Actually, my point is that the Republian party does not directly promote socialist policies, but that they pursue policies that ruin capitalism, and that can have a socialist outcome.
Tea Party leader desirous of Property requirement for voting
- Thread starter .Shane.
- Start date
Actually, my point is that the Republian party does not directly promote socialist policies, but that they pursue policies that ruin capitalism, and that can have a socialist outcome.
Not true. When blacks did not have the vote, they were run over by government. Same with women, and Indians. And American Colonists before the Revolution. And many other groups. Excluding people from government is a way for the people in charge to exploit them.
GhostWriter16
Deity
@Cutlass- Your point is valid if said group needs representation. Which I agree is most groups. But not ALL groups. Should teenagers have the right to vote? Infants?
aimeeandbeatles
watermelon
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 20,112
GhostWriter16
Deity
Well, voting Democrat isn't in their best interests either.
Far more so. There children will have better opportunities to make a good living. And the nation will certainly be stronger and richer.
GhostWriter16
Deity
They will have better opportunities if they are poor yes, but only because the Democrats will let them leech off those who make money. Though the Republicans do that as well...
As for the Nation being stronger and richer, oh please. The government might be richer, but the nation will be poorer. Voting for statism is not in anyone's best interests. Of course, we have to pick one statist party or another...
Let me know if you ever want to check in with reality.
In the meantime remember that capitalism functions better under liberal governments.GhostWriter16
Deity
Let me know if you ever want to check in with reality.
Capitalism under a fiscally liberal government is a contradiction of terms. In the meantime, please explain what about my post was at all unrealistic.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Which on top of being morally repulsive, would lead to all kinds of stupidity today, like the entire Island of Manhattan having a few hundred voters...
actually, that might be more what they're after then excluding poor people.
GhostWriter16
Deity
@ParkCungHee- Probably, yes.
@Cutlass- Let me ask you this question, are there any Republicans you respect at any level? (Note, doesn't mean you would vote for them.) If not, are there any right-wingers PERIOD that you respect?
@Cutlass- Let me ask you this question, are there any Republicans you respect at any level? (Note, doesn't mean you would vote for them.) If not, are there any right-wingers PERIOD that you respect?
GhostWriter16
Deity
I forgot to post "Anyone right-wing by American standards." Obama is not a right-winger.
Whiskey_Lord
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 2,163
Except that his presidency is just short of being an extension of Bush's in many aspects.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Well, a real liberal would support liberty on at least the social side of things. Obama is pretty much just a statist.
as every leader who runs a state ought to be
Seon
Not An Evil Liar
This Republican was pretty nice by my standards.
Anyone who said "Every good Christian should kick Jerry Falwell in the ass" will instantly have my respect.
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
Yeah why do those on the hard-right think being called a statist is such an insult? It's not like we don't believe in the power of the state to improve lives, when properly monitored of course.
And usually when it comes to their own welfare they too are very statist. It's just that they don't have either the compassion or the humanity to allow others to share the advantages they have accrued.
