Fair enough...How about the defintion as it is/was practicedBubbalo wrote:
The Communist Manifesto.
That's basically the framework for Communism.
If someone gives me a seed, and says it's an apple seed, and it's actually a lemon seed, and I grow it, do I call the fruit apples? Perhaps. Does that make them apples? No, they're still lemons.
There has yet to be a truly Communist country.
There has yet to be a truly Communist country.
lowing, you win the debate. Like I said before, it's IMPOSSIBLE to talk sense with you.
You win, I give up. Lets leave it at that and move on.
You win, I give up. Lets leave it at that and move on.
Ok so we can agree that what we are talking about is the difference between how reality plays out ( me) and what textbook perfection dictates ( you). I will concede you are correct on paper as long as you concede that what is on paper bares little resemblance to the real world, past and present.Bubbalo wrote:
If someone gives me a seed, and says it's an apple seed, and it's actually a lemon seed, and I grow it, do I call the fruit apples? Perhaps. Does that make them apples? No, they're still lemons.
There has yet to be a truly Communist country.
Bubbalo wrote:
If someone gives me a seed, and says it's an apple seed, and it's actually a lemon seed, and I grow it, do I call the fruit apples? Perhaps. Does that make them apples? No, they're still lemons.
There has yet to be a truly Communist country.
Malloy must go
Of course it have´nt been a truly one as you say because it is completely impossible as long as human beeings are different ( lets pray that continues ) it won´t happen.Bubbalo wrote:
If someone gives me a seed, and says it's an apple seed, and it's actually a lemon seed, and I grow it, do I call the fruit apples? Perhaps. Does that make them apples? No, they're still lemons.
There has yet to be a truly Communist country.
READ THE FUCKING POST!lowing wrote:
Ok so we can agree that what we are talking about is the difference between how reality plays out ( me) and what textbook perfection dictates ( you). I will concede you are correct on paper as long as you concede that what is on paper bares little resemblance to the real world, past and present.Bubbalo wrote:
If someone gives me a seed, and says it's an apple seed, and it's actually a lemon seed, and I grow it, do I call the fruit apples? Perhaps. Does that make them apples? No, they're still lemons.
There has yet to be a truly Communist country.
Just because a country calls itself Communist doesn't mean it is! Apples! Lemons! Seeds!
Last edited by Bubbalo (2007-03-26 18:26:26)
I am not trying to be a smart ass with you spearhead. But at least be fair with me. If you are going to say such things, back them up with examples of my behavior. I am biased here but I feel that I am one of the least hot headed people in here. With exceptions of course, I have had my moments. But people getting pissed off at me does not mean anything other than they can not control their own tempers. Hardly my fault.Spearhead wrote:
lowing, you win the debate. Like I said before, it's IMPOSSIBLE to talk sense with you.
You win, I give up. Lets leave it at that and move on.
And to be completely fair. I have seen only rare examples ( if any ) of bubbalo loosing his cool. You know I would never admit that if it were not true.
But now we are talking about what EXISTS and what is PRACTICED to what is fantasy. My head is in the real world.Bubbalo wrote:
READ THE FUCKING POST!lowing wrote:
Ok so we can agree that what we are talking about is the difference between how reality plays out ( me) and what textbook perfection dictates ( you). I will concede you are correct on paper as long as you concede that what is on paper bares little resemblance to the real world, past and present.Bubbalo wrote:
If someone gives me a seed, and says it's an apple seed, and it's actually a lemon seed, and I grow it, do I call the fruit apples? Perhaps. Does that make them apples? No, they're still lemons.
There has yet to be a truly Communist country.
Just because a country calls itself Communist doesn't mean it is! Apples! Lemons! Seeds!
I guess it goes along with the irrational and unrealisitic ideals of liberalism that I keep mentioning.
Last edited by lowing (2007-03-26 18:31:45)
But no, we aren't, because Communism has never been put into practice, so we can't talk about how it is practiced!
