Most Members Here Are Left Wing-Don't Let The Right Fool You

[GoVegan]

Good point Justin, I also believe that the Saudi's would be among our worst enemies if they didn't have oil either. In my opinion, the last war we fought with the intentions of actually helping people was in Somalia but we pulled out after a half hearted attempt. In fact, we should think about going back there. There are plenty of Islamic terrorists in that country and the original intention of any navy is to guard against piracy.

[Trolltind]

i'm left wing. Anarcho-Communist for the last 5 years and will continue to be an anarchist for the rest of my life. its obvious our so called "democratic" world just isn't working. real democracy is the power of people. not an elite voted in by the elite

[daruckis]

i hate it when lazer talks politics the most i think.

[sgreger1]

Nice trolltastic thread Joe. We have gone over this many times in the past (you wouldn't know that since you've been here all of 5 minutes) and there tends to be a relatively equal mix here. More libertarian anti-gov types than anything I think (judging by this thread and others).

@ Trolltind: I won't even go into how anarchy and communism are two complete opposites and could not even begin to mingle together. There is no such thing as "anarcho-communism".



We went into Iraq for more reasons than the WMD's, though the WMD's were the strong selling point. Think about it, this is another failed example of us not thinking ahead, we gave Saddam WMD's to use against Iran and instead he gassed a bunch of his own people. Just like the taliban, alquaida, the drug dealers in south america etc, we helped them because it was expedient for us at the moment and then later came back to bite us in the ass.

I would also like to point out that the democrats were all in for both wars (they voted for it too). Almost every reputable country had intelligence that corroborated the existence of WMD's in Iraq so it was a legitimate claim at the time. Like Justin mentioned, we all know why we really went there. And like you said, it would have been a smarter move to just leave Saddam in power because he kept things relatively stable. Instead we traded one enemy for another, and got the shitty end of the deal.



But please, pray tell Joe, what heroic american deeds has the left done in recent years, hmm? I can't say much good about anything republicans have done, but I also can't find anything nice to say about the democrats. Look at Obama, typical democrat strategy, he campaigns that he will fix things the republicans did and then did the opposite.

Let us count the ways:

Ran on: End the war in 16 month
Instead he: Trippled the war effort

Ran on: repeal the patriot act
Instead he: Renewed it before it expired

Ran on: End torture
Instead he: Made some half-assed PR move to close down Gitmo, meanwhile he still authorizes rendition.

Ran on: End lobbying
Instead he: allowing lobbyists to buy our government

Ran on: Stopping republican runaway spending
Instead he: Refined runaway spending to an art-form


I think you get my general point, and like others have said: They're all the same.

And what about our floating prisons we keep detainees in without trial in secret locations before we send them to gitmo? Has Obama emptied those out? Are there not still aircraft carriers full of prisoners being held outside of the public view, without trial or rights?


As far as healthcare, a few weeks ago 62% wanted it repealed (though those numbers will change because polls mean very little and pollsters tend to find stupid people to poll). Instead of actually fixing healthcare, Obama just mandated that everyone buy it and then proclaimed that he "brought health insurance to millions of previously uninsured".

Ironically, he chose the mandate, something John Mccain ran for and Obama said he opposed. In fact, the healthcare system in the reform bill is a near mirror of the one Mitt Romney created for his state, and that has failed miserably.


I love talking politics on this forum because I like the people here, and I especially like how many people have dissenting viewpoints (like yourself). However, like in the arizona immigration law thread, you are just trolling right now (remember calling me a redneck racist, when in fact you knew nothing about the law and were just being a tool for the democratic party? How you blatantly made up invisible boogeymen in the law to paint republicans a certain way, then all in the same breath talked shit about republicans calling obama a socialist?) Think for yourself and you'll do okay in life.

[GoVegan]

Well said sgregor - Obama is starting to seem like more of the same but compared to the last Bush, ANYTHING is better. What's odd is that the 1st Bush seemed OK, not great, but OK. The last Bush though really sucked and we will all be paying the price for his actions for years to come. Hard to believe that they are father and son.

[f. bandersnatch]

The only truth on this thread has been spoken by Daruckis.

Gay people are extremely lovable and they clearly run the government, and LaZeR talking politics is like a hobo talking Cadillacs: "I WANT ONE. Wait... what?"



*for those of you who take this stuff seriously, I will just add this disclaimer because I will probably not get back to this thread to apologize very soon: I am just kidding around.

[Frosted]

LOL @ LaZer big time. ROFL

[Trolltind]

@ Trolltind: I won't even go into how anarchy and communism are two complete opposites and could not even begin to mingle together. There is no such thing as "anarcho-communism".

how so? communism is a monetary system opposite to capitalism. in its truest form it's everyone shares everything pretty much. i think its a perfect partner for an Anarchist commune system

[MojoQuestor]

@ Trolltind: I won't even go into how anarchy and communism are two complete opposites and could not even begin to mingle together. There is no such thing as "anarcho-communism".

I've heard of anarcho-communism before. There's even a sizable Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

Just as a general note, making statements like "there is no such thing as ____", when there clearly is, doesn't exactly add weight to the rest of one's arguments.

[tom502]

There is a big Red-Black alliance, I'm not sure how they have it philosophically sorted out, but all the so-called social issues that have mobs and violence, you will see a team of the communists(liberal welfare state reds), and anarchists(black masked stone throwers). But it does reflect the sad state of a large number of people, esp youth, who want total welfare handouts, and zero rules. In some ways, it's utopian fantasy, to all live collectively in peace and love with no government or laws, but it's so unrealistic in our world.

[LaZeR]

Now what did I go and do?

Everyone calling me out...



"Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks."

[sgreger1]

I've heard of anarcho-communism before. There's even a sizable Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

Just as a general note, making statements like "there is no such thing as ____", when there clearly is, doesn't exactly add weight to the rest of one's arguments.

Yah I am well aware of what it is and that many people believe in it. What I am saying is that it's like saying having socialist capitalism, they are not compatable. Anarchism where there is no government does not compute with communism where the government owns everything and distributes it. Complete opposites.

It's like utopian society, is there a wikipedia page for it? Yes. Does it actually exist in any meaningfull form? No. Same here.


Regardless of what some wikipedia page says, anarchism means no government, it's like radical libertarianism, and communism requires production and distribution based on : "from each according to ability, to each according to need". To accomplish that task you need government, therefore it would not be anarchist.


Edit: "in its truest form it's everyone shares everything pretty much"

Yah that works with robots but not with humans. Greed becomes part of the system and this concept of everyone sharing everything falls apart. It's a nice rainbow unicorn idea, but would never work in the real world. If you had like 20 guys than maybe it would, but with 350 million people in this country, it's just impossible for everyone to share everything without a government in place to regulate distribution and production. Who's to stop people taking "more than they need" or producing less than their "ability"?

[tom502]

It's just an excuse to smash windows and complain about not getting a welfare check.

[sgreger1]

It's just an excuse to smash windows and complain about not getting a welfare check.

Exactly. There is a huge anarcho-communist sect here in Santa Cruz. They are all privaleged kids who to to UCSC who think there should be no rules but that the government should be issuing them free shit.

I can agree in a way with the anarchists because they believe in individualism and owning the fruit of one's labor, and they have a strong emphasis on property ownership. This is why anarcho communism is like vanilla chocolate, it's impossible to merge something that values individual freedom, no government and owning property and labor, with a system that is all about the government controlling all means of production and distribution and owning all property. I just don't get it.


Mojo and Troll, please enlighten me as to how I must obviousely be misinterpreting the concet behind anarcho-communism. Because the way I understand it, the two are incompatable with each other. Anarcho-communism is like old school hunter gatherer tribes. I think those are a great idea and work great, but you can't have a tribe of 350 million people where everything is equal. The whole concept of an economy is having a demand for goods and finite resources. Given this fact, it is impossible for everyone to live equally. If everything is equal than there is no economy and therefore no progress, this is why hunter gatherer tribes live the same as they did 25,000 years ago and have never made any "progress" as we would define it today.

[Trolltind]

i can now see that none of you really know what anarchism is. Anarchism is true democracy in my mind. anarchism seeks to push aside, violently if necessary, centralized government structure and global capitalism in favor of people helping people and a more local government that is more in touch with what that locale requires. So instead of one government that caters to whoever is the majority(usually the rich and elite) in a whole country you have a community or set of communities that, according to their needs, will make decisions that benefit and affect them in a rotating council where everything is voted by the whole community/communities. in other words instead of proxies that are "voted" based on lies with only themselves in mind the actual people have a large hand in what effects them

hardly the bullshit "no rules" stuff that 15 y/o kids who just want to smash windows for the sake of smashing things use as an excuse to take the blame off themselves

do i think its possible in my generation? hell no.
am i going to fight so that my children may be one step closer? you can bet on it