PDA

View Full Version : How to Reply to a socialist respectfully




Todd
06-25-2008, 03:00 PM
Any suggestions on how to frame a more thorough argument?

A friend and I are in disagreement over an article about "inverted totalitarianim". He is a socialist and he tends to see things as an attack by the right wing.
I'm willing to hear if I've missed the boat or even if he has some merit:
Here is the conversation:



I've included the link to the article...forgive me for the liberal site.

http://www.counterpunch.org/glendenning06192008.html


His response:

Who is this "little guy" waiting to get his share? Many years ago it
could have been a union worker, but now it's more likely to be a
stocker at Wal-Mart. I must be one of the "little guys", and I would
certainly be better off if Wal-Mart were unionized. I know that there
are some people who will never blame any of the evils of mankind on
"holy capitalism", part of the trinity of "holy patriotism" and "holy
religion". I see nothing holy about any part of that trinity.


Me:

Would you tell me that the Unionization of workers has been entirely beneficial for workers? I have my union experiences and I also know how bad they have been for small business workers with no union.... not to mention competition in general.

It's not just corporate greed that sent every manufacturing job this country once had over seas. It has as much to do with greedy CEO's as it does with monopoly business, government regulations, and "Globalism". But union worker's and CEO's still get theirs...while the little guy get's what?

A colleague of mine's small business went down the tubes in 03' because he couldn't afford the regulations and "benefits" packages imposed on him because of the federal regulations and Union's crap.... So when the only choice you have left is a Gander's Mountain or a Book's A million....don't blame capitalism because what we have ain't capitalism...it's a mixed economy.

Marx theories are real cute in theory... but I can't think of a modern society that they didn't lead to tyranny...How so? Cause the right people didn't get into power? Uh huh....That's the real B.S
And what does Strauss have to do with Hayek? Can you show me a connection, because I'm not aware of one?
I'll take Hayek's "experience" of living through German socialism and the Weimar republic...plus his acquaintance with Marxists that helped plan every institution that was intricate to National socialism.
You see things in through class warfare glasses....I see things as a fight against the collective. National Socialism was socialism with National intent. Communism was socialism with class leveling intent.



His response:

Communism and Fascism are not the same. When corporations act in a
collectivist spirit with a cooperative government to increase their
profits while destroying unions and degrading the environment, it is
called "capitalism". When working people act together in an often
futile attempt to increase wages and benefits, it is called
"socialism". Enough of the Hayek-van Mises-Milton Friedman-Straussian
bullshit.


Me:

This is an excellent article. Key words: "Shape and Control". Make no mistake that technology is simply the means to which totalitarians have managed to wield a more efficient control.
I believe it is collectivism that actually causes it...technology has just enhanced the ability. I believe it's a mistake to suggest it's "Techno-Fascism" and right wing beliefs. May I remind you that it was Marxist beliefs that developed the most effective and long lasting totalitarian regimes in the last century and introduced theories of "Socio economic re-organization".
Have you ever read the book "The Road to Serfdom"? You won't like the assessment of socialism but Hayek's insight into totalitarians and how they are created have influenced me for most of my life. Fascism, Communism....whatever your brand of planned society.. it's all the same thing to me.

Uriel999
06-25-2008, 04:31 PM
Don't forget to tell him when he talks about the Republican party to remind him that it is the neocon wing which currently holds the reigns of power and the neocons history/system of thinking springs forth from Trotsky an uber Marxist. Thus, when he bitches about the right wing's tyranny in the last few years, really, we see no philosophical differences from the left nor right; just bickering between the two parties for control while they would do nothing different. Honestly when it really comes down to it, Socialism=Communism=Fascism. Sure they all have minor differences, but at the end of the day what do you end up with? Tyranny.

Truth Warrior
06-25-2008, 04:35 PM
Ask him, respectfully, about the historic socialist regime's body counts. :D

Grimnir Wotansvolk
06-25-2008, 06:33 PM
Ask him, respectfully, about the historic socialist regime's body counts. :DThe same could be said about the republican party. Better to focus on the inherent faults of the ideology instead of how its been used by bad people. The former only seems to whip up a spirit of, "well, we can do it right this time!", which is how I felt about communism until Ron Paul schooled me.

iflyboats
06-25-2008, 06:35 PM
[MOD: REDACTED, LANGUAGE]

qaxn
06-25-2008, 06:40 PM
Don't forget to tell him when he talks about the Republican party to remind him that it is the neocon wing which currently holds the reigns of power and the neocons history/system of thinking springs forth from Trotsky an uber Marxist.

