The Rich, the Elite, the Democrats

[nemafakei]

For my response to emprworm's post, see the second paragraph of my last post...

[Dante]

Emprworm; Choosing Kerry might make the political climate more favourable for the communist party next time around. You understand?

no problem.

[Anathema]

neither kerry nor bush will bring the US closer to marxism.

[TMA_1]

yeah, I think you are just a little silly right now empr. The thing is, you are trying to spout out your ideals, or are trying to say that somehow if you dont follow thorugh with an ultra liberal or ultra conservitive agenda then you arent true to your roots. You create a double standard though because you yourself know that it isnt easy like that. This world doesnt help those who are idealogs like yourself. That is why sometimes in this life you cant choose your favorite because often tht favorite wont win. Its better to get some of what you want instead of nothign at all. You need to put yourself into other people's shoes instead of putting othersin yours. This is why you are rather unempathetic. you need to have some compassion.

[emprworm]

im one of the only right wing people on this board.

[Wolf]

We don't have a problem with your viewpoints, Emprworm, be warned, though, we might have a problem with your attitude. You may have posted posts that were belligerent, cocky, and overly sensitive. These aren't necessarily bad things, but it makes it tough to have a conversation with you. Trust me, Emprworm, if someone who was exceedingly liberal came up to me and told me that Bush was the biggest idiot in the world and he should never have been President, I would say (and I have said, since this has happened before), "Don't make such generalized statements without supporting them." Rarely, however, does anyone support them. There are fanatics on both sides, and I am sick of it.

However, I do agree with you, Emprworm, that some people cross the line from criticism into outright abuse. I know someone who likes to post coversations; "Look how I roasted this conservative." That is intolerant. That assumes that conservatives, like some collective, monolithic whole, all love Bush, indeed, not all do. Often, this evolves into the idea that the "Right Wing" Republicans all want to own guns, and are all straight, rich, white, males who want to ban homosexual marriages. This is simply not the case. If you doubt me, look up "Log Cabin Republicans". They are Republicans. Who support Bush. And who are also gay.

Shocking when a sterotype is dashed to pieces, I know, but, it has to be done. Emprworm, I will tell you this, while I think Bush was wrong in hurting our alliances and disregarding the UN, and while I think he should have made human rights the main issue in Iraq (besides WMDs), I think that Bush was right by eliminating tariffs and creating tax cuts. Furthermore, Kerry has done nothing so far to appeal to me as a real effective presidential candidate. So, right now, I really cannot support either candidate. I disagree with some of the policies of both sides? It is quite distressing.

However, I will agree with you, and whole-heartedly, that anyone who claims that they hate Bush & Republicans & The Right Wing because those aforementioned groups are "intolerant, ignorant, bigots" are themselves all of those things + hypocritical. Yet, there is a line between disagreement and intolerance. When you disagree, state the policy that you disagree with -- disagreement is all right. But, don't tell me that "All conservatives are lunatics" is effective disagreement. However, Emprworm, I do not agree that this whole board is radically intolerant of conservatives. We are all individuals. We all have different viewpoints. We do not belong to either one of two sides, Left or Right. And until we, as a whole, realize that, we will never find a common ground of tolerance, or mutual respect & understanding.

[EWS]

Show me a person on these forums that supports Bush, and I'll show you someone who is rediculed.

*Stands up*

Now why havent I been ridiculed for my support of Bush and the war, maybe it's the way I go about my business.

[SurlyPIG]

Perhaps it is because you aren't a repetitious windbag of red herrings and strawmans whose ears and eyes seem to contain filters that stream the words and text of others into one of a limited number of pre-established stereotypes to which preconceived arguments related but not applicable to the said words and text are dispensed by means of some kind of reflex.

Or, perhaps, it is because you have a less threatening avatar.

[Dante]

im one of the only right wing people on this board.

[Anathema]

Well feudalism isn't really a political system so I wouldn't call it right wing. Feudalism is something that results when central leadership collapses or weakens, so it's actually more a lack of a system.

[Dante]

Feudal system? As in, King/Emperor/Queen at the top, following a heirarchy down to the serfs at the bottom? Meh, I made my point.

[Edric O]

no problem.  I do not accept the liberal/feminist/gay agenda.  Interesting how so many on your side (especially homosexuals) continue to demand acceptance, yet do not accept others themselves.

ever hear of the word "tolerance?"  how about "embrace diversity?"

There is a difference between tolerance and agreement, Emprworm. We tolerate your views. We do not restrict your freedom of speech in any way. We allow you to say anything you want. That is tolerance. But we do not agree with you. In fact, we believe you are an idiotic right-wing fanatic who spouts utterly repugnant filth, and we make a point of exposing and countering your idiocy at every turn. That is disagreement.

Intolerance is when someone actively seeks to restrict your rights or freedoms. Dan would be intolerant if he said that you shouldn't be allowed to say whatever you want. But he never said anything of that sort. Dan has the right to say that you're an idiot. You have the right to say that Dan is an idiot. Neither of you is being "intolerant" - you are merely stating your opinion about the other.

