[DanDaMan]

The deeper I stick my shovel, the more hypocrisy I find. It's extremely cute that you think all this rubbish only just started when Obama got elected? Get real, this is almost entirely independent of who happens to be in office, they all do it.

A)You are a student of the Modern Liberals Zero Tolerance educational system that never showed you how to judge and weigh facts and intent, aren't you?

Or

You fail to see that a lot of my posts are designed to make the left and modern liberals choke on their position.

[Rei Murasame]

No, I'm a product of the British "Grammar School" system, which is the very opposite of 'Liberal', so you can take that to the bank.

If by "Zero Tolerance" you mean "not allowing DanDaMan to sit here and pretend that his leaders haven't been hypocritical hacks, when absolutely all the evidence points to the contrary", then yes, maybe I am Zero Tolerance, but certainly not 'liberal'.

When do you plan to become a real conservative, and not a GOP hack? The problem is that you can't damage the Left because you bind yourself to leaders and positions that do the same things that they do.

You can't lecture the Left about fiscal conservatism while you supported gallivanting the US Army into Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein. How much money did that cost exactly?

[DanDaMan]

When do you plan to become a real conservative, and not a GOP hack? The problem is that you can't damage the Left because you bind yourself to leaders and positions that do the same things that they do.

Yes, you are the product of Zero Tolerance education because you cannot discriminate the differences in the parties.

Sure the Republicans are bad. But I put it to you the Left has come to see that the democrats are twice as bad.
Given the option of no third party... who do you then vote for?
If you say it makes no difference and a coin flip will suffice to pick a side... You are clearly stating your incompetence at judging who is the worst of the two.

Make no mistake.. I do not like the current Republican party.
But do I then vote for the democrats because the Republicans are only half as bad? No.
Do I vote for McCain to stop an Obama... yes.

[Rei Murasame]

Yes, you are the product of Zero Tolerance education because you cannot discriminate the differences in the parties.

There are differences between the two, but the problem is that they are both fundamentally wrong on almost everything, which makes me ask -- who are their supporters, and how do the representatives keep thinking that they can campaign on the kind of platforms they do, and get any support at all?

Who is actually showing up at their rallies?

Sure the Republicans are bad. But I put it to you the Left has come to see that the democrats are twice as bad.
Given the option of no third party... who do you then vote for?
If you say it makes no difference and a coin flip will suffice to pick a side... You are clearly stating your incompetence at judging who is the worst of the two.

Make no mistake.. I do not like the current Republican party.
But do I then vote for the democrats because the Republicans are only half as bad? No.
Do I vote for McCain to stop an Obama... yes.

Well, to put myself in that situation might actually be impossible, since if I were in the United States I'd not be able to be a member of either party, it'd be like the Twilight Zone to me (or Italy, if you get the joke there).

To me, the fact that it even came down to a choice between McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden, means that something is desperately wrong with the party system and the electorate there -- usually I am person who would entertain the idea of "lesser of two evils" (within reason), but when presented with that choice, I think it'd be time to say, "Okay, time to boycott the elections en masse, to make our point".

There's a certain level of goodwill and tolerance that can be afforded to any political party, but when they tell you that your choice is to be McCain/Palin, then you know it's time to boycott them in a show of outrage. As a loose analogue (very loose, since our systems don't work the same), if the Tory Party here managed to somehow select someone like John Major as Party Leader again, I would certainly show my defiance by refusing to vote - because John Major signed the Maastrict Treaty and that is beyond unacceptable and it cannot be forgiven, he could not be party leader again and actually expect euroskeptics to vote. Sometimes the lesser of two evils really is too ridiculous to tolerate, and that's when you should boycott.

I mean seriously, McCain/Palin? It would be beyond demeaning to stand in a voting booth and select that, as soon as you see that happen then you know the Left has won by default. I don't think I need to elaborate on just how bad McCain/Palin was, it was unprecedented, it was like they were something completely alien to this planet.

I would've boycotted.

The other explanation for my bafflement may be that I 'learned' how to be Rightist from a mixture of Britons and East Asians, so I may be literally incapable of casting a vote in the USA on the grounds that I'd be unable to recognise half the GOP's positions.

Prime Example, the GOP somehow completely opposes abortion and then claims to be right-wing. That baffles me. Someone needs to take those people aside and go, "You know your opposition to abortion is completely inconsistent with your social and economic goals, right?"

Just basic stuff, I mean they at least have to get the basics right in some way, otherwise it's just insulting the electorate's intelligence.

[DanDaMan]

There are differences between the two, but the problem is that they are both fundamentally wrong on almost everything,

No. Democracies have always failed. This is why our founding fathers founded of Republic of laws and why America has prospered more than any nation in history.

Who is actually showing up at their rallies?