??????????
the only commonalities between trotskyism and neoconservativism i can come up with off the top of my head is a willingness to use military force to promote the ideology and a fetish for the end of history (common to all utopian politics). and both of those stem from hegel and the french revolution. they aren't particularly uncommon either. you're going to have to try harder to demonstrate to me that neoconservativism is a trotskyist pedigree.

Truth Warrior
06-25-2008, 06:44 PM
The same could be said about the republican party. Better to focus on the inherent faults of the ideology instead of how its been used by bad people. The former only seems to whip up a spirit of, "well, we can do it right this time!", which is how I felt about communism until Ron Paul schooled me. How about the democrat ( socialist ) party body counts?

One or two may be "bad people". All the other 20th century, 100+ millions indicates "inherent 'system' pattern". ;)

hypnagogue
06-25-2008, 06:47 PM
Sheesh people. It's the exact same way you respectfully reply to anyone. Raise pertinent points. Support them. Debate the issue, not the debaters. If your partners won't debate civilly, step out of the discussion before they drag you into their mess. If you've said all you have to say and they still don't agree, recap your differences, make your final statement and bid them good day.

qaxn
06-25-2008, 06:49 PM
How about the democrat ( socialist ) party body counts?

One or two may be "bad people". All the rest indicates "inherent 'system' pattern". ;)

republican party is responsible for us civil war, spanish american war, gulf war, afghanistan war, iraq war, inter alia. thus by Truth Warrior's insane bullshit logic the republican party is inherently flawed and must be destroyed.

hypnagogue
06-25-2008, 06:51 PM
... the republican party is inherently flawed and must be destroyed. I could agree with that. ;)

Truth Warrior
06-25-2008, 06:56 PM
republican party is responsible for us civil war, spanish american war, gulf war, afghanistan war, iraq war, inter alia. thus by Truth Warrior's insane bullshit logic the republican party is inherently flawed and must be destroyed. And the Dems get the "credit" for the Mexican War, a lot of the civil war ( they started it ), WWI, WWII, Korea and Viet Nam. Body count totals? :D

War Is A Racket
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4377.htm

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/goering-quote.jpg


Take the Democrats out too. :p

BuddyRey
06-25-2008, 08:16 PM
I'd recommend right away that you look into Michael Cloud's "Essence of Political Persuasion" tapes. Someone posted a torrent on another thread, but here it is again.

http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=Michael+Cloud

Two of his best techniques you can use right away to convert people to libertarianism are...

A. Political Cross-Dressing. Explain how free market means will help achieve the liberal ends of peace and civil liberties that he wants. Show him how liberal goals would be achieved through the market, and how the gentle hand of the "self-regulating" (not unregulated) economy would help lift the poor, the needy, and the desolate out of their poverty! Also, you might want to recommend that he reads Dr. Mary J. Ruwart's "Healing our World in an Age of Aggression."

The most important thing to understand is that most liberals and socialists are well-meaning people. They have no idea that their policies, though intended to help the poor, are really deleterious to those on the lower economic rung, and conducive only to continued poverty and a stifled job market. If you empathize with them and show that you share their concern for the impoverished, they'll know that the myths they've heard of "selfish, greedy libertarians" are false, at least in your case.

B. Reverse-Macho Flash. This is a difficult technique to explain, but I'll try anyway. A "Libertarian Macho Flash" is when, in the heat of passion, you say something rash and immature to a non-libertarian friend of acquaintance that makes libertarians look callous or hotheaded. But if you can pull off the opposite, which is called a "Reverse-Macho Flash", you can actually make the person or group advocating statism look like the callous ones. Here's an example. In the case of Welfare, if somebody drags out the "selfish, greedy libertarians" canard again, you can tell them something like this;

"I agree. The poor in this country are continually dumped on by a government that gives them just enough money to get by, and then shuts it off at any given moment, for no good reason at all. If a Welfare recipient starts working, instead of encouraging him and feeling happy for his new success, the government will shut off his payments!!! And besides that, who do these bureaucrats think they are, confiscating people's generous contributions and then not giving them to the people they were intended to help??? Do they think that people's families, friends, and communities wouldn't give that money to their loved ones freely and on their own? It's insulting! If I had the money the government takes from me in taxes, I would give generously to the poor and, instead of cruelly penalizing them for finding work, I would try to help them get back on their feet!!!"

Uriel999
06-26-2008, 02:05 AM
??????????
the only commonalities between trotskyism and neoconservativism i can come up with off the top of my head is a willingness to use military force to promote the ideology and a fetish for the end of history (common to all utopian politics). and both of those stem from hegel and the french revolution. they aren't particularly uncommon either. you're going to have to try harder to demonstrate to me that neoconservativism is a trotskyist pedigree.

Well, would you believe this guy if he told you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4df1soW7Dho

pcosmar
06-26-2008, 07:18 AM
How to Reply to a socialist respectfully

With all due respect,
http://www.cowboyneeds.com/mcc45lc250jhp.jpg

Truth Warrior
06-26-2008, 07:34 AM
With all due respect,
http://www.cowboyneeds.com/mcc45lc250jhp.jpg
A suppository? :D

qaxn
06-26-2008, 09:11 AM
Well, would you believe this guy if he told you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4df1soW7Dho

No, he doesn't make things true by virtue of having said them. He isn't a god. I want a reasoned argument.


A suppository? :D

p. sure he means to say to shoot them to death. they're socialists so it's legitimate force. not really that sure though cause i'm not the sort of person who "gets" jokes about murdering political dissidents. hth :)

HOLLYWOOD
06-26-2008, 10:00 AM
republican party is responsible for us civil war, spanish american war, gulf war, afghanistan war, iraq war, inter alia. thus by Truth Warrior's insane bullshit logic the republican party is inherently flawed and must be destroyed.

Don't forget the entire IMPERIALISM movements WARS-n-DEATH:

Overthrowing governments/populations/countries for collective control:

Afghanistan
Pakistan
Iran
Iraq
Lebanon
Argentina
Chile
Cuba
Phillipines
Nicaragua
El Salvador
Panama
Indonesia
Kuwait
Greece
Australia
Costa Rica
Uruguay
Haiti
Columbia

it goes on and on take your pick...

FEDS/CIA screwed-up with Venezuela

Conza88
06-26-2008, 10:17 AM
With all due respect...

I LOL'd.. :D
To be honest, when I saw the title I assumed it was in some way related to me. Haha, no I lie.. I didn't really.. but would be amused if it was. ;)

I sometimes stray from the line of respect... every now and then in here. Hhahah :D

Truth Warrior
06-26-2008, 10:18 AM
p. sure he means to say to shoot them to death. they're socialists so it's legitimate force. not really that sure though cause i'm not the sort of person who "gets" jokes about murdering political dissidents. hth :)
I GOT IT!

I just couldn't resist the joke!

My muse made me do it. :D

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-26-2008, 10:31 AM
Any suggestions on how to frame a more thorough argument?
A friend and I are in disagreement over an article about "inverted totalitarianim". He is a socialist and he tends to see things as an attack by the right wing.
I'm willing to hear if I've missed the boat or even if he has some merit:
Here is the conversation:
I've included the link to the article...forgive me for the liberal site.
http://www.counterpunch.org/glendenning06192008.html
His response:
Who is this "little guy" waiting to get his share? Many years ago it
could have been a union worker, but now it's more likely to be a
stocker at Wal-Mart. I must be one of the "little guys", and I would
certainly be better off if Wal-Mart were unionized. I know that there
are some people who will never blame any of the evils of mankind on
"holy capitalism", part of the trinity of "holy patriotism" and "holy
religion". I see nothing holy about any part of that trinity.
Me:
Would you tell me that the Unionization of workers has been entirely beneficial for workers? I have my union experiences and I also know how bad they have been for small business workers with no union.... not to mention competition in general.
It's not just corporate greed that sent every manufacturing job this country once had over seas. It has as much to do with greedy CEO's as it does with monopoly business, government regulations, and "Globalism". But union worker's and CEO's still get theirs...while the little guy get's what?
A colleague of mine's small business went down the tubes in 03' because he couldn't afford the regulations and "benefits" packages imposed on him because of the federal regulations and Union's crap.... So when the only choice you have left is a Gander's Mountain or a Book's A million....don't blame capitalism because what we have ain't capitalism...it's a mixed economy.
Marx theories are real cute in theory... but I can't think of a modern society that they didn't lead to tyranny...How so? Cause the right people didn't get into power? Uh huh....That's the real B.S
And what does Strauss have to do with Hayek? Can you show me a connection, because I'm not aware of one?
I'll take Hayek's "experience" of living through German socialism and the Weimar republic...plus his acquaintance with Marxists that helped plan every institution that was intricate to National socialism.
You see things in through class warfare glasses....I see things as a fight against the collective. National Socialism was socialism with National intent. Communism was socialism with class leveling intent.
His response:
Communism and Fascism are not the same. When corporations act in a
collectivist spirit with a cooperative government to increase their
profits while destroying unions and degrading the environment, it is
called "capitalism". When working people act together in an often
futile attempt to increase wages and benefits, it is called
"socialism". Enough of the Hayek-van Mises-Milton Friedman-Straussian
bullshit.
Me:
This is an excellent article. Key words: "Shape and Control". Make no mistake that technology is simply the means to which totalitarians have managed to wield a more efficient control.
I believe it is collectivism that actually causes it...technology has just enhanced the ability. I believe it's a mistake to suggest it's "Techno-Fascism" and right wing beliefs. May I remind you that it was Marxist beliefs that developed the most effective and long lasting totalitarian regimes in the last century and introduced theories of "Socio economic re-organization".
Have you ever read the book "The Road to Serfdom"? You won't like the assessment of socialism but Hayek's insight into totalitarians and how they are created have influenced me for most of my life. Fascism, Communism....whatever your brand of planned society.. it's all the same thing to me.

