And down come the monuments to the Confederacy....

[Swordsmyth]

I don't believe that love of government, authority or structure is part of being left or right, T or F.

There are authoritarians on both sides. There are those who want government on both sides. What you will find is that the side who believes that government is currently on their side will tend to support it, and more of it.

Look into S/N and P/J in Myers/Briggs for characteristics that are independent of left and right.

The emotional love to get their way, and our culture has for generations taught them that government is how to get it, the left calls for more government no matter who is in power.

 

[TheTexan]

I think statues in general are weird. These statues aren't history--they're decorations. Put them in a museum and fund them privately. What if they took down the Lincoln memorial? Would anyone here care?

Take down the Lincoln memorial !!? Are you crazy !? He ended slavery !!!1!

 

[acptulsa]

I see all people as individuals but I keep track of their current status as well, "labels" like everything else have a proper place and level of emphasis.

We're living in a place and time where a flaming queir is trotted out to beat the drums for war and encourage intolerance for anyone who questions the war machine, and a figure who seems to be Stalin in drag and has left a trail of bodies in her wake is such a champion of liberal compassion they run her for president. And in the end, every law gets passed on a bipartisan basis and only the attempts to repeal the totalitarian insanity get hung on the prongs of the party lines. A place where intolerant rugged individualists are herded like sheep into the piss balloons and baseball bats of touchy-feeley champions of love and tolerance. A place where people who agree with each other 100% in that both believe blacks and whites shouldn't try to live in the same communities are 'far right' if they happen to be white and 'far left' if they happen to be black.

And you're trying to tell me the labels 'Left' and 'Right' mean something?

The emotional love to get their way, and our culture has for generations taught them that government is how to get it, the left calls for more government no matter who is in power.

Many do, most of the time. Of course, a great many of the right do, too.

Which 'sides' were, by and large, for and against the creation of the Department of Homeland Security? Are you old enough to remember? 'Cause I remember it well.

That's the problem with forums. This thread sparked a very important discussion which then took place under a title which is completely fails to describe it. Seen it happen a thousand times here. It's a shame, because a sound 'do left and right mean anything?' discussion is worth its weight in gold.

 

[Antischism]

Quite true, if you educate yourself you might find out.


People who were born and raised in a bad system don't magically become acceptable targets for murder, you could argue that the slaves had a right to revolt but Yankees had no business getting involved especially through government action.

The south was in the process of eliminating slavery, major changes like that take time, for one thing just dumping people who have always been kept like zoo animals out on the street en masse would have been cruel to the ex-slaves, in fact the union did just that and it did no go well for the freed slaves.

I'm not here for an alt-history lesson. I know very well how the South felt about slavery.

Excuse me if I don't empathize with white supremacists who would continue to uphold the institution of slavery if they could. Yes, the slaves could revolt ... with what? Pots and pans? Rocks? Death stares? Part of being a slave meant not having equal rights like, say, the right to bear arms. It's easy to sit back and say "just wait" when you aren't the one being raped, beaten, and treated like a lesser being.

The emotional love to get their way, and our culture has for generations taught them that government is how to get it, the left calls for more government no matter who is in power.

You're clearly not familiar with the history of anarchism or its leftist, anti-state roots.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

1. [FONT=Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]
   08-15-2017 08:50 AM[/FONT]
   [FONT=Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]Danke[/FONT]
   [FONT=Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]Thread:[/FONT][FONT=Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]And down come the monuments to the Confederacy....[/FONT]
   [FONT=Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]Lame[/FONT]

Still got sand in your vagina, I see [MENTION=6186]Danke[/MENTION]. Poor baby. ~hugs~

• 08-15-2017 08:50 AMStill
  Danke
  ​
  Thread: And down come the monuments to the Confederacy....
  Lame
  

 

[Swordsmyth]

I'm not here for an alt-history lesson. I know very well how the South felt about slavery.

Excuse me if I don't empathize with white supremacists who would continue to uphold the institution of slavery if they could. Yes, the slaves could revolt ... with what? Pots and pans? Rocks? Death stares? Part of being a slave meant not having equal rights like, say, the right to bear arms. It's easy to sit back and say "just wait" when you aren't the one being raped, beaten, and treated like a lesser being.

So I guess you are in favor of all the wars of "liberation" that have been fought in modern times? No? I didn't really think so, you believe that the North and Lincoln were perfect saints with no ulterior motives and the southerners were perfect devils with no legitimate motives because that is what is convenient for you, and you don't want to hear anything else.
Of course there were bad people in the south, of course slavery was wrong, many in the south recognized that and they were in the process of eliminating it.
Two wrongs don't make a right the north's invasion was wrong even if it had been about freeing the slaves, and it was not about that.

You're clearly not familiar with the history of anarchism or its leftist, anti-state roots.

Anarchy is neither left nor right, it is a rejection of government of any flavor, I have more respect for anarchists than leftists even if I disagree with them.

 

[tod evans]

Wonder what the "right" thinks of law enforcement after all this?

Pretty sure 'twas a fluke or due to the overwhelming prejudice of the city administration...

There's little to no chance they'll give up copsuckin'...

 

[Swordsmyth]

We're living in a place and time where a flaming queir is trotted out to beat the drums for war and encourage intolerance for anyone who questions the war machine, and a figure who seems to be Stalin in drag and has left a trail of bodies in her wake is such a champion of liberal compassion they run her for president. And in the end, every law gets passed on a bipartisan basis and only the attempts to repeal the totalitarian insanity get hung on the prongs of the party lines. A place where intolerant rugged individualists are herded like sheep into the piss balloons and baseball bats of touchy-feeley champions of love and tolerance. A place where people who agree with each other 100% in that both believe blacks and whites shouldn't try to live in the same communities are 'far right' if they happen to be white and 'far left' if they happen to be black.

And you're trying to tell me the labels 'Left' and 'Right' mean something?

Yes they do, bad as the alt-right/neo-NAZIs (who are really a brand of leftists) are they are better than the communists (who are farther to the left.)

Many do, most of the time. Of course, a great many of the right do, too.

Which 'sides' were, by and large, for and against the creation of the Department of Homeland Security? Are you old enough to remember? 'Cause I remember it well.

That's the problem with forums. This thread sparked a very important discussion which then took place under a title which is completely fails to describe it. Seen it happen a thousand times here. It's a shame, because a sound 'do left and right mean anything?' discussion is worth its weight in gold.

I never said the right as currently represented was perfect, but I dare you to find one Demoncrat with a Dr. Ron Paul type voting record, anyone who even comes close is on the right, some on the left sometimes looks like they have a better voting record than the rest but it is never even close and it is only when the Republicans are in power or when they know that their party has the votes to do whatever it is anyway, the AVERAGE Republican's voting record is far better than any Demoncrat's.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You're clearly not familiar with the history of anarchism or its leftist, anti-state roots.

You clearly haven't studied the history of anarchism prior to 1800. Anarcho communists like to say it's a lefty movement, but that's just because they have a myopic view of history. (See Zeno of Citium and Xenophon of Athens, for example)

 

[devil21]

All started into action by a photoshopped picture of Dylann Roof holding a confederate flag.

 

[acptulsa]

You're clearly not familiar with the history of anarchism or its leftist, anti-state roots.

LOL at anarcho-comunists, and one world government 'anarchists'. I rank them right beside those who make their living in 'military intelligence'. If someone proudly self-identifies using a label which is an oxymoron, does that make them a moronic airhead?

Yes they do, bad as the alt-right/neo-NAZIs (who are really a brand of leftists) are they are better than the communists (who are farther to the left.)

But my point is, the overwhelming majority of people, including the 'alt-right/neo-NAZI' people, consider that to be the right, not the left. These labels don't mean anything. They are used for division, not greater understanding. The less individuals are placed in labeled boxes, the less We, the People talk past each other and the more we talk to each other.

I never said the right as currently represented was perfect, but I dare you to find one Demoncrat with a Dr. Ron Paul type voting record...

I voted for Ron Paul for president three times--in the 2012 primary, in the 2008 primary, and in the 1988 general election. And I can assure you from personal experience that people confronted with a false choice like Dukakkis v. ex-CIA chief G.H.W. Bush, or McCarthy v. Tricky Dick Nixon, often pulled the 'D' lever no matter how much they hated growing government.

You dare me to find one? How many would you like? Admittedly they're all old, and the last ten years have caused the survivors to change their registration so they could vote for one Dr. Paul or another in a primary or three. But these people you consider a myth, I drink a toast with every chance I get.

 

[Swordsmyth]

But my point is, the overwhelming majority of people, including the 'alt-right/neo-NAZI' people, consider that to be the right, not the left. These labels don't mean anything. They are used for division, not greater understanding. The less individuals are placed in labeled boxes, the less We, the People talk past each other and the more we talk to each other.

This all started when I said:

It can happen here, if the left gains unfettered control of the reigns of government for a long enough time they will indulge their wildest fantasies, we are all that stops them.

In response to what the LEFT was doing about Confederate monuments, what I said was true.
The left is worse than the right even with the common misunderstanding about the labels

I voted for Ron Paul for president three times--in the 2012 primary, in the 2008 primary, and in the 1988 general election. And I can assure you from personal experience that people confronted with a false choice like Dukakkis v. ex-CIA chief G.H.W. Bush, or McCarthy v. Tricky Dick Nixon, often pulled the 'D' lever no matter how much they hated growing government.

And every time the left won things got worse faster than when the false right won.

 

[acptulsa]

And every time the left won things got worse faster than when the false right won.

