761–770 of 868 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes? Con: LOL no...no not those views Me: So....deregulation? Con: Haha no not those views either Me: Which views, exactly? Con: Oh, you know the ones
Do you genuinely believe that "debating" a cartoon parody of your opponents is a reasonable method of discourse?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I personally have very mixed feelings about Trump as a whole. On the one hand, I didn't vote for him. I see him as divisive and as an obstacle for progress on real issues that I personally care about. However, he has done a few things that I have sincere appreciation for. Primarily, we made significant gains towards peace in the middle east by negotiating treaties in the region. Another point in the win column (leadi…
His rhetoric against TPP did more harm to US China dependence than any good he did. "The Internet" was all in A Tizzy because the treaty spelled out some legal procedures (that withdrawing from the treaty would end), and forgot that it was aimed squarely at China.
Bernie Sanders Sep 14, 2016 Our free trade agreements have been a disaster. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is more of the same, but even worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Congratulations, you played yourself Congratulation you did not understood the irony.
Judging by your plethora of flagged and greyed out comments, I think I'm not the only one with that problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Um, no one would ever label Republicans "anti-authoritarian". When your ideology extends from rules concerning which water fountain you can drink from, it's hard to shake the authoritarian label.
>...no one would ever label Republicans "anti-authoritarian"... A strange charge of the "limited-government" party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_the_Rep... >...your ideology extends from rules concerning which water fountain you can drink from... The ex-Confederate, Democrat, southern states had segregated water fountains. On the other hand, here's Wikipedia's explanation of where Republican i…
Yup, they did. Which is why they, in large part, bolted from the Democrats twice over the Democrats supporting progress on civil rights, once temporarily (as the Dixiecrats) because of the nature of US electoral politics converging on a two-party system and them not being strong enough alone to displace a major party, and then permanently when the GOP decided to leverage their post-1968 disillusionment and appeal directly to their racist urges, resulting in a partisan realignment over the subsequent several decades. There's a reason symbols of the Confederacy are seen at Republican rallies these days and not generally Democratic ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's just a preference for a different authority than the status quo government. Bolsheviks in Czarist Russia weren't anti-authoritarians, they were just preferred a different authority than was established.
Isn’t this the case of any system then? If you prefer your own authority, does that make you an authoritarian?
No, libertarianism/minarchism/anarchism are real belief systems.
> If you prefer your own authority, does that make you an authoritarian?
If you prefer your authority be imposed on others, yes; dictators are very much authoritarians.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heating up the debate with no chance for consensus is/was one of the strategy's of the KGB to rip a democratic society apart.
What could you possibly mean by 'no chance for consensus'? Let me get this straight. One group of people has all the political power in an area. That group of people repressed another group. The second group wants to be treated like human beings. To me, it seems that if you want to avoid conflict and strife, the first group should immediately give in to those demands. Those demands are just, and the status quo is ind…
Who? The democrats or the republicans?
>The second group wants to be treated like human beings.
Who is that? The Citizens or the establishment? You have much deeper problems in your society, and it's not skin-color, that's just the game to distort you (yes and the police) from the real problems...trans vs woman, democrats vs republican, man vs woman, white vs black, vegans vs meat-eater those are some of the other ones. You always hit your nearest made up "enemy" not the one thirteen steps away. Keep the dump's entertained with problems so they don't see the bigger picture, and at one point they start to entertain themself with made up problems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue that there was a grimmer meaning behind similar promises from every socialist leader, except those where there was no meaning at all other than cynical pursuit of power (like Stalin). Despite that, the Nazis did gain support from many socialists, and ultimately, like so many other governments that rose to power with socialist promises, failed to live up to those promises. But I don't think Hitler himsel…
> I just think people should acknowledge the role that socialists played in helping him rise to power. I think practically everyone, including myself agrees with that. And I pointed that out in my original posts. Power doesn't occur in a vacuum and the Nazi's capitalized on peoples (mostly unfounded) fears and anger to grow their base. My original point was that the Nazi's themselves were not socialists. Referencing…
Their brand of Nazism survives to this day:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism
So I don't think it's accurate to say "the Nazi's themselves were not socialists", as if none of them were.
Why is the second sentence of this article about how the CEO of Gab used a Transphobic slur? It kind of seems like the author threw that in there to make sure the reader agrees with their political views, but the article doesn't say what the slur was, and I don't think the author would defend the idea that being transphobic makes it okay to hack a person's website, but it kind of feels like that's the point implicitl…
The CEO literally used a trans-phobic slur when describing the hack. Plus, it speaks to the purpose of Gab, to allow the voicing of the types of bigoted views held by the far right. It's the reason for its creation. Communities that were removed from reddit, Twitter, etc for expressing such views.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What could you possibly mean by 'no chance for consensus'? Let me get this straight. One group of people has all the political power in an area. That group of people repressed another group. The second group wants to be treated like human beings. To me, it seems that if you want to avoid conflict and strife, the first group should immediately give in to those demands. Those demands are just, and the status quo is ind…
>Since they have a monopoly on power Who? The democrats or the republicans? >The second group wants to be treated like human beings. Who is that? The Citizens or the establishment? You have much deeper problems in your society, and it's not skin-color, that's just the game to distort you (yes and the police) from the real problems...trans vs woman, democrats vs republican, man vs woman, white vs black, vegans vs meat…
Segregationists, and their various flavors of racist allies of the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. I don't really care which party they belong to. They had a monopoly on power, they built an unjust system, and I will firmly put all arising strife on their unwillingness to treat people of other races as human beings.
> Who is that? The Citizens or the establishment?
African Americans during the broad civil rights era. You are talking about the KGB, right? The KGB operated between 1954 to 1991, so I have to assume that whatever black versus white 'conflict' you are talking about is somewhere in that time period.
> You have much deeper problems in your society, and it's not skin-color, that's just the game to distort you (yes and the police) from the real problems
I assure you, when your society has no-n_____ water fountains, train cars, classrooms, and suburbs, your society's problems include skin color. They include it incredibly prominently.
Are you arguing about real issues that real people faced? Or are we going down some weird, theoretical rabbit hole? I have no patience for the latter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>native Americans had been enslaving each other for centuries before Whites or Latinx arrived. So had the peoples in africa: >>Very few Americans know that slavery was common throughout the world as well as in Africa, says Sandra E. Greene, History. https://research.cornell.edu/news-features/curious-history-s...
So this justifies it? What’s your address bro, I need a slave.
No one said something about justification, but since you need a slave you obliviously did not evolve...let me guess your from the US right?
BTW: I'm not your "bro" little wanna be slaveholder.