Two Party System = EPIC FAIL!!!

[Gipper]

All of this is only brought up to counter your ridiculous assertions about me being a socialist. Basically, anyone not trumpeting your form of capitalism as the only righteous future for America is a liberal/communist/socialist. Thus, you rewrite history to fit your views (well, more accurately, others rewrite it and you buy into it) in which our country is headed down the slippery slope of socialism, even though social programs keep getting cut year after year, losing funding until the point of extinction, and corporations have less legal obstacles in their way, allowing for excessive growth and lopsided profit margins. That's a bizarre definition of socialism, but hey, you guys hold on to it! At least when Corporate Loving, Warmongering Obama wins it'll give you fodder for another 4 years of telling each other what's wrong with this country- SOCIALISM!

Sorry but I can't continue reading your overly lengthy posts. Have you ever heard the phrase, "Brevity is the soul of wit?" Or the opposite of that phrase?

To believe that I or others who have disputed your opinions, would believe that Obama's winning will result in continuing this socialist foolishness, is failing to understand anything. What you miss is Romney will continue it as well. Its all a big socialist game to enrich the elites, but you are blind to it.

For anyone to believe Socialism an effective system and equal to free market capitalism, one has to be terribly brainwashed or NAIVE.....

 

[bobbyjimmy]

For anyone to believe Socialism an effective system and equal to free market capitalism, one has to be terribly brainwashed or NAIVE.....

Hey, Gipper, I think I have said several times that Socialism is not an effective system. Learn to read. And if you think Romney is a socialist, learn to think! The only thing you guys have gotten right is the fact that our government is a mess. But this is going nowhere (big surprise.) Have fun ranting on the internet! I'd be worried if it wasn't for the fact that no one is paying attention to you.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Socialism--is the selling tool.
Communism--is the enforcement tool.
The two are--inseparable.

 

[Gipper]

Hey, Gipper, I think I have said several times that Socialism is not an effective system. Learn to read. And if you think Romney is a socialist, learn to think! The only thing you guys have gotten right is the fact that our government is a mess. But this is going nowhere (big surprise.) Have fun ranting on the internet! I'd be worried if it wasn't for the fact that no one is paying attention to you.

Sorry...but we just disagree...no need to get all pissy.

I really appreciate your being much more concise with this most recent post.

I never said Romney is a socialist. I did state he is a progressive. Do you disagree?

Please be concise should you wish to respond.

 

[bobbyjimmy]

I never said Romney is a socialist. I did state he is a progressive. Do you disagree?

Well, you said: "Obama's winning will result in continuing this socialist foolishness, is failing to understand anything. What you miss is Romney will continue it as well."

So Romney is going continue all the socialist foolishness, but he's not a socialist? But okay, putting that aside... a progressive? I mean, seriously, how do you define "progressive"? Ralph Nader is progressive. Denis Kucinich is progressive. (Flakey, but progressive.) Romney is the exact opposite of that. If these guys are all lumped into the same boat for you, I really don't know how to discuss anything. All your terms mean bizarre things. There is nothing progressive or socialist about our government. If only...! I mean, how can we live in the same country, see the same thing, and come up with 2 completely opposite opinions on it? Progressive is exactly what this country is not. Here are examples of progressive communities: Berkeley, CA. Ann Arbor, MI. Boulder, CO. Burlington, VT. Amherst, MA. I'm not saying they are my utopian ideal, I'm just saying, that's what progressive means. American mainstream society and our American government both are far from that. Do you honestly think Romney comes from that cloth?

The only thing you have right, is that while most of the people in those areas will vote for Obama as the "lesser of two evils" they don't realize that the difference between the two is so minute as to be invisible. Yeah, I'd rather get a drink with Obama than Romney- that's about the extent of the difference between the two. So we agree there- but I'm not sure what colored shades you're wearing to honestly have come to the conclusions you have. I would actually, sincerely, appreciate a short history of your political point of view, because I'm not really sure how you can arrive where you are. I don't see the path. I realize that means a non-concise post, but I'm not sure what good concise posts are, since they don't get detailed enough to explain anything. If you're willing to explain, I'm willing to listen.

 

[Gipper]

This is going to be difficult because you believe so many things that are untrue. You believe socialism and capitalism are not morally different, that our economy has operated under free market capitalism, the government is deregulating....etc....so I think our debating each other is always going to be tough. What you believe is true and what I believe is true, are two different things.

Romney is a moderate progressive. This opinion is held by many. I am not the only one. If you have not heard this, you need to get out of that liberal bubble you live in. That opinion is based on his years as governor and his statements as a candidate. He enacted socialized medicine as in MA. He prides himself on working with Ds in MA....and Ds in MA are about as close to socialists as one can get.

Do you think a conservative R gets elected governor of a hard left state like MA?