Excuse me, Sir? Could you please define the inversion to a hot pink, liberal socialist? I've got to work this out before replying to your question. So far I have "baby blue, conservative capitalist." Thank you.
I really should go back to edit out any "c," "s," and "m," because the catchwords of "communism," "collectivism," "socialism" and "marxism" begin with such letters. So hold on while I do that.
"baby blue, _on_ervative apitali_t.

For ease of conversation, let us just call a "babyblueonervativeapitalit" an asshole. I mean this affectionately of course.

Okay, as is already known, the typical asshole is going to be a heterosexual with a longer penis and larger balls than a liberal although the hot pink socialist mentioned here shouldn't be considered necessarily gay but rather kind of lame. Kind of womanish, a minority with large lips perhaps while they might mow lawns like a simple Mexican.

Don't get me wrong here. An asshole isn't necessarily a stupid person. No way! An asshole might have read a lot of articles by the late William F. Buckley while they might still snicker at the incredible wisdom of Rush Limbaugh -- who is well known for having taken a correspondence course to expand his vocabulary.

Also take into account that an asshole can be someone who just won the lottery. Of course, earning millions of dollars in such a way will graduate even a liberal into the higher tax bracket of an asshole. As a professed moderate, even I would become an asshole after winning the lottery. No doubt. I think this is why the Almighty always gives me a losing number. But anyway, I digress.

So, could you please define what an asshole is, Sir? I think we all know that a socialist is a pathetic animal without a soul.

Thank you.

qaxn
06-26-2008, 10:47 AM
I GOT IT!

I just couldn't resist the joke!

My muse made me do it. :D

I know you understood :)
That post was itself a joke about what an indefensibly terrible person pcosmar is.

pcosmar
06-26-2008, 11:05 AM
I know you understood :)
That post was itself a joke about what an indefensibly terrible person pcosmar is.

You mean this.

With all due respect,
http://www.cowboyneeds.com/mcc45lc250jhp.jpg

I wasn't fucking joking.
I have no use for these thieves
I don't care whether they call themselves,
“National Socialist German Workers’ Party”
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Fabian Socalists
or what ever, they are thieves and control freaks.
I have no use for them. They are diametrically opposed to the principals that this country was founded on.
If only we could rid the earth of their contamination.

qaxn
06-26-2008, 11:16 AM
You mean this.
I wasn't fucking joking.
I have no use for these thieves
I don't care whether they call themselves,
“National Socialist German Workers’ Party”
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Fabian Socalists
or what ever, they are thieves and control freaks.
I have no use for them. They are diametrically opposed to the principals that this country was founded on.
If only we could rid the earth of their contamination.
yes, round up all the socialists and put them to death and then we'll have a wonderful utopia of freedom for all (excluding those who were just killed for their politics)
way to completely misunderstand liberty you neurotic cryptofascist.

e: here's a hint: using force to create a monoculture where everyone thinks and acts in the same way is not liberty. it is in fact liberty's diametric opposite. i hope this has been educational.

Truth Warrior
06-26-2008, 11:31 AM
Uh, the fascists are socialists too.

Nazi = National Socialism.

FYI ...
http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html

pcosmar
06-26-2008, 11:35 AM
yes, round up all the socialists and put them to death and then we'll have a wonderful utopia of freedom for all (excluding those who were just killed for their politics)
way to completely misunderstand liberty you neurotic cryptofascist.

e: here's a hint: using force to create a monoculture where everyone thinks and acts in the same way is not liberty. it is in fact liberty's diametric opposite. i hope this has been educational.

Then take it elsewhere.
It has no place in a free society.

