- LOL...At this point I have no Idea where this thread is going. This thread has clealry devolved into political mismash. There's plenty of blame to spread around in that, don't single me out on this one.psi29a wrote:
I seriously think you need re-evaluate your aggressiveness here and the point you are trying to make. Perhaps that is the problem, we are not making ourselves clear enough.
The real problem I had was this:
I hope you can see why, as I think any poli-sci professor would probably cry. I tried to give more context in my post above as to why this is wrong.Conservatism, in principle, preaches limited government. While liberalism sides toward socialism. Where socialism is the underlying principle behind communism. Communism that has given rise to fascism (Mussolini) and totalitarianism (Stalin/Mao Zedong). Not to mention the socialism that gave rise Nazi Germany.
You later cleared this up a bit here:
Thanks, got it.BTW...Socialism and fascism are each forms of statism, forms of government in which the government is given complete or extensive control over the lives of its citizens. While they may be different in certain respects they are certainly interconnected, and both exist on the opposite side of the political spectrum as far as Capitalism and Republicanism (don't mistake with Republican party) is concerned. Which was the original point that I was getting at.
Now my question is: Where are you trying to go with your posts?
Bush is on his way out, yay. Now comes the meat and potatoes which is, who is next?
I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but frankly he is the only republican other than McCain that I can get behind. Sadly, McCain tried to stand up to the current administration but quickly was put back in line. Growing up as I did in a family of Marines of 3 generations, I have nothing but respect for McCain. If he or Ron is elected President, I hope he can rain in the ungodly spending habits. Romny and Hucklebee can both die in a fire for all I care.
On the democratic side, it is between Obama and Hillary. Obama has the freshman glow about him that rallies the younger folks, the idea that he hasn't been corrupted as much as the rest. Hillary has the support of the older folks and of course women because she is a woman! More to the point, she has been in the white house already, and has more experience than any other presidential candidate because she is the former first lady. The rest of the candidates are worthless.
I'm a switch hitter, I don't like things about both parties. I can find flaws in every candidate. So far the only person who has been consistent throughout his campaign and throughout his life has been Ron Paul, he demonstrated again and again that he has the economic acumen that all the other candidates lack.
This all evolved from me taking issue with Aesther. for insinuating America as a whole too racist and sexist to vote for either Clinton or Obama. Later backtracked into stating that racism and sexism spawned from right wing values, which was why I brought up Lincoln's political affiliation. Somewhere the issue of socialism was brought up....yadahh...yadaah.....yadaah....And here we are.
- At this point it is no secret that taking a POV right-of-center on an internet discussion board, especially one such as this, is not exactly the best way of making friends. If my tone has come off as aggressive in my posts here then (w/ one exception) I apologize. But having been clearly singled out here, and dealing with the heavy scrutiny of those who are always going to be in the right, simply because of popular opinion, its hard not to become defensive.
- In regards to the Bush banter and such, I don't know why you are addressing me with this. Its not me who keeps on bringing his name up, as a counter-point to every political argument. My posts on the matter have merely been in response.
Now that the guy is about to be gone, I agree the focus of people's attention should be on his potential successors. Which I applaud you for doing.
The post I was referring to as "my last post" was my response to psi29 and Killfile. But Yes, that was my point.MrFelony wrote:Killfiles avatar comes from a t-shirt that basically plays off of the "communist party" idea. http://www.threadless.com/product/383/T ... nist_Party
I dont really think this applies to the argument besides saying aether doesnt really have much to argue so he'll just sit around saying silly things.The Prince wrote:Why don't you explain yourself....instead of copping out with your silly little catch phrase over and over again? Take my last post for example.Aetherfukz wrote:And there we are again, back in the vicious circle of your argumentums ad hominem.
Yes he did.but to actually address your argument that killfile is "stretching" to make a connection between bush and facism, you're pretty off. you say that using "manipulation of the media" as grounds for facism is a stretch and I would agree with you. However, killfile didnt just use manipulation of the media as grounds for why Bush is facist in nature, he used about 6 or 7 different qualifiers. Bush meets pretty much all of these pretty well. by only addressing one of these qualifiers, i believe you are the one who's argument is a stretch
And if the case is so strong, why tarnish it, by bringing things up that allow your argument to be called into question? By "stretch", I'm not saying some case for it can't be made, but nothing wouldn't apply to any other previous administration.