Political Party Affiliation Survey

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Clocker

The right end of the political spectrum believes in small government, free markets, and individual freedom. Please explain how National Socialism reflects those principles.

The right believes in small government; unless you want to have an abortion. Then it believes the government should tell you what to do. The right believes in small government; unless you want to vote. Then it believes the government should decide whether you can vote. The right believes in small government; unless you are a worker. Then it does everything it can to make sure you don't get paid fairly. The right does believe in small government when it comes to controlling those who need controlling most.

The right does indeed believe in free markets. The question is are completely free markets good for anyone.

Individual freedom for themselves. For others, not so much.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by mostpost

The right believes in small government; unless you want to have an abortion. Then it believes the government should tell you what to do.

Not everyone on the right is totally opposed to abortion. I think it would be correct to say that everyone on the right is opposed to the attitude that abortion is just another form of birth control, no different than the pill or a rubber. Some forms of "late term" abortion are clearly killing a living, viable human being. Issues such as that are properly decided by government.

The right believes in small government; unless you want to vote. Then it believes the government should decide whether you can vote.

OMG! What could possibly be more intrusive than a society determining who its own citizens are, and only allowing such citizens to vote for that society's government.

The right believes in small government; unless you are a worker. Then it does everything it can to make sure you don't get paid fairly.

Conservatives believe that a role of government is to enforce contracts, and that it has no business intervening in the terms of contracts voluntarily agreed to by the parties involved. If you don't get paid fairly according to the terms and conditions of the job that you agreed to, the government will help you.

The right does indeed believe in free markets. The question is are completely free markets good for anyone.

Free markets are good for anyone and everyone, because no rational person will agree to a free market exchange if he feels that he is not better off as a result.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by mostpost

The right believes in small government; unless you want to have an abortion. Then it believes the government should tell you what to do. The right believes in small government; unless you want to vote. Then it believes the government should decide whether you can vote. The right believes in small government; unless you are a worker. Then it does everything it can to make sure you don't get paid fairly. The right does believe in small government when it comes to controlling those who need controlling most.

The right does indeed believe in free markets. The question is are completely free markets good for anyone.

Individual freedom for themselves. For others, not so much.

Ok, this one made me lol. All are sooooo untrue except one, and gosh, that might be akin to being good with our government saying thou shall not murder.

[davew]

Originally Posted by mostpost

The right believes in small government; unless you want to have an abortion. Then it believes the government should tell you what to do. The right believes in small government; unless you want to vote. Then it believes the government should decide whether you can vote. The right believes in small government; unless you are a worker. Then it does everything it can to make sure you don't get paid fairly. The right does believe in small government when it comes to controlling those who need controlling most.

The right does indeed believe in free markets. The question is are completely free markets good for anyone.

Individual freedom for themselves. For others, not so much.

It seems to me the right does not want to help subsidize the things the left wants for free because it is 'their right'. Socialism seems more left to me. Communism seem more left to me. Democrats seem to cover Socialism, Communism, and Neo-Nazism ..... the anti-fascist fascists...

[Tom]

Even mostie can't possibly believe the utter nonsense he posts.
Must be trying to get a break in comedy.
Oh, wait, that is the same as the DNC.

Fools standing up and uttering nonsense.

Never mind.

[zico20]

Originally Posted by highnote

I can't remember which U.S. president said that the president's term should be limited to 4 years, but this is probably a good idea.

Given that the president has a lot of power it makes sense that the term should be limited to 4 years and a senator's limited to 6. This way senators get a chance to work with two presidents. It gives them a little extra power to counter the power the president has.

A representative should be limited to 2 years because they're not smart enough to get elected as a president or a senator.

Chris Shays of Connecticut served as a rep 21 years. That's way too long.

He lost a bid for senate to Linda McMahon. After 21 years in the house and you can't win a senate seat against a person with no political experience?

Like I said, reps are not smart enough to be a president or senator. I rest my case.

It was Rutherford Hayes.

[zico20]

Originally Posted by highnote

By your logic, apparently, a majority of people do not want monuments to leaders who believed it was their right to abduct people from Africa against their will to be held in slavery and to perpetuate slavery by forcing people into slavery who were born to parents of slaves.

The whole planet was involved in slavery. It was an acceptable practice. White people stopped abducting Africans and instead bought them from their African traders. Blame the Africans for selling their own people.

One more thing, if 150 years from now abortion is illegal should we then get rid of all statues of people who supported this despicable practice?

http://www.crf-usa.org/black-history...he-slave-trade

[highnote]

Originally Posted by zico20

The whole planet was involved in slavery.

Because everyone else was doing it that makes slavery in the U.S. acceptable?

Originally Posted by zico20

It was an acceptable practice.

And that makes slavery in the U.S. acceptable?

Originally Posted by zico20

White people stopped abducting Africans and instead bought them from their African traders. Blame the Africans for selling their own people.

And that makes it OK?

Originally Posted by zico20

One more thing, if 150 years from now abortion is illegal should we then get rid of all statues of people who supported this despicable practice?

Who can say?

It is quite shocking how blatant S. Carolina was in wanting to perpetuate slavery. SC was angered by the fact that Northern States would not return their runaway slaves. SC believed slaves were property and that by the Fourth Article of the U.S. Constitution it was agreed that runaway slaves would be returned.

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/south...eclaration.asp

Slavery was and is a gross violation of basic human rights. So what if the whole world was doing it. The U.S. has a strong history of fighting for human rights.

The problem with SC's argument is that they did not follow a basic tenet of the Constitution to which they agreed to be bound -- All Men are Created Equal.

