[kingbee]

Most definitely!
You are a slave to a master!

I think this shows the absolute stupidity of your position. If you can claim that serfdom and slavery are left wing, then I'm a tractor wheel.

Leftism attempts to eradicate social inequality, not perpetuate it. I think just about anyone with an some type of knowledge of politics could prove this. However, everyone is wrong except for you and a couple of nutters who think otherwise.

All I have read on it is Wiki stuff (leftist leaning to begin with) and it's not definitive on what the party says it's people are entitled too. (health, education, housing?)

Maybe you should be looking on conservapedia then.

[DanDaMan]

Most definitely!
You are a slave to a master!

I think this shows the absolute stupidity of your position. If you can claim that serfdom and slavery are left wing, then I'm a tractor wheel.

Leftism attempts to eradicate social inequality, not perpetuate it. I think just about anyone with an some type of knowledge of politics could prove this. However, everyone is wrong except for you and a couple of nutters who think otherwise.

What you are doing is falling into the trap of leftist DOGMA that transposes intent with reality.

You and I are citizens, correct?
Does it not make sense to examine and quantify government by what they do to us REGARDLESS of their said intent? Sure it does. It's common sense.

If the STATE, COLLECTIVE, DEMOCRACY, POPE or KING say you cannot marry who you like... then you, the citizen, see they same oppression.
Capiche?

[Todd D.]

If the STATE, COLLECTIVE, DEMOCRACY, POPE or KING say you cannot marry who you like... then you, the citizen, see they same oppression.

DDM is down with gay marriage?

Would you suggest that this same term "Oppression" applies to government policies that you DO agree with, such a government-enforced prohibition on drugs and prostitution? Is that not also "oppression"?

[kingbee]

What you are doing is falling into the trap of leftist DOGMA that transposes intent with reality.

Have you ever, for one second, thought you might be in the trap of dogma yourself? How can you, and a handful of others, see outside of this dogma while we are left floundering inside this 'trap'?

You and I are citizens, correct?
Does it not make sense to examine and quantify government by what they do to us REGARDLESS of their said intent? Sure it does. It's common sense.

Yes, we are citizens. But let's think about this: common sense means the sense of the huge majority. Doesn't common sense therefore immediately refute your views?

The political spectrum is not defined by how much the state interferes with its citizens. It's how they treat their citizens.

If the STATE, COLLECTIVE, DEMOCRACY, POPE or KING say you cannot marry who you like... then you, the citizen, see they same oppression.
Capiche?

Well, I don't know what capiche means, but if you seriously think that Genghis Khan, Adolf Hitler, Pope Leo II, 13th Dalai Lama and General Pinochet are all socialists, then, well... I'm just lost for words.

And thanks for finally answering my posts: you've ignored a fair few questions from me recently.

[William_H_Dougherty]

If the STATE, COLLECTIVE, DEMOCRACY, POPE or KING say you cannot marry who you like... then you, the citizen, see they same oppression.
Capiche?

Lets leave the Pope out of this.

Their mass murders had nothing to do with socialism itself.

It has to do with a belief in Revolutionary Syndicalism (read about Georges Eugène Sorel if you want to know more), which essentially states that pretty much the only way to bring about the "utopia" is through violence, even within a democractic state.

Socialists who accept this, well, they are essentially rejecting the idea of fundamental human rights (i.e. people are going to have to be executed if we are to get the system we want, and many of these people will not have committed any specific "crime" against another human being).

Socialists who do not, well, they can become quite democratic and the champions of many human rights (e.g. Social Democrats).

- WHD

P.S. Communists, well, that is probably a whole different kettle of fish.

[DanDaMan]

DDM is down with gay marriage?

I am a Republican by definition. I believe in governing by the equality of LAW. Since the LAW doesn't allow me to marry another man... I have no problem stopping other men from doing it too!

