debate the issue.

So who started out making this personal...myself or DangerBoy (it wasn't me)? Further...I'm pretty sure you're not exactly NOT making this personal, bradleybadly.

Oh wait, I get it...this is DangerBoy and bradleybadly's attempt to bait me into getting myself banned. Now I understand. Pretty underhanded of you folks.

Woody, you do not have a case. How bad the republicans were 7 years ago, or who started it...blah blah blah

Phatscotty wrote:Woody, you do not have a case. How bad the republicans were 7 years ago, or who started it...blah blah blah

So you believe I'm the one that started with the personal attacks in this thread, Scotty? Really? Because it appears to me that DangerBoy was the first one to initiate such attacks here.

And I wasn't speaking of how bad the Republicans were 7 years ago. I was speaking of the far right within our nation being more dangerous to our freedoms than "socialism".

bradleybadly wrote:
Shows you that they've really got no new ideas, and that they are indeed socialists. They can talk about "progressive" values all day long. It's just a semantical game they play. They want to take away from one "group" and redistribute it to another.

Just who is this "they" and what, exactly is it that they are doing or saying that you find so dangerous? Or are you trying to claim this group is somehow associated with another group that you refuse to name?

Saxitoxin wrote:The Freedom Socialist Party is a revolutionary feminist group that vascilates (sp?) between running candidates for office and advocating the armed overthrow of the government by a radical women's vanguard. Kindofa on-year/off-year thing. They had a congressional candidate pull 9% of the vote in Oregon last election, or the one before, I think. Headquartered in Seattle.

I'm from Oregon, I remember this. It was Jordana Sardo I think in '04.

Saxitoxin wrote:Naturally, being Trotskyists as they are, they're not the kind of folks with whom ol' Sax hangs out.

Saxitoxin wrote:Non-revolutionary social-democrats so no friends of ol' Saxi.

Aren't Trots pro-revolutionary? Why wouldn't you like them? Don't they espouse permanent revolution and revolution in capitalist societies through workers? Just wondering, I'm not an expert on Marx/Lenin/Trotsky or familiar with your views.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

PhatScotty wrote:yeah, try reading the rest of the constitution. nowhere does it say "the governmet shall". EVERYWHERE it says "the government shall not"

try reading more than the first line of the first paragraph next time. That's where context comes in.

And how is that in opposition to socialism again?

Don't socialists (or I suppose more accurately Marxists) advocate overthrow of capitalism and some even the current U.S. gov't? Wouldn't that mean their established gov't would have to enforce their policies on those who aren't of their own ideology (e.g. the "rich" or right-wingers who wouldn't support so-called socialism)? So basically wouldn't they suspend the citizens' rights of personal freedom? [/opinion]

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Aren't Trots pro-revolutionary? Why wouldn't you like them? Don't they espouse permanent revolution and revolution in capitalist societies through workers? Just wondering, I'm not an expert on Marx/Lenin/Trotsky or familiar with your views.

Yeay, but they are pie-in-the-sky idealists who don't believe in the efficacy of liberated territory to serve as a launchpad for the revolution. Ergo, Trotsky's betrayal of Stalin's policy of peaceful coexistence with neighbors.

saxitoxin wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Aren't Trots pro-revolutionary? Why wouldn't you like them? Don't they espouse permanent revolution and revolution in capitalist societies through workers? Just wondering, I'm not an expert on Marx/Lenin/Trotsky or familiar with your views.

Yeay, but they are pie-in-the-sky idealists who don't believe in the efficacy of liberated territory to serve as a launchpad for the revolution. Ergo, Trotsky's betrayal of Stalin's policy of peaceful coexistence with neighbors.

Ah. Thanks for the clarification.

8/28 left, 10/2 right

... I caught a small portion of this thing on television and what I saw was very odd.

... Speaking from the podium was the leader of the SEIU. Behind him were very fat (bodyguard?) thuggies wearing sunglasses and bandanas pulled up over their faces, scanning the crowd.

... And this dude is the most frequent visitor to the White House? I wonder if his fat boy thugs are allowed in the oval office.

...

Nobunaga wrote:... I caught a small portion of this thing on television and what I saw was very odd.

... Speaking from the podium was the leader of the SEIU. Behind him were very fat (bodyguard?) thuggies wearing sunglasses and bandanas pulled up over their faces, scanning the crowd.

... And this dude is the most frequent visitor to the White House? I wonder if his fat boy thugs are allowed in the oval office.

...

I did some research into this claim and you are correct minus slight errors. Anna Burger has visited the White House 43 times and counting. That is the most times of any non-govt official, although only a handful of govt officials have visited the WH more than her. She is a top leader in SEIU, but the head leader. However, she is the head of another labor union conglomerate (Change To Win) that comprises 5 other unions.

The One Nation Rally was not explicitly a socialist only rally. It was promoted as being endorsed by a wide base that included conservatives, although that was not the case. However, it was endorsed by far left orgs like the Communist Party (Source: http://keyboardmilitia.com/2010/10/02/omission-watch-communist-socialist-partners-of-one-nation-protest-left-out-of-news-accounts/).

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Don't socialists (or I suppose more accurately Marxists) advocate overthrow of capitalism

More that they see it as inevitable. Even so, modern socialists have backed off from that a bit (based on some recent socialist commentaries I have read, though I am very far from an expert on socialism).

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:and some even the current U.S. gov't?

You confuse a particular political direction some socialists might wish with the ideas of socialism. That's like saying that all capitalists just want to rape and pillage the earth, poison workers to make profits. True for some, but not all.

If a group wants to overthrow the US (and not simply through voting.. technically we "overthrow" our government every 2 years), then its perfectly OK to say "this group is bad because they want to violently overthrow our country". Saying "this group is socialist" ... is not terribly helpful, especially when that term has essentially become just a "big, bad bogeyman" (along with the term "liberal") for anything extreme conservatives don't want.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Wouldn't that mean their established gov't would have to enforce their policies on those who aren't of their own ideology (e.g. the "rich" or right-wingers who wouldn't support so-called socialism)? So basically wouldn't they suspend the citizens' rights of personal freedom? [/opinion]

Well, you basically hit upon why that is really NOT socialism, though it misses the mark in other ways, also.

And.. my basic point is not that socialism is wonderful. My point is that it should not be considered "anti-American" or "destroying America" to merely voice such ideas. Let's debate the ideas, let's not just throw out names as if that were true debate.

I see what you're saying Player, and I agree wholeheartedly to debate the ideas and not just throw out names. I know you weren't arguing that socialism is the cure-all we're looking for or anything like that, but instead just asking for facts. However I was kinda talking about how someone said it was "unamerican" to be socialist. It is reprehensible that we would stifle even admitted socialists' views/ideas/etc., but that's also the catch. In theory, socialism would only work if everyone was on board, correct? If every single person were a socialist, and did so willingly. But isn't that "unamerican" in itself? Sorry I'm not really organized and when I write something I try and connect all the ideas but it doesn't always work out.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:I see what you're saying Player, and I agree wholeheartedly to debate the ideas and not just throw out names. I know you weren't arguing that socialism is the cure-all we're looking for or anything like that, but instead just asking for facts.

Well, sort of chastizing a couple of people I have debated on and off for a couple of years now for slinging names as if they were mud instead of issues. But no, I am not a socialist and don't really like true socialism. I just also don't like 100% pure captialism either...and those two currently want to see that as a "high crime", it seems.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:However I was kinda talking about how someone said it was "unamerican" to be socialist. It is reprehensible that we would stifle even admitted socialists' views/ideas/etc., but that's also the catch. In theory, socialism would only work if everyone was on board, correct? If every single person were a socialist, and did so willingly. But isn't that "unamerican" in itself? Sorry I'm not really organized and when I write something I try and connect all the ideas but it doesn't always work out.

Well, I will say that your ideas of socialism don't really match my understanding of it. But, then that is also part of my point. Right now, a lot of debate in these threads centers on just what socialism is, is it evil and very little about any real and true proposed ideas.

I started a few discussions of liberalism. In the end, a lot of people wound up claiming that what I said was liberalism was really conservativism and that liberal positions had changed. Well, the bigger truth is that the Republicans, beginning with Reagan worked hard to paint themselves as the "good"/"moral", pro-family party by vilifying abortion, homosexuals and, to a much lessor extent immigrants (a more recent addition, in fact), abd pointing to this "liberal elite" that somehow was engineering all those groups into power. In the meantime, Republicans were support for their real goals.. economic support of big business,directly in opposition to the traditional economic goals and needs of middle America.

What gets REALLY scary, though is when you look back into McCarthyism and see how much of the modern supposedly "conservative" rhetoric (actually FAR right rhetoric) mirrors words of that day (shift the lables a bit some times, sometimes not even that).

The only way to get around all that is to stop with the names and just debate the ideas. If someone wants to call and idea I like socialist.. so what? If someone says the idea is bad because... then, we have a debate.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:I see what you're saying Player, and I agree wholeheartedly to debate the ideas and not just throw out names. I know you weren't arguing that socialism is the cure-all we're looking for or anything like that, but instead just asking for facts. However I was kinda talking about how someone said it was "unamerican" to be socialist. It is reprehensible that we would stifle even admitted socialists' views/ideas/etc., but that's also the catch. In theory, socialism would only work if everyone was on board, correct? If every single person were a socialist, and did so willingly. But isn't that "unamerican" in itself? Sorry I'm not really organized and when I write something I try and connect all the ideas but it doesn't always work out.

Not entirely sure where you think we need 100% consensus to create socialist policy. Also not sure why you think Player's a socialist, but maybe she is. Irregardless, that's not the case for any policy regime, why would it be the case for socialism? Remember how long we've had actual Socialist opposition in this country (where have you gone, Eugene Debs? an ideology turns it's lonely eyes to you) if you need a counterpoint. We've never had a unified consensus on anything, most policy regimes are imposed from above.

I never thought Player was a "socialist".

spurgistan wrote:Not entirely sure where you think we need 100% consensus to create socialist policy.

This is only based on my admittedly limited contact with socialist ideas or writings (most of which come from the interwebz and are therefore suspect of course). But I ask this: If, let's say, the writings of Marx became a staple for the American working class, and they make up enough to form a majority, they could create a communist gov't. However its unrealistic to think that somehow everyone would subscribe to this. How do they then address this issue? How do they enforce their policies on an unwilling populace? A system designed for uniformity among classes can't work if (at least) two roughly equal populations are opposed to each other. Not to mention that those in opposition would probably control most of the wealth and capital. That's what I was saying. (Perhaps this is why there has been so much opposition? Or maybe those in power fear losing it.) Also in the case of "policy regime" you wrote of, isn't the idea behind it to have the people from "below" initiate it?

I do plan on actually reading material in regards to this (e.g. Marx & Engels and all that jazz), but need to find the time. I'm not some asshole just ranting to troll. Really. These are just my initial thoughts/ideas on the subject. I enjoy discussing everything thoroughly.

spurgistan wrote:Irregardless

No I'm not a grammar nazi either but this one really gets to me. Its a double negative.