As a one time thief (reformed) I am sensitive about theft., and Deeply Opposed to it.
The principals of socialism are in direct opposition the the principals of property ownership, individual freedom and self determination.
History is full of examples and this country is suffering from it's effects.
Be gone with it.

qaxn
06-26-2008, 11:36 AM
Uh, the fascists are socialists too.

Nazi = National Socialism.

FYI ...
http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html
i don't get what you're angling for, we're talking about killing dissidents for the sake of freedom for those who agree with us. ain't nothing to do with the particulars of fascism or socialism or georgism or panarchism.


Then take it elsewhere.
It has no place in a free society.

As a one time thief (reformed) I am sensitive about theft., and Deeply Opposed to it.
The principals of socialism are in direct opposition the the principals of property ownership, individual freedom and self determination.
History is full of examples and this country is suffering from it's effects.
Be gone with it.
your free society isn't particularly free if you're ejecting people from it for the sin of thinking something.

pcosmar
06-26-2008, 11:44 AM
i don't get what you're angling for, we're talking about killing dissidents for the sake of freedom for those who agree with us. ain't nothing to do with the particulars of fascism or socialism or georgism or panarchism.


your free society isn't particularly free if you're ejecting people from it for the sin of thinking something.

I have no problem thinking about it. Nor am I killing dissidents, though socialists do routinely. I am speaking of those that are implementing policies and programs.
Active participants in destroying freedom.

Think anything you like. I even enjoy a fanciful story now and again.

I do have a problem when it affects my life, takes my money and limits my freedom.
It does. It has. and it seems to want more.
And now we have a problem.

Truth Warrior
06-26-2008, 11:49 AM
i don't get what you're angling for, we're talking about killing dissidents for the sake of freedom for those who agree with us. ain't nothing to do with the particulars of fascism or socialism or georgism or panarchism.
Well, you called pcosmar a "cryptofascist" AKA "cryptosocialist".

He doesn't seem any too socialistic to me. :rolleyes:

qaxn
06-26-2008, 12:01 PM
I have no problem thinking about it. Nor am I killing dissidents, though socialists do routinely. I am speaking of those that are implementing policies and programs.
Active participants in destroying freedom.

Think anything you like. I even enjoy a fanciful story now and again.

I do have a problem when it affects my life, takes my money and limits my freedom.
It does. It has. and it seems to want more.
And now we have a problem.

and that's where a constitutionally defined limited government and a citizenry respectful of that comes in.
i guess if we agree about the not shooting or exiling socialists thing there's nothing left to argue. i figured you wrong, you're an okay guy.


Well, you called pcosmar a "cryptofascist" AKA "cryptosocialist".

He doesn't seem any too socialistic to me. :rolleyes:
i'd be wary of thinking about synonyms as perfectly replaceable. "fascist" carries the connotation of heavily authoritarian where socialist doesn't to such a degree (save for some libertarian/objectivist circles of course)

Truth Warrior
06-26-2008, 12:22 PM
i'd be wary of thinking about synonyms as perfectly replaceable. "fascist" carries the connotation of heavily authoritarian where socialist doesn't to such a degree (save for some libertarian/objectivist circles of course) Yeah, we sure wouldn't want the TRUTH to get in the way now would we?

Franco, Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler were ALL socialists. WWII was just a squabble among "brother" socialists for domination, including FDR.

Body count?

Parsing over trivia is totally IRRELEVANT.

Wary, my foot. :p :rolleyes:

Truth Warrior
06-26-2008, 12:29 PM
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist for Ron Paul!

Still just an oxymoron or a schizophrenic episode. :p :rolleyes:

Carole
06-26-2008, 12:45 PM
Don't forget to tell him when he talks about the Republican party to remind him that it is the neocon wing which currently holds the reigns of power and the neocons history/system of thinking springs forth from Trotsky an uber Marxist. Thus, when he bitches about the right wing's tyranny in the last few years, really, we see no philosophical differences from the left nor right; just bickering between the two parties for control while they would do nothing different. Honestly when it really comes down to it, Socialism=Communism=Fascism. Sure they all have minor differences, but at the end of the day what do you end up with? Tyranny.
Exactly!! Well said. :cool:

Kade
06-26-2008, 12:46 PM
Just curious, but why would anyone on these forums like to reply to a socialist respectfully?

