I just want to share this little marvel of idiotic thought:

"As to who is backwards and who is progressive, the hint is in the names of ideologies, conservatives (generally right wing affiliated) is about keeping things the same, progressives (generally left wing affiliated) are about moving forward."

Hahahahahahahhahahaha!

So progressivism/socialism/communism is inherently "forward." The name really indicates this. Anyone with such a pathetically simplistic understanding of politics--based on word games--should recognize their limitations and not annoy people with political conversation. This includes spamming forums.

But wait, half of America pays no income tax and receives some form of government provided income. It's already quite "progressive" aka socialist/communist. Income and standard of living are often already given by government, controlled by government.

Keeping things the same is already socialism for half of our population in America. "Progressives" in America want to keep things the same or move them backward, in terms of freedom, incomes, and standards of living. "Conservatives" (insofar as their supposed libertarian fiscal policy) in America want to move things forward: More freedom, an end to corporate welfare, and higher incomes/standards of living for all.

These are generic terms. They've been co-opted and are rarely EVER used for their original, generic meanings in current Amerikan politiks. Referring to the generic meanings as if they say anything of the people identifying themselves by these terms today is just ignorant and stupid.

Mace,

"But 100% self determination is a fallacy and is dangerous."

What's with this fallacious bull[spit]? Nobody is talking about some sort of "pure" self-determination, which would presumably require 0 government and 0 taxes and some fictional nonsense. You've still given absolutely no explanation of how "self-determinatin" is somehow "harmful."

This isn't difficult subject matter. You said it's harmful. You've not explained how or why, even when I presumed you hated freedom. Absent this explanation, it still sounds like you hate freedom. If you'd like to explain how self-determination is harmful in a way which is not disdainful/fearful of freedom, feel free to do so. This is a forum. We're all waiting.

Yes, stuff in the world affects us. Self-determination is what occurs when people have enough freedom to make choices and be rewarded for exceptional labor, effort, intellect, and insight enough to ultimately choose their own level of success in life. Everyone knows this stuff already, or they certainly shouldn't be spamming a forum about it.

The Yell was referring to things which one desires to change being "correctable." One has to make no judgements of any particular behavior to appreciate the ideal that individuals should have the freedom to affect any changes they decide are desirable for themselves. Bickering over any individual's judgement of what needs correcting misses the point.

Jesus [cluck] this is a stupid level of exchange.

xeno syndicated was inactive and useless the last time I saw him play.

You are being trolled.

You're not exactly setting an example.

Why don't you try, making a point in the process? You're implying that you're not only capable, but that it's your normal mode of responding. Where's the evidence to back up this assertion? I don't strongly disagree. I'm open to evidence and explanation of how the "left" may be legitimately fractured. But you're not exactly convincing me, let alone anyone else.

Like this, you're spamming and I'm talking honestly about the topic. I have twice offered my thoughts and pointed out that you haven't made any case for your claims--absolutely no explanation whatsoever. This would be the third time.

If I'm legitimately the spammer and you're the intellectual heavy-weight, shouldn't it be the other way around?

I asked you for facts. You didn't present any. Way to take the intellectual high ground.

I have explained why Obama ultimately ends up with a pretty united socialist/welfare bum base: Complain as they may, they still support him. Sure they complain he hasn't gone socialist enough, but they have no better option. They're not voting for Romney. And a lot of them show up as surely as they want a bigger welfare check and unemployment for 2+ years.

Where is your explanation of how they're actually split beyond complaining that he's not socialist enough (he couldn't get more socialist policy passed: his policies don't really even speak of him but of the composition of Congress)? I didn't demand citations, I asked you for an argument.

You haven't made one. You're just spamming.

I love all the whining this thread brings out.

If a lot of poor people abuse all kinds of drugs and produce nothing, that doesn't magically equal out with some middle class people using cocaine and still holding their jobs.

Such notions are just so stupid.

This is absolutely hilarious.

Bunch of virgins talking about women's sex organ functions. Lulz.

It's provides less, because it taxes you until you're poor and you can't even afford decent healthcare.

Most cities have bad spots. Some have much worse, much bigger, whole portions of nastiness.

http://homes.yahoo.com/news/most-dangerous-cities-in-america.html
http://www.usnews.com/news/slideshows/the-11-most-dangerous-us-cities/8
http://247wallst.com/2012/06/11/the-most-dangerous-cities-in-america-2/

Detroit is among the worst.

It's like the Twilight Zone on this forum.

Complete incoherence is just ignored. And then repeated shortly thereafter.

The notion that uneducated criminals are making decisions based on what's best for them, not what propaganda has been shoved down their throats all their lives, and not what gives them the most free stuff right now, is laughable.

If they knew what was best for them, they probably wouldn't be criminals without educations or marketable skills. To presume that irrational actors are remotely rational is illogical. I made this mistake myself in the season 1 episode, "The Galileo Seven." Never again!

A third factor is, of course, likely. Discrepancies between the success rates of the poor of different cultures screams that it must be [largely] cultural. But it's also likely to be tied into the same corrupt aristocracy which benefits from keeping the poor poor, and its voter base large.

Government doesn't build society.