RE: How is leftism defined?

RE: How is leftism defined? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

How is leftism defined?

Leftism is defined by ideology

20% (3)

Leftism is defined by actions

20% (3)

Leftism is defined by opposition to a republican president

6% (1)

Leftism is defined by somebody on the right disliking somebody

33% (5)

Leftism is defined by not being the proper sort of rightist

20% (3)

Total Votes : 15

(last vote on : 7/1/2017 1:12:40 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

Edwird -> RE: How is leftism defined? (7/1/2017 7:47:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx " Edwird Let's put it this way: the Germans could (and still can) do almost everything right, if they put their minds to it." This is different from the chinese, french or italians? Yes. "After 44 years of trying, even the (East) Germans couldn't figure out how to make it work." quote: Perhaps a trip to google could disabuse you of your ignorance of the economic status of the former e. Germany when it was. I'm not as lazy-minded as you. I took economic classes and German language classes and German culture classes at the uni, along with my own studies and book reading on the matter. If google is all you got, then have fun in your delusions. In any case, the Ost Mark was 5-1, at best rate, to 10-1 to buy a Deutsche Mark. That's all the economic indicator most would need to ascertain the difference in economic status between the two sides at the time. But tell us this: if the East Germans were so happy in the situation, why did 3.5 million of them escape to the West from 1950 to to 1961? Why was a wall needed to contain the exit? Why did E German citizens opt out by tearing down the wall in 1989? ( Fall Der Mauer is a marked event in Germany.) Demolition of The Wall (Der Mauer) wasn't actually started until the next year, and took two years to accomplish, but in October of 1989, some high East German official said, effectively; "Fuck it, it's not working," and allowed border crossing to West Berlin. While at it, tell us what country anywhere in the world where communism wasn't a total disaster for it's society. In the case of capitalism, it's a disaster for some, causes of which can be fixed in some way or another. With communism, disaster for every citizen is mandated, except for those few doing the mandating.

vincentML -> RE: How is leftism defined? (7/1/2017 9:35:24 AM)
quote: Sorry you missed my 50 million earlier posts addressing the matter of ability to pay. So why the eff are you even talking to me? Oh dear, I must have tossed them in the trash along with most of the other worthless items i find on here. You're right, there is no reason for me to be talking with you.

vincentML -> RE: How is leftism defined? (7/1/2017 9:41:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: The thing about your notion of "social compact" is that it assumes there is, or could be such compact. I wish it were the case that we could come to such conclusion as to attain this compact, but we in the US are of such diverse mind and background that I don't see that happening. We are in the midst of a conflict between forms of social compact now, the seeds of which were planted in the 17th Century by the writings of Thomas Hobbes on the one hand and John Locke on the other. Hobbes suggested that in nature (without government) life would be brutish and short and every man would be at war with every other man, arguing for a strong government to protect the weak from the strong. Locke suggested that the essential ingredient for a social compact was the guarantee of individual Liberty. Minimal government. Our constitution is based upon Locke's theory. I do not see the 'minimal' govt. thingie in the constitution. Amendments 9 and 10 maybe. Not saying I approved of Locke, however. I suppose all of the first ten amendments were limitations on government.

Edwird -> RE: How is leftism defined? (7/1/2017 10:34:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Sorry you missed my 50 million earlier posts addressing the matter of ability to pay. So why the eff are you even talking to me? Oh dear, I must have tossed them in the trash along with most of the other worthless items i find on here. You're right, there is no reason for me to be talking with you. If you consider the matter of paying workers their worth (as spelled out in umpteen posts of mine to that effort) to be "trash," and "worthless," then indeed there is no discussion to be had with you.

PeonForHer -> RE: How is leftism defined? (7/1/2017 1:20:23 PM)
quote: Amendments 9 and 10 maybe. Not saying I approved of Locke, however. I suppose all of the first ten amendments were limitations on government. Got to put all that stuff in historical context, Vincent. In those days the big concern was 'negative freedoms' - that is, 'freedoms from - ' (the King, any central government; any over-controlling powers). Thomas Hobbes, in 'Leviathan', painted a picture of a horrifying world in which humans were just an inch away from that Nature, which was 'red in tooth and claw', and in which life was indeed 'nasty, brutish and short' - and that was the instant result should human control (of the State over other humans; of individual humans over themselves) once falter. For his time, though, Locke was an optimist - a righty-on hippy by today's standards. He articulated the idea that if you just leave people to do their stuff - intelligently, creatively - things will be fine. Natch, he was thinking of the nascent middle class and not the plebs - because such was how social-class- thinking ran at the time. Bottom line: Hobbes had a pessimistic view of human nature; Locke did not. It was a big difference. The USA's constitution was built much more on Locke's sort of thinking than that of Hobbes - and that was quite a radical thing for the day. To the Brits of the 18th C you Septic Tanks were a bunch of hippy radicals in the way you carved out your country, in short. Something very much to be proud of, I'd say.

thompsonx -> RE: How is leftism defined? (7/1/2017 1:40:09 PM)
ORIGINAL: Edwird ORIGINAL: thompsonx " Edwird Let's put it this way: the Germans could (and still can) do almost everything right, if they put their minds to it." This is different from the chinese, french or italians? Yes. Perhaps you might cite for us some validation for your opinion. "After 44 years of trying, even the (East) Germans couldn't figure out how to make it work." Perhaps a trip to google could disabuse you of your ignorance of the economic status of the former e. Germany when it was. I'm not as lazy-minded as you. Cite please. I took economic classes and German language classes and German culture classes at the uni, How does this affect your knowledge of the economic status of e. Germany? along with my own studies and book reading on the matter. Obviously marx was not on that reading list. If google is all you got, then have fun in your delusions. Google is a source for information. If your choice is ignorance then there is not much that can be done for you. In any case, the Ost Mark was 5-1, at best rate, to 10-1 to buy a Deutsche Mark. That's all the economic indicator most would need to ascertain the difference in economic status between the two sides at the time. That would be your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion. Economic status is based on much more than an exchange rate. http://newsjunkiepost.com/2011/05/04/the-top-5-prosperity-measuring-sticks-more-accurate-than-gpd/ But tell us this: if the East Germans were so happy in the situation, why did 3.5 million of them escape to the West from 1950 to to 1961? Well lets look at the history. Germany (both east and west) lost the war. The conquering german armies had not been terribly kind to the russians consequently the russians were not all that forgiving to the germans so lets place that migration in context. Further we have free education in the soviet system which the soviet government felt they had some claim to the use there of. Not at all unlike the amerikan military academies requiring year for year service for the free education they provide. Amerika, in an effort to phoque with the soviets actively recruited e. german college grads. Why was a wall needed to contain the exit? As explained above it was to stop illegal migration. Note that the wall existed only in berlin. If you would care to google you will find that many people migrated from the soviet union during this 40 year period. Why did E German citizens opt out by tearing down the wall in 1989? ( Fall Der Mauer is a marked event in Germany.) Demolition of The Wall (Der Mauer) wasn't actually started until the next year, and took two years to accomplish, but in October of 1989, some high East German official said, effectively; "Fuck it, it's not working," and allowed border crossing to West Berlin. Perhaps because germans wanted their country reunited. While at it, tell us what country anywhere in the world where communism wasn't a total disaster for it's society. When in the history of the world has a communist government existed(with the possible exception of the Vatican)? Now if you do not understand the difference between socialism and communism google can be your friend.

thompsonx -> RE: How is leftism defined? (7/1/2017 1:45:26 PM)
ORIGINAL: vincentML ORIGINAL: thompsonx I do not see the 'minimal' govt. thingie in the constitution. Amendments 9 and 10 maybe. Not saying I approved of Locke, however. I suppose all of the first ten amendments were limitations on government. While the constitution places some limits on government it is hardly a "minimalist document". "Necessary and proper" are pretty broad concepts as are "promote the general welfare.

