• 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!

Would You Eradicate All Persons Who Don't Subscribe To Your Political Philosophy?

Would Like To See People With Opposing Political Philosophies Disappear Forever


  • Total voters
    56
The strength of one's positions can certainly identify one as moderate. The degree of mixing of someone's positions can certainly identify one as independent. Both concepts are valid positions.

'Moderate' doesn't mean anything for anyone's total political outlook to define them as one.

'Independent' can only mean you make up your own mind, which everyone already does anyway.

'Unaffiliated' is simply the lack of affiliation. It's not a positive 'I belong to this group' political identity. Ironically, taking the 'unaffiliated' label affiliates you with the 'unaffiliated', making them all a group, which they claim they are not yet shot themselves in the foot by taking the label. This is why I previously equated them with the emo-goths of high-school; they conform to each-other in their anti-conformism, dressing and acting like each-other.

Its like "Im such a non-conformist, that I'll just conform myself to a group of "non-conformists"
 
Last edited:
I would never make everyone that disagrees with me vanish. I would lose most of my friends and my whole family. Also, I don't really mind people disagreeing with me as long as they are not nazists or cultural marxists. We need a range of opinions.

However, I would make cultural marxists vanish. Cultural marxists are people who believe all cultures are equal and the only reason poverty exist is due to the western world. They are also huge fans of asylum immigration. That would cause a lot of people to vanish, especially among the political elites. However, it is worth it because they are in process of destroying Europe.
 
Last edited:
'Moderate' doesn't mean anything for anyone's total political outlook to define them as one.

Moderate means that one's political outlook is within a certain standard deviation, not on the tail end or on the mid-ends.

'Independent' can only mean you make up your own mind, which everyone already does anyway.

Independent means someone has a mix of issues regardless of where they fall on the standard deviations of each of those issues.

'Unaffiliated' is simply the lack of affiliation. It's not a positive 'I belong to this group' political identity. Ironically, taking the 'unaffiliated' label affiliates you with the 'unaffiliated', making them all a group, which they claim they are not yet shot themselves in the foot by taking the label.

Being part of the "unaffiliated" group is a misnomer. It's not a group at all. It's nothing more than a placeholder at DP.
 
DP doesn't have 'left' or 'right' in it's list of leans. Are you suggesting that Vauge add them, and delete 'libertarian' in accordance with your view that libertarians are on the right?

I thought we were referring to political movements in the United States, not on debate politics specifically.
 
Moderate means that one's political outlook is within a certain standard deviation, not on the tail end or on the mid-ends.

That's a Centrist.

Independent means someone has a mix of issues regardless of where they fall on the standard deviations of each of those issues.

Don't we all.

Being part of the "unaffiliated" group is a misnomer. It's not a group at all. It's nothing more than a placeholder at DP.

I thought DP had a default group for those who were simply staff and not mods, such as the Bar Tender and the lol'basement-team'. Is this not so?

What if DP gave all staff colors for their leans regardless of staff status?
 
I thought we were referring to political movements in the United States, not on debate politics specifically.

Correct you are. I'll reiterate that I would like to see every liberal disposed of.
 
That's a Centrist.

Not necessarily. I see a very minor distinction. I see a Centrist as a tighter version of a Moderate.

Don't we all.

Nope. Not everyone does.

I thought DP had a default group for those who were simply staff and not mods, such as the Bar Tender and the lol'basement-team'. Is this not so?

A political lean-group? No, it doesn't.

What if DP gave all staff colors for their leans regardless of staff status?

I don't know. It's not the way vauge chose to do it.
 
Not necessarily. I see a very minor distinction. I see a Centrist as a tighter version of a Moderate.

I see what your saying, but isn't that a bit like calling a 'slightly liberal' something other than 'slightly liberal'? Wouldn't a moderate be a 'slightly Centrist'?
 
We love you too, Jerry.

You love my money, at least.

Fiscal liberals are a lot like my X-wife in their love for spending my income on frivolous bull****. I'm not exactly on the best of terms with my X right now, and I think it's fair to say my regard for fiscal liberals reflects this.

If I got a phone call telling me my X had died in a car accident, that would be a good day.

That's about how I feel about liberals also.
 