LOL nope, all we have is how it HAS BEEN practiced under the label of communism. Real world. and that is only fair because when one speakis of communism one thinks of China and the old USSR. Even you. I am talking about the "generally accepted" version of it. Be fair bubbaloBubbalo wrote:
But no, we aren't, because Communism has never been put into practice, so we can't talk about how it is practiced!
So then you consider Hitler to be a paragon of democratic values?
Most people are liberals when they are young.
Almost all CONSERVATIVES ( Very near100% ) became Conservatives after college, Late twenties or early thirties at least.
Academia and entertainment industries are an exception.
An interesting statistic that could the topic of closer analysis.
To say Communism has not been put in to practice takes quite a bit of license. Most people feel that it has and that it failed and they have not seen a successful communist political system because it is a system that cannot work.
The most clear cut example of its flawed concept is that successful, hard working, independent, productive people by nature do not want to share the product of there efforts with , lazy, dependent, nonproductive failures,
So the productive, successful, entrepreneurial types ( the very people who make any economy thrive ) Always find away to circumvent the system that needs to feed on the fruit of their efforts.
Many other examples abound. Feel free to add your own. Any example of communism's success's would be appreciated.
Almost all CONSERVATIVES ( Very near100% ) became Conservatives after college, Late twenties or early thirties at least.
Academia and entertainment industries are an exception.
An interesting statistic that could the topic of closer analysis.
To say Communism has not been put in to practice takes quite a bit of license. Most people feel that it has and that it failed and they have not seen a successful communist political system because it is a system that cannot work.
The most clear cut example of its flawed concept is that successful, hard working, independent, productive people by nature do not want to share the product of there efforts with , lazy, dependent, nonproductive failures,
So the productive, successful, entrepreneurial types ( the very people who make any economy thrive ) Always find away to circumvent the system that needs to feed on the fruit of their efforts.
Many other examples abound. Feel free to add your own. Any example of communism's success's would be appreciated.
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2007-03-27 13:43:11)
Eeerrrrm. Perhaps in America but not here in Europe. I'm in my late 20s, finished uni several years ago, currently in very well paid professional employment and I'm a committed liberal and a socialist (generally speaking).Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Most people are liberals when they are young. Almost all ( Very near100% ) become Conservatives after college, Late twenties or early thirties at least.
Interesting statistic that could the topic of closer analysis.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-03-27 12:16:06)
As a typical American I thought I was speaking to Americans.... We tend to be somewhat provincial, sorry. PS There are other exceptions. what do you do for a living? Do you come from a wealthy family? Late Twenties? You could be soon to "See The Light "CameronPoe wrote:
Eeerrrrm. Perhaps in America but not here in Europe. I'm in my late 20s, finished uni several years ago, currently in very well paid professional employment and I'm a committed liberal and a socialist (generally speaking).Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Most people are liberals when they are young. Almost all ( Very near100% ) become Conservatives after college, Late twenties or early thirties at least.
Interesting statistic that could the topic of closer analysis.
giggle ...
So let me pose a question, and Lowing, this is based on your comment that there is no reason for people who are physically and mentally healthy to be poor.
First off, even when a person is physically and mentally healthy does not mean that all people are equal in physical or mental capabilities. Some people are just flat out stronger, and some just flat out smarter.
So, given the fundamental concept that poor people worked/studied harder so they weren't poor, as they increase their income their buying power increases; thus them not being poor any longer. However, this purchasing power would still create inflation and drive up the cost of goods and services, thus resulting in a gradual spiral back into poverty. The bottom line is that our form of economics makes it such that there is no way but to have a classed system that spans from the very poorest to the very richest.
Comments?
First off, even when a person is physically and mentally healthy does not mean that all people are equal in physical or mental capabilities. Some people are just flat out stronger, and some just flat out smarter.
So, given the fundamental concept that poor people worked/studied harder so they weren't poor, as they increase their income their buying power increases; thus them not being poor any longer. However, this purchasing power would still create inflation and drive up the cost of goods and services, thus resulting in a gradual spiral back into poverty. The bottom line is that our form of economics makes it such that there is no way but to have a classed system that spans from the very poorest to the very richest.
Comments?
Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2007-03-27 12:49:16)
"Poor" is 100% relative. Your argument is more one of semantics then reality, imo.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
So let me pose a question, and Lowing, this is based on your comment that there is no reason for people who are physically and mentally healthy to be poor.
First off, even when a person is physically and mentally healthy does not mean that all people are equal in physical or mental capabilities. Some people are just flat out stronger, and some just flat out smarter.
So, given the fundamental concept that poor people worked/studied harder so they weren't poor, as they increase their income their buying power increases; thus them not being poor any longer. However, this purchasing power would still create inflation and drive up the cost of goods and services, thus resulting in a gradual spiral back into poverty. The bottom line is that our form of economics makes it such that there is no way but to have a classed system that spans from the very poorest to the very richest.
Comments?
It also requires that all "poor" people increase their income (which would never happen).
Last edited by weamo8 (2007-03-27 12:56:27)
I come from what was a relatively poor family (pre-boomtime Ireland) but state benefits meant that I received a subsistence grant to go to university in Dublin (the fees for which are paid for by the government no matter how rich or poor you are) and landed a great job when I got my engineering degree and it has just been up and up since. Socialism in perfect motion: the taxes of others helping the less well off up the ladder, so that they can bolster the economy too and multiply the effect.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
As a typical American I thought I was speaking to Americans.... We tend to be somewhat provincial, sorry. PS There are other exceptions. what do you do for a living? Do you come from a wealthy family? Late Twenties? You could be soon to "See The Light "CameronPoe wrote:
Eeerrrrm. Perhaps in America but not here in Europe. I'm in my late 20s, finished uni several years ago, currently in very well paid professional employment and I'm a committed liberal and a socialist (generally speaking).Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Most people are liberals when they are young. Almost all ( Very near100% ) become Conservatives after college, Late twenties or early thirties at least.
Interesting statistic that could the topic of closer analysis.
giggle ...
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-03-27 13:01:38)
Not really. Yes, cost of living varies from area to area, but you can still easily set a limit on the minimum it would take to survive (e.g. basic shelter, food, clothing, etc.)weamo8 wrote:
"Poor" is 100% relative. Your argument is more one of semantics then reality, imo.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
So let me pose a question, and Lowing, this is based on your comment that there is no reason for people who are physically and mentally healthy to be poor.
First off, even when a person is physically and mentally healthy does not mean that all people are equal in physical or mental capabilities. Some people are just flat out stronger, and some just flat out smarter.
So, given the fundamental concept that poor people worked/studied harder so they weren't poor, as they increase their income their buying power increases; thus them not being poor any longer. However, this purchasing power would still create inflation and drive up the cost of goods and services, thus resulting in a gradual spiral back into poverty. The bottom line is that our form of economics makes it such that there is no way but to have a classed system that spans from the very poorest to the very richest.
Comments?
It also requires that all "poor" people increase their income (which would never happen).
These terms are misused by our media and everyone else to the extent that they become an all encompassing vague term that means NOTHING. A liberal can still be against abortion, and a conservative can hate war and greed. If you looked deeper, you would see people who are generally classified as conservative, have MANY liberal viewpoints, and vice versa. Basically I would say the terms liberal and conservative are a summation of a person's entire outlook in the grand scheme of things. I feel like liberals TEND to want to progress society and government to a higher plateau. Conservatives TEND to think that it's possible to progress too far, and some older "tried and true" values need to be reeinstated. But that's definately not what you're going to get if you watch tv or read newspapers or talk to people. lol.
You want to know what, in my life, I've found often dictates whether a person becomes a conservative or liberal?
Their parents...
Umm, this has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I have read on these forums in a while, thanks for the laugh. This can be refuted so easily, I'll choose the easiest route for you. The last 2 elections have been almost perfectly 50/50. Now I know this might be hard to grasp, but there are MORE people over the age of 30 than there are younger than 30. Therefore, by your *gasp* disgustingly wrong prognosis, conservatives would win every election by a landslide, every year. And I can't believe you used college as a reason for why people would become conservative. If anything, colleges and universities BREED liberal thought.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Most people are liberals when they are young.
Almost all ( Very near100% ) become Conservatives after college, Late twenties or early thirties at least.
Academia and entertainment industries are an exception.
You want to know what, in my life, I've found often dictates whether a person becomes a conservative or liberal?
Their parents...
Last edited by oChaos.Haze (2007-03-27 13:17:20)
Sorry dude !oChaos.Haze wrote:
These terms are misused by our media and everyone else to the extent that they become an all encompassing vague term that means NOTHING. A liberal can still be against abortion, and a conservative can hate war and greed. If you looked deeper, you would see people who are generally classified as conservative, have MANY liberal viewpoints, and vice versa. Basically I would say the terms liberal and conservative are a summation of a person's entire outlook in the grand scheme of things. I feel like liberals TEND to want to progress society and government to a higher plateau. Conservatives TEND to think that it's possible to progress too far, and some older "tried and true" values need to be reeinstated. But that's definately not what you're going to get if you watch tv or read newspapers or talk to people. lol.Umm, this has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I have read on these forums in a while, thanks for the laugh. This can be refuted so easily, I'll choose the easiest route for you. The last 2 elections have been almost perfectly 50/50. Now I know this might be hard to grasp, but there are MORE people over the age of 30 than there are younger than 30. Therefore, by your *gasp* disgustingly wrong prognosis, conservatives would win every election by a landslide, every year. And I can't believe you used college as a reason for why people would become conservative. If anything, colleges and universities BREED liberal thought.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Most people are liberals when they are young.
Almost all ( Very near100% ) become Conservatives after college, Late twenties or early thirties at least.
Academia and entertainment industries are an exception.
You want to know what, in my life, I've found often dictates whether a person becomes a conservative or liberal?
Their parents...
Please re read the edited post as I made my meaning clearer. I am speaking of Conservatives in the USA in general. Not just the voting electorate in the USA. Further, In non presidential election years for instance, the Opposing party of the current President has always had a larger percentage of turn out. Also Election results are far from a perfect indicator of the populations political leanings as all your observations imply. So the basis for your very vitriolic response is lacking the precision you assume it has. Also I didn't use college as a reason people become conservative at all. I said
"Almost all CONSERVATIVES ( Very near100% ) became Conservatives after college" It is widely recognized most colleges Demand Liberal political outlook and are very intolerant of conservatism, is this not the case in which we both agree?
As for how I became a Conservative, I needed to make my own decision. That is one trait all conservatives share. I agree that the last two Elections were very close Not the "Voter mandate" they were claimed to be. Thanks for the input.
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2007-03-27 14:14:54)
Thanks that answered my question.stratozyck wrote:
I have a degree in Econ, minor in Poli Sci, and a Masters in MIS. I will try to give the "proper" answer.
Liberals, in America, generally favor more social nets, international cooperation, and believe the Government has a duty to care for all its citizens. In America, by being a socialist you would be considered very liberal. There aren't many socialists (not declared anyway) in American politics. Now, some may advocate the same ideas that socialists do in the UK, but the world "socialist" has a highly negative connotation in America due to the Cold War.
Generally liberals live in the more urban areas, while conservatives live in the less dense areas. Younger people tend to be more liberal. In current politics, many are more friendly to issues such as gay marriage, are generally pacifist, and oppose tort reform. Most vote Democrat, but in the past there have been liberal Republicans. Currently one of the candidates for the Republican nomination - Mr. Giuliani - is called a liberal by the conservative base of the party.
It really is hard to define. Fundamentalist Christians are generally conservative, but there are some that are liberal. Republicans in the north and west (Arnold Swartz.) may be seen as liberal by their counterparts in the South or midwest. Democrats in the south may be seen as conservative by their counterparts in the north.
Well, I did my best. I am sure in ten minutes I will get flamed by ten 13 year olds who can't write in complete sentences, but such is the glory of the internet I suppose.
What is funny was that i thought this topic was dead and then i turned into a thread about communism.
I think that we all have views of Communism that were effected by the cold war, although myself i can personally see the merit in its original and core ideas; it is just a shame that power hunger dictators have to destroy those ideas.
It is by far, but that doesn't meant that America is wrong, in fact I like it. I would rather have the opportunity to sink or swim then to be babied with floaties for my entire life and never allowed to swim.Turquoise wrote:
Liberal is much more moderate politically in America than it is in the U.K. I would guess that American liberalism would be considered the equivalent of British centrism. In some ways, Democrats would be seen as somewhat conservative by British standards.
As far as 1st World countries go, America is probably one of the most conservative ones.
Hunter, gotchya man. I just assumed that if they become conservative after college, then it had something to do with college. You merely meant as a timestamp of their lives and maturing process, I take?
But I still disagree with the notion that more adults are conservative. I do believe that more conservatives become such as adults. I just don't know if it's the clear cut majority as you make it seem. Aside from what the word means, and how we use it, I think the majority of Americans are actually pretty liberal. Not liberal like abortions all around and trees are more important than people and shit like that. That's TV liberal. I mean liberal like, lets move to a higher plane of existence. Let's live for more than the status quo. Let others live how they want, and let me live how I want. I mean hell, most conservatives like less government. And with the way things are right now, that would be a liberal view in my point. I think everyone can agree that regardless of your views, we all want to move forward, and progress. Which in a way, is a liberal notion. Kinda gray area, but hopefully you see what I'm getting at. I just think the word is so distorted now, it's almost impossible to get a conservative to realize that they might be thinking liberally conservative, if that makes any sense at all. Still progressing forward, while keeping yesterday in mind. That's kinda how I think about it all. I feel like there's somewhere better we can get to, as long as we remember where we came from. Feels like a liberally conservative ideal to me, hah.
It becomes hard when you battle between what the word liberal and conservative mean by definition, and what they mean according the the people saying them. I see what your saying, I just think that it's so backwards now, that being conservative might be liberal and vice versa, haha.
But I still disagree with the notion that more adults are conservative. I do believe that more conservatives become such as adults. I just don't know if it's the clear cut majority as you make it seem. Aside from what the word means, and how we use it, I think the majority of Americans are actually pretty liberal. Not liberal like abortions all around and trees are more important than people and shit like that. That's TV liberal. I mean liberal like, lets move to a higher plane of existence. Let's live for more than the status quo. Let others live how they want, and let me live how I want. I mean hell, most conservatives like less government. And with the way things are right now, that would be a liberal view in my point. I think everyone can agree that regardless of your views, we all want to move forward, and progress. Which in a way, is a liberal notion. Kinda gray area, but hopefully you see what I'm getting at. I just think the word is so distorted now, it's almost impossible to get a conservative to realize that they might be thinking liberally conservative, if that makes any sense at all. Still progressing forward, while keeping yesterday in mind. That's kinda how I think about it all. I feel like there's somewhere better we can get to, as long as we remember where we came from. Feels like a liberally conservative ideal to me, hah.
It becomes hard when you battle between what the word liberal and conservative mean by definition, and what they mean according the the people saying them. I see what your saying, I just think that it's so backwards now, that being conservative might be liberal and vice versa, haha.
Last edited by oChaos.Haze (2007-03-27 16:43:03)
That's one way of looking at it. On the other hand, Third World nations tend to be very conservative. You could say we have the most in common with the Third World when it comes to our social conservatism and smaller social programs.Ridir wrote:
It is by far, but that doesn't meant that America is wrong, in fact I like it. I would rather have the opportunity to sink or swim then to be babied with floaties for my entire life and never allowed to swim.Turquoise wrote:
Liberal is much more moderate politically in America than it is in the U.K. I would guess that American liberalism would be considered the equivalent of British centrism. In some ways, Democrats would be seen as somewhat conservative by British standards.
As far as 1st World countries go, America is probably one of the most conservative ones.