Edric:  I have no problem with Kerry's rich, elite white opulence.  No problem at all.  I do find it amusing that Dan, an espouser of communism, endorses rich, white, elite opulence with his vote.  If he was a true believer in Marxism, there is no way in hell he would vote for Kerry.  Yet he will cast his vote for Kerry, who rides high the wave of elitist capitalism.  The word for that is bigotry.

Unlike you conservatives, we prefer to look at a politician's actual policy, rather than at the politician himself. You seem to believe that the president getting a blowjob is a matter of national security. We don't really care who the president is or what he does in his private life, as long as he does a good job as president. Kerry may be a filthy rich capitalist slime, but his policy is less in favour of filthy rich capitalist slime than Bush's policy is. Bush may not be as rich as Kerry, but his government supports the rich more than Kerry's government would. Therefore, Kerry is the lesser of the two evils.

neither kerry nor bush will bring the US closer to marxism.

No, but Bush will take it further away from marxism than Kerry would.

If Dan was consistent, he would simply vote for the communist party of america.  The idea that you are forced to choose between 2 candidates is false, and commits the fallacy of the excluded middle.  Voting for Kerry in lieu of the communist party of america when you espouse communism is inconsistent.  heck, ralph nader is a far cry closer to Marxism than kerry.

Yes, Ralph Nader is much, much closer to marxism than Kerry (don't get me wrong, Nader himself is far away from marxism; but Kerry is even further away, and Bush is... nowhere near the same galaxy as marxism). But Ralph Nader has NO CHANCE of winning. A vote for him is a wasted vote.

In practice, you really only have a choice between two candidates. So we pick the lesser evil.

Not voting for Kerry would mean repeating a mistake that we did once before. Let me tell you a story:

In 1933, the KPD (the German Communist Party) was the strongest, the best organized and the most popular Communist Party outside of the USSR. Marxism had been extremely popular in Germany for decades, and the fact that capitalism was in ruins made it even more popular than usual. The KPD followed marxism-leninism, while the SPD (the German Social Democratic Party; the predecessor of today's SPD) followed classical marxism. The SPD won the elections, but it did not hold the majority of seats all by itself. It needed to form a coalition government. The KPD came in second, and it had exactly the number of seats needed by the SPD to create such a government. A SPD/KPD coalition could have brought Germany out of the crisis, and perhaps lay the foundations of a powerful socialist state - one which might have even helped the Russians to overthrow stalinism. But the KPD refused to give any thought to the idea of a coalition. They were proud communists, and they wanted to stick with their principles no matter what - even an alliance with the social democrats (who were marxists, but not leninists) was out of the question. So neither the SPD nor the KPD entered the government.

At the other end of the spectrum, two other parties - the Conservatives and the Nazis - cared less about principles and more about realpolitik. So they got a number of other minor right-wing parties to join them and formed a governing coalition together. Most of the ministers in the new government were conservative. But the nazis got their chancellor: Adolf Hitler.

A few months later, the first party banned by Hitler was the KPD. The communists who were so proud of not having compromised on their principles ended up in nazi concentration camps. Had they been less rigid, they could have prevented Hitler from coming to power.

There is no capacity, in most of you (and I say this because I have been on these forums a long time), to say to someone who supports Bush "I support your point of view"

I support your point of view on the right to bear arms, Emprworm. :)

These forums show very little tolerance for the right.  Something I find interesting from a culture of people who preach tolerance and diversity.  Maybe some of you should start practicing what you preach and just accept someone who supports, endorses, honors, and defends President George W. Bush.

Read the beginning of this post. We tolerate you. You are perfectly free to speak your mind. You are not restricted in any way. You have the same rights and obligations as any other forum member.

But we believe your political opinions are vile and twisted, and we are not afraid to say it. That is disagreement, and free speech.

Oh, and I suggest you go preach your tolerance to some of the extreme conservative forums that ban (or otherwise restrict) leftists.

[Anathema]

Who on these boards supports President George W. Bush and endorses his next candidacy?

[EWS]

Indeed I support Bush.  I completly support Blair as well.  In my opinion the war was right, and the difference between us is that I don't force my opinion over, I say it and accept that other people are going to disagree with me.

[Edric O]

In my opinion the war was right

My opposition to Bush comes mainly from his domestic policy, with the war playing only a secondary role.

And as a side note about feudalism:

Well feudalism isn't really a political system so I wouldn't call it right wing. Feudalism is something that results when central leadership collapses or weakens, so it's actually more a lack of a system.

Not true. Maybe you could be right about Dark Age (pre-Charlemagne) feudalism, but that can hardly be called "feudalism" (or anything else, for that matter). It was just... well, chaos.

Feudalism is a system based on the authority of a king on the one hand and the authority of feudal lords on the other hand, and on the exploitation of the vast majority of the population as feudal serfs, working in agriculture. The king may be strong or weak, and the feudal lords may be strong or weak, but that doesn't change the nature of the system. It's still feudalism.

[Dante]

Thank you Edric.

[Anathema]

Well, my wording was a bit poor. I know quite a deal about European feudalism, so I