Would you suggest that this same term "Oppression" applies to government policies that you DO agree with, such a government-enforced prohibition on drugs and prostitution? Is that not also "oppression"?

It does. But why not argue you can speed in residential areas while you are at it? See, I like some social limits and I judge certain limits on self destructive behavior as good. Especially since they are positive examples on what children should not do.
This is why I oppose gay marriage and teaching homosexual acts in school... I do not want a Greek society where boys are molested by men and they think it's acceptable.

Have you ever, for one second, thought you might be in the trap of dogma yourself? How can you, and a handful of others, see outside of this dogma while we are left floundering inside this 'trap'?

I am the Charles Darwin of PoFo!

Yes, we are citizens. But let's think about this: common sense means the sense of the huge majority. Doesn't common sense therefore immediately refute your views?

No, because the majority becomes the ruler over the individual citizen.

The political spectrum is not defined by how much the state interferes with its citizens. It's how they treat their citizens.

Parents treat toddlers with loving care. That lovingly interfere in just about everything the toddler gets into!

[Todd D.]

I am a Republican by definition. I believe in governing by the equality of LAW. Since the LAW doesn't allow me to marry another man... I have no problem stopping other men from doing it too!

You just said "If the state, collective, democracy, pope of King say you cannot marry who you like...then you, the citizen, see they [sic] same oppression. Capiche?" You JUST gave the example of a law that says you cannot marry who you like is oppressive, now you claim it isn't?

Democracy enforces its will via laws. The Law that bars two men from marrying is no less oppressive than the law that enforces any other type of oppression.

It does. But why not argue you can speed in residential areas while you are at it? See, I like some social limits and I judge certain limits on self destructive behavior as good. Especially since they are positive examples on what children should not do.
This is why I oppose gay marriage and teaching homosexual acts in school

So just like every other hypocritical authoritarian, you're OK with enforcing your morals on others, but it's totally "oppressive" when you are the one being "oppressed". Got it.

[kingbee]

DDM, I have no idea what you're talking about. If you can see outside the 'leftist trap', then you are some type of super human.

And, yet again, you still didn't answer any of the questions I posed to you. Well done at avoiding everything to fit into your utterly bizarre views.

But of course, I'm just bizarre, and you're not because you're one of the special few who can see outside of human structures.

[DanDaMan]

You just said "If the state, collective, democracy, pope of King say you cannot marry who you like...then you, the citizen, see they [sic] same oppression. Capiche?" You JUST gave the example of a law that says you cannot marry who you like is oppressive, now you claim it isn't?

I wasn't trying to imply it wasn't oppressive. It is. I just think society can set SOME limitations on WHAT you marry out in the open for children to see!... Like goats and or the same gender.
PS.. your not going to win this with me because I dont think a sexual deviance is a right.

Yes, we are citizens. But let's think about this: common sense means the sense of the huge majority. Doesn't common sense therefore immediately refute your views?

Every time? No. that's the problem with Democracies... they can take what they want from minorities. For instance.. Is it right for a 90% white population to vote for the removal of property rights of all the black people in the land? Of course not.

Have you ever, for one second, thought you might be in the trap of dogma yourself? How can you, and a handful of others, see outside of this dogma while we are left floundering inside this 'trap'?

Like I said..I am using a proven scientific method that's based on facts and not ideological dogma.

If I missed a Q.. please post it again.

[kingbee]

Every time? No. that's the problem with Democracies... they can take what they want from minorities. For instance.. Is it right for a 90% white population to vote for the removal of property rights of all the black people in the land? Of course not.

Of course not. I think it's a bit strange comparing this situation to that of racism. But I think we both can differentiate between racism and when the majority of people have an idea which is seen as generally correct.

Like I said..I am using a proven scientific method that's based on facts and not ideological dogma.

Explain: which scientific method is this? One that is used by EVERY political scientist on the planet (more or less), or one used by you, in which you keep putting other users down for being inside this ideological superstructure which you can see outside of?

