Most Republicans vote against their best interest (health care system, insurance, dictators)

[One Thousand]

It appears to me that you're throwing in the towel, so I'll just give you my beliefs rather than play games because you're afraid to be wrong.

Originally Posted by Humanoid

Class isn't just about property. Class can exist in a system with private property and without.

In America, class is based on property. In "The Communist Manifesto" the bourgeoisie is the propertied class. The difference you cite between communism and socialism is the degree to which property rights is abridged. In "The Communist Manifesto" Marx/Engels says that the initial stage of communism is making inroads into property rights. ("Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property... Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)) Therefore, there is no distinguishable difference between communism and socialism.

You have failed to prove your position.

So people aren't responsible for their own actions?

That's what is sounds like you're saying: People vote, yet they're not responsible for the product of that vote?

Bill Clinton holds responsibility for his actions and the voters hold responsibility for electing a president who f'ed up.

Honestly, I don't care about Bill Clinton's sex life. It doesn't effect its ability to lead. But, I also don't feel responsible for his actions.

Actually, it did. Instead of being able to focus on American issues, Bill Clinton was forced to spend his time dealing with Lewinski.

But if you want to think we are responsible for the actions of who we vote for fine. I don't care. Are you feeling guilty about the tens of thousands of innocent lives you are responsible for in Iraq? Just curious....

I accept responsibility for the war in Iraq and the innocent casualties.

Do you have any reference whatsoever to a classic piece of literature that claims that,as a voter, we're not responsible for our government? Just one... maybe from that college government class... Just one source that says an employer isn't responsible for the actions of his/her employee.

Explain this to me: Jefferson, in "The Declaration of Independence" says that, when oppressed sufficiently, the citizens have a duty to fight. However, I would conclude, that if you don't think a voter is responsible for their vote, then they can't be responsible to fight. Is that the case? Do you disagree with Jefferson?

Hitler rose to power because human nature. Fascism can be created just as easily in the US and that was what was so scary about the last 8 years. I'm happy to say...for the now it seems to have failed.

I don't blame Germans or German culture, it could've happen anywhere if the conditions were right.

The conditions were culture... A willingness to vote a radical to office, for instance.

There are two many different types of democracy to answer this question in a meaningful way.

Yes, but since we're talking about America, I trust you can make a leap of faith about the definition we're using... or ask for clarity if need be. However, it sounds like you're in over your head and searching for escape routes.

In the case of a representative democracy like ours I would suggest it is successful so long as the people can act as a check and balance against the legislative and executive branches of government.

So, as long as people can vote, it's successful?

Its hard to imagine how people can play such a role without free speech, so in a sense that would be necessary for the system to work. The only characteristics I can think of that are necessary are things like free speech, having the right to protest etc. So long as the electorate can freely express their views and vote then they will act as a check/balance against the legislative and executive branches of government.

What have you read? You come on as being informed, but it appears you're really not.

If you really haven't read anything, don't you think you should hold off on forming an opinion about democracy and communism until you have read something?

I would perhaps suggest easily accessible information free of propaganda is necessary too. Although such information is out there in our system, its clouded by a bunch of crap that is more easily accessible (i.e., on TV instead of in a book). The goal in this country is to distort others views into something that sounds bad instead of really thinking about it.

This is what you are involved with whether you know it or not. You run around distorting the views of the candidate you don't support. That is harmful to American democracy.

From where my relevant opinions come: "The Wealth of Nations" Smith, "Leviathan" Hobbes, "Second Treatise of Government" Locke, "The Communist Manifesto" Marx/Engel, "Capital" Marx.

[Humanoid]

Originally Posted by One Thousand

In America, class is based on property.

No, its not. Class in America is based much more than on property.
Spend some time with the upper class Americans and that will be come apparent within minutes... And note, I never said property was not a major component of class in America. I said that class isn't directly related to property. And its not. Also, before you quote the Communist Manifesto, try reading it.

Originally Posted by One Thousand

I accept responsibility for the war in Iraq and the innocent casualties.

Oh great, so can be put you in jail then? What? Is it just a matter of you saying you accept responsibility?

Originally Posted by One Thousand

Do you have any reference whatsoever to a classic piece of literature that claims that,as a voter, we're not responsible for our government? Just one... maybe from that college government class... Just one source that says an employer isn't responsible for the actions of his/her employee.

If an employer hires someone and he goes on a killing spree, the employer is not responsible. The employer can be held responsible if the employee is doing something that was intended as part of his job.

