How do we speed up the politically irrelevancy of the far right ?

This tells me that you are my enemy.

It does not surprise me. I can see the totalitarian trying to get out. What surprises me most is why you, on the Left despise yourselves and your neighbors so much that you are willing for the nation to be destroyed.

I hate democrat traitors.

 

Take into consideration that the democrat traitors you hate so much likewise may look upon you with utter and extreme contempt.

 

Thats literally the most common red scare propaganda there is, "we cant have Socialism because look how the Russians screwed it up!!". The Middle East says the same thing about our sham of a democracy, they look at all the horrible things we do while we scream "Democracy!" than they assume Democracy is bad because the ones using it are bad. Also, we were a democracy when we comitted genocide on the Indians, we were also Capitalists, should we have abandoned Capitalism and Democracy after we slaughtered all those Indians? No? Than why do we have to abandon socialism because of what the Russians did? Its bull(*)(*)(*)(*) pure red scare propaganda plain and simple.

 

I went to the website and saw Sarah Palin at the very top under "Home of the Tea Party", just recently Palin said, on video, "Waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists" and the crowd started cheering like crazy, you really expect us to believe you guys arent Christian zealots? I guarantee you every main Tea Party person like Sarah Palin believes America was founded on Christianity, so its not far fetched to say they want Christianity in the government which they already have.

 

Yes. It does go both ways. So it will come to war eventually won't it?

- - - Updated - - -

I like that sentiment. I think it is a far better approach to dealing with the Islamofascists than giving the Lansing Michigan.

Nearly everything you think is far fetched. Nice try though. No, really it wasn't.

 

I saw you present contradictory logic in two different posts to two different posters. I was not commenting even remotely on the predicate in either of those two conversations, rather I was pointing out the contradiction in the logic presented. Doing so could onlybe a strawman if I were trying to use the contradiction of logic to prove you wrong in either of the previous two conversations. Since I wasnt commenting even remotely on either of those conversations, and created a seperate conversation in order to discuss the glaringly obvious contradiction in the logic you are presenting, there isnt anything there that can be called a strawman, not accurately anyway. It would be fine to not reply if you didnt want to address the contradiction that I presented, in fact I can fully understand why you would be a little embarassed and NOT want to address it. Instead you chose to pretend like you were replying to what was said, but instead really just went on a baseless rant all while feigning that you just refuted what i had said. That is lacking in intellectual honesty and integrity. To answer your implication that I was irritated, that would be an absolute no. I rather enjoy exposing the lack of intellectual honesty in one trick pony posters such as yourself that rant on an on hysterically with no real basis in your words other than unfettered emotion. Your obfuscation provided the perfect outlet for doing just that, and for that I thank you.

 

What would you like to know about unpaid child labor working long hours in tobacco fields? I will be happy to address whatever it is that you would like to discuss, but at this moment that question seems to be lacking context. Details please.

 

If you say so.

 

"' Our opportunity to succeed is being stripped away by the socialists in both parties. If you want to see where we are heading look to the former soviet union. They had one party government and ruled with an iron fist for the good of the people.

I fervently hope you will experience the utopia you dream of. But I want you to do it far away from any country I live in."

You can have all of the socialism you want. Choose a European country and go there. Leave my country alone.

Socialism cannot ever work for very long. It consumes the people's wealth. And then it ends. Your poor understanding of it's inherent flaws and evils will not save your from feeling its effects.

 

Im the one with the poor understanding of socialism? It is you who is under the impression that all it does is "Consumes the peoples wealth. And then it ends." That is about as poor of an understanding of socialism as anyone could possibly have, yet its very common not surprisingly thanks to all the red scare propaganda that has been floating around for over a hundred years.

And what is this about "YOUR" country? Its not just your country you genius, I have lived here my entire life and have every right to participate in reforming the country as you have to try and roll back the reforms.

 

I already said that. We agree.

It cannot end any other way. Socialism is counter to human nature.Give it enough time and it is indistinguishable from any other forms of tyranny. It impoverishes until all are equal in misery. How could it be otherwise. It takes from the ones who create wealth to first enrich the Masterminds (dictatorship of the proles) and then to buy the loyalty of the drones who are unable or unwilling to succeed.