Classic Republicans and Libertarians.

Quote:
Sure the Republicans are bad. But I put it to you the Left has come to see that the democrats are twice as bad.
Given the option of no third party... who do you then vote for?
If you say it makes no difference and a coin flip will suffice to pick a side... You are clearly stating your incompetence at judging who is the worst of the two.

Make no mistake.. I do not like the current Republican party.
But do I then vote for the democrats because the Republicans are only half as bad? No.
Do I vote for McCain to stop an Obama... yes.

Well, to put myself in that situation might actually be impossible, since if I were in the United States I'd not be able to be a member of either party, it'd be like the Twilight Zone to me (or Italy, if you get the joke there).

To me, the fact that it even came down to a choice between McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden, means that something is desperately wrong with the party system and the electorate there -- usually I am person who would entertain the idea of "lesser of two evils" (within reason), but when presented with that choice, I think it'd be time to say, "Okay, time to boycott the elections en masse, to make our point".

Been there and done that! It doesn't work all that well in our two party system.

Prime Example, the GOP somehow completely opposes abortion and then claims to be right-wing. That baffles me. Someone needs to take those people aside and go, "You know your opposition to abortion is completely inconsistent with your social and economic goals, right?"

It's right wing because the Left wants everyone to pay for abortions via free health care.
I would also argue it's left wing because it's totalitarian in the execution of life.

[Rei Murasame]

Democracies have always failed.

I agree, that's why I support Constitutional Monarchy with a Representative Parliament, and not "a democracy".

Classic Republicans and Libertarians.

And they couldn't discern that Palin and McCain were completely full of rubbish?!

It's right wing because the Left wants everyone to pay for abortions via free health care.

Why is that bad though?

I would also argue it's left wing because it's totalitarian in the execution of life.

Okay, I'll have to approach this from three separate questioning angles in order to show you why this doesn't make sense to me.

Angle 1: Is a foetus a person? (no, it isn't!)
For something to be a Person it has to have:
1. Existence. Existence is Identity. In order to exist it has to have an identity, it has to have a specific nature made of specific attributes. It cannot be two things at the same time, it is either this or that, ect.

2. Ability to be Aware. To be aware it has to be capable of perceiving something.

3. Autonomy. Existing without being physically attached to another person.


Angle 2: The Individual and the Family
An individual, a woman in this case, owns her own life. That means that she owns her Time and Energy. That means that she has the right to actually control her own reproductive processes because the calories and time required to create offspring are HERS. Therefore, if she chooses to abort a pregnancy, she can, because that is the means by which she is enabled to control a situation that humans in past ages were incapable of controlling. She can make that call because women are the deciders, and have the ability to choose who they shall sexually associate with, and whose genes shall be propagated, and whose genes shall not be propagated.


Abortion in the case of Rape in Particular: This is also obvious, but needs special mention.

The 'freedom' of the rapist to propagate his genes by rape must be nullified and superceded by a system of order, if we want to have a decent chance at propagating the genes of the best humans. That system of order is the female mate selection process, it has rules, and women have the ability to mentally evaluate the 'sex-interested' male for a reason, that reason is because she needs to be able to decide if he is worth having sex with.

Rape is the attempt to circumvent the female mate selection process, and no civilisation should ever tolerate it.

Any male that needs to propagate his genes by rape, obviously wasn't fit enough to do it by any other method, so the resulting pregnancy has no right to exist and should be terminated. Perhaps the rapist should also be chemically castrated. Again, this is just following conservative/nationalist ideas through to the logical conclusion.


Angle 3: The Nation.
Historically, in ancient times the woman only had one 100% reliable way to decide whether to reproduce or not, and that was by abstaining. However, if she did not abstain, then once the egg was fertilised she no longer had control of what happened next, and so she could not implement her choice after that point.

However, in the modern era our technology level is much higher, so now the woman can extend her discriminatory/selective powers to be effective even after fertilisation.

To oppose abortion now, would be tantamount to denying the woman her natural selective powers.

Furthermore I think that the opposition, in situations where it is not simply the masculine interests attempting to aggregate powers over reproduction unto themselves, are operating under a confused view of what property and nature are. I'll try to explain what I mean, since it's a mistake which is made most often by Catholics/Evangelicals and Left-Environmentalists (I say 'Left-Environmentalists' here, to distinguish them from 'Environmental Nationalists', who are quite different).

The Catholics/Evangelicals and contemporary Left-Environmentalists (most common examples of groups with this problem), seem to be of the opinion that property exists as property even when no one has yet acquired it. They don't understand that property must always be 'OF' someone. An object that doesn't belong to a person cannot be called property.

For instance, the contemporary Left-environmentalist will claim that if you cut down a tree, that you have taken property from nature. That is incorrect.

