Defining issues of today's politics / Left vs Right

As to equal outcomes. There are some obvious observations about this. Not everybody can be a doctor or a lawyer, nor should they be. Surely however, the argument about free enterprise vs pure socialism involves the very basic distinction of each person enjoying the fruits of their labors vs entire groups enjoying the fruits of everybody's labors on a more equal basis. That is the main argument that socialists put forth, as I see it, that the ruling class takes advantage of the working class, and the playing field should be evened out so that everybody benefits in a more equal fashion. It should be obvious here that there are gradations or watered down versions of pure socialism as originally proposed. If you want to split hairs and argue the details, just for the sake of arguing, I don't see much point in it. I would hope that you can acknowledge the underlying philosophy of socialism. Later, we can argue the modern variants of it, but the fact remains that the modern variants still incorporate the original theory in variable ways. I am trying to make this as simple as possible for you to understand.

Unless you understand the basic principles of your political philosophy, how can the discussion ever go anywhere?

I don't even oppose all socialism, but I do oppose certain forms of it when forced onto us by government. One could say buying insurance is socialistic so that we can share the risk. I'm in favor of that sort of voluntary program.

Secondly, I made a simple statement that our argument here is a microcosm of the political debate in this country. But no, you won't even agree with that. You instead call me a microcosm. Are you disagreeing simply to be disagreeable or do you think I cannot be right about any shred of anything because I am conservative, and you are right about everything because you just are?

P. S. Your quizes are a series of loaded questions so I have no interest in engaging in a useless exercise. Reminds me of Abe Lincoln asking a man if he had quit beating his wife, answer only as yes or no.

A very well stated simplistic version of some of the goals of socialism. By sharing the means of production, everyone shares in the results. It doesn't mean that everyone has the same outcome however.{/quote]
At least you admitted the point that I intended. If its the government that oversees the sharing, then we have a problem. Actually, companies can sometimes be employee owned, and there may be profit sharing plans, which I would endorse when they are voluntary.

Quote:

Unless you understand the basic principles of your political philosophy, how can the discussion ever go anywhere?

Here is where you go off the deep edge again. What political philosophy do I have that you can claim I need to understand the basic principles? You have to insist on making up what I believe in so you can demonize me it appears.

What is a democracy in your opinion? Does it force people to participate in it? Democracy by its very nature will always have programs that some of the people living under it will not want. That hardly means that govt is forcing something on its citizens. The citizens are the government. The real question is does the program violate the contract between citizens and the government. That contract in the US is the constitution.

Your failure to provide evidence for your political propoganda is the microcosm. Both sides do it. I don't believe I have done it here about the GOP. I have never said I was right. Simply saying you are not providing evidence is not saying I am right and you are wrong. You could be right BUT you are not providing anything to support why I should believe you. In fact when I do check your statements I find contrary information. So, you make a statement. You don't back it up. I do some research and find contrary information. It has nothing to do with you being conservative. It has to do with veracity of an argument. I don't know that I have ever not provided support for where I have disagreed with you. I have provided a lot of quotes and several sources.

I am really interested in how you think the first one is biased. Don't some of the questions sound a lot like what you tried to do with your 21 points? It asks about abortion, tax policy, social security.

I don't agree. I have provided my evidence, and in particular you do not consider my personal experience as valid. I disagree. I think personal experience and impressions of those times are valid.

P. S. the question: There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment. Liberal translation: conservative talk shows are worrisome, and shouldn't somebody, maybe the government, do something about this unfair press? You liberals are so transparent.

P. S. the question: There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment. Liberal translation: conservative talk shows are worrisome, and shouldn't somebody, maybe the government, do something about this unfair press? You liberals are so transparent.

No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it. This is obviously another stupid question. If I lived in Hitler's Germany, it would be foolish to be proud of it obviously.

As for the quiz..
Wow, talk about paranoia okie. Just your response to the questions is very revealing about you. No wonder you accused everyone here of being a socialist in disguise.

parados wrote:

As for the quiz..
Wow, talk about paranoia okie. Just your response to the questions is very revealing about you. No wonder you accused everyone here of being a socialist in disguise.

Parados, have you stopped beating your spouse, yes all the time, most of the time, part of the time, not much, or never. Pick the answer that fits the best. Ok, try the question Parados, don't be paranoid. Just try it.

I think all we have to do is take only the very first question. Some of the others are probably even stupider questions, but the first one will do to illustrate a point. I'll admit I didn't bother to get past the first page even in reading the questions after I read them. It would be a waste of time. So, lets take a common sense look at the first question: If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations. The question is stupid on its face because maybe, just maybe has it ever occurred to you that the correct answer may not be an "either - or" answer, that serving the interests of trans-national corporations might possibly be a way of serving "humanity?"

I agreed because some of humanity are the shareholders of trans-national corporations. Free trade will also help humanity by driving world wide prices down. Both corporations and humanity will benefit but humanity will benefit more.

I could substitute another question similar to this one: when you get your pay check, is it better to use it on yourself or give it to "humanity?"

After all, you did the work and earned the paycheck, and if you buy more groceries for yourself and take care of yourself, maybe you can continue to do more work to produce whatever you produce which will do alot more good for humanity than if you gave your paycheck to "humanity." If you give the money away, you will not be able to survive, and the products and services that you provide to "humanity" would no longer be available to "humanity." I love how the poll uses the word, "humanity." I smell a rat, better known as an "agenda" in the poll questions.

.....a question about corporations vs humanity you complain that the question isn't fair. ....I

Gee okie, I guess all your statements about Democrats and liberals thinking corporations are evil are unfair then.

yeah okie, and what does the Democratic platform say?

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

How many Democrats like the free market? Most of them have worked in government their entire lives. To them, companies are evil. What more do you need to know?

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations?

You've got to be kidding? Your poll questions are obviously conflicted. The poll question about primarily serving gives two options with a "rather than" phrase between them, which implies to me that the two are mutually exclusive, which I don't agree with, which obviously renders the question fallacious. In other words, I think both can be primarily served, but there is no opportunity to answer the question that way. If you can't understand that, Parados, I seriously question your ability to handle any logical thinking process at all.

My question about how many Democrats like the free market is a fair one. If you think most of them or all of them, or if I think less of them than you do, at least we know what the question is asking. We may not agree on the answer, but the question is at least unambiguous.

Parados, we already know we can't agree on the answers to any questions, but now you won't even agree if a question is logical to begin with. Bizarre!!!!

Of course this debate now touches on how liberals get polls to come out in the manner they desire. By framing stupid questions with inaccurate phrases leading up to the question or at the beginning of the question.