Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Everyone meet my dad.

PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 10:53:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't know why you'd want your parents to join--I certainly wouldn't want to invite mine--but that's cool. Hey, Bellum's dad!
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 11:16:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 10:53:07 AM, PoeJoe wrote:
I don't know why you'd want your parents to join--I certainly wouldn't want to invite mine--but that's cool. Hey, Bellum's dad!

Not wierd at all. But What is weird is that he is a socialist, but considers himself a republican...
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 11:19:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 11:16:47 AM, philosphical wrote:
Not wierd at all. But What is weird is that he is a socialist, but considers himself a republican...

Not much of a difference.
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 11:21:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 11:19:44 AM, Nags wrote:
At 2/27/2010 11:16:47 AM, philosphical wrote:
Not wierd at all. But What is weird is that he is a socialist, but considers himself a republican...

Not much of a difference.

Big difference actually. Most socialists fall closer to the lines of liberal.
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 11:24:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 11:21:08 AM, philosphical wrote:
Big difference actually. Most socialists fall closer to the lines of liberal.

Republicans are liberal.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 11:34:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 11:24:42 AM, Nags wrote:
At 2/27/2010 11:21:08 AM, philosphical wrote:
Big difference actually. Most socialists fall closer to the lines of liberal.

Republicans are liberal.

Lol, you're funny. I actually am a socialist and would be absolutely disgusted to associate myself with republicans.
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 11:48:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 11:24:42 AM, Nags wrote:
At 2/27/2010 11:21:08 AM, philosphical wrote:
Big difference actually. Most socialists fall closer to the lines of liberal.

Republicans are liberal.

are you serious? They are on the opposite sides of the spectrum. Do you even know your politics? haha
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 11:50:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 11:24:42 AM, Nags wrote:
At 2/27/2010 11:21:08 AM, philosphical wrote:
Big difference actually. Most socialists fall closer to the lines of liberal.

Republicans are liberal.

Not in the modern use of the term.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 11:57:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 11:48:04 AM, philosphical wrote:
At 2/27/2010 11:24:42 AM, Nags wrote:
At 2/27/2010 11:21:08 AM, philosphical wrote:
Big difference actually. Most socialists fall closer to the lines of liberal.

Republicans are liberal.

are you serious? They are on the opposite sides of the spectrum. Do you even know your politics? haha

That's the paradigm that they want you to see.

They're not debating policies. They're not debating whether to decrease or increase spending or taxation. They're debating how much to increase taxation. They're not debating whether to go to war or not go to war. They're debating where to go to war, and how much they should send to war. They're not debating whether to regulate or not. They're debating how much regulation. They're basically the same.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 11:58:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The "modern" use of the term resulted from the dishonesty of early modern liberals. Just as long as we're clear on that :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 11:59:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Bellumquodpacis wrote:
Hi guys meet my dad.

Then Nags wrote 11 posts later:
They're not debating policies. They're not debating whether to decrease or increase spending or taxation. They're debating how much to increase taxation. They're not debating whether to go to war or not go to war. They're debating where to go to war, and how much they should send to war. They're not debating whether to regulate or not. They're debating how much regulation. They're basically the same.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 12:02:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Just to note, Nags is sort of right in saying that Republicans are "liberal," in the sense that their economics focus around classical liberalism.

But, socially the GOP are about as authoritarian as the Nazis. When describing the GOP as "liberal," you're forgetting the second part of what it entails to be a liberal; that being the belief that the best way to protect citizen's rights is to keep the government limited in what it can do. The modern Republican Party is nowhere near that ideal, not even in its rhetoric. I wouldn't call them "liberal" if they had a gun to my head.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 12:04:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 11:59:51 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Bellumquodpacis wrote:
Hi guys meet my dad.

Then Nags wrote 11 posts later:
They're not debating policies. They're not debating whether to decrease or increase spending or taxation. They're debating how much to increase taxation. They're not debating whether to go to war or not go to war. They're debating where to go to war, and how much they should send to war. They're not debating whether to regulate or not. They're debating how much regulation. They're basically the same.

Gotta love DDO. Something new and exciting every day!
President of DDO
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 12:05:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 12:02:00 PM, Volkov wrote:
Just to note, Nags is sort of right in saying that Republicans are "liberal," in the sense that their economics focus around classical liberalism.

No, their economics aren't classically liberal, at all.

