|
Would Kerry do a better job countering terrorism (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Possibly one of the most uninformed bollox I'll read here!
You started off well by saying how can anyone call a communist a liberal without keeping a straight face, and I thought you were going to say summat intelligent...
(Let me explain...liberals economically advocate the free market and capitalism. Communists advocate the public ownership of property, or economic equality. Both however, advocate freedom and lberty, but Communists advocate it a hell of a lot more due to their economic beliefs...) |
If we're talking about communism in theory, then yes, you have a valid point. I'm arguing that communism, in practice, does indeed restrict people's freedom's and liberties (not economically, but socially).
I probably phrased what I said rather badly, come to think of it. In theory, communism may indeed advocate economic and (some) social liberties, what I should have said was that in practice, I don't think that this actually happens. I'm talking about the cessation of political freedoms and liberties that inevitably occurs when a communist revolution takes place. I know that I'll probably get cries of “but there has never been a true communist state!". I'm not entirely sure as to whether I could label this as a form of the no true Scotsman fallacy, but regardless, if we haven't had a proper communist state after the amount of attempts that have already taken place, then I honestly don't think we're going to see one any time in the near future.
Whilst in practice communism may advocate economic equality and so on, do you accept that the leaders invariably end up cracking down on any dissent, until we eventually get a situation like the one we currently have in China, where the government sees fit to bock google and so forth?
I don't know, I just see major issues with any kind of totalitarian regime, whether it's a fascist dictatorship, or a communist system in which the people are supposed to rule. I just think that the risk of corruption and so forth ends up negating the possible benefits from adopting a communist style form of governance. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
AAHAHHAAAHHAHAH.. that was funny |
AAHAHHAAAHHAHAH.. That was even funnier.
I think it's safe to say the U.S. has far more allies than the Palestinians and/or Canada. Some countries may not agree with everything the U.S. does(Frankly, it's absurd to think that they would), but I don't see anyone out there abandoning the U.S. as an ally.
Whether you like it or not, the U.S. is the sole superpower on the face of the globe today and in the world of politics it would be stupid to turn one's back on your biggest ally simply because you don't agree with a few particular policies. |
|
|
| biznology |
LOL Americans and their 'liberal communists' great to see that people here have no international view whatsoever. or simple understanding of words. liberal in the US doesnt mean what it means in the real world. and it in no way equates with Communism. theyre actually quite opposed.
liberal means free market. something Communism seeks to avoid at most costs .:rolleyes:
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
I think that in the end I will probably vote for Bush. This is not because I believe he is any better than Kerry, but because he is not any worse. Sure, we bitch and complain about how Bush does this and that, but if Kerry were elected, there would be a whole new set of things for us to complain about, that's called politics.
I am an admitted pessimist when it comes to the current American two party system, and thus to me mainstream Republicans and Democrats are one in the same. With that being said, I have to look back at the basic track record of Bush. We are in deficit spending and our military is over extended. On the other hand, there has not been a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11, Saddam is no more, and the economy has more or less continued on its normal cycle. I am glancing over many other issues, that I will aknowledge. However as I see no real difference in the two men, and to me Bush has done nothing to warrant a replacement, I would rather have the stability of an incumbent president then a new one who for all intents and purposes would be the same. |
thumbs up...if you were Russian you could vote for Putin too! |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
If we're talking about communism in theory, then yes, you have a valid point. I'm arguing that communism, in practice, does indeed restrict people's freedom's and liberties (not economically, but socially).
I probably phrased what I said rather badly, come to think of it. In theory, communism may indeed advocate economic and (some) social liberties, what I should have said was that in practice, I don't think that this actually happens. I'm talking about the cessation of political freedoms and liberties that inevitably occurs when a communist revolution takes place. I know that I'll probably get cries of “but there has never been a true communist state!". I'm not entirely sure as to whether I could label this as a form of the no true Scotsman fallacy, but regardless, if we haven't had a proper communist state after the amount of attempts that have already taken place, then I honestly don't think we're going to see one any time in the near future.
