Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

underbear1 · Oct 11, 2006, 10:49 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Autolykos

Let's see... where do you draw the line? I don't think I have to tell you how absurd it would be to take "equality" to its logical conclusion... :rolleyes:

LOL -- since when have wars been waged in the name of "equality"?

- Rob

Since The American Revolution, colonists were equal to Torries
French Revolution, subjects were equal to kings
Civil War, slaves were equal to slaveholders
Russian and Chinese Revolutions proliteriat were equal to the bourgeois

Autolykos · Oct 12, 2006, 08:38 am

LOL INTERNETS :rolleyes:

Now back to business...

Quote:

Quote by: underbear1

Since The American Revolution, colonists were equal to Torries

The American Revolution was fought to throw off British rule. It had nothing to do with equality.

Quote:

French Revolution, subjects were equal to kings

The French Revolution was arguably not a war. Also, there were no kings in France after the Revolution. On the other hand, subjects were not equal to the members of the Committee of Public Safety.

Quote:

Civil War, slaves were equal to slaveholders

The Civil War was not ostensibly fought over slavery. If you bring up the Emancipation Proclamation, I will point out that it freed (more accurately, claimed to free) only the slaves in the Confederacy. Oops -- looks like I already did.

Quote:

Russian and Chinese Revolutions proliteriat were equal to the bourgeois

Heh, after the Russian and Chinese Revolutions, there were no more bourgeois. But the proletariat were not equal to Comrade Stalin or Chairman Mao, were they...? :rolleyes:

- Rob

Captain Chaos · Oct 12, 2006, 10:01 am

But Rob, whether or not those wars actually produced equality is not the point. They were fought, in part, over the issue of equality. I suppose, to be more precise, one could say they were fought, in part, over the issue of extreme inequality.

underbear1 · Oct 12, 2006, 10:42 am

With Liberty and Justice FOR ALL

Gosh it sounds like we were declaring equality was our IDEAL, granted it only applied to property owning white men when it was written, but we're working on it.

Fonceai · Oct 12, 2006, 10:45 am

I'm glad you put it that way, CC.

They were fought over inequality.

Those people weren't seeking to elevate themselves.

They were seeking to displace those lording over them.

underbear1 · Oct 12, 2006, 10:49 am

It also shows there is ALWAYS a tipping point when fewer and fewer people in a society hold the vast amount of wealth and power...........those unwashed masses have the most annoying habit of just chucking the whole society..........and at a moments notice too. That's just ungrateful after all we did for them."It's good to be the queen"

lsbskins1 · Oct 12, 2006, 11:26 am

Sheesh! Partisan junk by the truck load.

People choose to affiliate with particular parties because of what they percieve to be that parties core values. I do not vote Democratic because I hate America or because I want cops to have a tough life. Republicans do not vote for that party because they all hate minorities and want to assure the ascendance of the wealthy few at the expense of the masses. Green Party supporters do not value the Spotted Owl more than humans and on and on, ad nauseum.

Some people are bigoted idiots. Some people have 'effen wierd priorities.

Democrats believe in the power of government as an expression of the power of the individual. They want resources marshalled for good.

Republicans believe in the power of the market and the need for institutions grounded in tradition.

I do not deny that corruption is a never ending problem. I do not deny that Democrats have done bad things.

If I see the policies of Republicans as problematic, it is not because I think only cheats and assholes would value what the party stands for. Nobody's answers are perfect. I think the democratic party's answers are more in line with what will actually work, in the end.

I will continue to call hipocracy hipocracy. I do not believe no government is better than what we have now. I know the two party system has built in dangers, but I believe those dangers are more managable than the dangers inherent in multi party-rule with the power coalitions and relative instability that brings. I sure as hell think it is less dangerous than anarchy.

So, have at me...

Captain Chaos · Oct 12, 2006, 11:34 am

Quote:

Quote by: LSB

Nobody's answers are perfect.

My answers are perfect.

lsbskins1 · Oct 12, 2006, 11:51 am

Quote:

Quote by: Captain Chaos

My answers are perfect.

Jesus, is that you? I always thought you were just a dude who was pretty forward thinking and got killed for it. Man, you were divine and the Last Days are upon us....

Shit! I was wrong, all wrong! I will surely burn!

underbear1 · Oct 12, 2006, 02:08 pm

Quote:

Quote by: lsbskins1

Sheesh! Partisan junk by the truck load.

People choose to affiliate with particular parties because of what they percieve to be that parties core values. I do not vote Democratic because I hate America or because I want cops to have a tough life. Republicans do not vote for that party because they all hate minorities and want to assure the ascendance of the wealthy few at the expense of the masses. Green Party supporters do not value the Spotted Owl more than humans and on and on, ad nauseum.

Some people are bigoted idiots. Some people have 'effen wierd priorities.

Democrats believe in the power of government as an expression of the power of the individual. They want resources marshalled for good.

Republicans believe in the power of the market and the need for institutions grounded in tradition.
I do not deny that corruption is a never ending problem. I do not deny that Democrats have done bad things.

If I see the policies of Republicans as problematic, it is not because I think only cheats and assholes would value what the party stands for. Nobody's answers are perfect. I think the democratic party's answers are more in line with what will actually work, in the end.

I will continue to call hipocracy hipocracy. I do not believe no government is better than what we have now. I know the two party system has built in dangers, but I believe those dangers are more managable than the dangers inherent in multi party-rule with the power coalitions and relative instability that brings. I sure as hell think it is less dangerous than anarchy.

So, have at me...

The rich get richer, and the only good queer is in the closet

Captain Chaos · Oct 12, 2006, 02:11 pm

Quote:

Quote by: lsbskins1

Jesus, is that you? I always thought you were just a dude who was pretty forward thinking and got killed for it. Man, you were divine and the Last Days are upon us....

Shit! I was wrong, all wrong! I will surely burn!

Jesus' answers were not perfect, only mine.

lsbskins1 · Oct 12, 2006, 02:27 pm

Quote:

Quote by: underbear1

The rich get richer, and the only good queer is in the closet

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that the power brokers in the Republican Party have not taken on issues that appeal to the lowest common denominator in their base and twisted and worked those issues. I am saying that if you look honestly at statistics, most Americans do not hold those medievil ideals. Not even most Republicans do.

It is all determined by how you frame the question. Most Republicans don't want an amendment to "protect" marriage. Most people who are afraid of gay marriage are afraid because the a-holes have framed the debate to be between the status quo (only hetero marriage) or crazy gays forcing the Baptist Church to preform same sex marriages and polygomous marriages and pediphiles teaching children. It is the politics of fear, not reasonable debate. I hate that wing of the right, but they do not represent the average Republican voter.

The problem is, the average voters from all parties are too freakin lazy and/or too concerned with the overwhelming minutia of life to really find out what is happening in the world.

Acebass · Oct 12, 2006, 02:30 pm

Quote:

Quote by: lsbskins1

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that the power brokers in the Republican Party have not taken on issues that appeal to the lowest common denominator in their base and twisted and worked those issues. I am saying that if you look honestly at statistics, most Americans do not hold those medievil ideals. Not even most Republicans do.

It is all determined by how you frame the question. Most Republicans don't want an amendment to "protect" marriage. Most people who are afraid of gay marriage are afraid because the a-holes have framed the debate to be between the status quo (only hetero marriage) or crazy gays forcing the Baptist Church to preform same sex marriages and polygomous marriages and pediphiles teaching children. It is the politics of fear, not reasonable debate. I hate that wing of the right, but they do not represent the average Republican voter.

The problem is, the average voters from all parties are too freakin lazy and/or too concerned with the overwhelming minutia of life to really find out what is happening in the world.

couldn't agree with you more.

Mia · Oct 12, 2006, 02:31 pm

bishop · Oct 12, 2006, 03:00 pm

ditto that 'skins...

the only thing it means to be democrat/republican is that you vote for the party's candidates.. any notion that either party truly stands for something is pure b.s..

underbear1 · Oct 13, 2006, 02:56 am

Moderate Republicans have been silent as their party has been bought by Pharmacueticals, and Energy interests, they have remained silent while hateful groups like Family Research, and Focus on the Family write your party's platform. If you want any respect as a moderate republican then step up and LOUDLY demand neither of those interests dominate your Party.

Captain Chaos · Oct 13, 2006, 10:57 am

McCain was their most prominent moderate. Has he sold out his moderate stance to the religious right wing?

bishop · Oct 13, 2006, 11:53 am

Quote:

Quote by: underbear1

Moderate Republicans have been silent as their party has been bought by Pharmacueticals, and Energy interests, they have remained silent while hateful groups like Family Research, and Focus on the Family write your party's platform. If you want any respect as a moderate republican then step up and LOUDLY demand neither of those interests dominate your Party.

i always considered myself to be a moderate republican, and i definitely haven't been silent.

i went to the extent of registering as an independent, rather than republican, and voting for kerry in 2004. been harping about fiscal responsibility and minimizing these social/religious issues for years now, as well as fuming about how we were mislead into iraq...

perhaps the issue is that the republicans' coffers are filled by corporations and religious fanatics... so by default, the fundies have greater power within the party, because they have the most money. a moderate republican, at best, only gets money from corporations - not religious fanatics.

Captain Chaos · Oct 13, 2006, 12:22 pm

Bishop, have you looked into Mark Warner...

He might be a presidential candidate right up your alley.

bishop · Oct 13, 2006, 01:38 pm

yup, i'm a fan of his.. i also like russ feingold a lot..

i'd enthusiastically vote for either if given the opportunity. there is a simple reason why both warner and feingold are so heavily supported by their constituents - because they're straight with them and work for their interests.. they aren't afraid to speak their minds, even if that alienates members of their own party. what a concept!

just compare those two men to people like harry reid and hillary clinton.. it's like day vs. night.

Oct 12, 2006, 10:01 am	#23 (permalink) (top)
Captain Chaos Shifting Paradigms Location: Flowery Branch, GA Posts: 3,102	But Rob, whether or not those wars actually produced equality is not the point. They were fought, in part, over the issue of equality. I suppose, to be more precise, one could say they were fought, in part, over the issue of extreme inequality. Do all things with love.

Oct 12, 2006, 11:26 am	#27 (permalink) (top)
lsbskins1 Redskins Rule Location: South-Western Virginia Posts: 2,472	Sheesh! Partisan junk by the truck load. People choose to affiliate with particular parties because of what they percieve to be that parties core values. I do not vote Democratic because I hate America or because I want cops to have a tough life. Republicans do not vote for that party because they all hate minorities and want to assure the ascendance of the wealthy few at the expense of the masses. Green Party supporters do not value the Spotted Owl more than humans and on and on, ad nauseum. Some people are bigoted idiots. Some people have 'effen wierd priorities. Democrats believe in the power of government as an expression of the power of the individual. They want resources marshalled for good. Republicans believe in the power of the market and the need for institutions grounded in tradition. I do not deny that corruption is a never ending problem. I do not deny that Democrats have done bad things. If I see the policies of Republicans as problematic, it is not because I think only cheats and assholes would value what the party stands for. Nobody's answers are perfect. I think the democratic party's answers are more in line with what will actually work, in the end. I will continue to call hipocracy hipocracy. I do not believe no government is better than what we have now. I know the two party system has built in dangers, but I believe those dangers are more managable than the dangers inherent in multi party-rule with the power coalitions and relative instability that brings. I sure as hell think it is less dangerous than anarchy. So, have at me... All I see when I look down, something jumpin' on the ground, Scratchin' dirt, cluckin' in the barnyard - Tell me, could that be you? John Kay

Oct 12, 2006, 02:31 pm	#34 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	test "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Oct 12, 2006, 03:00 pm	#35 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	ditto that 'skins... the only thing it means to be democrat/republican is that you vote for the party's candidates.. any notion that either party truly stands for something is pure b.s.. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Oct 13, 2006, 10:57 am	#37 (permalink) (top)
Captain Chaos Shifting Paradigms Location: Flowery Branch, GA Posts: 3,102	McCain was their most prominent moderate. Has he sold out his moderate stance to the religious right wing? Do all things with love.

Oct 12, 2006, 10:42 am	#24 (permalink) (top)
underbear1 BANNED Posts: 2,630	With Liberty and Justice FOR ALL Gosh it sounds like we were declaring equality was our IDEAL, granted it only applied to property owning white men when it was written, but we're working on it.

Oct 12, 2006, 10:45 am	#25 (permalink) (top)
Fonceai BANNED Location: New York Posts: 4,217	I'm glad you put it that way, CC. They were fought over inequality. Those people weren't seeking to elevate themselves. They were seeking to displace those lording over them.

Oct 12, 2006, 10:49 am	#26 (permalink) (top)
underbear1 BANNED Posts: 2,630	It also shows there is ALWAYS a tipping point when fewer and fewer people in a society hold the vast amount of wealth and power...........those unwashed masses have the most annoying habit of just chucking the whole society..........and at a moments notice too. That's just ungrateful after all we did for them."It's good to be the queen"

Oct 13, 2006, 02:56 am	#36 (permalink) (top)
underbear1 BANNED Posts: 2,630	Moderate Republicans have been silent as their party has been bought by Pharmacueticals, and Energy interests, they have remained silent while hateful groups like Family Research, and Focus on the Family write your party's platform. If you want any respect as a moderate republican then step up and LOUDLY demand neither of those interests dominate your Party.

Oct 13, 2006, 12:22 pm	#39 (permalink) (top)
Captain Chaos Shifting Paradigms Location: Flowery Branch, GA Posts: 3,102	Bishop, have you looked into Mark Warner... He might be a presidential candidate right up your alley. Do all things with love.

Oct 13, 2006, 01:38 pm	#40 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	yup, i'm a fan of his.. i also like russ feingold a lot.. i'd enthusiastically vote for either if given the opportunity. there is a simple reason why both warner and feingold are so heavily supported by their constituents - because they're straight with them and work for their interests.. they aren't afraid to speak their minds, even if that alienates members of their own party. what a concept! just compare those two men to people like harry reid and hillary clinton.. it's like day vs. night. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/