It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


We, ATS Members, Must Focus On Politics

page: 14
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 03:42 PM

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
For crying out loud...first of all you need to take a cill pill... The parenthesis that I put on "rightwing dictatorship" doesn't mean any of the rhetorical diatrabe you posted. I am emphasizing the one form of government that YOU want to demonize... Grow the hell up...

Next time you want to emphasize something use *(asterix sign).

Parenthesis does not emphasize something, it downplays it!

In the meantime, while I am "growing up" you can start learning propper grammer skills or better yet take an honesty course in college.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Ooooh.... so a "dictatorships" doesn't have to be bad?... Talk about ignorance... The word 'dictatorship" itself means to govern without consent.... and yes it is ALWAYS bad...

Well that is just your opinion, and an ignorant one at that!

As I said perception plays a big part. In the case of all right wing dictatorship in south america the wealthy landowners were all too happy to keep their land and slave force operational.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Where in the world did i give a free pass to "rightwing dictatorships"?.... Learnt to read and understand what people say instead of puting words in their mouths, or in this case exagerating and claiming things I didn't write. As I wrote before, grow the hell up....

Well lets see here...I haven't heard ONE GOOD THING come out of your mouth about socialism and/or communism and you seem to associate the terms *socialism* and *dictatorships* as though they are synonymous.

And again you resort to insults and deflection because that is all you can do. You can't stand losing a debate because YOU THINK you know everything.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Second of all I understand well how government works...and there have been several forms of government which have been small and have worked, otherwise we would be living as we write all this...

Such as?

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
All you did was write rhetorical nonsense, and claim things I didn't write, or even implied...


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Meanwhile passing a "wrong regulation" can be bad, nations, and governments have existed with less regulations... Do you know anything about history kid?... Don't you know that governments have existed in the pass with less regulation?...

Instead of insulting me you should cite examples.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
BS, the forefathers, All Americans in the past, and many, if not most Americans LOVE the idea of less government....

Croney capitalists LOVE small government because they can bribe their way to the top easier and faster. Everyone else, that is knowledgeable about politics and barely makes ends meet, HATES small government for good reason.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
nice try to claim Hitler was a "RIGHT" Socialist.....

Well if your going to claim he was a "socialist" at least be SEMI-honest and call him a RIGHT socialist. If you knew ANYTHING about history you would know that ultra-capitalism was an unknown term to europe and still is to a large degree. Therefore every european government was technically socialistic.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
ALL Communists are Socialists.. This is something people like you don't want to understand, or comprehend....

You yourself said Socialism is a road to Communism, and in fact Karl Marx himself said Socialism is a stage to transform a Capitalist nation into a Communist one.

ABSOLUTELY WRONG! Go to ANY european country and tell them that BS and I guarantee you that they will laugh you out of town FAST! Trust me because I travel a lot.

Socialism and Communism are TOTALLY SEPERATE economic systems and normally they do not evolve to something else. Did socialistic canada evolve to communism? Did western europe?

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Privatization was not the factor, stop making excuses, the factor was "more government" and the governments making legislation for everything regulating everything...

You got everything backwards, again, as usual!

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
And the largest company is now owned by the state.... They start always with one, in small steps....

BTW, the'bailouts" were given only to certain companies that the rich Socialist elites own, and want to keep going at least for a while longer. It was also meant to destroy small busienesses, and that is what has been occurring. Small businesses are dying everywhere more than ever before.

Now, go and take a few days off, or take a chill pill and relax....
[edit on 8-3-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Thanks for reminding me to stay off ATS! It seems you want a "free speech" monopoly because you can't stand someone challenging your views.

I have a solution for you. Hit the ignore button. Its what all cowards do!

posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 05:33 AM
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Hey , FYI socialsim is supposed to be by the people for the people. No aristocracy, no one richer than anyone else, everybody worth the exact same figure of money, and the exact same measure of personal and cultural worth. The only reason it doesnt work , is the same reason capitalism really doesnt. Greed.

posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 06:00 AM
reply to post by TrueBrit

Your reffering to COMMUNISM pal. I have explained the difference between socialism and communism for like 1,000 times! Why is it SO HARD for people to understand the difference?