Truth Warrior
06-26-2008, 12:48 PM
Just curious, but why would anyone on these forums like to reply to a socialist respectfully?
Thread post #1. :rolleyes:

Carole
06-26-2008, 12:52 PM
:D

Truth Warrior
06-26-2008, 02:03 PM
??????????
the only commonalities between trotskyism and neoconservativism i can come up with off the top of my head is a willingness to use military force to promote the ideology and a fetish for the end of history (common to all utopian politics). and both of those stem from hegel and the french revolution. they aren't particularly uncommon either. you're going to have to try harder to demonstrate to me that neoconservativism is a trotskyist pedigree.
YOU FAKED the quoted post attributed to me. :mad:

How thoroughly common, typical, dishonest, deceitful, and despicable, as is usual of the leftists, Comrade. :rolleyes: :p

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-26-2008, 03:18 PM
Just curious, but why would anyone on these forums like to reply to a socialist respectfully?

The United States is supposed to be moderate nation becuse we have a moderate 2 party system.
But then such a simple system leaves us little time to bicker like high minded Europeans in our armchairs while sipping from a glass of brandy and smoking a really great cigar.

hypnagogue
06-26-2008, 03:24 PM
Just curious, but why would anyone on these forums like to reply to a socialist respectfully? Because being disrespectful only hardens people's opposition and forces the issue into an us-versus-them mentality. In other words, behaving like an ass only shoots yourself in the foot.

BuddyRey
06-26-2008, 06:24 PM
Because being disrespectful only hardens people's opposition and forces the issue into an us-versus-them mentality. In other words, behaving like an ass only shoots yourself in the foot.

Exactly. This is a battle to win over hearts and minds with reasoned arguments, innovative answers to today's problems, and a compassionate, consistent approach to the primacy and inviolability of the individual's right to free will and self-determination.

With some of the repellent things people have said on this thread, we will NEVER win those hearts and minds. We'll continually be seen as the reactionaries and utopians that many of our political adversaries have tried so hard to make us seem.

pcosmar
06-26-2008, 06:51 PM
I'm having trouble with the "respectfully" part.
http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/history/img/jdr&jr.jpg

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:oBCoVoco3ZxT8M:http://downwiththeinternet.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/hitler.jpg
http://www.nndb.com/people/072/000111736/edward-m-house-1-sized.jpg
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:r_OJCxgegte9MM:http://library.usu.edu/Specol/digitalexhibits/masaryk/images/stalin.jpg

To show respect for something that I find contemptible would be hypocrisy.
I can be polite, or I could be quiet, but I can not be respectful.

hypnagogue
06-26-2008, 07:20 PM
It's the mark of a great debater to be able to separate the person from the position. You don't need to respect Socialism in order to behave respectfully, or polite, or courteous, or whatever you want to call it.

Further, you've posted portraits of people better known for their murder or manipulation, rather than simply being socialist. They are totally unrepresentative of any socialist you would be debating with.

Truth Warrior
06-26-2008, 07:31 PM
I respect the respectable, socialists don't qualify. :p

"By their body counts, ye shall know them."

hypnagogue
06-26-2008, 07:48 PM
Then I think it would be best for the progress of liberty in America that you take PCosmar's option number two, be quiet. Leave the discussions to those who have the wisdom to speak civilly with their fellow human beings.

constituent
06-26-2008, 07:54 PM
Further, you've posted portraits of people better known for their murder or manipulation, rather than simply being socialist. They are totally unrepresentative of any socialist you would be debating with.

couldn't agree more; though perhaps not any "socialist."


...though the word has been threwn around so much that it really means nothing anymore...

Truth Warrior
06-26-2008, 08:01 PM
Then I think it would be best for the progress of liberty in America that you take PCosmar's option number two, be quiet. Leave the discussions to those who have the wisdom to speak civilly with their fellow human beings.
Tell that one to the FEMA camp guards, they'll probably need a good laugh. :p

pcosmar
06-26-2008, 08:06 PM
It's the mark of a great debater to be able to separate the person from the position. You don't need to respect Socialism in order to behave respectfully, or polite, or courteous, or whatever you want to call it.

Further, you've posted portraits of people better known for their murder or manipulation, rather than simply being socialist. They are totally unrepresentative of any socialist you would be debating with.

First, I make no claim of being a great debater. And I see no need to debate the virtues of theft and murder.

The portraits I posted are of notable examples of the practitioners and policies that are the result of these philosophies.
There is no place in a free society for these contrary ideas except as a bad example of what happens when the rights of the individual are trampled.

Kade
06-27-2008, 08:08 AM
Because being disrespectful only hardens people's opposition and forces the issue into an us-versus-them mentality. In other words, behaving like an ass only shoots yourself in the foot.

In case you missed my point, it was sarcasm. I don't exactly feel the weight of respect for my political leanings here...