Edwird -> RE: How is leftism defined? (7/1/2017 3:00:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx " Edwird Let's put it this way: the Germans could (and still can) do almost everything right, if they put their minds to it." This is different from the chinese, french or italians? Yes. quote: Perhaps you might cite for us some validation for your opinion. Germany has the third largest total exports in the world, doing so with 26% of US population and 6% of Chinese population. It's not opinion, it's fact. quote: I'm not as lazy-minded as you. Cite please. Your posts qualify as citation of your innate ignorance. quote: I took economic classes and German language classes and German culture classes at the uni, How does this affect your knowledge of the economic status of e. Germany? Your posts qualify as citation of your innate ignorance. quote: along with my own studies and book reading on the matter. Obviously marx was not on that reading list. Indeed he was. I understood what he was saying better than you did, because my readings were not limited to that one book. quote: Google is a source for information. If your choice is ignorance then there is not much that can be done for you. My sources are more widespread and more academically legitimate and more reliable. OTOH, if you think university courses and text books and the Bureau of Economic Analysis and OECD publications are unreliable as sources, or in fact constitute "ignorance," please write to your local uni president, the BEA, and learn French so you can bitch to the OECD. quote: In any case, the Ost Mark was 5-1, at best rate, to 10-1 to buy a Deutsche Mark. That's all the economic indicator most would need to ascertain the difference in economic status between the two sides at the time. That would be your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion. Economic status is based on much more than an exchange rate. http://newsjunkiepost.com/2011/05/04/the-top-5-prosperity-measuring-sticks-more-accurate-than-gpd/ So, you can't understand the difference between exchange rate and GDP. Congratulations. Is this another one of your 'Google Is God, The University Is Ignorance" examples? quote: Further we have free education in the soviet system which the soviet government felt they had some claim to the use there of. West Germany had free higher education for all the time period in discussion here. "Jesus you are phoquing stupid."

vincentML -> RE: How is leftism defined? (7/1/2017 3:05:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: vincentML ORIGINAL: thompsonx I do not see the 'minimal' govt. thingie in the constitution. Amendments 9 and 10 maybe. Not saying I approved of Locke, however. I suppose all of the first ten amendments were limitations on government. While the constitution places some limits on government it is hardly a "minimalist document". "Necessary and proper" are pretty broad concepts as are "promote the general welfare. Yeah, that's okay. In any event there was a large gulf, as I understand it, between the amount of authority each was willing to accept. Hobbes was much more willing to provide for strong central authority, even to monarchy if needed to keep the strong from devouring the weak. Of course history has proven there are some issues in his political theory. Locke championed government that fostered individual Liberty. But it is important to note that Locke meant government by white men who owned property. Those were the men who wrote the American Constitution. Locke wrote or contributed to the Constitution for the Carolinas when the colonies were new. Land distribution favored men who brought in more slaves. Keep in mind that only about 3% of the voting eligible population as we know it today were actually eligible to vote for the original Constitution. White land owners voted. Everyone else was disenfranchized. Given the circumstances of the men who wrote the constitution I would say that "minimal" was at least a fair description for the spirit of these mean of agricultural wealth in land and slaves. But, if you like your definition, I am okay with it. I see the recent history of the United States elections swinging between those who favor an egalitarian society with strong central, protective authority and those who propose a hands-off government and every man for himself. Of course different believers will have their own way to describe their political ideology.

vincentML -> RE: How is leftism defined? (7/1/2017 3:10:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: Amendments 9 and 10 maybe. Not saying I approved of Locke, however. I suppose all of the first ten amendments were limitations on government. Got to put all that stuff in historical context, Vincent. In those days the big concern was 'negative freedoms' - that is, 'freedoms from - ' (the King, any central government; any over-controlling powers). Thomas Hobbes, in 'Leviathan', painted a picture of a horrifying world in which humans were just an inch away from that Nature, which was 'red in tooth and claw', and in which life was indeed 'nasty, brutish and short' - and that was the instant result should human control (of the State over other humans; of individual humans over themselves) once falter. For his time, though, Locke was an optimist - a righty-on hippy by today's standards. He articulated the idea that if you just leave people to do their stuff - intelligently, creatively - things will be fine. Natch, he was thinking of the nascent middle class and not the plebs - because such was how social-class- thinking ran at the time. Bottom line: Hobbes had a pessimistic view of human nature; Locke did not. It was a big difference. The USA's constitution was built much more on Locke's sort of thinking than that of Hobbes - and that was quite a radical thing for the day. To the Brits of the 18th C you Septic Tanks were a bunch of hippy radicals in the way you carved out your country, in short. Something very much to be proud of, I'd say. You describe the difference between the two men much better than I did, Peon, but keep in mind Locke was a slave trader, or owned a piece of a slave trading company. Furthermore, you lot ran about grabbing the poor and destitute off the streets of London and impressed them into contractual servitude and shipped them off to Virginia and New England. I find little to cheer for there by my standards. [:D]

vincentML -> RE: How is leftism defined? (7/1/2017 3:14:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Sorry you missed my 50 million earlier posts addressing the matter of ability to pay. So why the eff are you even talking to me? Oh dear, I must have tossed them in the trash along with most of the other worthless items i find on here. You're right, there is no reason for me to be talking with you. If you consider the matter of paying workers their worth (as spelled out in umpteen posts of mine to that effort) to be "trash," and "worthless," then indeed there is no discussion to be had with you. If you insist on putting words and thoughts to me that i did not express then favor me with your silence. TYVM.

Edwird -> RE: How is leftism defined? (7/1/2017 3:29:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Sorry you missed my 50 million earlier posts addressing the matter of ability to pay. So why the eff are you even talking to me? Oh dear, I must have tossed them in the trash along with most of the other worthless items i find on here. You're right, there is no reason for me to be talking with you. "Worthless" and "trash" came out of your head, not mine, in your description of my efforts regarding workers' pay.

thompsonx -> RE: How is leftism defined? (7/1/2017 4:10:09 PM)
ORIGINAL: Edwird West Germany had free higher education for all the time period in discussion here. What has that to do with the soviet policy of expecting a return on it's investment in e. german education? Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

thompsonx -> RE: How is leftism defined? (7/1/2017 4:32:04 PM)
ORIGINAL: Edwird Let's put it this way: the Germans could (and still can) do almost everything right, if they put their minds to it." This is different from the chinese, french or italians? Yes. Perhaps you might cite for us some validation for your opinion. Germany has the third largest total exports in the world, doing so with 26% of US population and 6% of Chinese population. It's not opinion, it's fact. Your stated opinion is that the italians french and chinese cannot and do not do almost everything right, if they put their minds to it." Your proof is to cite Germany's exports. Roflmfao History tells us that when the germans put their minds to having a couple of world wars they did not do so well. Which of the following three countries does not posses a nuclear weapon????china, france, germany? Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

thompsonx -> RE: How is leftism defined? (7/1/2017 4:40:00 PM)
ORIGINAL: vincentML I think the founders set it up so that the founder's class stayed in power. Those who were once disenfranchised now feel entitled to be empowered. Some would even shoot themselves in the foot to prove that their gun was loaded.

vincentML -> RE: How is leftism defined? (7/1/2017 7:44:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Sorry you missed my 50 million earlier posts addressing the matter of ability to pay. So why the eff are you even talking to me? Oh dear, I must have tossed them in the trash along with most of the other worthless items i find on here. You're right, there is no reason for me to be talking with you. "Worthless" and "trash" came out of your head, not mine, in your description of my efforts regarding workers' pay. I never saved or committed to memory your 50 million comments. [8\|] Pretty damned grandiose, aren't you? 50 million? shit. You are right, I have no fucking reason to talk with you. Ciao!

vincentML -> RE: How is leftism defined? (7/1/2017 7:50:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: vincentML I think the founders set it up so that the founder's class stayed in power. Those who were once disenfranchised now feel entitled to be empowered. Some would even shoot themselves in the foot to prove that their gun was loaded. I get your point. I do. But some folks use guns to gain wealth. Others use deceit. I am starting to see that maybe both Hobbes and Locke had flaws in their thinking. But, I don't think Locke would have accepted that every person of whatever color, or whatever wealth deserved access to healthcare. These Right Wing Libertarians give me a chuckle when they say the free market and Liberty will solve all social problems. Sure, the poor will get poorer and die younger.

Edwird -> RE: How is leftism defined? (7/1/2017 9:26:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I never saved or committed to memory your 50 million comments. [8\|] Pretty damned grandiose, aren't you? 50 million? shit. Rhetorical exaggeration, not grandiosity. Sorry, I thought I was speaking with an educated person. Have a good night's sleep.

Edwird -> RE: How is leftism defined? (7/1/2017 9:30:54 PM)
~

Edwird -> RE: How is leftism defined? (7/1/2017 11:03:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird Germany has the third largest total exports in the world, doing so with 26% of US population and 6% of Chinese population. While on the subject; I know much of this is hardly relevant in today's world, but the Neumann M 50 and M 49 and M 249 microphones were considered the best for orchestral recording, along with the Telefunken Austrian-made ELA M 250 microphone. The Neumann U 47 and U 48 mics were all over the '50s and '60s with many of the famous names in popular music, and the U 47 is still heard on radio today. The Telefunken v 72 mic pre-amps and v 76 line amps were in use at EMI/Abby Road studios from the '50s through late '60s. Along with the Swiss-made Studer J37 tape machines. All that is what you hear if listening to -that most famous British band-. But lots and lots of other people too. Then there's all that BMW and Audi and Mercedes stuff, but that bore's me silly.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Spam Policy

0.0625