Nature cannot actually own anything because it is not a Person. Existing Persons can potentially convert resources into property by applying their time and energy to them. If you cut down a tree, the felled tree (simply speaking) becomes your property because it is associated to the time and energy you put into making the tree fall. It is converted into one of your properties, and that is nature in action.

If someone seizes your property without you consenting in any way (ie, without you giving it as a gift, lending it, or selling it), then they have taken the object from you, but the effect is also deeper - what the thief has done is he has violated your property by retroactively enslaving you for the period of time that it took you to cut down the tree, and he has exploited the energy it took you to cut down the tree. It means that retroactively, you were working for him all along - against your will. That scenario should be able illustrate the what property and nature actually is.

However, since they (left-environmentalists and catholics/evangelicals, to stick with those example groups) unfortunately don't accept that way of regarding property and nature, they come out with all sorts of strange logic that isn't rooted in a solid foundation. The catholics/evangelicals for example will falsely try to argue that women must stay their hand and be subordinate to what they claim nature is, by taking no action to help themselves - much like how the left-environmentalists will try to oddly claim that is somehow 'natural' for trees to remain standing despite the presence of persons with giant saw-blades prancing about in the forest looking for things to build houses with.

The truth is that humans are actually a part of nature.

They (catholics/evangelicals) keep refusing to acknowledge that it is (in the present continuous if possible) actually a woman's nature to actively discriminate regarding reproduction to the maximum extent that technology allows. Just like how left-environmentalists refuse to acknowledge that it is natural for persons to use all the tools at their disposal to harvest materials to build houses, to the maximum extent that technology allows.

And this is where the root confusion is. They (the catholics/evangelicals and left-environmentalists) think that nature is 'happening' when humans arbitrarily just stop taking actions and let a scenario continue on inertia alone. They are falsely claiming that nature is when humans are inactive and wilfully subordinate.

Inactivity is not 'fulfilling nature'. Inactivity is death.

The question should not be "shall we cut trees?", the question ought to be, "Which trees shall we cut?"

I am saying that humans are included in what nature is, humans being active is natural, and in the context of abortion, women have the ability to discriminate regarding what they will give birth to, if anything at all, and as better technology (abortion) has been acquired, the woman's ability to carry out that selective action has been greatly enhanced.

And so I don't think that my stance is disregarding life, as far as I can see it's honouring the woman's right to property and acknowledging her ability to extend her powers to their logical conclusion as the technology available to her permits.

This extension of her ability to carry out her nature as the selector, enables her to truly fulfil nature, and helps to uplift the genetic integrity of the nation as well as the cohesion of the society, by pro-actively ending pregnancies that are unwanted.

Surely as someone on the political Right, you can see the obvious benefits of allowing nature to act through the female mate selection process (freedom of association) and the female offspring selection process (freedom to abort), to ensure that the nation continues to evolve along the correct path?

Charles Darwin would refer to this as 'spontaneous order', and order it certainly would be, especially if it were to occur in a society where people care about health and fitness, and have sufficient education about their rights and their duties.

[Ombrageux]

I really like the new Tory fembot. The eyes of Sailor Moon and the lips of Rosa Luxemburg.

Please PM me after you've finished your Godzilla-like rampage through Glennbeckistan.

I think this is going to be a pretty repetitive series though. The bad guys always "regenerate" and come back for more (like Power Rangers and Pokemon). How many levels will you get?

[DanDaMan]

I support Constitutional Monarchy

You therefore support an oligarchy.
You support the power structure that caused the American Revolution.

We are the opposite of each other.
Your conservative position is conserving a tyranny America shed.

[Rei Murasame]

You therefore support an oligarchy.
You support the power structure that caused the American Revolution.

That much should've been abundantly obvious, but can you competently discriminate between the different types of government and the types of governance they bring to the table?

Jokes aside, there are some advantages to having non-democratic institutions in your government, such as being able to make long-term policies and decisions.

Japan actually takes this even further than Britain does at the current moment, since their Civil Service and Permanent Secretaries manage to remain in power and orchestrate policy for significantly longer than ours do.

I'd give a full explanation of how this can be good, but it would take us way off-topic.

We are the opposite of each other.
Your conservative position is conserving a tyranny America shed.

I wouldn't call it 'a tyranny', but wasn't this difference between us the most obvious from the start?

Why did you select only that portion of my post to respond to?

[JohnRawls]

Rei i have beaten the evolving computer software once or twice. Right now you are at level 50 perhaps out of 250 .

The easiest way to do so , is to always ask question which he ignores . He will get sick of it and leave because he can't answer them or the answer is not in his favor .

[DanDaMan]

Rei i have beaten the evolving computer software once or twice. Right now you are at level 50 perhaps out of 250 .