Leftwing Fascism... - Page 2

"Humans may all be insane and thus unclassifiable but I do believe political science can be."
Psychologists classify humans, insane ones too.

In a multi-axis systems far more political opinions are classifiable. In a 1 axis system huge amounts of territory are not mapped, from socialist-anarchists, strong "NightWatch Staters". Not to mention civil rights advocates and state rights (citizenship prerogative) advocates have the same position on a simple left-right axis. Which I think makes a simple 1 axis system mostly useless except for the most simplistic classifications.

"However, the subject of Gay Marriage. The Democrats stand for letting the States allow or ban gay marriage as they wish. Bush on the other hand stands for a Constitutional Amendment outlawing that State Right. Thus, the "Left" today stands for State Rights while the "Right" stands for a stronger Federal Government"

Actually that is not the intention of the Dems but to use the courts to mandate the legalization of gay marriages in all states since it would be a legal nightmare to have one state classify who is married with other states denying it. Bush has claimed that he wants the amendment to prevent this nightmare from occurring. However, his VP disagrees.

Furthermore we haven't even touched upon the constitutionality of allowing the same sex to marry or the governments role in such a decision. Currently, the government prevents multiple marriage partners or incestuous marriages - are you saying that is not their prerogative either?

"Currently, the government prevents multiple marriage partners or incestuous marriages - are you saying that is not their prerogative either?"
I'm not supporting one or the other. I'm not gay, I don't give a shit. I'm just saying, one stands for State Rights (which the left is holding today) and one stands for Federal Gov (which the right is holding today).

Yes you are correct - on some issues the Right does and has always held, and rightly so, that the fed has certain rights/powers that supercede the states. For example, slavery.

But I would not agree that the Left is for states right on this issue - they may claim so but I believe it to be pure propaganda. Their intentions are to uise the courts to force gay marriage in all states.

" that the fed has certain rights/powers that supercede the states. For example, slavery."
I know, I don't support slavery. However, allowing slavery is advocating strong state rights, advocating abolition is advocating strong federal gov. There's no getting around that. I agree with you "state rights" aren't always good, but slavery IS advocating state rights.

But this is beside the point. A single-axis system is just not that useful as in that system strong WatchmanStaters and anarchist-socialists don't exist. Not to mention civil rights advocates and state rights (citizenship prerogative) advocates have the same position on a simple left-right axis.

So, again, I don't think a single-axis system is that useful except for the most basic stuff. Multi-axis systems offer a far more complete and accurate map of American political thought.

"I know, I don't support slavery. However, allowing slavery is advocating strong state rights, advocating abolition is advocating strong federal gov. There's no getting around that. I agree with you "state rights" aren't always good, but slavery IS advocating state rights."

Im not sure Im following you. if you are disagreeing with me cuz I agree with everything you just wrote. Of course if you are trying to argue that the South was Right and North Left during the Civil War I would not agree.

I also do not think that my political spectrum is in any way inaccurate especially after I explained how Libertarians are far right and not socially left.

I think my problem with your multiple axis system is that it allows people who aren't that bright too much wiggle room because if you dig deeper into their beliefs one (or at least I) tends to find too many contradictions.

"Leftwood, if you believe Bush is all about big government then we simply do not agree. Yes more should be done to limit government however after 70 years of democratic congressional rule transforming the system is like turning a massive ship at sea - it takes time and many, like me, believe that incrementalism is the best way."

Firstly, hopefully you can excuse my ignorance on certain specifics and can inform where able.

But I think it was DT even some time ago that said unless they pass 10 Patriot Acts its not a problem, but from what I understand there are multiple Acts, Patriot Act 1, Another one that was dubbed Patriot Act 2, but then for sure Victory Act 1and I do believe 2 as well.

Incrementalism can go either way, obviously, but what and how are you getting an incrementalism towards a smaller government.

And when I refer to big government, again my terminology is less in this area as you know, I also refer to the blatant consolodation of power and weath. And that in particular is the big government that Bush's in general are IMO abusing, as well as all wealthy corporate politicians.

I don't believe in the who you know policy, as opposed to what you know.

When it comes to state and Federal laws, ya I'm actually hardly referring to that, which I guess is the main point the appropriate use of the term Big government.

My opinions on gay marriage and state and federal laws, I don't like segregation, its proved detrimental, and although at least letting states choose gives and opportunity to fairness, I believe marriage to be an individuals right. Its a liscence, gay people can drive, they can fuck and marry who ever concents to it.

See, allowing gays to marry doesn't actually hurt people (past freaking out certain religious people and others just as hypocritical), anything to the contrary is highly speculative, where as denying the right does hurt people, its segregation, its taking a person's right, its denying them basic benefits that help to create stable living environments for couples and families.

To deny love is a greater sin then to allow gay marriage in my opinion, but I'm not afraid to challenge the bible like some.

But check this out, although gay sex is seems unnatural to those who think religiously or logically in that a penis is made for a vagina, these same people understand the power of brotherly, sisterly, and all other forms of love and would not condemn this, however the moment sex is involved they freak out.

The next point is that a guy masturbating which is somewhat controversial, is actually pure man on man action, it just is, but its one's self, sure, but one can love and respect themself in public and private but once sex is involved, again the rules and reactions change.

Dude, all guys will have handled more dick than pussy to the day they die, and the same goes for chicks in the vice versa. Assuming they maturbate to an average degree.

And both will stick anything pleasurable anywhere it can go for a release. The only reasonable sin to be mentioned is addiction or over sexing as opposed to moderation and appropriate behavior (private and not forced on others).

