Ha, Bush's approval rating is at 34%[views:5635][posts:60]______________________________ [Mar 4,2006 4:00pm - eddie ""] hmm my spaces didn't work hold on |
| ____________________________________ [Mar 4,2006 4:00pm - HailTheLeaf ""] KeithMutiny said:KILL WHITEY!!! |
| _____________________________________________ [Mar 4,2006 4:50pm - BobNOMAAMRooney nli ""] Wait, the end goal of communism is a stateless utopia that liberates the individual. How would that jibe with a collective that puts the state above individual rights which is a hallmark of facism? The Borg might resemble Stalinist states but that doesn't make them radical communists because their end goal is the assimilation and superiority over all cultures in a glorified state. |
| ____________________________________ [Mar 4,2006 5:00pm - HailTheLeaf ""] what the fuck is a borg? |
| ______________________________ [Mar 4,2006 5:25pm - eddie ""] are we debating weither they're(the borg) communists, or are we bebating weither they're radical or not. because i think it's pretty obvious that they're communists, and i think that radicals and reactionaries are pretty much the same with a different name. |
| ______________________________ [Mar 4,2006 5:27pm - eddie ""] HailTheLeaf said:what the fuck is a borg? i bet you know who they are without realizing it. they're from star trek |
| _________________________________ [Mar 4,2006 5:56pm - Dankill ""] Kill Borgy!!!!!! |
| ___________________________________ [Mar 4,2006 11:47pm - MikePile ""] HailTheLeaf said:TALK TALK TALK TALK TALK TALK TALK TALK TALK TALK TALK. TALK TALK TALK TALK. TALK TALK TALK? |
| __________________________________ [Mar 5,2006 1:53pm - ShadowSD ""] BobNOMAAMRooney nli said:Wait, the end goal of communism is a stateless utopia that liberates the individual. How would that jibe with a collective that puts the state above individual rights which is a hallmark of facism? The Borg might resemble Stalinist states but that doesn't make them radical communists because their end goal is the assimilation and superiority over all cultures in a glorified state. My point exactly. |
| __________________________________ [Mar 5,2006 2:44pm - ShadowSD ""] eddie said:radical liberal moderate conservative reactionary now look at it this way in a circle _______monderate liberal___________conservative ____radical___reactionary which two are the nearest? radical and reactionary. they're almost the same. each of them can put into 2 other groups, those who use violence and those who dont. with that said the borg are radical communists. and if they look like reactionaries, well there's a reason for that. and its in that circle The problem with the circle is that whenever we do decide to talk about it as a line, we can't decide what extreme belongs at which end. Hence this whole argument. I understand that what you posted above is the accepted model of the political spectrum, and I agree that it is seamless in theory. However, I think reality has taught us that a practical form of this model would look a bit different. The following might not be as neat and tidy as the accepted political spectrum, but I believe it is more consistent with the lessons of history. The line below represents not only right to left, but the incremental passage of time (so the line is gradually getter longer as time goes on - and most importantly, being part of time, each of the terms themselves are also moving along with it as well as independently) .------------.------------.-------------------.----> Radical Conservative Moderate Progressive Notice that the dot representing progressive is near the edge of the line, so if it moves faster than the line is going, it can eventually fall right off the edge. And just like in Pitfall, if you accidentally fall off the top level, you have to go all the way back to the beginning before you can climb up and start to progress again. This may sound a bit more labored than the accepted model, but it is more representative of what happens in the real world. As agreed upon earlier in this thread, there have been no liberal fascist goverments, and the only people with left wing ideas who have led to fascism began by betraying the very progressivism they were purporting. So again this proves the point that the challenge of progressivism is how to move forward without falling backwards. After all, the more freedom we get, the more easily each expansion of freedom can indirectly curtail other freedoms. Such is the challenge of progress. Another reason why I prefer the new modelis because the original spectrum is shortsighted and doesn't take into account the passage of time. It implicitly suggests that we are always better off staying right in the middle so as to not go to either extreme - which in the short term, I absolutely agree with - but over centuries, that would mean stagnancy. I believe in moderation, but not stagnancy; there is a huge difference. |
| _____________________________________ [Mar 5,2006 2:49pm - the_reverend ""] Dankill said:Rev, I miss how Bush can be compared to Carter. Jimmy Carter had to be one of the most spineless and weakest Presidents of the past century. If we had insane inflation, 22% interest rates, high unemployment, gas shortages, record crime, and our balls in a sling while a middle eastern country was giving us the finger and we didn't do shit against them, then sure I could see that. then you missed his last state of the union address which was almost exactly like one that carter gave about oil consumption. Also, it's well known that the carter administration got those hostages free and someone in the incoming regan administration made sure it was posponed long enough so carter wouldn't get the glory for it. |