Also, you are equivocating now. We are certainly "responsible for our government" in that we elect the officials, but we aren't responsible when an elected official does something outside of what they said. Politicians are rarely if ever straight with the public so it makes a bit hard to blame the public when the politician does something they don't agree with.

Originally Posted by One Thousand

The conditions were culture... A willingness to vote a radical to office, for instance.

No conditions is not culture. Americans also voted a radical into office, but the American political system makes it much harder to turn this country into a fascist state. What happened in Germany has happened all over the world. If anything fascism/dictatorships are the normal mode of government.

Originally Posted by One Thousand

So, as long as people can vote, it's successful?

Not what I said.

Originally Posted by One Thousand

Yes, but since we're talking about America, I trust you can make a leap of faith about the definition we're using... or ask for clarity if need be. However, it sounds like you're in over your head and searching for escape routes.

I answered your question in terms of a representative democracy, so not sure what you're talking about here.

Originally Posted by One Thousand

What have you read? You come on as being informed, but it appears you're really not.

I have read thousands of books, you want a list or something? But really, I don't care whether you think I'm informed or not. You can try to insult me all you wish, but it doesn't make your position correct.

You will vote for your masters regardless of the facts. So please, go back to yapping about Obama being a socialism and other such right-wing propaganda. Have fun distorting the democratic process = )

[One Thousand]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

No, its not. Class in America is based much more than on property.

Oh? Well then, if those references to poor, middle- and upper-class aren't references to property ownership, what is it a reference to?

And note, I never said property was not a major component of class in America.

Of course not, because you don't know what you're trying to say.

I said that class isn't directly related to property.

Where?... and if Marx/Engel say it is, what does your opinion matter compared to theirs?

And its not.

Source.

Also, before you quote the Communist Manifesto, try reading it.

Where did I go wrong?

Oh great, so can be put you in jail then? What? Is it just a matter of you saying you accept responsibility?

That's not very practical, is it? However, the way in which we incur the consequences of our country's actions-- the way we accept responsibility-- is the tax burden of the war, the knowledge that our decisions resulted in many deaths and, if any countries choose to, endure the direct response they implement.

If an employer hires someone and he goes on a killing spree, the employer is not responsible.

The employer isn't directly responsible for murder, but he is responsible for hiring a murderer. You disagree?

We are certainly "responsible for our government" in that we elect the officials, but we aren't responsible when an elected official does something outside of what they said.

I notice, although you've read 1,000's of books, you haven't one to offer for your position.

Let me ask you this: If a child is about to cross the street without looking and you see a car coming, if you don't stop the child, do you have any responsibility for that child's injuries/death?

Again, because I fully understand that none of us can clearly express the foundations of our beliefs on a forum-- if you could, there'd be few books, please cite the source of your beliefs about individual responsibility. (Mine is Locke.)

No conditions is not culture.

Then you're saying that if our culture shifted to suppress freedom of speech to the point that the Constitution was amended, that cultural shift isn't considered a condition which lead to the suppression?

If so, please cite the definition you're using for "condition".

Originally Posted by hmn

Not what I said.

No, you said something different, but the point, whether intended or not, is what you inferred: In the case of a representative democracy like ours I would suggest it is successful so long as the people can act as a check and balance against the legislative and executive branches of government.

I have read thousands of books, you want a list or something? But really, I don't care whether you think I'm informed or not. You can try to insult me all you wish, but it doesn't make your position correct.

If you spend time outside the left coast, you'll find that most of the country doesn't consider a recognition of fact to be an insult. Calling an observation of fact an insult is part of the thought suppression that occurs on the left.

I'm asking you for a single book that informs your position. What are your values based on? Did you just hear your neighbor talking one day and decide that you like it? Obviously, since you're so very well read, there must be a book that explains it.

Please cite it.

You will vote for your masters regardless of the facts.

Perhaps if you produced a fact, that would change.

[Humanoid]

Originally Posted by One Thousand

Oh? Well then, if those references to poor, middle- and upper-class aren't references to property ownership, what is it a reference to?

They are references to social class that involves much more than property even in America. Having $10 million in assets doesn't make you upper class, you will need a variety of other characteristics to fit in with this group of people.

Originally Posted by One Thousand

Where?... and if Marx/Engel say it is, what does your opinion matter compared to theirs?

They don't say it. Again, you have to read their work to see that. When they talk about class they mean it in much the way modern sociologist do, and that includes much more than which property you own. There are class systems in societies with little to no property rights.

Originally Posted by One Thousand

I notice, although you've read 1,000's of books, you haven't one to offer for your position.

I don't drop the name of books or people to support my positions.

Originally Posted by One Thousand

Again, because I fully understand that none of us can clearly express the foundations of our beliefs on a forum-- if you could, there'd be few books, please cite the source of your beliefs about individual responsibility. (Mine is Locke.)

I created this thread to talk about republican political strategy not to talk about morality, in particular the ways people are morally culpable for actions they aren't directly involved with. If you would enjoy a discussion on this topic perhaps you should create a thread for it?

But in terms of Moral Philosophy I agree most with Philosophers like David Hume and more recently with a number of Logical Positivists. But, stating that isn't going to clear anything up.

Originally Posted by One Thousand

Then you're saying that if our culture shifted to suppress freedom of speech to the point that the Constitution was amended, that cultural shift isn't considered a condition which lead to the suppression?

I never stated that. I said that German culture in itself was not the cause of the raise of Nazi power. It was instead human nature and could have happened anywhere. This was a particular claim about the raise of Nazi Germany and nothing more.

Originally Posted by One Thousand

If you spend time outside the left coast, you'll find that most of the country doesn't consider a recognition of fact to be an insult.

Firstly, I've lived in other areas of the country. Secondly, where I live in California is rather conservative (fiscally speaking, not so much socially).

Can you make single post that isn't filled with fallacies? Just curious. Stating that I'm "uninformed" does not refute my position.

Originally Posted by One Thousand

I'm asking you for a single book that informs your position. What are your values based on? Did you just hear your neighbor talking one day and decide that you like it? Obviously, since you're so very well read, there must be a book that explains it.

Why are you asking? Again, this is a thread on republican political strategy not on own I formed my moral views. But I answered your question above.

But, really, I have little interest in moral philosophy. So, if that is what you want to talk about please create another thread.


So, please lets get back to the topic. Why don't you explain how republican strategists have been successful in getting you to yap endlessly on forums about falsehoods to support their candidate.

[One Thousand]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

They are references to social class that involves much more than property even in America. Having $10 million in assets doesn't make you upper class, you will need a variety of other characteristics to fit in with this group of people.

Such as?

They don't say it. Again, you have to read their work to see that. When they talk about class they mean it in much the way modern sociologist do, and that includes much more than which property you own. There are class systems in societies with little to no property rights.

I don't recall any characteristic except property as differentiating the classes by Marx/Engel. Please cite a contradiction to my position in Marx/Engel.

I don't drop the name of books or people to support my positions.

Seriously, that is the absolutely stupidest line I've ever read. Honest to God, I have never heard anyone claim that they don't cite sources.

Good one.

I created this thread to talk about republican political strategy not to talk about morality, in particular the ways people are morally culpable for actions they aren't directly involved with. If you would enjoy a discussion on this topic perhaps you should create a thread for it?

It's the politics forum, it's moderated much more lightly than others because, I assume, one political topic cannot be explored without tangents.

But in terms of Moral Philosophy I agree most with Philosophers like David Hume and more recently with a number of Logical Positivists. But, stating that isn't going to clear anything up.

I'm asking you to cite a source for you position on individual responsibility. Do you have one? If so, cite it. If not, stop being an intellectual coward and admit it.

I never stated that. I said that German culture in itself was not the cause of the raise of Nazi power. It was instead human nature and could have happened anywhere. This was a particular claim about the raise of Nazi Germany and nothing more.

Please explain how they're different and cite your definition of "condition" that's being used here.

Firstly, I've lived in other areas of the country. Secondly, where I live in California is rather conservative (fiscally speaking, not so much socially).

Culture is insidious... its sly effect is difficult to see until it's against the backdrop of another.

Can you make single post that isn't filled with fallacies? Just curious. Stating that I'm "uninformed" does not refute my position.

Please cite my fallacious argument. Calling you uninformed was citing my conclusion about your failure to support your position... not argue your positions.

eWhy are you asking? Again, this is a thread on republican political strategy not on own I formed my moral views. But I answered your question above.

But, really, I have little interest in moral philosophy. So, if that is what you want to talk about please create another thread.

I don't think you answered. I think you've thrown out some ambiguity in the hopes that it will cover your lack of knowledge. You cite an entire genre and someone who wrote extensively? That's not an answer.

Regarding the subject, you have to understand a person's value-set to understand why they'd vote one way or the other.

So, please lets get back to the topic. Why don't you explain how republican strategists have been successful in getting you to yap endlessly on forums about falsehoods to support their candidate.

The premise is false. I support Republicans because I believe that Barack Obama is a communist... and I believe that because he's a socialist and there is no practical difference between communists and socialists.


Also, don't forget, you're the one claiming any college student in a government class understands the difference between communism and socialism... yet, you fail to explain the difference.

[baydog]

1K humanoid knows the difference in Socialist/Communist. Totallitaranism. Fascist/Nazi Germany was a totallitaranistic Govt. as was Marxist/Lenininist Communist Soviet Union. The United States became a Socialist Democracy under FDR. Our Democratic Party has been infiltrated by Communist wanting a Totallirarism But if they admit it , well, failure. If they keep replacing our constitutional rights with a wellfare state they will succeed.

[Metalstorm98]

Thank you ive been looking for somewhere intelligent to post this:
The immense similarities between McCains plans and Republicans in genral are so similar to that during the french revolution it is scary rewards for those in the upper class leaving the middle and lower to riot over inflation and lack of ability to survive. The Idea of a similar revolution in this country scares the hell out of me and i would really like to see a real CHANGE. These situation arent new, they arent even difficult to notice its that our country chooses to believe we defy history. but the fools that cant learn from the past are suffered to repeat it. LEARN AMERICA!!!!!!!! It wouldnt be so bad if there wernt people voting on trivial things or the republicans tring to remove our votes from the ballot for "sounding similar to criminals names"-Thats the quote from the election over looker in Florida-2004 WE are being manipulated we need to either unite and get rid of this oppresion by VOTING we need to vote and dont get caught in trivial issues like that of religion or gay rights this has no place in government why is it that rebublicans want us out of the economy but in to our lives our day to day issues. Ill tell you because it profits them economically and the trivial allows them to get enough support from those who care only if politicians are homophobic. WAKE UP OPEN YOUR EYES AND SEE THE CORRUPTION FOR WHAT IT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you for reading

I agree they only vote on the trivial things

[lostbuyer]

All I have to say is anyone voting for Mcsame is crazy, not that I think Obama is some savior but atleast the guy knows how to send e-mails and speak well. I would imagine he would give us a much needed better image abroad, and the socialism talk is just garbage we have had the biggest government expansion under bush, loss of liberties,spying on americans,doubled the deficit(including 2.3trillion missing from the pentagon)but somehow according to them we should fear big government Obama. We as a nation deserve what we have coming to us for being so dumb politically. one last note....yesterday as I was driving past a truck stop, they had a message in their lighted sign that read "remember 9-11 never forget,make the right choice this november" I dont even have to tell you who they are supporting,ridiculous and scary at the same time,sheep.

[Humanoid]

Originally Posted by One Thousand

I don't recall any characteristic except property as differentiating the classes by Marx/Engel. Please cite a contradiction to my position in Marx/Engel.

Firstly, you aren't going to understand Marx by just reading the Communist Manifesto.... But really, your comments are way off base which shows you haven't even read the manifesto (Anybody can google it). The primarily issue for Marx isn't even property, it is labor and how labor is divided (i.e. the means of production). My citation? The Communist Manifesto, just read the first section. The primarily issue is the exploitation of the proletariat. Of course the removal of private property rights (in terms of land etc) is required for a communist state. But again, this is not the primary issue contrary to what your search on Google told you.

Originally Posted by One Thousand

Seriously, that is the absolutely stupidest line I've ever read. Honest to God, I have never heard anyone claim that they don't cite sources.

Good thing I didn't say that huh? Citations are one thing name dropping books and authors is another.

Originally Posted by One Thousand

I'm asking you to cite a source for you position on individual responsibility. Do you have one? If so, cite it. If not, stop being an intellectual coward and admit it.

I don't have a citation for my position on individual responsibility for you. Not because you can't find it in a book, its nothing original. But because I don't recall off head where to find it. Why would this matter though? I can cite books for you, but that isn't going to help you much.

Originally Posted by One Thousand

You cite an entire genre and someone who wrote extensively? That's not an answer.

I answered, I just forgot the fact that your not...hmm...educated in such matters and would not know which books by the people I mentioned are relevant. Anyhow, to help you out:

An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals - David Hume
Principia Ethica - By G.E. Moore
Language, Truth and Logic - By J.A. Ayers (Only one chapter is relevant)

Originally Posted by One Thousand

The premise is false. I support Republicans because I believe that Barack Obama is a communist... and I believe that because he's a socialist and there is no practical difference between communists and socialists.

Right.... Firstly, the difference between communism and socialism is obvious. It is even explained in the Communist Manifesto (Another reason why its obvious you haven't read it...). Secondly, Obama is not a socialist in any way. Obama is not proposing that we nationalize anything. Not even his health care plan is a plan for nationalization. So you can believe whatever you want, but you are completely wrong. Surely, you can think of a better reason to vote for McCain than complete hyperbolic crap?

Seriously, this is such nonsense its amazing. McCain wants to use tax player money to pay peoples mortgages, he wants to use tax player money to socialize the loses of big corporations. If Obama is a socialist then so is McCain. They are both supporting programs to take money from the tax payer and distribute it to others. There is no difference between the two candidates as far as this issue is concerned.

Originally Posted by One Thousand

Also, don't forget, you're the one claiming any college student in a government class understands the difference between communism and socialism... yet, you fail to explain the difference.

I explained the difference many posts ago, sorry if you didn't understand.


Anyhow, so your reason for supporting McCain over Obama is based on pure propaganda. Which is exactly my point. Republican strategist have gotten people (like yourself) to believe things that aren't even close to being true so that you will vote for someone that will not help you in any way. Not only that they got you to yap about it on public forums. Its a pretty good strategy if you ask me. I thank you for demonstrating how it works.

[One Thousand]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

Firstly, you aren't going to understand Marx by just reading the Communist Manifesto....

I've read "Capital" also.

What I don't understand is that you communists repeatedly claim that I'm misrepresenting Marx. Time and again, I request that you point out how I misunderstand him. Time and again, you repeat and repeat and repeat... that I don't understand.

Just explain it. In what way am I misrepresenting communism/socialism?

But really, your comments are way off base which shows you haven't even read the manifesto. The primarily issue for Marx isn't even property, it is labor and how labor is divided (i.e. the means of production).

Explain how the means of production isn't property?

My citation? The Communist Manifesto, just read the first section. The primarily issue is the exploitation of the proletariat.

I'm asking for you to cite something from "Manifesto" that gives a characteristic of the bourgeoisie that doesn't rest on property-- Something that would support your position "I said that class isn't directly related to property."

Good thing I didn't say that huh? Citations are one thing name dropping books and authors is another.

Please define "name dropping" as being used.

I don't have a citation for my position on individual responsibility for you... But because I don't recall off head where to find it.

Then if the argument for, what sounds to be, a relatively weak sense of individual responsibility is so uncompelling that you don't even recall where you picked it up, why would you support it and advance it?

I answered, I just forgot the fact that your not...hmm...educated in such matters and would not know which books by the people I mentioned are relevant. Anyhow, to help you out:

An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals - David Hume
Principia Ethica - By G.E. Moore
Language, Truth and Logic - By J.A. Ayers (Only one chapter is relevant)

These books will explain why you believe people shouldn't be held accountable for their vote?

Right.... Firstly, the difference between communism and socialism is obvious. It is even explained in the Communist Manifesto (Another reason why its obvious you haven't read it...).

So, why's it so hard for you to explain?

Secondly, Obama is not a socialist in any way. Obama is not proposing that we nationalize anything. Not even his health care plan is a plan for nationalization.

Not yet. However, if he implements his voluntary health plan, over the next few years, it will develop a following-- a voting bloc and special interest organization/s. Faced with the reality that it can't work without forcing the middle-class into it, the next move will be to nationalize it.

That's why it's still socialistic even he says it isn't. It's a step toward socialism... and that's why Obama is a communist.

Surely, you can think of a better reason to vote for McCain than complete hyperbolic crap?

Sure, but that's the most relevant.

Eliminating earmarks. Fiscal conservative. Fearlessness. Good American. (All of which, I do not consider BO to be.)

Seriously, this is such nonsense its amazing. McCain wants to use tax player money to pay peoples mortgages, he wants to use tax player money to socialize the loses of big corporations. If Obama is a socialist then so is McCain. They are both supporting programs to take money from the tax payer and distribute it to others. There is no difference between the two candidates as far as this issue is concerned.

Yeah, I don't get it... but compromise is about accepting the least of evils.

I explained the difference many posts ago, sorry if you didn't understand.

You typed a number of words in response to my question about it. However, you didn't answer my question, which, ultimately, was a request to define, which means you never truly expressed your concept. Therefore, you never explained it.

Any time you're ready, please do.

Anyhow, so your reason for supporting McCain over Obama is based on pure propaganda.

Please explain.