 

[dogtowner]

This is going to be difficult because you believe so many things that are untrue. You believe socialism and capitalism are not morally different, that our economy has operated under free market capitalism, the government is deregulating....etc....so I think our debating each other is always going to be tough. What you believe is true and what I believe is true, are two different things.

Romney is a moderate progressive. This opinion is held by many. I am not the only one. If you have not heard this, you need to get out of that liberal bubble you live in. That opinion is based on his years as governor and his statements as a candidate. He enacted socialized medicine as in MA. He prides himself on working with Ds in MA....and Ds in MA are about as close to socialists as one can get.

Do you think a conservative R gets elected governor of a hard left state like MA?

he seems to think that if you are not on the left or rightmost side of this that you are not that.

every president has had to be progressive to some extent to get mushy middle votes. Americans have become somewhat comfortable with having govt be the sugar daddy.

 

[bobbyjimmy]

he seems to think that if you are not on the left or rightmost side of this that you are not that.

every president has had to be progressive to some extent to get mushy middle votes. Americans have become somewhat comfortable with having govt be the sugar daddy.

Well, every president also has to be "right wing conservative to some extent" for the exact same reason. But that's not what we're talking about here. Presidents will stay as middle of the road in their speech to appeal to everyone; I'm talking about what they actually are. Everyone promises everything during campaign runs- I would like to think you are astute enough to ignore all that noise because you recognize that it is meaningless. Romney is not as ultra-right-wing as, say, our beloved G.W. but he is not, by any stretch of the imagination, progressive. I lived in Massachusetts several years- they are far from the left-wing socialists you imagine. You have to stop watching fox news and pay attention to reality. The left-wing socialists you imagine are a tiny minority, and I gave you some examples of where they exist. If you go to Cambridge, Massachusetts, then yes- you will find a lot of liberals. The state is not, by any stretch of the imagination, close to that. But I can see how some areas of the country, in their ignorance and extreme right-wing-ness, hold that perception.

Since you guys keep refusing to define your terms, it's impossible to discuss this. I gave you a bunch of examples of what "progressive" means. If you want to say he's "moderate right-wing" or "moderate conservative," that I can go along with. But the fact that you guys see him as a progressive, well, that pretty much tells the story right there. You shouldn't cast stones, because the right-wing/libertarian bubble you inhabit is just as fragile.

Again, please use facts and define your terms or this is going to go in circles.

 

[dogtowner]

Well, every president also has to be "right wing conservative to some extent" for the exact same reason. But that's not what we're talking about here. Presidents will stay as middle of the road in their speech to appeal to everyone; I'm talking about what they actually are. Everyone promises everything during campaign runs- I would like to think you are astute enough to ignore all that noise because you recognize that it is meaningless. Romney is not as ultra-right-wing as, say, our beloved G.W. but he is not, by any stretch of the imagination, progressive. I lived in Massachusetts several years- they are far from the left-wing socialists you imagine. You have to stop watching fox news and pay attention to reality. The left-wing socialists you imagine are a tiny minority, and I gave you some examples of where they exist. If you go to Cambridge, Massachusetts, then yes- you will find a lot of liberals. The state is not, by any stretch of the imagination, close to that. But I can see how some areas of the country, in their ignorance and extreme right-wing-ness, hold that perception.

Since you guys keep refusing to define your terms, it's impossible to discuss this. I gave you a bunch of examples of what "progressive" means. If you want to say he's "moderate right-wing" or "moderate conservative," that I can go along with. But the fact that you guys see him as a progressive, well, that pretty much tells the story right there. You shouldn't cast stones, because the right-wing/libertarian bubble you inhabit is just as fragile.

Again, please use facts and define your terms or this is going to go in circles.

Mass has one slightly conservative senator mainly as a result of the Donkeys having run a particularly lame candidate. First one since 79. Reps its seven gop since 76.

Progressive is the new term for liberal though for liberals like yourself there may be some distinction. Romney clearly holds some liberal positions as he must to obtain state wide or nationwide office. Its immaterial what they personally think its paramount what they do.

GWBush gave us the first new entitlement since Medicare. An ultra right wing person would never do that. You can feel you have your thumb on the pulse of Mass but it's history belies your truth.

You probably view yourself as centrist and perhaps you are these days but I remember a time when your positions would have been quite far left.

You lack perspective but thats hard to obtain without actual experience.

 

[bobbyjimmy]

You lack perspective but thats hard to obtain without actual experience.

Well we're going in circles again. My experience comes from having traveled the world, gotten to know people from so many different religions, nationalities and points of view that you'd probably get bored or annoyed just hearing me rattle them off. Your point of view, so far, seems like a template cut out of the party line. I'm showing you a much more accurate portrait of the political spectrum, and you're displaying the same one-sided bias that anyone in your camp has over the world- that is, anyone to the left of your extreme position falls under some kind of "liberal" stamp. Which is absolutely insane. But, once again, as I keep repeating, it is impossible to discuss this further when you refuse to define your terms or give examples of what you mean.