And even in communism, there was no such thing as perfect equality, not even in theory. It simply tried to do away with all capitalistic and socialistic excesses and to some degree it was successful.

posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 06:31 AM
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Why bother seperating socialism from communism? Thats like saying that the liver and the kidneys have nothing to do with one another.

posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 09:46 AM
We Europeans think it's just hilarious when some fringe political groups and/or people on the Right in America claim that Hitler was a socialist and ruled Germany by "left-wing politics"

Talk about ignorance!

What does that actually say about these people and the political group who actually claims this utter rubbish?

Well! it tells us that they themselves, stand to the RIGHT of the nazi's and that Nazism stands to the left of themselves - well that is how extreme these people say they really are, with their own words, to us, when they are claiming this garbage and are calling Hitler a socialist and that the nazi-party was a leftwing party!

They are very funny people in that way those Americans!

Seriously! have a fair view of politics in Europe in the 1930's one need to apply the political spectrum that was valid for Europe at that time - and on this political spectrum - Hitler & Mussolini and Franco were FAR RIGHT! and belonged to political parties on the far-right here in Europe!

Even if they were extreme far-right groups here in Europe, both the authoritarian right-wing movements of Fascism and National-Socialism are constructed with some nationalistic socio-economics treats in the core foundation of Fascism and they incorporated small elements of leftwing economic policies to attract the vote of the workers. but that didn't make them less far-right on the political spectrum in the 1930's here in Europe.

They promoted themselves as “The New Third Way” in politics

They wanted to be seen as an political alternative for all German workers, military, farmers and small shop owners - instead of having all these people voting for the Social Democrats and Socialists in the elections.

They snatched votes from the center-right and center-left parties - the highest proportion of Nazi voters were in Protestant farming communities who earlier voted for the nationalists, DNVP.

The Nazi Party was therefore without doubt a Volkspartei, recruiting its members and its voters across a broad range of social groups, from both sexes and from the older as well as the younger generation.

In fact! the Nazis recruited voters from a very very broad spectrum in the German society. More than any other party obviously.

Who voted for the Nazis?

Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism), is the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany. It is a politically syncretic variety of fascism that incorporates policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism is a far right form of politics.

In post–World War I Weimar Germany, the Nazis were among right-wing political parties defining their ideology as National Socialism. In 1920, the Nazi Party published their 25-point National Socialist Program, the key tenets being: anti-parliamentarism, pan-Germanism, racism, collectivism, social Darwinism, eugenics, anti-Semitism, anti-communism, totalitarianism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism. Yet, by the 1930s, despite such intellectual bases, Nazism was not a specific ideology, but a conflation of ideas, concepts, and philosophies meant to realise the mythic ethnostate of Großdeutschland (Greater Germany).

To rescue Germany from the socio-economic chaos established by the world-wide Great Depression, Nazism promoted a politico-economic “Third Way”

Series: Great interviews of the 20th century

This edited interview of Adolf Hitler by George Sylvester Viereck took place in 1923. It was republished in Liberty magazine in July 1932.

"When I take charge of Germany, I shall end tribute abroad and Bolshevism at home."
Adolf Hitler drained his cup as if it contained not tea, but the lifeblood of Bolshevism.

"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"

"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

Many average Americans even today, are using a simplified political spectrums & by politicians, manipulated models - and are looking especially & soley at the ECONOMICAL AXIS/SCALE when they are doing their 'faulty' political analysis of foreign countries.

In Europe, even since before the 1930's - we are using AT LEAST! a biaxial political spectrum with two axis/scales when analysing the political spectrum to get a fair view - AND TO US the SOCIAL & CULTURAL AXIS/SCALE was and IS still EQUALLY IMPORTANT as the economical axis/scale to get a fair view of the politics.

You can't do a fair analysis or judge a society based soley on the economical analysis! that would be stupid and plain ignorant to any country and society in the world.

It's not enough to get a fair view and analysis of a society.

And it's impossible to slap an American Chart directly on the political spectrum in Europe, because you would end up with a faulty analysis since they measure different values of the society and from different perspectives.

And there are now a myriad of manipulated political spectrums to find on the Internet, some are plain out agenda-manipulated and are more easy to spot - but there are also some more sane alternatives to find - but there is not one Universal model and spectrum yet which can be applied to ALL countries in the world for neutral, objective and fair anylysis.

Each special political group today have constructed "THEIR" political spectrum to manipulate the analysis for their own political AGENDA.

These are some of the more "known" spectrums from wiki:

1. Nolan Chart -

2. The Political Compass -

3. UK inferred model: left-right, political pragmatism

While multiple axes on the political spectrum had been postulated for a while, statistical analysis of survey data using principal component analysis to verify the theory and establish their existence, number and meaning was not done until recently. A 2003 study in the UK yielded two significant eigenvectors (that is, groups of questions that tend to be answered consistently), one less well-constrained than the other. If one examines the survey questions and tries to assign a meaning to the axes it turns out that one is like the familiar "left-right" axis that mixes economic and social issues, and the other indicates a degree of political pragmatism. The outcome of that study is that the UK political spectrum is most sensibly described with two axes.

4. Pournelle Chart: liberty-control, irrationalism-rationalism
(similar to the Political compass and the Nolan Chart)

5. Inglehart: tradition-secular, self expression-survivalist

In its January 4, 2003 issue, The Economist discussed a chart, proposed by Dr. Ronald Inglehart and supported by the World Values Survey (associated with the University of Michigan), to plot cultural ideology onto two dimensions. On the y-axis it covered issues of tradition and religion, like patriotism, abortion, euthanasia and the importance of obeying the law and authority figures. At the bottom of the chart is the traditionalist position on issues like these (with loyalty to country and family and respect for life considered important), while at the top is the secular position. The x-axis deals with self-expression, issues like everyday conduct and dress, acceptance of diversity (including foreigners) and innovation, and attitudes towards people with specific controversial lifestyles such as vegetarianism, as well as willingness to partake in political activism. At the right of the chart is the open self-expressionist position, while at the left is its opposite position, which Dr. Inglehart calls survivalist. This chart not only has the power to map the values of individuals, but also to compare the values of people in different countries. Placed on this chart, EU countries in continental Europe come out on the top right, Anglophone countries on the middle right, Latin American countries on the bottom right, African, Middle Eastern and South Asian countries on the bottom left, and ex-Communist countries on the top left.

6. Mitchell: Eight Ways to Run the Country (AMERICA ONLY!)

In his book Eight Ways to Run the Country: A New and Revealing Look at Left and Right (ISBN 0275993582) Brian Patrick Mitchell identifies four main political traditions in Anglo-American history:

republican constitutionalism, libertarian individualism, progressive democracy, plutocratic nationalism.

These four have given rise to eight distinct political perspectives:


A potential ninth perspective, in midst of the eight, is populism, which is vaguely defined and situation dependent, having no fixed character other than opposition to the prevailing power.

These perspectives vary according to their regard for kratos (the use of force) and arche (the recognition of rank). Mitchell roots his distinction of arche and kratos in the West's historical experience of church and state, crediting the collapse of the Christian consensus on church and state with the appearance of the four main traditions.


[edit on 9-3-2010 by Chevalerous]

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 11:25 AM
reply to post by Chevalerous


EXCELLENT post Chevalerous. Well-researched, informative, beautifully and appropriately detailed.

and starred

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 08:48 PM
I may be incorrect, but I think I'm perceiving two different problems in terms of some knee jerk reactions to this.

1) A lot of people seem to think that political debate and discussion by its very nature includes the extensive use of labels, mud-slinging, and personal attacks, and as such, they feel that this thread (and its predecessor) constitutes an abridgment of their freedom here to take part in those debates and discussions. That isn't what's being stated or implied here, though. What's being stated is simply that (for example,) one can state that they disagree with the policies of one administration or another - and give reasons why - without personally attacking those with whom they disagree by using disparaging remarks, shoehorn labels, or relying on group-think-driven hostility. That's all. You'd think that saying "courtesy is mandatory" would have been succinct and clearly articulated enough to get that across, but apparently not.

2) A lot of people feel that they are by their nature non-political individuals by virtue of their being on the extreme fringe of the political spectrum. As such, they may feel that they are being asked to take part in a political process in which they place no stock or belief in the first place (this was my anticipated reaction, until I read both topics in their entirety.) That isn't what they're being asked to do, though. While they may be on the so-called fringe of the spectrum, they're still on the spectrum somewhere, and even if they don't take part in the political process in the manner that most people feel constitutes "being political" (i.e. voting, debating, etc.) they still have feelings and opinions on that process, and the figures, policies, and events therein, even as an extreme outsider to it. They are merely being invited - cordially, I might add - to express them (and to do so with the aforementioned lack of hostility and personal attacks.)