Their leaders could try to argue that slaves were not equal, but that argument is morally wrong in every way, shape, and form. Their belief was downright disgusting. People who could afford slaves wanted cheap labor so they could lead easy lives. Or they would rape the slaves and sell their offspring for revenue. They were wrong on every level. There was nothing righteous, virtuous, or ethical about owning slaves and everybody knows it. Anyone who doesn't admit it is either lying, greedy, or a racist.

Ironically, I believe S. Carolina had the right to secede from the Union, but that is a different topic. The North still would have declared war on SC because of slavery. Today, if any state wanted to leave the United States and become a sovereign nation I believe it is their right to do so. However, if that new sovereign nation engages in human rights violations they can expect the United States to put an end to the violations.

The South should have ended slavery voluntarily and then seceded.

From the link above:

"...the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

[rastajenk]

Originally Posted by highnote

You bring up valid points. Why don't filmmakers show pornographic films in public parks on large screens for everyone to see?...

I can tell you didn't think much of my comment, but the point I was trying to make is that the pressure from the Urge-to-Purgers will just shift to the receiving museums to get rid of them. Charitable foundations that support museums, individuals that provide financial support, local businesses, anything and everyone associated with the museum will be outed and targeted by the shaming mobs. There's no appeasing these types. Trump's comments following Charlottesville may have been not very articulate, but he was not wrong.

I'd rather have inanimate objects standing here and there that may be tributes to an inglorious past than to start down the road to a Soviet-style totalitarian erasure of history.

[classhandicapper]

The Nazis were left wing. They were socialists. It's right in their name. They may not have been the same flavor of left wing ideology as the communists, but they were still left wing. It wasn't until later that they were redefined as right wing (most likely by the left for political purposes lmao). Then subsequently everyone began referring to their flavor of left wing politics as right wing.

The true right would never be in favor of a large strong government exercising control over the means of production like the Nazis did. To the extent that the business community supported the Nazis it was because they thought the Communists were even worse and would confiscate everything.

I've always wondered what it was like for people suffering from various bouts of hyper inflation, depression, unemployment etc... to feel like they only had a choice between Nazis and Communists.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by highnote

Because everyone else was doing it that makes slavery in the U.S. acceptable?




And that makes slavery in the U.S. acceptable?





And that makes it OK?




Who can say?

It is quite shocking how blatant S. Carolina was in wanting to perpetuate slavery. SC was angered by the fact that Northern States would not return their runaway slaves. SC believed slaves were property and that by the Fourth Article of the U.S. Constitution it was agreed that runaway slaves would be returned.

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/south...eclaration.asp

Slavery was and is a gross violation of basic human rights. So what if the whole world was doing it. The U.S. has a strong history of fighting for human rights.

The problem with SC's argument is that they did not follow a basic tenet of the Constitution to which they agreed to be bound -- All Men are Created Equal.

Their leaders could try to argue that slaves were not equal, but that argument is morally wrong in every way, shape, and form. Their belief was downright disgusting. People who could afford slaves wanted cheap labor so they could lead easy lives. Or they would rape the slaves and sell their offspring for revenue. They were wrong on every level. There was nothing righteous, virtuous, or ethical about owning slaves and everybody knows it. Anyone who doesn't admit it is either lying, greedy, or a racist.

Ironically, I believe S. Carolina had the right to secede from the Union, but that is a different topic. The North still would have declared war on SC because of slavery. Today, if any state wanted to leave the United States and become a sovereign nation I believe it is their right to do so. However, if that new sovereign nation engages in human rights violations they can expect the United States to put an end to the violations.

The South should have ended slavery voluntarily and then seceded.

From the link above:

"...the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

You're not getting that you have to look at it through the eyes of the time. The world used to be far more violent and ruthless than it is now. We have grown tremendously in civility.

Slavery was abhorrent, but so were many other practices of the past. Going to the public square to watch a beheading or a burning at the stake, going to a coliseum and cheering on slaves to kill each other. Native Americans scalping a kill. Cock fighting, dog fighting, they still mercilessly kill bulls for entertainment.

Mary, Mary, quite contrary, how does your garden grow? Many of the English rulers were particularly brutal. Mary Queen of Scots had the guillotined heads of her enemies put on sticks for the public to see. All sorts of torture devices were used, while today we worry about water boarding of terrorist suspects.

We've come a really long way, and it's hard to imagine ourselves engaging in things we are so repulsed by today, but maybe we would've had we been born at those times. Or maybe not as strongly against. While no slavery was right or moral, it's probably important to remember that not all were treated brutally, that some slave owners were more kind than others.

When slaves were freed, all the men who get accolades for doing so still thought so little of women that they weren't allowed to vote.

[maddog42]

Am I the lone commie in this group?!? I identify myself as a liberal capitalist which pisses off both sides. I seem to be the only person to hit the commie button, but it is still better than Nazi.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by highnote

Slavery was and is a gross violation of basic human rights. So what if the whole world was doing it. The U.S. has a strong history of fighting for human rights.

Many at the time believed, or claimed to believe, that blacks were sub-human, so the human rights issue was not relevant.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Many at the time believed, or claimed to believe, that blacks were sub-human, so the human rights issue was not relevant.

Again, so what if people claimed to hold certain beliefs that they used to justify owning slaves. 1.) Many slaveholders were lying. They knew slaves were not sub-human, but used it as an excuse to own them. 2.) Most people knew the practice of slavery was wrong -- especially Northern Christians.

It's amazes me that so many people to this day try to justify the actions of slaveholders. It was wrong. Almost everyone knew it. A civil war was waged because of it.

[rastajenk]

No one is justifying owning slaves. They are just a-"woke" enough to realize that different times require different lenses.