If I missed a Q.. please post it again.

There have been about a few. I'm sure you haven't missed them through genuine oversight however.

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=13303935#p13303935

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=13257170#p13257170

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=13304767#p13304767
And also in this thread: are all those historical leaders really socialist?. But, we shouldn't get off topic.

[Todd D.]

your not going to win this with me because I dont think a sexual deviance is a right.

As I said, you hate when people oppress you, but you're more than happy to oppress others. Typical hypocrisy. Don't worry, you're not alone.

[DanDaMan]

Quote:
Every time? No. that's the problem with Democracies... they can take what they want from minorities. For instance.. Is it right for a 90% white population to vote for the removal of property rights of all the black people in the land? Of course not.

Of course not. I think it's a bit strange comparing this situation to that of racism. But I think we both can differentiate between racism and when the majority of people have an idea which is seen as generally correct.

You need to make up your mind on how it works...

Quote:
Yes, we are citizens. But let's think about this: common sense means the sense of the huge majority. Doesn't common sense therefore immediately refute your views?

Explain: which scientific method is this? One that is used by EVERY political scientist on the planet (more or less), or one used by you, in which you keep putting other users down for being inside this ideological superstructure which you can see outside of?

I am being intellectually honest when I do not allow for Y axis on a left to right chart of opposites.

[kingbee]

You need to make up your mind on how it works...

I have. I'm sure you can use common sense on this one, no matter how flawed it may be in other situations.

I am being intellectually honest when I do not allow for Y axis on a left to right chart of opposites.

Your certainly not showing any more of scientific rigour than any other method.

Did you miss the rest of what I posted? Or was it selective reading?

[DanDaMan]

Quote:
I am being intellectually honest when I do not allow for Y axis on a left to right chart of opposites.

Your certainly not showing any more of scientific rigour than any other method.

Did you miss the rest of what I posted? Or was it selective reading?

A) I have yet to see anyone post a more scientific and intellectually honest graph.
B) I answered only the first link because it was best defined as Q.

[kingbee]

A) I have yet to see anyone post a more scientific and intellectually honest graph.

That is wholly subjective: it's completely your opinion. Subjectivity shouldn't come into scientific research.

B) I answered only the first link because it was best defined as Q.

I mean in all of my posts here: are all of those people mentioned socialists? How can you see outside of this superstructure? Do you REALLY believe that slavery and serfdom, as in Tibet, is/was socialist? Why are all social scientists and other people involved in politics so blind but you're not? Why do you use a different method to define left and right to everyone else? Do you agree that that the state's role is defined by how they treat their citizens? Are parents socialist for interfering with their children?

^ And that's only in this thread.

[DanDaMan]

Quote:
A) I have yet to see anyone post a more scientific and intellectually honest graph.

That is wholly subjective: it's completely your opinion. Subjectivity shouldn't come into scientific research.

True.
But since political science is now an oxymoron... is my chart a better scale since it puts all totalitarians and large governements to one side?

[kingbee]

What?!

Where is the logic in that?!

"my graph is better because I have it this way"

Utterly subjective, utterly crap. Please, don't go around claiming you have some monopoly on scientific research when it's quite plain and simple that you don't.

And I suppose you missed all of my other questions that are too hard to answer?

[DanDaMan]

Utterly subjective, utterly crap. Please, don't go around claiming you have some monopoly on scientific research when it's quite plain and simple that you don't.

What is not subjective on this political forum?

Honestly... if you abhor subjective subjects are you not a fool for gracing this forum with your presence?

[kingbee]

Oh dear. Go back; read what I said.

That is wholly subjective: it's completely your opinion. Subjectivity shouldn't come into scientific research.

The other questions too hard for you?

[DanDaMan]

The other questions too hard for you?

No, they are easy.
But since my answer is subjective, within politics, and you're incompetent at judging the weight of my subjective answers, why are you wasting your time?