Whilst in practice communism may advocate economic equality and so on, do you accept that the leaders invariably end up cracking down on any dissent, until we eventually get a situation like the one we currently have in China, where the government sees fit to bock google and so forth?
I don't know, I just see major issues with any kind of totalitarian regime, whether it's a fascist dictatorship, or a communist system in which the people are supposed to rule. I just think that the risk of corruption and so forth ends up negating the possible benefits from adopting a communist style form of governance. |
In theory, communism has far more freedoms and equality than Liberalism could ever give simply because of the economics.
Its true, like you say, that in practice (in the examples we have seen in history) they have always decended into totalitarianism (or more specifically, fascism). Why? Cos they got hijacked by mentalists like Stalin! Personally, I dont think communism or any of the far left ideologies would work. Anyway, there aren't many communists left now as state socialism is largely seen to have failed (altho you ask any East Europeaner whether they prefered the economics of the USSR or capitalism and I dont think you'll find many who prefer this new capitalist economy much) |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
In theory, communism has far more freedoms and equality than Liberalism could ever give simply because of the economics.
|
Huh? How does communism result in more economic freedoms? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by biznology
liberal means free market. something Communism seeks to avoid at most costs .:rolleyes: |
Liberal
adj. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
{Archaic} Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
{Obsolete} Morally unrestrained; licentious.
n. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.
No mention of free markets. The word has been bastardized and the connotations of the word seem to be way out of line with the actual definition. To me, Liberalism in politics in the U.S. is supposed to be about tolerance and acceptance, but the very liberals who preach it are often completely intolerant of individuals who disagree with them and/or their methodologies. Nowadays, it's more about entitlements and class warfare. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Liberal
adj. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
{Archaic} Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
{Obsolete} Morally unrestrained; licentious.
n. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.
No mention of free markets. The word has been bastardized and the connotations of the word seem to be way out of line with the actual definition. To me, Liberalism in politics in the U.S. is supposed to be about tolerance and acceptance, but the very liberals who preach it are often completely intolerant of individuals who disagree with them and/or their methodologies. Nowadays, it's more about entitlements and class warfare. |
Perhaps he meant neo-liberalism, as in globalization? Don't know really. But to be sure, globalization certainly is not restricted to conservatives (Clinton and NAFTA, for example). But I digress.
And you're really going to be pulling that "class warfare" generlization card out? I could just as easily make the same case about the majority of conservatives on a number of issues (tax cuts come immediately to mind). |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Perhaps he meant neo-liberalism, as in globalization? Don't know really. But to be sure, globalization certainly is not restricted to conservatives (Clinton and NAFTA, for example). But I digress.
And you're really going to be pulling that "class warfare" generlization card out? I could just as easily make the same case about the majority of conservatives on a number of issues (tax cuts come immediately to mind). |
Tax cuts go to those who pay them. What's the point of contention? Why are you so adamantly opposed to having more control over your life? Class warfare has become nothing more than a cheap vote buying tactic by a lot of leftist politicians. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Huh? How does communism result in more economic freedoms? |
Economic equality, not freedom. Communism grants total economic equality (which is more important than political equality that liberalism grants) Communism also advocates total political freedom.
Economic freedom is not the same as economic equality as the former paves the way for the rich and wealthy to dominate, whereas the latter gives everyone an equal footing in society. "Economic freedom" however, has a nice ring to it that actually sounds like it is for the good, which is a belief that our ruling elites are only too happy to promote... |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Would Kerry do a better job countering terrorism? |
Since Bush has done such an aweful job I don't think it would be humanly possible to do worse. So the short answer would be...
HELL YES! |
|
|
| rainbow_marble |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
Since Bush has done such an aweful job I don't think it would be humanly possible to do worse. So the short answer would be...
HELL YES! |
an awful job or an aweful job? either way, you're still an idiot. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by rainbow_marble
an awful job or an aweful job? either way, you're still an idiot. |
Why is it so hard for people like you to express their opinion without insulting your opponents in such a rudimentary way? |
|
|
|
|