I honestly don't think some people "get" those two points, and that's why they are taking issue with these topics.

posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 09:42 PM

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
You yourself said Socialism is a road to Communism, and in fact Karl Marx himself said Socialism is a stage to transform a Capitalist nation into a Communist one...Socialism and Communism are TOTALLY SEPERATE economic systems and normally they do not evolve to something else. Did socialistic canada evolve to communism? Did western europe?

Totally contradictory. You admit Marx said socialism is transformational stage to Communism but then state that that they are totally “SEPERATE economic systems’? Either you agree with Marx or you don’t. Please clarify.

[edit on 11-3-2010 by passenger]

posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Chevalerous
Seriously! have a fair view of politics in Europe in the 1930's one need to apply the political spectrum that was valid for Europe at that time - and on this political spectrum - Hitler & Mussolini and Franco were FAR RIGHT! and belonged to political parties on the far-right here in Europe!

Not to mention the term capitalism WAS and STILL IS unknown to europeans. They only know monarchy and socialism so regardless how far right or left it goes, it still gets branded as socialism.

Second I would like to point out that germany had lost the colonial race to other western european powers, lost WW1, their economy was in shambles and had every reason to seek revenge. At least that was what hitler assumed!

posted on Mar, 13 2010 @ 04:21 AM
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

I am from Britain. Thats in Europe. We DO know what capitalism is thanks very much. Its one of the things which means that because my parents had no money , I was exposed to societal issues which I might have avoided , had my family been monied to a sufficient degree. Its one of the things that meant that as a child, my intelligence was wasted in a terrible learning environment, rather than being nurtured, or indeed recognised untill well after the system had effected me to the point of hating it. Its capitalism which left me by the wayside, and promoted the collapse of our society . This nation has suffered capitalism for some decades now, and it is my opinion, that I would rather have been born previous to the conversion from socialism.

posted on Mar, 14 2010 @ 05:32 PM
This political thread was suggested to me. I think because I'm pissed off with politics. To be accurate not pissed off with politics pissed off with politicians all politicians. That also includes a lobbyist to. Please allow me to explain why.

I reside in California with my wife. We are both currently on SSI disability and Medi-Cal. We did have a income with somewhat comfortable margin for error. With a income of around $1600 a month. That due to our governor declaring a fiscal emergency. We now have an income of $1400 a month. And our Medi-Cal benefits have been cut to one quarter, of what they were. Weather and can being cut to $1400 a month. We now barely have enough money to pay, rent car insurance gas for the car phone gas electric. Not all comes to around $1300 a month. Leaving us a grand total of $100 for food. And now with the cuts to Medi-Cal we have a choice. We can either starve or get our glasses fixed and some dental work. That now we have to pay out of pocket or eat.

I know that some of you will say. If you get a computer you have Internet that is a bill you can't cut. Here is what I have to say to that. I guess that means that only certain people! Or entitled people have the right to nice things, or write to the Internet. Because you're not Republican. All I have to say that it is this. It is here is a reality check for you. SSI and SSI disability are 99.9% of Americans Fall back as a last resort. Here is what your fallback will get you.

You're going to love this. No more than a single-family home with a value less than $200,000, only one vehicle, and no more than $3000 in the bank. Oh yes their SSI or disability income will roughly be somewhere around. 400 to 700 and month depending upon where you live. Here's a real fun part. Your medical will be limited. And that medical plan you've had the last 20 years and Lessig takes Medicaid he will no longer have it.

While you're on SSI disability if you should receive an inheritance as an example. Of $200,000 SSI will do this. Make you live off that $200,000 at this rate, six months for every $10,000. Then when the money runs out you will go back to your SSI income. So he now allowed to have more than $3000. At any one given time for any reason. You have all the politicians especially Republicans for that.

So a little polite name calling trolls and hacks. Has offended somebody. You have got to be kidding me !! I am not the most politically incorrect individual in the world. You do not wish to know exactly how I feel about the lowest form of life. Politicians who would sell their souls and their children sold to. For less than a penny.
Thank you Draco 61

[edit on 14-3-2010 by draco61]

posted on Mar, 17 2010 @ 07:10 AM
One of the best descriptions of politics was stated by Jesse Ventura.

