• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FBI: Men tried to buy bombs for government attack

Unitedwestand13 said:
Facism and Communism share themes in socialism but that does not mean they are the same thing.
Click to expand...

Miller is a pilsner. Budweiser is a laager. Both are beers. Scotch and Bourbon are both whiskey.
 
apdst said:
Miller is a pilsner. Budweiser is a laager. Both are beers. Scotch and Bourbon are both whiskey.
Click to expand...

but there are enough subtle differences between scotch and bourbon that one cannot go calling a glass of scotch a glass of bourbon
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
but there are enough subtle differences between scotch and bourbon that one cannot go calling a glass of scotch a glass of bourbon
Click to expand...

No, but if you ask for a shot of whiskey in a bar, they're going to ask you what kind. yes?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Depends on the nature of charter school and the tuition system. If tuition is generally fixed at all the charter schools, then yes income would not matter, but if they are private schools with the ability to charge what tuition what ever they choose, then income would of course matter.

Now one of the risks with charter schools and the voucher system if it became the norm rather then just an option could be cash back to the parents. The charter school gives cash back to the parents when the child is enrolled, using very little money to educate the child, and allowing the parent to use the money on a vacation or new iphone
Click to expand...

The problem, as has been shown many times, lies with the for-profit companies that are running many of the charter schools. They don't care about the kids education, all they care about is making money for their investors.


But this is not the subject of this thread - try not to divert from the subject, please
 
Grant said:
In many cases Socialism has been extremely 'evil' and, over the longer term, unsustainable. Those people who are using their own judgement when arguing for socialist policies tend to not understand history, basic economics or human behavior. That's why a proper education in these areas is so important.
Click to expand...

I agree that " a proper education in these areas is so important." which is why I find that far too many Americans have swallowed the propaganda of the radical right. It is why the United States "centre" is well to the right of other developed nations.
 
RiverDad said:
This reads remarkable like "Communism, real communism, has never been tried yet. What happened elsewhere was distorted communism and that's why it failed."

The study of Socialism needs to be anchored on a foundation of sophisticated thought. Socialism REQUIRES the raping of liberty, so a student needs to fully understand what is going to be raped in order to balance the gains they think will arise from adopting socialism.
Click to expand...

WOW, ignorance reigns supreme. Is all of this talk about socialism and messed up education nothing more than a concerted effort to divert away from the subject of this thread?

RIGHT WING MILITIA NUTS TRIED TO ATTACK US GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS!!​
 
Somerville said:
WOW, ignorance reigns supreme. Is all of this talk about socialism and messed up education nothing more than a concerted effort to divert away from the subject of this thread?

RIGHT WING MILITIA NUTS TRIED TO ATTACK US GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS!!​
Click to expand...

Standard operating procedure of the US right... you should not be shocked at all. They are after all in total denial that right wing terrorists exists, despite Oklahoma, Atlanta, Gabby Gifford, Austin Texas IRS building attack and so on and so on. That there has been far more right wing terror attacks or attempts in the US than Islamic inspired attacks is often ignored by the US media and especially the US right wing.
 
PeteEU said:
Standard operating procedure of the US right... you should not be shocked at all. They are after all in total denial that right wing terrorists exists, despite Oklahoma, Atlanta, Gabby Gifford, Austin Texas IRS building attack and so on and so on. That there has been far more right wing terror attacks or attempts in the US than Islamic inspired attacks is often ignored by the US media and especially the US right wing.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget the Sikh temple shooting, Eric Rudolph, the George Tiller assassination or any of the multitude of attacks against abortion clinics.
 
apdst said:
No, but if you ask for a shot of whiskey in a bar, they're going to ask you what kind. yes?
Click to expand...

Not at the bar I go to! But they know what I drink. Tullamore Dew ... Irish whiskey is the best whiskey.
 
apdst said:
That's why it was started by socialists and German Fascism was called National Socialism...because Fascism isn't Socialism...riiiiiiiiight!!!
Click to expand...

And East Germany was called the German Democratic Republic. But I wouldn't exactly call them a beacon of democracy. And of course there's the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. You can't go by the name.

Nazism is not the same as fascism. You can say that the difference is like that between Coke and Pepsi, but there is a distinct difference (I can tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi, and I prefer Pepsi). I'm not saying that I'd take either, but they're not the same.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
national socialism is well known, but it stains the name and reputations of other tennents of socialism.
Click to expand...

How about the United Soviet Socialist Republics? That's the worst stain in world history and one most of the left in the democracies supported.
 
rocket88 said:
And East Germany was called the German Democratic Republic. But I wouldn't exactly call them a beacon of democracy. And of course there's the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. You can't go by the name.

Nazism is not the same as fascism. You can say that the difference is like that between Coke and Pepsi, but there is a distinct difference (I can tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi, and I prefer Pepsi). I'm not saying that I'd take either, but they're not the same.
Click to expand...

This tired argument is introduced every time the subject arises. The difference is that no one in the democracies, apart from the leftists, supported communist East Germany And no one, except perhaps the extreme leftists, support North Korea.