Last edited:
Correct you are. I'll reiterate that I would like to see every liberal disposed of.

If I was right about political movements in the United States, then why did you refer to debate politics?
 
If I was right about political movements in the United States, then why did you refer to debate politics?

Because we're running 12 hour 'Quick Reaction Force' shifts around the clock monitoring the floods in Pierre and I wasn't exactly paying as much attention as I should have :peace
 
Because we're running 12 hour 'Quick Reaction Force' shifts around the clock monitoring the floods in Pierre and I wasn't exactly paying as much attention as I should have :peace

Could happen to anyone.
 
You love my money, at least.

Fiscal liberals are a lot like my X-wife in their love for spending my income on frivolous bull****. I'm not exactly on the best of terms with my X right now, and I think it's fair to say my regard for fiscal liberals reflects this.

If I got a phone call telling me my X had died in a car accident, that would be a good day.

That's about how I feel about liberals also.

Oh, yeah, frivolous bull****. You mean like yachts and gold plated toilets? Or were you referring to extravagances such as food for starving people and health care for sick people?
 
I reiterate:

Deep down, we all would.

This question is similar to asking:

"If you could control time and space, would you steal money from casino vaults, etc?"

Of course on here we'd say no. But deep down, Hell yes we would, with style.

People say they won't, because they're on a public forum.

Ever wish to know the hidden truth?

If you grip the reigns of such concentrated power, you will commit atrocities.

Do not lie to yourself, or others.

I am not liking these responses

For a fact I know people would not only be highly tempted, but would also mold the world as they see fit.

This thread demands that one has absolute power, or at least a level of power that seems that way. We're talking of eradicating people. Scattering them across the four corners of oblivion.

How many of us have ever killed insects merely because we were annoyed? We felt powerful enough to do so, and so we did. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. You are NO exception. With such intoxicating power, our possibilities broaden, our desires can be manifested as reality, and the person itself changes.

So as I am ignored and disappointed, I say this:

Do NOT lie to yourself or others. It's unbecoming of you. You have never had such power. You are not an exception to the intoxication of absolute power.
 
Oh, yeah, frivolous bull****. You mean like yachts and gold plated toilets? Or were you referring to extravagances such as food for starving people and health care for sick people?

Like paying the bills of other grown, perfectly capable adults who can and should be paying their own bills, but don't because you're providing them a check for nothing; ie extended unemployment benefits, loos standards on SNAP, etc.

I am not the rich. I've never made enough money to buy a yacht or a gold plated toilet, but my X has used child-support to pay the bills for an apartment full of capable adults. You people are wasting my money in exactly the same way. You can bitch and argue and fight with me all you like, just like she does, it doesn't change anything.
 
Last edited:
Like paying the bills of other grown, perfectly capable adults who can and should be paying their own bills, but don't because you're providing them a check for nothing; ie extended unemployment benefits, loos standards on SNAP, etc.

I am not the rich. I've never made enough money to buy a yacht or a gold plated toilet, but my X has used child-support to pay the bills for an apartment full of capable adults. You people are wasting my money in exactly the same way. You can bitch and argue and fight with me all you like, just like she does, it doesn't change anything.

First of all, I'll just say that I dislike the way alimony and child support is handled in this country, although I don't know the specifics of your situation. Anyway, have you actually tried to find a job recently? I have, and it's not easy. In fact, a lot of the time, it's next to impossible. IIRC, there's something like one job opening for every four unemployed people. How, exactly, are those people supposed to pay their own bills? Not that welfare is a good solution, but this system doesnt leave a whole lot of other options. It demands that you work full time to support yourself, but then doesnt provide enough employment for that to be possible for everyone.
 
Like paying the bills of other grown, perfectly capable adults who can and should be paying their own bills, but don't because you're providing them a check for nothing; ie extended unemployment benefits, loos standards on SNAP, etc.

I am not the rich. I've never made enough money to buy a yacht or a gold plated toilet, but my X has used child-support to pay the bills for an apartment full of capable adults. You people are wasting my money in exactly the same way. You can bitch and argue and fight with me all you like, just like she does, it doesn't change anything.

Scuse me? Does the child still exist, and require food, clothing and shelter? IS the child, fed, clothed, and sheltered? Then you have no right to bitch.
 