"It's exactly like professional wrestling----in public they yell and scream, deride and insult those on the other side, but in private, they go to BBQ's at each others house."
(Paraphrased by me, of course)

Or my take---It's easy to choose a winner when you own both teams.

The problems with political discourse is with those who still think there are 2 diametrically opposed sides, and only one is the correct one to follow.

Fact is, there are many parties, but only two of them are sanctioned by "the owners". How boring would a Superbowl be if the same two teams played every year? Of course, you would get a few new players, and some may even switch teams every year or so, but really it's still the same 2 teams owned by 1 interest.


posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 02:27 AM
I'm sorry Skeptic Overlord, but what you are asking for (civility in political discussions) can't be done. I must applaud your attempts at civility on the forum. I think that it is time that you (and your cohorts) published a book about running forums and online debate (I can even do a book layout for you if you want, as I am a graphic designer.) Your passion for civility in political discussions is wonderful. I hope that you never lose this desire, for the truth rarely if ever comes from a lack of civility in any discussions.

However, you must remember one immutable fact of human discussions. Human discussions will always start as an intelligent conversation between one person and another, yet when the discussion grows to involve three or more then the dynamics of that discussion changes entirely. Instead of intelligent conversation, the tone becomes more serious towards the negatives and they become classified as threats and thereby the consequences graver. The need to act against these threats becomes immediate.. Those who agreed with the threats quickly become labeled as the enemy, who needlessly stand in the way of now necessary actions and change. The intelligent discussion degenerates into the rantings of a mob who separate themselves into factions and lash out against one another.

There are many sociology texts that speak of this human phenomenon. One of the best at wording this was called “The Crowd: A study of the popular mind” It was a favorite book of Adolf Hitler, who used its theories to devastating political effect. Here is a quote from it:

“The crowd is always dominated by considerations of which it is unconscious -- The disappearance of brain activity and the predominance of medullar activity -- The lowering of the intelligence and the complete transformation of the sentiments -- The transformed sentiments may be better or worse than those of the individuals of which the crowd is composed -- A crowd is as easily heroic as criminal”

When the crowd gets involved in a discussion it changes the nature of the discussion because the nature of those involved changes. They become reactive, instead of contemplative. They become accusatory, instead of open minded. They become defensive, instead of logical. This happens with all crowds and whenever the circumstances of their gathering involves great opposites, then those involved will almost always become divided, defensive, and possibly criminalistic towards one another. There are certain topics that will always degenerate into utter divide. Some of these topics, of course, are religion and politics.

It is no wonder that you became angry about the situation. It is even less of a wonder that you posted your immovable stance on the subject to everyone on the forum. Of course, recognizing the tone of your previous post and perhaps regretting it, you made another one. It is also not a wonder that you first thanked others who applauded your words and reminded you of their individual merits when they are not negatively associated with the crowd mentality.

Your are obviously a decent man Skeptic, and I too have applauded your efforts and even your frustrations. However, the real answer to this situation is not seemingly pleasant. I have mentioned it before to those of the forum, but they were not responsive of the reality of the human condition when it involves crowds (whether online or not). I will make another post about what the solution to this problem is and its negatives and benefits.

But, you obviously must know by now that there is only one real solution to this problem. It is a human condition and thusly its control must be directed towards individuals for the benefit of the whole. Don't feel bad, there really wasn't a choice, it only seemed that way because you are a decent person who can see the individual merits of those involved.

It is a part of the conspiracy mind to truly value individuals. It is that mindset that most likely prompted you to create this forum in the first place. It is that mindset that makes you, and keeps you, a decent person from what I can account.

But this situation now highlights the very beast that many of us oppose, and that is government (Forum Rules) and its possible oppressiveness. Don't worry, the solution will seem harsh to you, but in the end you will embrace it, because you will realize that it is the only way, and that more good will come from it than bad. I will give you a good chance to tell me, and others, what it is before I post it. I know that you know, and I would like to hear your objections to it before I continue as it will make future posts about this very important topic more efficient.

Thank you, I will post more soon.

PS: It is times like this that remind us why government will always be considered a necessary evil.

[edit on 18-3-2010 by Hot_Wings]

<< 11  12  13   >>

log in