Right. Well. No. Wrong. Socialism's ability to survive rests directly on how wealthy the people were at the beginning.

Yes. My country. It belongs to the patriots who will support and defend the Constitution. That excludes you and yours. You need to consider moving to a country where you fit in. Cuba perhaps?

You are a usurper. You have no right to try to subvert the nation. You are a traitor. You know it. I know it.

 

Lol im a usurper and a traitor? Calm down you are making yourself look even more silly now.

There is a reason the constitution allows for amendments, you are treating the constitution as if it is Dogma and I have much more respect for the constitution than that, its not dogma.

You say Socialism goes against human nature, thats entirely not true. In nature it is called Altruism, both survival of the fittest and altruism both work but in different ways, just like Capitalism and Socialism. Bee's for example are Communist, they work together for the queen and share everything same as ants, but spiders are Capitalists, they will kill their own to get ahead and get a extra meal, they dont work with anyone and their only priority is surviving, not helping a queen or other workers. Survival of the Fittest was actually coined by an anarcho-capitalist, Darwin was not the first to use that phrase. There are two main systems for natural selection, both of which are recognized by Darwin, there is Survival of the Fittest which we all know, but then there is Altruism which is about Survival of the Species, not just the fittest. You can be the most fit creature in the world, if you let your species die than your genes do not spread thus eliminating you from the gene pool. This is why most of us have a natural urge to want to help people, its in our genetics to help our species live on, not just so we personally can live on while everyone else dies, thats not what evolution is about.

Here is a great example, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/
"From a Darwinian viewpoint, the existence of altruism in nature is at first sight puzzling, as Darwin himself realized. Natural selection leads us to expect animals to behave in ways that increase their own chances of survival and reproduction (*Capitalism), not those of others (*Socialism). But by behaving altruistically an animal reduces its own fitness, so should be at a selective disadvantage vis-à-vis one which behaves selfishly. To see this, imagine that some members of a group of Vervet monkeys give alarm calls when they see predators, but others do not. Other things being equal, the latter will have an advantage. By selfishly refusing to give an alarm call, a monkey can reduce the chance that it will itself be attacked, while at the same time benefiting from the alarm calls of others (Capitalism). So we should expect natural selection to favour those monkeys that do not give alarm calls over those that do. But this raises an immediate puzzle. How did the alarm-calling behaviour evolve in the first place, and why has it not been eliminated by natural selection? How can the existence of altruism be reconciled with basic Darwinian principles?"

"If selection acts exclusively at the individual level, favouring some individual organisms over others, then it seems that altruism cannot evolve, for behaving altruistically is disadvantageous for the individual organism itself, by definition. However, it is possible that altruism may be advantageous at the group level. A group containing lots of altruists, each ready to subordinate their own selfish interests for the greater good of the group (Socialists), may well have a survival advantage over a group composed mainly or exclusively of selfish organisms (Capitalists). A process of between-group selection may thus allow the altruistic behaviour to evolve. Within each group, altruists will be at a selective disadvantage relative to their selfish colleagues, but the fitness of the group as a whole will be enhanced by the presence of altruists. Groups composed only or mainly of selfish organisms go extinct, leaving behind groups containing altruists. In the example of the Vervet monkeys, a group containing a high proportion of alarm-calling monkeys will have a survival advantage over a group containing a lower proportion. So conceivably, the alarm-calling behaviour may evolve by between-group selection, even though within each group, selection favours monkeys that do not give alarm calls."

There you have it, nature is about both Capitalism and Socialism, Altruism and Survival of the Fittest.

 

Which amendments, in your opinion have overturned our right to a republican form of government?
Which amendments, in your opinion, allow the government to take from one citizen in order to give to another (non)citizen?
Which amendments, in your opinion, established a monarchy with millions of drones at the bottom and a queen at the top?

I suppose you can always find someone, somewhere to claim as an example. In your sentences above you mention altruism as human nature. Altruism, at its core is the belief that individuals have no right to exist as individuals, in that respect it is proto-socialist.

Bees and ants are not humans, nor do they appear to be individuals. Socialism fails as the wealth is consumed. It cannot be otherwise.