As for multiple and incestuous, quite frankly, I think its up to the individuals again, forcing taboos or relgious based morals on people is wrong. If it really is god's will that it not be done, let him handle it, our job is not to judge for him. As long as these things are concentual and being careful with those who were abused.

If these things only come about because of abuse, than that is what should be better dealt with, taking care of the root of the problem rather than addressing symptoms. Being a child of multiple forms of prolonged abuse, I can say that I've noticed that most who ingage in "abnormal" sexual relations have themselves been abused.

And the key to solving that problem is not sheer punishment, but appropriate help and punishment where necessary, basically strict intervention but not just punishment. A healthy balance.

This is why I like religion in prison and therapy, people need to learn to forgive and to be forgiven, but not egregiously and without intervention or reprecussion when necessary.

"And when I refer to big government, again my terminology is less in this area as you know, I also refer to the blatant consolodation of power and weath. And that in particular is the big government that Bush's in general are IMO abusing, as well as all wealthy corporate politicians."

The truth is that Republicans receive less donations from big corporate sponsors than Dems do. Also Dems receive fewer donations and yet raised more money (2004). Reps average contribution is far less than the dems too. Although the Reps receive a lot of money from Big Business their core support is small business and individuals.

"I believe marriage to be an individuals right. Its a liscence, gay people can drive, they can fuck and marry who ever concents to it. "

Actually gays are not being discriminated against. A Gay man has the same right to marry as a straight man. Of course straight men want to marry women which is what the law allows. No one can legally argue that the gay man is being denied his rights. The straight man also has no legal right to marry a man. Thus all men and women have the same rights when it comes to marriage. It is just that gays have no desire to implement those rights.

"See, allowing gays to marry doesn't actually hurt people "

That's completely subjective and the arguments against it are long and solid. In truth, you have no idea how it could effect society and the family.

"As for multiple and incestuous, quite frankly, I think its up to the individuals again, forcing taboos or relgious based morals on people is wrong. If it really is god's will that it not be done, let him handle it, our job is not to judge for him. As long as these things are concentual and being careful with those who were abused."

So using this rationale you would have no problems with slavery.

Is slavery concentual, it is trying to be passed as such with shit wages but is not, so hardly.

I can agree that I cannot forsee the future outcome with gays, but you logic with the marriage rights denies the point of the right of the individual to choose, I'm saying that a purely hetero benifit law is unjust and discriminatory, therefore impeding on idividual rights to such benefits, its like saying that gay men can only drive pink cars, or motorcycles only or any other form of unwarrented restriction.

And you sidestepped my other sexual points as well, but the important point was of brotherly love, any love, and I don't agree thus far with your assertion of a long list of problems, the biggest problem I've seen and heard of to do with gays and families is that people are so prejudice and make kids life hell, when they tend to defend the parents. So try the source for that info please, its too important. And you should be wary of trying to hinder rewarding love with benefits that like I said aid in stability.

"Is slavery concentual, it is trying to be passed as such with shit wages but is not, so hardly."

You wrote: forcing taboos or relgious based morals on people is wrong. By ending slavery the North was forcing religious based morals on the South. So if you truly believe what you said then you must admit that you have no problem with the state allowing slavery.

"you logic with the marriage rights denies the point of the right of the individual to choose, I'm saying that a purely hetero benifit law is unjust and discriminatory, therefore impeding on idividual rights to such benefits, its like saying that gay men can only drive pink cars, or motorcycles only or any other form of unwarrented restriction."

Actually what you are doing is incredibly dangerous and, I know for a fact, highly offensive to many intelligent gays. You are saying that gays are their own class - they are neither male nor female but a seperate breed. The marriage law is directed at men and women. Some men may sexually desire fellow men but that does not deny them their male status. The marriage law states that a man can marry one woman who is not married, is not a family member, is of a certain age and who has agreed to the marriage of her own will. The restrictions in the law are numerous however it does not discriminate towards any man or woman for all men and women are free to get married as long as they do not violate the law's restrictions. When you say that it discriminates towards gays what you are really saying is that you do not believe gay men are truly men.

"the biggest problem I've seen and heard of to do with gays and families is that people are so prejudice and make kids life hell"

Numerous studies have shown that for a society to be healthy it needs to promote an environment where children are raised by a mother and father, that both are essential for a society that does not wish to devolve or become corrupt. That both a mother and a father are essential for children and both play roles important to a healthy upbringing. Many, however, are worried that by altering the definition of marriage we would slowly be attacking this essential aspect of society and would pay highly for it down the line.

"Im not sure Im following you. if you are disagreeing with me cuz I agree with everything you just wrote."
Good, I only had to repeat myself twice.

Though I must again assert. A left-right axis system is just too simplistic. For example, Libertarians and Democrats are both more secular then Republicans. Does being on the right mean being more socially conservative (religious)?

In that particular system that means Libertarians are left-wingers. The system is too simple, I really don't see what there I argue about. A 1 axis system may be useful for the most basic things, but again, it leaves unmapped huge areas of American political thoughts, and to it, pro-State Rights and pro-Civil Rights are the same thing. I find this not terribly useful, except for those who wish to depict an innacurate "us" VS "them" theme in politics.

So what you are basically saying is that it is impossible to be politically consistent. I disagree for I do not make the kind of divison between social and economic issues as you, I assume, do.

Politically consistent? I'm just saring American thought can't be reduced to one axis.

I'm saying that social-anarchists and strong watchman staters can be classified. I'm saying that civil rights advocates and state rights advocates don't have to be on the same spot of the axis.

It depends on how precise you want to be. If a simplistic, I would think misleading, left-right system is accurate enough for all 'mainstream' American political thought, then fine. But I don't think it is, I don't think a system which considers civil rights advocates and state rights advocates as the same is useful.