But, socially the GOP are about as authoritarian as the Nazis.

Democrats aren't much better.

When describing the GOP as "liberal," you're forgetting the second part of what it entails to be a liberal; that being the belief that the best way to protect citizen's rights is to keep the government limited in what it can do. The modern Republican Party is nowhere near that ideal, not even in its rhetoric.

Liberal, in the contemporary sense, has the mission to expand the government. The Republicans and Democrats are both doing as such.

I wouldn't call them "liberal" if they had a gun to my head.

I'm sure you'd call Republicans liberal is your life depended on it.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 12:12:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 12:05:31 PM, Nags wrote:
No, their economics aren't classically liberal, at all.

Notice I said "sort of right," meaning that they incorporate elements of that brand into their ideals, but not necessarily following it 100% of the time. Syntax - 'tis important.

Democrats aren't much better.

Depends which Democrats you go to, but yes, that's true. I don't think I claimed the opposite, however.

Liberal, in the contemporary sense, has the mission to expand the government. The Republicans and Democrats are both doing as such.

Lol. See - you don't know what entails liberalism, minus the rhetoric from people like Ron Paul and Ragnar. I don't know why I bother.

I'm sure you'd call Republicans liberal is your life depended on it.

No, I wouldn't. That's how adamant I am.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 12:15:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 12:12:21 PM, Volkov wrote:
Notice I said "sort of right," meaning that they incorporate elements of that brand into their ideals, but not necessarily following it 100% of the time. Syntax - 'tis important.

If you're going to make a general point that has no real meaning, then why make it? All ideologies incorporate some form of classical liberalism in some way. So what?

Depends which Democrats you go to, but yes, that's true. I don't think I claimed the opposite, however.

You didn't. I'm just pointing it out.

Lol. See - you don't know what entails liberalism, minus the rhetoric from people like Ron Paul and Ragnar. I don't know why I bother.

I know what liberalism is supposed to mean. Note how I said "contemporary liberalism".

No, I wouldn't. That's how adamant I am.

I'm sure you're not serious, but okay.
collegekitchen3
Posts: 78
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 12:16:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 10:53:07 AM, PoeJoe wrote:
I don't know why you'd want your parents to join--I certainly wouldn't want to invite mine--but that's cool. Hey, Bellum's dad!

I agree with PoeJoe, but if your dad is chill then sounds good to me.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 12:18:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 12:15:00 PM, Nags wrote:
If you're going to make a general point that has no real meaning, then why make it? All ideologies incorporate some form of classical liberalism in some way. So what?

I was helping support your position, my apologies, I'll try not to do that again.

You didn't. I'm just pointing it out.

Ahuh.

I know what liberalism is supposed to mean. Note how I said "contemporary liberalism".

Why should I waste my time? Someone that can't distinguish between an ideology's stance, and the stance of self-interested politicians, is someone I won't waste my time on.

I'm sure you're not serious, but okay.

I'm so serious. I even have my serious face on.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 12:20:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 12:18:04 PM, Volkov wrote:
I was helping support your position, my apologies, I'll try not to do that again.

That wasn't my position though.

Why should I waste my time? Someone that can't distinguish between an ideology's stance, and the stance of self-interested politicians, is someone I won't waste my time on.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Liberals today hijacked the term of yesterday. What's your beef? I don't like that the term liberal today is different from classically liberal either.

I'm so serious. I even have my serious face on.

Let's meet in international waters some time. I'll bring a gun and a video camera.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 12:22:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 12:20:31 PM, Nags wrote:
That wasn't my position though.

Well, my apologies then.

Liberals today hijacked the term of yesterday. What's your beef? I don't like that the term liberal today is different from classically liberal either.

"Liberals today" didn't hijack the term. That was liberals yesterday; modern, social liberalism has its roots in the late 1800's in Britain. Learn your political history. Social liberalism didn't just crop up in 2004.

Let's meet in international waters some time. I'll bring a gun and a video camera.

I thought you weren't Republican?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 12:24:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 12:22:46 PM, Volkov wrote:
"Liberals today" didn't hijack the term. That was liberals yesterday; modern, social liberalism has its roots in the late 1800's in Britain. Learn your political history. Social liberalism didn't just crop up in 2004.

"Today" and "yesterday" aren't supposed to taken literally.

I thought you weren't Republican?

I'm sixteen years old. I couldn't be a Republican even if I wanted. I just want to test your statements.
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 12:24:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 12:20:31 PM, Nags wrote:
At 2/27/2010 12:18:04 PM, Volkov wrote:
I was helping support your position, my apologies, I'll try not to do that again.

That wasn't my position though.

Why should I waste my time? Someone that can't distinguish between an ideology's stance, and the stance of self-interested politicians, is someone I won't waste my time on.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Liberals today hijacked the term of yesterday. What's your beef? I don't like that the term liberal today is different from classically liberal either.

I'm so serious. I even have my serious face on.

Let's meet in international waters some time. I'll bring a gun and a video camera.

Nags, all of that is irrelavant and contradictory. Do you know what socialism is?

Liberals believe in private ownership.

Modern American liberals are democratic capitalists. That is, they believe that private capitalist individuals should own and control the means of production, as long as they operate within the democratic law.

By contrast, socialists believe that everyone should own and control the means of production. Socialism has been proposed in many forms. Perhaps the most popular form is social democracy, in which workers vote for their supervisors, company policy, and industry representatives to regional or national congresses.

Another form of socialism is anarcho-socialism, in which employee-owned firms would compete or cooperate on the free market, absent any centralized government at all. As you can see, a central planning committee is not a necessary feature of socialism; only worker ownership of production is. Dictatorships can never be socialist, because workers do not own or control anything when a ruling elite is telling them what to do. For this reason, socialists reject the claim (made by the Soviet Union itself) that the Soviet Union was a socialist country. It was instead a brutal dictatorship over workers.
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 12:26:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 12:24:45 PM, philosphical wrote:
Nags, all of that is irrelavant and contradictory. Do you know what socialism is?

Liberals believe in private ownership.

Modern American liberals are democratic capitalists. That is, they believe that private capitalist individuals should own and control the means of production, as long as they operate within the democratic law.

By contrast, socialists believe that everyone should own and control the means of production. Socialism has been proposed in many forms. Perhaps the most popular form is social democracy, in which workers vote for their supervisors, company policy, and industry representatives to regional or national congresses.

Another form of socialism is anarcho-socialism, in which employee-owned firms would compete or cooperate on the free market, absent any centralized government at all. As you can see, a central planning committee is not a necessary feature of socialism; only worker ownership of production is. Dictatorships can never be socialist, because workers do not own or control anything when a ruling elite is telling them what to do. For this reason, socialists reject the claim (made by the Soviet Union itself) that the Soviet Union was a socialist country. It was instead a brutal dictatorship over workers.

Yummy yummy. You like copy+pasta? http://www.huppi.com...
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 12:26:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 12:26:11 PM, Nags wrote:
At 2/27/2010 12:24:45 PM, philosphical wrote:
Nags, all of that is irrelavant and contradictory. Do you know what socialism is?

Liberals believe in private ownership.

Modern American liberals are democratic capitalists. That is, they believe that private capitalist individuals should own and control the means of production, as long as they operate within the democratic law.

By contrast, socialists believe that everyone should own and control the means of production. Socialism has been proposed in many forms. Perhaps the most popular form is social democracy, in which workers vote for their supervisors, company policy, and industry representatives to regional or national congresses.

Another form of socialism is anarcho-socialism, in which employee-owned firms would compete or cooperate on the free market, absent any centralized government at all. As you can see, a central planning committee is not a necessary feature of socialism; only worker ownership of production is. Dictatorships can never be socialist, because workers do not own or control anything when a ruling elite is telling them what to do. For this reason, socialists reject the claim (made by the Soviet Union itself) that the Soviet Union was a socialist country. It was instead a brutal dictatorship over workers.

Yummy yummy. You like copy+pasta? http://www.huppi.com...

So dis-prove it. Eh?
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 12:30:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 12:26:54 PM, philosphical wrote:
So dis-prove it. Eh?

Seeing as how I never said Republicans, Democrats, liberals, or conservatives are socialists; straw man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 12:32:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'd go as far to say that the current Democratic Party is closer to the various modern social democratic parties in Europe in Canada, than it is to any liberal party. The Dems look more like Nu Labour than Liberal Democrats, for all you Brits out there.
BellumQuodPacis
Posts: 1,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 12:36:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Let's see....my dad worked for the smithsonian....went to Universidad de Valle in guatemala...and he was in the army in guatemala.

Lol

Be nice to him