I think thread has jumped the track. I'd really like to see it stay focused on the topic.

Thanks...
 
I think thread has jumped the track. I'd really like to see it stay focused on the topic.

Thanks...

I agree.

I wish the people here would not ignore the truth in my prior post.
 
Anyway, have you actually tried to find a job recently? I have, and it's not easy.

It took me all of 1 (one) week, because I'm willing to take any job, at least to start.

How, exactly, are those people supposed to pay their own bills?

Are you seriously trying to defend child-support being spent on people other than the children?

4 adults capable of working. The X's boyfriend had a job at a gas station, one was 8 months pregnant by the 3rd who was fresh out of serving a 6 year sentence for aggravated armed burglary, and the X. These are the people my X has decided to associate with while hiding my children and cashing the child-support. You have no chance of defending my X, so please save yourself the effort.

Not that welfare is a good solution, but this system doesnt leave a whole lot of other options. It demands that you work full time to support yourself, but then doesnt provide enough employment for that to be possible for everyone.

All you have to do in a recession is choose not to participate. It's literally that easy.
 
Last edited:
Scuse me? Does the child still exist, and require food, clothing and shelter? IS the child, fed, clothed, and sheltered? Then you have no right to bitch.

Oh, I see, you're making assumptions and think you know the details of the situation.

I'm not an asshole for no reason.

My boys were kept in a small 3 bedroom apartment with 4 adults and 2 other children. One adult was their mother. One was her boyfriend, the same person she was cheating on me with. One was a violent felon. The 4th was the felon's baby-mama.

I have documented evidence, witch will see it's day in court, proving that my children were being abused while living there.

On the average day, their mother was either doped up on prescriptions for her clinically diagnosed manic-depressive bi-polar disorder and chronic pain from arthritis in the back and fibromyalgia, or suffering from the pain. 90% of the time she was either asleep or not mentally there.

I've personally sat with the man she cheated on me with, in his living room, for hours. From his own mouth I learned that that their relationship was over before it really started, that he and his felon brother kept my X around for the sol purpose of using her to pay their bills.

The only income my X has had for the last 3 years is food stamps and child-support.

SD issued my X over $500 worth of food stamps every month, yet the only thing my children were eating was macaroni and romin.

She took off before I got back from Fort Leonard Wood. I've spent a small fortune on lawyers and PIs tracking her down, and as soon as I locate her, she plays nice for a few days and disappears again. Today she's in CA. She doesn't know that I know, but she will soon.

There is nothing you can type into your post that will slake my deep hatred. There is no logically convincing me of the error of my ways. I can not be converted.

You have no argument in support of her actions which will gain any ground with me.

The father in me is an injured dog, and if touched, even with the best of intentions, you will lose a few fingers.
 
Last edited:
Scuse me? Does the child still exist, and require food, clothing and shelter?

My problem is that their mother activly interfiears with my contact with the children, so I don't know what they need. DO my children need shoes? Did they have enough to eat today? Please tell me because I don't know.

IS the child, fed, clothed, and sheltered?

Last I knew, their mother was forcing them to live in shelters. I don't know if they ate today, but I do know they have had to go to bed hungry before in her care. Do they have a coat for the cold weather? I don't know. Have the been injured? How's Mikel's scoliosis?

I .Don't. Know.

Then you have no right to bitch.

You act as though I answered "yes" to your questions.
 
The vast majority of people on welfare (all types) aren't life long parasites. However, the way welfare is handled in the US is ass-backwars. Some states do it correctly. My state (IN) has great worker retraining programs were it will pay for you to get a certificate to qualify for employment. My best friend is currently on this program and when he finishes he will be able to secure a middle class job. If he had a car or any way to get one, he would already be working right now (got offered a job to travel across the state fixing computer networks). Over the last 2 years every job hes held had been eliminated.

Other programs are only triggered if you are a single mother without employment in which case you get more money not working than you do working 40hrs a week making minimum wage, and yet the program doesn't offer reduced cost child care. One of my other friends lost a 12$/hr job a year ago because his child care provider bailed on him and he had to watch his kid instead of going to work. He has since moved back to his home state of Mass. and managed to secure a job and get the help with his kid that he needed, because Mass has decent programs.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom