Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The difference between an intelligent poster and one who can't formulate a rational argument couldn't be more apparant than in these two posts:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadex
And I am queen Ann
Nice to meet you Queen Ann. I'm surprised royalty is here on City-Data. Look at my post history, you'll see me repeating that same line "remember, I'm a registered Republican Navy Vet who voted for Ron Paul in the Primary and Bob Barr in the general" hundreds of times. Never once have I voted Democrat. And what does your post bring to this debate anyways?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
If the Democrats really wanted Socialism, they would have supported Kucinich or Gravel.
To what extent I would call those folks, "socialist", is kind of silly to me personally. I would call both of them far left Liberals of a more traditional flair.
I understand what you are trying to point out here and yes, I agree. People who make claims about the "far left", haven't really seen someone from the "far left" in quite some time. Those people like Kucinich, Gravel, even people like John Edwards(among a shrinking amount of others), to me represent a more traditional brand of Liberalism. You might even hear one of these guys mention or even progress issues like human rights, poverty, direct democracy, and yes, even very socialist ideals.
When I see those people who identify themselves as Liberals out there supporting things like wars and occupations or denouncing free speech because it is inflammatory or even crude, out there in support of the states desire to roll back personal privacy in the name of security. It is hard for me to think of these people as traditional old school Liberals and I think a similar thing has happened to the left as happened to the right. They use the same terms of identification and self label, but the definition of principle seems to have changed.
Today we have pro-war liberals, conservatives in favor of immorally borrowing against future generations so they can live better today, and the line of difference between them becomes more and more narrow with each passing year. As though both sides gave up on political philosophy and instead decided to simply focus on peripheral hot button issues like abortion, gun rights, same sex marriage.
This is an example of an intelligent and rationally thought out post. It's not in 100% agreement with me, but it's clearly written with thought and knowledge of politics. This is how you form an argument.
Both parties are lost and need to find their way. The name calling is just pathetic, especially when it's inaccurate.
It's like that classic line from the Simpsons said to Nelson Muntz "you're kissing a girl? That's so gay!" it simply doesn't make sense.
If the Democrats really wanted Socialism, they would have supported Kucinich or Gravel.
To what extent I would call those folks, "socialist", is kind of silly to me personally. I would call both of them far left Liberals of a more traditional flair.
I understand what you are trying to point out here and yes, I agree. People who make claims about the "far left", haven't really seen someone from the "far left" in quite some time. Those people like Kucinich, Gravel, even people like John Edwards(among a shrinking amount of others), to me represent a more traditional brand of Liberalism. You might even hear one of these guys mention or even progress issues like human rights, poverty, direct democracy, and yes, even very socialist ideals.
When I see those people who identify themselves as Liberals out there supporting things like wars and occupations or denouncing free speech because it is inflammatory or even crude, out there in support of the states desire to roll back personal privacy in the name of security. It is hard for me to think of these people as traditional old school Liberals and I think a similar thing has happened to the left as happened to the right. They use the same terms of identification and self label, but the definition of principle seems to have changed.
Today we have pro-war liberals, conservatives in favor of immorally borrowing against future generations so they can live better today, and the line of difference between them becomes more and more narrow with each passing year. As though both sides gave up on political philosophy and instead decided to simply focus on peripheral hot button issues like abortion, gun rights, same sex marriage.
Interesting is it not? How the two neo ideologies are so similar. To me that is because they have the same world goals and are subject to the same world influences. The prevention of free thinking, that has occured over the last 10-15 years, within both the democratic and Republican party is no coincidence. The curtain of the New World Order has fallen.
Very true. Many countries have nationalized health care, but in the U.S. that smacks of Socialism...is Israel Socialist? Ireland? Saudi Arabia? I think not, but they all have nationalized health care. When the "secret Muslim,
"not a natural citizen," and "bad Christian" labels failed to destroy Obama's credibility with the majority of Americans, "Socialist" became the final hope. I see Obama more as a "progressive centrist;" he's far too pragmatic and too well grounded in the Constitution to consider Socialism as viable in the United States, in any form.
Which is why I voted for Ron Paul, and once he lost, was a Libertarian party voter. The GOP needs to return to the center if it will ever survive. If the GOP came out tomorrow in support of drug legalization and dropped the religious lunacy from their policies, they would immediately regain all their influence and power.
Pretty funny about the uproar over "Socialism" all of a sudden because it's now "chic" to be against it as a way to protest or deride Obama. The truth of it is that "Socialism" in one form or another (e.g. taxes to maintain roads and bridges where some pay more income and/or property taxes than others, subsidiaries to farmers, government support of Amtrak or the US Postal Service, food stamps, etc.) has already been instituted in America and in some cases, was and is instrumental in the quality of life for Americans for a LONG LONG time already way before Obama.
How come those two guys (Kucinich and Gravel) couldn't even muster 5% combined in a primary? Because this notion that the Democrats are "socialists" is pure hogwash. Clinton, Edwards and Obama all had basically the same policy ideas and would have appointed basically the same people. During the "debates" it was three talking heads repeating the same rhetoric and little sound blurbs from the also-rans, all of whom were more liberal and socialistic than the big three.
Dennis Kucinich is as close to a Socialist as you can find in the Democratic party, so how come most Democrats thought he was crazy?
So my question is, if Democrats really want Socialism so bad, how come nobody supported the most Socialist candidates in the primaries instead of the more Centrist Obama?
Remember, I am a Republican who voted for Ron Paul in the primary (clearly I am not a Socialist) and Bob Barr in the general election.
No no Democrats voted for socialism and for the first black president and or Hillary for the first women president. They thought they could get both.
Remember, I am a Republican who voted for Ron Paul in the primary (clearly I am not a Socialist) and Bob Barr in the general election.
RP makes A LOT of sense. I really like the fiscally conservative, socially tolerant platform. Unfortunate that he attracts some really loony followers (9/11 truthers, anarchists, etc) who may have turned off serious mainstream voters from supporting him.
How come those two guys (Kucinich and Gravel) couldn't even muster 5% combined in a primary? Because this notion that the Democrats are "socialists" is pure hogwash. Clinton, Edwards and Obama all had basically the same policy ideas and would have appointed basically the same people. During the "debates" it was three talking heads repeating the same rhetoric and little sound blurbs from the also-rans, all of whom were more liberal and socialistic than the big three.
Dennis Kucinich is as close to a Socialist as you can find in the Democratic party, so how come most Democrats thought he was crazy?
So my question is, if Democrats really want Socialism so bad, how come nobody supported the most Socialist candidates in the primaries instead of the more Centrist Obama?
Remember, I am a Republican who voted for Ron Paul in the primary (clearly I am not a Socialist) and Bob Barr in the general election.
Part of voting for a politician is voting for one you personally like or you think can win an election, and perhaps Kucinichdi did not look like he could win, even his fellow democrats were making fun of him.
Once a liberal politician informs people about their true intentions, they lose the majority of the American voting public. So, 0bama had to fool enough simpletons, while the socialists knew him for what he was. 0bama would not have won election if told Americans what he was going to do to it, within his first six months after taking office.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