No, friend. The War on Drugs didn't start during a Democratic administration. Asset forfeiture didn't start during a Democratic administration. The PATRIOT Act was not signed into law by a Democrat president. The president who sent the National Guard to Kent State was not a Democrat. The vice president who sat in the War Room and told the Air Force to continue their war games as though nothing were happening while 9/11 went down was not a Democrat.

No, neither the 'Left' nor the 'Right' has ever had a monopoly on the Lesser Evil. Guess you had to be there to understand.

 

[Antischism]

You clearly haven't studied the history of anarchism prior to 1800. Anarcho communists like to say it's a lefty movement, but that's just because they have a myopic view of history. (See Zeno of Citium and Xenophon of Athens, for example)

Politically and economically, it wasn't until the Age of Enlightenment that anarchism became a concept, later expanded and applied to the individual by Proudhon and other anarchists of the time.

 

[Swordsmyth]

No, friend. The War on Drugs didn't start during a Democratic administration. Asset forfeiture didn't start during a Democratic administration. The PATRIOT Act was not signed into law by a Democrat president.

No, neither the 'Left' nor the 'Right' has ever had a monopoly on the Lesser Evil. Guess you had to be there to understand.

And I could quote you just as many worse things that the Demoncrats did when they were in power or wanted to do and pushed for the times they lost, do you really think those things would not have been done if the Demoncrats had won the previous elections? if you do you are delusional.

 

[acptulsa]

Politically and economically, it wasn't until the Age of Enlightenment that anarchism became a concept, later expanded and applied to the individual by Proudhon and other anarchists of the time.

It wasn't until the Age of Enlightenment that Marx 'invented' socialism, which was and is nothing more than a way to sell totalitarianism to the masses. But totalitarianism and liberty are concepts which are as old as the very hills.

And just because ignoramuses call Proudhon, who considered himself a mutualist, served in the French government, and was once a good friend of Marx, the 'father of anarchism' does not mean he was against all forms of government.

And I could quote you just as many worse things that the Demoncrats did when they were in power or wanted to do and pushed for the times they lost, do you really think those things would not have been done if the Demoncrats had won the previous elections? if you do you are delusional.

I don't seem to be selling the Democratic Party as the Lesser Evil half as much as you seem to be selling the G.O.P. as the Lesser Evil.

Neither is the lesser evil. They're just the two sides of the same coin. That's my point. As for the theory that, if left in power for four or five cycles, the Democrats would have pushed their agenda a lot further, I agree. And so would the Republicans. And history does not support the conventional wisdom that the Republican agenda would have led to a federal government one whit smaller than the Democratic agenda would have done. Your point that throwing one out in favor of the other slowed the slide into totalitarianism is valid, so far as I can tell. So why are you hating on people who used to occasionally voted for Democrats?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Politically and economically, it wasn't until the Age of Enlightenment that anarchism became a concept, later expanded and applied to the individual by Proudhon and other anarchists of the time.

You're just getting overly technical. It's like saying polyphony didn't exist until Bach started writing it down.

 

[acptulsa]

You're just getting overly technical. It's like saying polyphony didn't exist until Bach started writing it down.

Like any good leftist, he's using technicalities to obscure the pure, technically unadulterated facts. The mutualists may have long been called anarchists, but they never were anarchists. And using the fact that they were mistakenly called anarchists to elicit sympathy for the left is disingenuous.

 

[Swordsmyth]

I don't seem to be selling the Democratic Party as the Lesser Evil half as much as you seem to be selling the G.O.P. as the Lesser Evil.

Neither is the lesser evil. They're just the two sides of the same coin. That's my point. As for the theory that, if left in power for four or five cycles, the Democrats would have pushed their agenda a lot further, I agree. And so would the Republicans. Your point that throwing one out in favor of the other slowed the slide into totalitarianism is valid, so far as I can tell. So why are you hating on people who used to occasionally vote for Democrats?

To make myself clear since I wasn't, the Demoncrats would have done those things that you pointed to Republicans doing and the horrible things they wanted to do, they are the Greater evil.

I did not "hate on" anybody, least of all anyone who is an ex-democrat or even an ex-leftist, those who demonstrate a capacity to learn are to be commended.

 

[acptulsa]

To make myself clear since I wasn't, the Demoncrats would have done those things that you pointed to Republicans doing and the horrible things they wanted to do, they are the Greater evil.

It's a theory. But Reagan didn't any more eliminate Carter's Department of Education than Obama eliminated Dubya's DHS. In fact, both expanded those things. And I'm not sure Carter got the ED in place before he left; Reagan might have implemented it.

No, I don't believe you. The two parties are a pair of pacifiers. One pushes one on front for a while, then the other pushes on the other front, but neither ever undoes the damage the other inflicted. Witness Obamacare repeal; have you noticed that no one with gray hair was the tiniest bit surprised it didn't happen?

Either party would have gotten around to all of the agenda, in the end.