So let's start from scratch.

1)Please give historical and current examples of what you mean by "right-wing", "centrist" and "left-wing". Well, you gave me left wing already, which seems to include everyone, so I'm not sure who's left to qualify as "centrist", let alone "right-wing". I shudder to think who qualifies.

2)Then, please respond to my examples of "progressive" in terms of political figures (Ralph Nader, Denis Kucinich) and places in the U.S. that clearly show a progressive / liberal perspective (I named a bunch.) If you understand and agree, say so. If you don't agree, then let me know what you classify these people and places as, and please illustrate what differences (if any) you see between Ralph Nader and Mr. Romney. Because if your answer is "they're not that different" then this discussion has to stop.

3) Please give examples of political leaders that you believe have the right idea and are the way to go. I can only guess that you're voting libertarian, but I really have no idea, as your position defies explanation. Please give concrete examples of your utopian ideal so I can get a sense of what in the world is "right" to you.

In most of the country, "liberal" is a much dirtier word that "conservative" so the fact that you're convinced we're living in a liberal, socialist country is truly befuddling. But I've already given you examples of how un-liberal we are, which you choose to ignore. So I'm not sure what else I can tell you. If this were a liberal country, the military budget would be shrunken by a big chunk and redistributed among your hated groups like PBS, the NEA, public schools, libraries, and lots of social services (not to mention an actual health care system.) Any liberal will tell you that. Since none of this is happening, it's amazing you still think we live in that world.

 

[Gipper]

If you are telling us that GW is a right wing conservative, we don't need to go any further.

 

[bobbyjimmy]

Yeah, that's what I said to you when you said Romney was a progressive, but I kept indulging you. Hey, anything to avoid giving me concrete facts, examples, and specifics, right? Who needs them when you have a theoretical ideology to live under?

Have fun living in upside-down-world!

 

[dogtowner]

Well we're going in circles again. My experience comes from having traveled the world, gotten to know people from so many different religions, nationalities and points of view that you'd probably get bored or annoyed just hearing me rattle them off. Your point of view, so far, seems like a template cut out of the party line. I'm showing you a much more accurate portrait of the political spectrum, and you're displaying the same one-sided bias that anyone in your camp has over the world- that is, anyone to the left of your extreme position falls under some kind of "liberal" stamp. Which is absolutely insane. But, once again, as I keep repeating, it is impossible to discuss this further when you refuse to define your terms or give examples of what you mean.

So let's start from scratch.

1)Please give historical and current examples of what you mean by "right-wing", "centrist" and "left-wing". Well, you gave me left wing already, which seems to include everyone, so I'm not sure who's left to qualify as "centrist", let alone "right-wing". I shudder to think who qualifies.

2)Then, please respond to my examples of "progressive" in terms of political figures (Ralph Nader, Denis Kucinich) and places in the U.S. that clearly show a progressive / liberal perspective (I named a bunch.) If you understand and agree, say so. If you don't agree, then let me know what you classify these people and places as, and please illustrate what differences (if any) you see between Ralph Nader and Mr. Romney. Because if your answer is "they're not that different" then this discussion has to stop.

3) Please give examples of political leaders that you believe have the right idea and are the way to go. I can only guess that you're voting libertarian, but I really have no idea, as your position defies explanation. Please give concrete examples of your utopian ideal so I can get a sense of what in the world is "right" to you.

In most of the country, "liberal" is a much dirtier word that "conservative" so the fact that you're convinced we're living in a liberal, socialist country is truly befuddling. But I've already given you examples of how un-liberal we are, which you choose to ignore. So I'm not sure what else I can tell you. If this were a liberal country, the military budget would be shrunken by a big chunk and redistributed among your hated groups like PBS, the NEA, public schools, libraries, and lots of social services (not to mention an actual health care system.) Any liberal will tell you that. Since none of this is happening, it's amazing you still think we live in that world.

I gave you history to address this and what the rest of the world considers a political spectrum is immaterial here. And what we have here is immaterial there

 

[bobbyjimmy]

Everything is immaterial here! Our universe follows its own rules!

 

[GenSeneca]

All this stuff you're spouting is a philosophy, one that can't be proven. If you buy into a bunch of basic assumptions, then it follows logically. But those assumptions are not fact- they're just the assumptions you wish you believe in. Good for you- but they're not fact.

That's projection... You have yet to make any fact based arguments or demonstrably refute any of the facts presented that contradict your specious claims.

So let's try this again:

Is it moral to initiate the use of force against an individual? Yes or No