Truth Warrior
06-27-2008, 08:29 AM
In case you missed my point, it was sarcasm. I don't exactly feel the weight of respect for my political leanings here...
http://ask.yahoo.com/20050920.html

Todd
06-27-2008, 10:50 AM
Just curious, but why would anyone on these forums like to reply to a socialist respectfully?

Because he's a friend and I'm not into completely ruining interpersonal relations with guys I respect ....despite our differences.

K?

pcosmar
06-27-2008, 10:55 AM
Because he's a friend and I'm not into completely ruining interpersonal relations with guys I respect ....despite our differences.

K?

In that case I would just point out the logical and historical progression of the policies in question.
If he is alright with the slavery and death of minorities, for the "greater good", you might reevaluate your friendship.

muh_roads
06-27-2008, 11:24 AM
The same could be said about the republican party.

The current republican party IS socialist. neoconservatism = socialism.

Kade
06-27-2008, 11:34 AM
Because he's a friend and I'm not into completely ruining interpersonal relations with guys I respect ....despite our differences.

K?

You are certainly one of the least qualified people here to suddenly take the high road... whatever, you asked the forum's opinion, and I gave it. Don't "K" me... mmmk?

Kade
06-27-2008, 11:35 AM
In that case I would just point out the logical and historical progression of the policies in question.
If he is alright with the slavery and death of minorities, for the "greater good", you might reevaluate your friendship.

What an absolutely dishonest assessment...

pcosmar
06-27-2008, 11:50 AM
What an absolutely dishonest assessment...
No , it is not.
The present plan under the socialist policies of the UN call for the elimination of large portions of the population, under the guise of "sustainability".
You might be well advised to study Agenda 21.

Kade
06-27-2008, 11:53 AM
No , it is not.
The present plan under the socialist policies of the UN call for the elimination of large portions of the population, under the guise of "sustainability".
You might be well advised to study Agenda 21.

pcosmar, c'mon man, you're smarter than this...

The full text is right here: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21toc.htm

No where does it call for the "elimination" of populations.

Besides, you're understanding of socialism is severely flawed.

pcosmar
06-27-2008, 12:11 PM
Here are a few more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETz4rMDwD_M
http://www.radioliberty.com/kjos1.htm
http://nord.twu.net/acl/agenda21.html
http://www.sovereignty.net/p/sd/agenda21rpt.htm

Other
for easy reference, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm
http://crossroad.to/Quotes/globalism/agenda-21.htm

Monolithic
06-27-2008, 12:11 PM
The current republican party IS socialist. neoconservatism = socialism.

the vast majority of socialists hate most of what neoconservatism stands for

the only thing they agree on is that neoconservatism is more tolerable of welfare

Kade
06-27-2008, 12:13 PM
Here are a few more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETz4rMDwD_M
http://www.radioliberty.com/kjos1.htm
http://nord.twu.net/acl/agenda21.html
http://www.sovereignty.net/p/sd/agenda21rpt.htm

Other
for easy reference, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm
http://crossroad.to/Quotes/globalism/agenda-21.htm

I actually attached the text.. you gave me links to junk and garbage, and youtube videos... most of which I can't even access from work. Why don't you explain to me where in the text it states what you claim it does?

pcosmar
06-27-2008, 12:27 PM
OK, I will post a few quotes from leaders in this area.

"In order to stabilize world population, it is necessary to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it."
- Oceanographer Jacques Cousteau, as quoted in the Courier, a publication of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)


"Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license ... All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."
- David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club; founder of Friends of the Earth; and founder of the Earth Island Institute - quoted by Dixie Lee Ray, Trashing the Planet, p.166


"One-fourth of humanity must be eliminated from the social body. We are in charge of God's selection process for planet earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death."
- Psychologist Barbara Marx Hubbard - member and futurist/strategist of Task Force Delta; a United States Army think tank


"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
- Ted Turner - CNN founder and UN supporter - quoted in the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor,
June '96

"Most of [Ted Turner's first donation to the United Nations Foundation of] $22 million went to programs that seek to stall population growth....."
- The Baltimore Sun, July 7, 1998

There are more, and reading through the other material does take some time.
The direction is clear.

muh_roads
06-27-2008, 12:30 PM
the vast majority of socialists hate most of what neoconservatism stands for

the only thing they agree on is that neoconservatism is more tolerable of welfare

Socialists hate neocons because their lower IQ prevents them from understanding that they are the exact same.

Places like moveon.org and truthout create a false rage in their viewers. The grandfather of neoconservatism is Woodrow Wilson, a socialist thru and thru.

Invading Kosovo is perfectly fine with the majority of dems while Hannity condemns policing the world in 1999. The tables flip when their mafia members play for the other team.

Kade
06-27-2008, 12:35 PM
Socialists hate neocons because their lower IQ prevents them from understanding that they are the exact same.

Places like moveon.org and truthout create a false rage in their viewers. The grandfather of neoconservatism is Woodrow Wilson, a socialist thru and thru.

Invading Kosovo is perfectly fine with the majority of dems while Hannity condemns policing the world in 1999. The tables flip when their mafia members play for the other team.

I don't recall liberals cheering for the invasion of Kosovo....

Nor do I recall Socialist doing the same.... where do you get off with the lower IQ comment? Insecure?

Kade
06-27-2008, 12:36 PM
OK, I will post a few quotes from leaders in this area.









There are more, and reading through the other material does take some time.
The direction is clear.

Again, I'm going to ask for the text. Where in the text does it state that Agenda 21 will eliminate populations... this is a really easy task.

asgardshill
06-27-2008, 12:40 PM
You are certainly one of the least qualified people here to suddenly take the high road... whatever, you asked the forum's opinion, and I gave it.

Your opinion hardly represents "the forum's opinion". :rolleyes:

Kade
06-27-2008, 12:42 PM
Your opinion hardly represents "the forum's opinion". :rolleyes:

Agreed, and your opinion hardly represents common sense.

asgardshill
06-27-2008, 12:43 PM
Agreed, and your opinion hardly represents common sense.

How incredibly arrogant, sad and pathetic do you have to be to claim that your opinion is "the forum's opinion?" Seek help.

muh_roads
06-27-2008, 12:45 PM
I don't recall liberals cheering for the invasion of Kosovo....

It was supported by many because it was sold to us under the veil of helping people out in the region. Ask any dem today and most will defend that war simply because it was Clinton.

It's just like how dems claim to be against policies that move jobs out of the US, but when you confront them about NAFTA and how the Clintons are responsible for the shit moving to mexico, they will change their story and say "we live in a different world, we have to help other countries economies".

Globalist support at its' finest. A neocon trait.

And until Americans can't see that both parties are the same party and they (politicians) are in it for themselves and not for the people, I reserve the right to comment on their IQ.

Kade
06-27-2008, 12:50 PM
How incredibly arrogant, sad and pathetic do you have to be to claim that your opinion is "the forum's opinion?" Seek help.

Hey assguard, You appear to be the one following me around the forums...

How incredibly stupid and incompetent do you have to be to not understand that "forum's opinion" is a subjective referential expression, to which I can reply without usurping the authority of the central forum's ideas. An appeal to the forum is an appeal to the array of ideas the forum contains, including dissenting opinions.

Nice try though... the social appeal against an already unpopular figure is relatively easy issuance, isn't it? It's amazing that you fail so miserably at it... I mean, it's really, really easy to attack someone the majority find irritating and infuriating... yet, you continue to show the kind of reactionary comments I would expect from a 12 year old with a Playstation keyboard and a Speak and Spell toy.

asgardshill
06-27-2008, 12:55 PM
Hey assguard, You appear to be the one following me around the forums...

How incredibly stupid and incompetent do you have to be to not understand that "forum's opinion" is a subjective referential expression, to which I can reply without usurping the authority of the central forum's ideas. An appeal to the forum is an appeal to the array of ideas the forum contains, including dissenting opinions.

Nice try though... the social appeal against an already unpopular figure is relatively easy issuance, isn't it? It's amazing that you fail so miserably at it... I mean, it's really, really easy to attack someone the majority find irritating and infuriating... yet, you continue to show the kind of reactionary comments I would expect from a 12 year old with a Playstation keyboard and a Speak and Spell toy.

http://lineout.thestranger.com/files/2007/11/crybaby.jpg

Keep justifying it, Kade. :rolleyes:

Kade
06-27-2008, 12:56 PM
Keep justifying it, Kade. :rolleyes:

A one liner, for a simple minder. Speak and Say.... or is it See and Say?

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/512JT7CV23L.jpg

Truth Warrior
06-27-2008, 01:32 PM
The Spiritual Foundation of the United Nations
The Lucis Trust
http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/lucistrust.html

Todd
07-01-2008, 10:35 AM
You are certainly one of the least qualified people here to suddenly take the high road... whatever, you asked the forum's opinion, and I gave it. Don't "K" me... mmmk?

Thanks brother...You've been a bastion of wisdom for my thread and a real help. :rolleyes:

Good god this place has changed.

JosephTheLibertarian
07-01-2008, 10:39 AM
How to Reply to a socialist respectfully

Why on earth would you want to be respectful to a socialist? ha!