It is the left who has a history of supporting totalitarianism, and still do today.
 
Kobie said:
Let's not forget the Sikh temple shooting, Eric Rudolph, the George Tiller assassination or any of the multitude of attacks against abortion clinics.
Click to expand...


:lamo Yes, anything shocking in the news must surely be coming from the right....:roll:
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
fascism and communism took principles from the theory of socialism, that is the only thing they have in common.
Click to expand...

Call it what you will but it always ends up much the same. Individual freedom acting within the law is always more important than any ism.
 
Grant said:
This tired argument is introduced every time the subject arises. The difference is that no one in the democracies, apart from the leftists, supported communist East Germany And no one, except perhaps the extreme leftists, support North Korea.
Click to expand...

That's not the point. Not surprisingly you missed it. Going off the word "socialist" in "National Socialist" as proof is like going off the word "Democratic" as proof that North Korea is a democracy.

It is the left who has a history of supporting totalitarianism, and still do today.
Click to expand...

Both sides, taking a worldwide view, have supported totalitarianism. Franco, Salazar and Pinochet were plenty totalitarian, and plenty right wing. In fact, the American right wing supported Pinochet and may have put him in charge in the first place. The GOP were big supporters of Mubarak (plenty totalitarian), and at one point Saddam Hussein (plenty totalitarian).

But I guess we should ignore those instances because they're an "inconvenient truth" for you. I also don't go around equating those regimes with American Conservatives, because that would be a very tired and dishonest thing to do. Dishonesty, of course, doesn't stop you.
 
Somerville said:
The problem, as has been shown many times, lies with the for-profit companies that are running many of the charter schools. They don't care about the kids education, all they care about is making money for their investors.
Click to expand...
Then the parents can remove them.


But this is not the subject of this thread - try not to divert from the subject, please
Click to expand...
We were talking of a better educated electorate which doesn't fall for these political slogans with simplistic promises of Chicken in every pot or, the more common, hope and change. All politicians promise a variety of these slogans, without many real differences, dressed up to be new.
 
rocket88 said:
That's not the point. Not surprisingly you missed it. Going off the word "socialist" in "National Socialist" as proof is like going off the word "Democratic" as proof that North Korea is a democracy.
Click to expand...
These are cliches and appear every time this argument arises. The point is that no one in the middle or 'the right' supported Communism, no matter what they called themselves. They went by their record and their history. The Left supported Communism.

No one, apart from a few leftists, would ever support North Korea but of course Leftists supported east German, despite the word Democracy being used.

Both sides, taking a worldwide view, have supported totalitarianism. Franco, Salazar and Pinochet were plenty totalitarian, and plenty right wing. In fact, the American right wing supported Pinochet and may have put him in charge in the first place. The GOP were big supporters of Mubarak (plenty totalitarian), and at one point Saddam Hussein (plenty totalitarian).
Click to expand...

The Chilean people supported Pinochet because he avoided a civil war in Chile. You know nothing of this period. He later ran for election, lost and resigned. The Americans did not put Pinochet in charge. You are still buying into left wing propaganda from the 70's despite the evidence made available during the interim. The others you mention go beyond the left and right slogans.

But I guess we should ignore those instances because they're an "inconvenient truth" for you. I also don't go around equating those regimes with American Conservatives, because that would be a very tired and dishonest thing to do. Dishonesty, of course, doesn't stop you.
Click to expand...

An 'inconvenient truth'? Hardly.

The fact is that Communism was Left no matter what they called themselves. And while there might be a difference between Coke and Pepsi they are both soft drinks, just as Fascism and Communism are both totalitarian.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
How about the United Soviet Socialist Republics? That's the worst stain in world history and one most of the left in the democracies supported.
Click to expand...

Uh, that was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. But I got your meaning. There for a second, I thought that was what he wanted to rename the US.
 
Grant said:
Then the parents can remove them.


We were talking of a better educated electorate which doesn't fall for these political slogans with simplistic promises of Chicken in every pot or, the more common, hope and change. All politicians promise a variety of these slogans, without many real differences, dressed up to be new.
Click to expand...

NOT in this thread. This one is supposed to be about right wing gun nuts thinking they can start a new revolution by attacking innocent people.

Why are those who call themselves "Independent" or Libertarian or Conservative unable or unwilling to discuss matters when it is shown that some folks with similar political leanings are freakin' insane? Is it because of a tendency to smear all Progressives, Liberals and Socialists when an individual or small group calling itself Leftist commits a crime?
 
Grant said:
These are cliches and appear every time this argument arises. The point is that no one in the middle or 'the right' supported Communism, no matter what they called themselves. They went by their record and their history. The Left supported Communism.

No one, apart from a few leftists, would ever support North Korea but of course Leftists supported east German, despite the word Democracy being used.





The fact is that Communism was Left no matter what they called themselves. And while there might be a difference between Coke and Pepsi they are both soft drinks, just as Fascism and Communism are both totalitarian.
Click to expand...

You'll find a way to weasel out of anything. Still can't bring yourself to admit that the right supported Pinochet, Mubarak, and Hussein who were totalitarian leaders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom