Why is it that Dreamviews is extremely liberal, even compared to the average university campus. I think I must be the only Nationalist on the forum. Is there any reason for the over representation of more liberal minded people on here?
Printable View
Why is it that Dreamviews is extremely liberal, even compared to the average university campus. I think I must be the only Nationalist on the forum. Is there any reason for the over representation of more liberal minded people on here?
Because DV attracts more hippies and clowns sitting in their parent's basement, sporting socialist views.
"lib·er·al/ˈlib(ə)rəl/
Adjective: Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values."
The liberal argument is that there are always alternatives that may prove more beneficial to whatever it is you're doing. The conservative argument is that if one way has worked for a long time, there's no reason to change it. Right? Technological development doesn't benefit from the idea of tradition. These computers, the internet, are the result of changes that occur in technology over the years. Most of the people who understand why these changes benefit them typically discard the notion that holding onto the past would have been a better idea. In changes to the way we do things do we find that our state of civilization changes (arguably for better or worse). Some like the improvements in overall comfort. Some think it's too much. Anyways, other people are liberals because they feel like something is wrong with society or the political system or _________ and feel that changing from the traditional is a necessity to evoke any solution.
Why are you a nationalist?
http://www.dreamviews.com/f11/discou...family-122005/
the ones who join the site are open to lucid dreaming
click the link and you'll see what i mean
Maybe because some of us are open-minded, and stand for justice, creativity, truth and peace? This is what a real human is and not a souless self-serving coward being
What do you stand for?
It generally takes a very open-minded person to give credence to their dreams, let alone believe in something as socially stigmatized as lucidity!! The average person who hears you talking about it looks at you like you just revealed you're a satan worshipper and drug dealer.
But being open minded means being willing to consider any perspective without prejudice. Back a few years ago I was a liberal, and through Dreamviews, discovering the website Stormfront, and listening to their memebrs with an open mind, that I actually converted to Nationalism.
Open-minded people are generally liberal. I realize there's a good deal of overlap and that some conservatives can also be fairly open-minded, but anything that smacks of racism tend to get liberals worked up.
For some reason and I'm not really sure exactly why or how it happened, apparently the membership of Dreamviews used to be largely Christian but atheists kept increasing and reached critical mass and pretty well drove the Christians away except for those who like to fight it out in R&S. Possibly it was a group of charismatic atheists who inspired the closet atheists to come out of the woodwork, idk. But however it happened, this one website managed to become predominantly atheist, and as well all know, atheists and liberals tend to be the same people much of the time. Or t least hardline Christians and Conservatives tend to be the same.
I see Dreamviews as one of the few sites where liberals and atheists can really say what's on their minds without having to kowtow to the normal pro-Christian viewpoint that says "if you don't have anything nice to say about Christianity, then don't say anything at all". So not surprisingly, a place like that is going to attract liberals and atheists.
Conservatives express interest in sustaining the values of the society. Dreams are not a core western value. Even if it doesn't actually have anything to do with political issues, conservatives and liberals have different personality types. Liberals are more open to a wider scope of experience than conservatives. Lucid Dreaming falls into this scope.
Imagine a Venn Diagram, only its not a venn diagram its an eye with a pupil representing conservative values and the iris surrounding the pupil representing liberal values.
Bingo. Also, to the OP: Liberal is such an abused word these days. Liberal used to mean what today people refer to as "libertarian" (read about classical liberalism). A better word might be socialist, cultural marxist, or statist.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave1701
Because we are all moths, and Dreamviews is that enchanting light that glows in the darkness.
If you mean politically liberal, "Progressive" is a better description. Liberal means being open, from "liber" or "free". People who are open to the ideas of lucid dreaming are probably more open to other ideas. Also the average age is far lower than society at large, which brings in more "liberal" ideas, or open thoughts!
That's funny how you think you're open minded, yet (I'm assuming) you would criticize someone who is opposed to the state entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by flipsyde
I'm a libertarian. People often disagree with me for many reasons... but I was raised on self-sufficiency, pay my own way through college, and work my arse off to better myself.
But that doesn't make me a bad person, I still volunteer and work for institutions that support the environment and whatnot...
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com...8335584956.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by dave1701
Guys - we weren't using the term liberal in a political sense.
Slight correction* Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.Quote:
Originally Posted by flipsyde
This thread is now a political debate.
You're obviously very confused. Crushing government enforced unions is a very libertarian (read: Ron Paul) idea. Ending state welfare is a very libertarian idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by flipsyde
I believe that is one of the laws of DV threads. "At a point, all threads have the potential to become a political debate. Once the debate ensues, all new-comers to the thread will be entirely lost and ignore it all together."Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Sorry to double post, but do you even understand what the flag represents? The Sons of Liberty, the people who created the flag, were opposing the tyrannical state ruling over them. Surely this is something to be admired?Quote:
Originally Posted by flipsyde
This thread is now about correlating a person's political ideals with their living arrangements.
This thread is now a thread where you post what you think the thread is about.
Not really, although compared to almost every other politician, he's pretty close to anti-state. But he isn't really associated with the modern Tea Party.Quote:
Originally Posted by flipsyde
The Tea Party are too disparate to make generalizations.Quote:
Originally Posted by flipsyde
As for the Sons of Liberty, they lived before the notion of state welfare even existed. To them, the idea of a state stealing money from ANY group of people to give to another group would have been deplorable. It was actually Marx in the late 19th century that started that idea.
History is very relevant. You'll understand this when you get a little older.
I'm an anarchist, but not the socialist kind. The libertarian kind.Quote:
Originally Posted by flipsyde
another god damn thread swallowed by definitions
The lack of violent rulers encourages violence? Elaborate.Quote:
Originally Posted by flipsyde
You have to take out the violent leaders somehow. What do anarchist philosophers encourage? An overthrow by force. Which creates violence. And another corrupt leader would just use the anarchists to take power for himself. Look what happened in the french revolution. No leader for years cause chaos, and then someone worse took over. Not to mention the amounts of death that occured.
I am sorry about this dreamviews. I truly love this website as it has given me the ability to lucid dream which is amazing. I will now terminate my part in this conversation as I just needed to vent for a little while. I apologize to all I offended and I will try to only talk about dreams here from now on. I regret clicking this thread.
Ah, see you're thinking of anarcho-socialists. Not the same thing. Not true anarchists, for the reason you just said. They're violent.Quote:
Originally Posted by flipsyde
I'm talking about a peaceful transition to freedom, not some violent overthrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by flipsyde
lol you silly guys anarchy isn't about violence. that's a stereotype.
Huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Omnis - all you had to do was put an arrow pointing to your avatar!!! :lol:
Liberals are concerned for everyone's rights - they want to make sure everyone is treated fairly. Conservatives are concerned mostly for their own rights, at the expense of others.
Conflates stereotypical view of all anarchist philosophy with all anarchist philosophies when some of which don't condone violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by flipsyde
Back on topic, and using the term liberal to mean one open ideas, I have no idea why there are so many here. It could be the nature of the community. There are those who are really into things that go beyond dreaming (and into completely nonsensical topics IMO) which probably doesn't sit well with those who support "traditional" values, whatever those may be. But if we take liberal to mean one who is open to various ideas, it's no wonder this site is filled with them.
"Be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brains fall out."Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
One of the United States fundamental values is that prosperity comes from allowing men to achieve their own definition of success. The conservative base in this country is rooted in tradition. They hold onto these core traditions because they make up the nation's core identity. In any nation, the conservatives will hold onto the core traditions of the ancestors that prospered there. It's simple evolution. The preferable method is a balance between Self-Preservation and Mutation, tradition and discovery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
The economic issue got glombed onto this basic dynamic because of the way it has been presented to the American people. Honestly they're right to be hesitant in adopting an outright socialist agenda as we've observed this mutation amount to one vicious ruling class replacing the other. In response to these foreign values, our nation's conservatives adopted very anti-socialist values as a means to preserve their organism. While our liberals continue to explore concepts where the state can work to benefit the people, they're still anchored by the a free market conservative function.
The media tries to pretend that we exist on a spectrum of leftwing socialist values vs rightwing capitalist values. This is nonsense. Liberals don't have base values, they exist to progress the society forward.
“The problem with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and putting things in it.”
You lose pretty much awesomeness of this world, if you don't keep open mind. You have to keep your soul enclosed, though, so you stay uncorrupted by all this information that is invading your brain. About traditions and conservative behavior, it is fine as long as you are constantly re-evaluating and doubting the methods you are preserving. Conservatism for sake of safe keeping is one of the worst things in world, in my opinion. Many religions do that. Many cultures do that.
What is wrong with an intent to see world without stained classes? I am ready to consider everything, but it doesn't mean I am ready to accept it personally. I try to understand it always, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
What is with you people getting this all political? Is it because of your parties are so tied with conservatism and liberalism? The thought of politics never crossed my mind untill I read the post about it. :/
What is see as best about "liberal" ( I don't know how to use that world, honestly. It seems to have too much electricity in it in English ) atmosphere here is that we can discuss all kinds of things with relative ease. In a way, most of us are studying spirtuality and journeying into their own minds here. If you don't keep open mind on that, you'll never get in.
Getting back on track, I think nationalism is a ridiculous naivety. Why be proud of living in a geographical locality?
For the preservation of that locality and the culture existing within it. It's not about the geography, it's about the society. Each society has its own philosophy on the way life should be lived. This philosophy is encoded into the society with Tradition, making it Society's version of DNA. Whether or not a society is special or pretty there's one rule in nature: it must be capable of defending and sustaining itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
The liberal mindset is about the Global Village - thinking about everyone as one large group of people who should all help each other. The conservative mindset is basically different - it's more about "us" vs "them". And as Invader already mentioned. these aren't just political lines - a person is pretty much hardwired one way or the other and it's reflected in every aspect of their personality.
So, the conservative mindset goes something like this - my race is the best - my country is the best - my city is the best - my neighborhood is the best - my family is the best - and finally I am the best. You'll find yourself an insider to some of his thoughts - because you're a member of his race or live in his city or whatever, but then you'll always reach a point where his sense of brotherhood closes down to exclude you. It's a reductionist perspective and essentially selfish.
The liberal perspective goes the other way - we're all in this together so we need to try to get along. Liberals always try to put themselves in other people's shoes and sympathize with them. They try to understand things from an external, objective viewpoint.
When has this "fundamental value" presented itself in American history? What other traditions have you conspired that "make up the nation's core identity?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Carrying out a global revolution to change society is anti-socialist? Really? And our government is "anchored" by free markets?...When has that been?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
How society progresses is the conflict. Classical liberals see laissez-faire, Progressive Liberals employ conservative (ancien regime) means to achieve progress.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Cultures/Societies are never hegemonic. The United States itself is so diverse that it is foolish to think that one culture rules its destiny. I mean its not even a tangible thing, it's an abstraction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Um. The United States definitely is a hegemony. But it doesn't sound like you know what the word means. It sounds like you think it means one ruling culture, a Hegemony is when one state controls all the others, The US controlling the Americas is a hegemony. Within the US borders, however, its a cultural warzone. Traditions that can't continue to prove their value over time are slowly being lost to more valuable ones. Just as our genes have junk DNA, our society has a lot of traditions, values and cultural diversity that are simply ignored by the controlling factors of the state. But they're still present and can have leverage in the right atmosphere. It's not a perfect metaphor. The point is our system is working on our behalf, and we're working on its behalf. This relationship is what allows this organism to continue to exist and not get destroyed by cancer or invasion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
Also I do not respond to people that break my posts apart. Find a cohesive means to respond to me.
I think the linkage between society and nation is completely contrived. It's arbitrary at best, special (read: elite) interest serving at worst.
Communities are organic extensions of humans... we're a social species (a simple and obvious fact that is often misunderstood). Nations don't merit the same benefit as communities of being organic and inevitable (people will just form communities without coercion, but not nations).
Communities can link together to form a larger society, I don't question that. But the level of the nation is an arbitrary cut-off point. This notion of society is only viable if it is considered to be a global phenomenon. This has not always been true historical, but it is so now because of globalization.
That's just my intuitive grasp. Whaddyathink?
I think Darkmatters hit the nail right on the head. Slave owners were conservatives...abolitionists were liberal 'nuff saidQuote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
But this ideology is incomplete. If you're too open and do not work toward some selfish ends then you're vulnerable to something that does. Until we reach the point we can merge these diverse organisms we've got to play the game this present stage of evolution has presented us with. People without strong self-interests get destroyed. I know liberals don't lack this value, but because they're so diverse they lack the core devotional attitude that anchors societies to their philosophies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
That's because your mind is already in the next paradigm. Then reality of the way the world works now is that people are still very much divided, more by philosophy than national borders. Social Movements are the next stage, we're not going to jump right into a harmonious world society. There are still a lot of fundamentalists, people not content with applying their traditions to themselves but have to apply them to everybody else as well (or instead).Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieAnthias
Well, I'm not saying that full-on extremist liberalism is the cure-all for everything. Not at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
I'm simply explaining, at its most basic, the difference between liberal and conservative values. And for my example, for clarity's sake, I presented each at its most extreme.
I used to think of it as 2 different levels of maturity - imagine two children representing these two core belief systems. Basically it's "mine mine mine" vs "we can all share". But more recently I'm seeing conservative values in a somewhat different light - not so much "mine mine mine" as "everybody fend for themselves". Which if you happen to belong to the white upper middle class in America boils down to "mine mine mine". But assuming a level playing field where no minority group is persecuted or oppressed, then I suppose "everybody fend for themselves" is a valid outlook. Unfortunately we don't live in that ideal world.
When you present it like that it makes it seem like liberals are simply more evolved. This may be true, but I think of it like any ecosystem, different parts for different duties. And we all have a little selfish and a little empathy in each of us. Besides, empathy evolved as a necessity for self preservation. Me vs You, I'll lose if you're bigger. Us vs You gives me the advantage. This is the basic model single celled organisms became multicellular with. If we unite our purpose, we stand a chance against the divided. The cells in our bodies are working for the entire body so the entire body can protect the individual cells. Even if Anarchy were to emerge in our society, it would still follow this basic path it would just lose the system of regulation for better and worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Well I mostly agree with you. It's Yin and Yang - and as you said, we each have some of both warring in us all the time. It's the interplay between these forces that makes things interesting.
I think the conservative values were necessary when we were small tribal groups striving to survive and gain a secure foothold in the wilderness constantly threatening to swallow us up. When there were plenty of resources for all. But now that human civilization has reached global status and resources are dwindling I think more liberal values are necessary.
Yeah we definitely are unbalanced in favor of conservative values.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
But you also have to keep in mind your model is specific to the anti-communist West. In China the Nationalists are very pro-state. It depends on the values adopted by the nationalist majority, the controlling mob. Truthfully, liberals cannot play this game of us vs them that conservatives set up. They can't unite into a mob because their values are so various. They are essentially everyone who thinks outside of the box, everyone outside the mainstream system. The closest thing they really have to unity is Burning Man but there you see a different kind of model for self-preservation emerge that is much more tolerable (though just as sustainable.)
Well, again (for like the 12th time) - when I use the terms liberal and conservative I'm not talking about political parties - but about basic hardwired human mindsets. Everyone leans more one way or the other, it doesn't matter what your party platform is.
Example - many black or hispanic people in the US vote democratic because democrats are liberal and defend the rights of minorities, but at the same time, those same people can be very conservative in their core values - preserving their own cultural heritage and not concerned with letting outsiders in to their neighborhoods or homes.
I think people who follow the in-group selfish strategy are just confused by moral appeals to expand their sphere of consideration. The assumption that moral impulses will always incline a person to expand their sphere is false, and a mistake made very often by global-minded altruists. People who are in-group selfish do feel moral impulses, very strongly in fact. That's why moral appeals to expand feel like deception to them
This perceived attempt at deception causes people like Ayn Rand to say things like, "the creed of sacrifice is a morality for the immoral" (and damn near everything else she ever said.) This response confuses altruists. So, the confusion is now a 2-way street.
I think there's some wisdom in what you say, but I'm not quite sure I follow. And I don't believe conservatives are really immoral so much as that their morality just doesn't extend outside of their own group. Extreme conservatives are often racists and see nothing wrong with it.
Also, Rand promoted selfishness. I remember one example she used - she said if you take one excellent worker and force him to work with a noob (not the word she used, but same thing) then all it does is hurt the good worker while lifting up the noob, so it isn't 'fair'. This is only true if each person is looking out for their own reputation. Short term yes, the good worker will not be able to function at his best, and his output will suffer, but long term he;ll be teaching the new employee skills and attitudes he needs to become a better worker and overall the entire company will benefit by his sacrifice.
I used to feel this way when I was working at a restaurant - I was a kickass worker and used to get mad when I had to work with a slacker. It slowed me down and I ended up having to pull more than my fair share of the load. But when I became a manager I learned to see the big picture, and its not about individual pride so much as putting people where they can do the most good. So I'd say liberal is big picture thinking, while conservative is small picture.
I just think that if you take the high ground and look at both perspectives, the manager and the worker in your example, you see that they just both misunderstand each other. They are mutually confused by the others moral communications, because they encode moral language differently. Even if the same person moves from one position to the other, the change in position brings a change in attitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Small picture and big picture are both legitimate (maybe even if racist), so it's not really about right or wrong in absolute terms, but from the limited perspective of one or the other, right and wrong enters into their thinking whether they mean to let it or not. This will show through in their communications to each other. You really have to think about, not only what the perspective of both sides is, but how both sides interprets the perspective of the other. I think that both sides inevitably misinterpret the other.
I'm flopping like a fish on the deck here trying to make sense, lol.
I do get what you're saying, and this is what I love about this board - that we call all have different views and yet talk intelligently and try to accept each others' points without just arguing.
I do agree that some selfishness is necessary and healthy. I also believe in the Buddhist idea of transcending opposites, but I must admit ntil now I thought the opposites in this case meant opposing viewpoints between selfish groups and that the big picture/global village represented transcending that. But in a sense maybe it's still an opposing viewpoint and needs to be transcended also.
I must say, managers who understand the individual pride of their employees are far better than those who just say "Shut up and do your damn job!" :lol:
Ok, time to go back into deep pondering mode.
Oh, and speaking of fish, I love your new sig pic!!! :thumbup:
If we had the proper traditions, being conservative doesn't have to mean being selfish at all. That's what I'm saying. The conservative personality type can be conservative in order to preserve traditions for the good of the whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
It's not really traditional values I have a problem with so much as the large dose of "my people are better than YOUR people :pfft:" that tends to go along with it.
Holy forum change, batman.
this topic was doomed to ramble from the startQuote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Really? Venezuela is the lap dog of the US right now huh? A hegemony isn't necessarily a state. It is a controlling/dominate power that can be applicable to culture. This servile White Nationalist probably thinks that America is just White, Protestant Christians thus his "nationalism." He thinks such people are a hegemonic force in the actions of the country. If he does believe this, then he is obviously delusional because what can be termed as "America" (the geographical location) has numerous individuals, each with ideas/thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
What are these traditions and when are you going to show me where in American history the tradition of that fundamental value you were discussing before? Also why are you treating an abstraction like a living entity? Invasion? Cancer? Destroyed? On its behalf?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
It's good grammar to break apart ideas that are separate from each other (Paragraphs). I also do this so people can't say I am missing a point they brought up. Perhaps if you broke up my statements into quotations, you would of actually responded to my question about the "fundamental value." This is of course assuming you have an answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Many abolitionists were pious yankees who wanted to ban beer, whiskey, white bread and sugar while also beating people who worked on Sundays. They destroyed private property in the form of saloons and alcohol distributors. They wanted to "free" slaves in order to convert them and keep them from their masters who may entice them to do things that "clouded their minds" disallowing them from entering heaven. They were millienialists who thought that if everyone didn't go to heaven then they were doing something wrong and their mission was to setup a kingdom of heaven on Earth for when Jesus Christ came back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Majestic
But really I like your oversimplification. The good guys were the liberals and the bad guys were the conservatives.
The Republican Party used to be about personal freedoms... Lincoln was a Republican. (Although of course he had other motives behind emancipation but freedom is a part of it.) It's become a "conservative" party rather than "libertarian" like it used to be.
We should go back to Federalists and Anti-Federalists... much better description of what people want. Although I don't see many politicians being anti-federalists that can DO much about it.
It's bad philosophy to break ideas apart that form a central thesis. It shows you have poor analytic skills when you cannot listen to a complete statement and formulate a complete response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
No the Republican party was about and is about being the party of "high moral values." They were bible beaters in the 1850's and they are still bible beaters today. The Democrats use to be the party of personal freedom and free markets but that changed in the 1890'sQuote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
So when you are writing a paper, you don't use paragraphs? Bad form I say but whatever, I'm not your teacher. It is not as if I am not forming complete responses. Your complaint was that I was breaking them up, not that I wasn't saying anything responsive. Anyways, are you actually going to respond to my statements? Or are you just going to make all these ridiculous platitudes about tradition?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
When I write a paper in response to someone else, I don't take all their quotes out of context and reply to them one by one. I ascertain the thesis of the argument and reply to it with my own thesis which breaks off into multiple paragraphs from there. You can reply to all my points separately but think in a more cohesive manner. Otherwise it's basically the same as a straw man, you're misconstruing someone's point by not seeing the forest through the trees. I honestly tried formulating a response to you but your so off base my argument there's not any point to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
Ok you don't like my writing style...whoopie. Let's move on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
How is it off base? I asked you to show this "fundamental value" in the course of American history. How is it off based to ask you to justify your statement? Why do you treat the United States, an abstraction, as a living entity which can be "invaded" and "cancer"-ous? You said that the US is a hegemony in the Americas, a hegemony being by your definition one state that controls other states therefore implying that the US (a state) controls the Americas (which is a term to include all North, Central and South America states), yet we don't control Canada, Venezuela, Cuba. How can you still consider the US a hegemony in the Americas when it doesn't follow your own definition? Honestly, what is off base about these questions and statements?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
You know what, let's just get this over with.
My above response.
*Crickets*
Your Response: You're a troll.
I suppose this will have to do. But just so you know for future referencw hen you pick my posts apart I won't reply. I'm sure you could care less, but if you do reply to me in the future you should keep that in mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
The answer to your question is very simple. In my opinion, groups of organisms are a more complex organism than single organisms, but they do not stand apart from the same basic mechanisms and vulnerabilities of any single organism. The actual cancer itself transforms to mean different things but in your body cancer can be conveyed as the cells of your body changing their DNA (thus changing their behavior) to a more selfish routine. A very direct metaphor for this would be embezzlement when people don't pay their fair share of the tax burden as cancer cells often skim nutrients off the top that they ought to be feeding forward. However, cancer and disease take many forms in a society.
Nonetheless, what I am essentially arguing is that society is a living organism, just a more complex one than the individuals within it.
So essentially you think there is this living organism that actually is tangible and exists on the physical plane and this orgasm is the "United States?" This is the "complex one" you speak of?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Human beings are made up of individual cells working in harmony right? Why is it so difficult to expand your awareness to consider society as a collection of individual cells working towards harmony? Truthfully as of now it's a very confused organism but the Laws and Traditions we live by are the DNA this confused organism is currently operating with and our inevitable goal is to become more like a properly cohesive organism. Nationalists make up the core of the Social Organism I am referring to because they do not change, they do not adapt. They preserve these traditions over time and protect them by being loyal to them and proud of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
Every human being is raised by a collection of beliefs and traditions given to them by parents, teachers and anyone they listen to. Obviously the person does not agree with every single idea they're given as so many conflict, but the person consciously weighs them all in order to form homogeneous response. Do you think you're a single identity locked within your body? Your a collection of conditioning, about 50% from your genes and 50% from your environment. Societies at large are essentially the same thing. Communities, Cities, States and Nations are all just the macroversion of the same evolutionary mechanism.
Because of varying ideals and states of being which don't necessarily conflict but that doesn't infer that individuals are all working toward the same goal. Again, I ask you to show these "laws and traditions" in American history. Continually asking you to show this is starting to get annoying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
What are these "traditions? You keep referring to them but never say what they are, do you fault me for thinking they don't actually exist when you continue such an act? Do I think I am a single identity that is locked into my body? Yes I do. No other individual has the same exact experience as me, makes the same exact decisions for the same exact reasons, how the same exact goals and the same exact means of achieving those goals, has the same exact eudiamonia as myself. You start from the top and say "well everyone is kinda looking for the same thing" but that is the improper place to start. You are putting the cart before the horse. The proper place to start is with the individual, that is what makes up "society," it is the basic unit of measurement and if you started with an individual then built up for there you would be forced to see that we are so divergent that there really isn't a hegemonic force like you think there is in the world of culture. Individuals really are "unique little snowflakes."Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
See how pointless it was to break my post into two statements and then respond the same way to both? Even if it's two paragraphs, I articulate one idea. Breaking a single idea into multiple ones is a fallacy. It twists the argument into something that was not intended by the speaker.
Anyways, for the United States the bulk of DNA is the Constitution and the Protestant Church. Though its more accurate to say the DNA is the gestalt of every individual's laws and traditions within the US, these are what conservatives tend to hold valuable so this is the homogeneous image it presents to the world. In nations like China, the philosophy is very different and religion can be considered a liberal endeavor as the nationalist, conservative base has adopted a very secular structure and religious ideas are becoming foreign to the central entity.
Watch some Naruto, it may help you learn some of this. Basically there is a philosophy within every culture. This philosophy is unique to their culture and even more unique to the families within the culture and most unique to the individuals of the family. Nonetheless, this is essentially something greater than ourselves. Religions can be looked at in the same format. They are a collection of laws and traditions that a loyal base protects and spreads to others. This type of self-sustainability is life, no question about it. It is simply life on a bigger scale than the individual or genetics.
Breaking a single idea into multiple ones is a fallacy? First you have to show how I am making a single idea into multiple ones simply by quoting your statements. You can say its a continuation of a single idea but your not putting forth a new idea, you are just explaining a single idea in another fashion. Second you have to tell me which logical fallacy is the act of breaking a single idea into multiple ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
I'm guessing by DNA you mean tradition. What makes the Constitution and the Protestant Church a "tradition?" Not even all American subscribe to the Constitution and/or aren't a Protestant Christian. Also only conservative values project an image to the rest of the world? Do you naively believe that the world thinks America is just full of conservative people?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
There is nothing bigger then the self. The laws of the Bible only exist because they are practiced by the people who supposedly believe in them. They would cease to be in individuals weren't actively participating in them so how can you say they are bigger then individuals?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Being a Republican myself I believe i have an answer to this question, as others said earlier, being open-minded enough to actually believe that dreams have real meaning is a stretch of the imagination for most people to even believe, and going above and beyond to take other's seriously implies that the listeners are indeed very liberal. Now, i know others in this thread have also said this, but the Republican party was all about freedoms of the individuals, people still think that the right-wing today is still republican, well its not, its corporate capitalism and it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
If republicans today were truly for individual freedoms they would support:
Marijuana legalization
All drugs are legal
Gov't taxes the rich more (Eisenhower, a true republican and my fav pres., taxed the rich 91% after their 4th million)
Gov't puts those taxes dollars towards education, though private schools are perfectly acceptable
The current republicans would be fine with gay right and gays in the military
Abortion would be fine (though the religious would still frown upon it)
Iraq would have never have happened (role out the conspiracy debate, it was for oil and everyone knows it)
Military is still big, but very well organized (but not so huge its inefficient like it is today)
Current repubs wouldn't look down on other religions
---------------------------------------
There is a reason why the 50's were the (arguably) the best times in america, True Repubs controlled the Gov't and the economy steadily flourished under tight regulations
EDIT: Ron Paul ftw
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suicideking
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5NUjp5AZKg.../s1600/Huh.jpgQuote:
EDIT: Ron Paul ftw
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
....... what is your point.......
How does what I quoted from your post relate to "Ron Paul ftw?" Or even individual freedoms for that matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suicideking
your right i started to ramble about the old republican party, and I like Ron Paul as a 2012 presidential candidate, just thought i should add thatQuote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
I don't see why this is so hard to understand. If you respond to my ideas one piece at a time, you're saving yourself the work of formulating your own counter-opinion and instead are taking a purely critical position which makes it impossible for other people to take sides in the debate. It dissembles into pieces and then into tinier pieces as we continues to break claims down without ever bothering to put them back together again. I remember what I said. You don't need to respond to the individual qoute. I'm much more interested in what you actually have to say rather than just what holes you can poke through my opinion. List the holes, by all means, but write the subject matter in a cohesive way so its at least bearable for other people to read and maybe even include themselves in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
The "self" is an abstract idea, too. What is a human being? It's a collection of cells. These cells operate cohesively because they're following directions given to them by DNA. In the macrocosm, we see this play out as people are conditioned to behave a certain way by the values and traditions that surround them. One such tradition is the legitimization of the law we grow up with. We know the law, we all follow the law, if we don't we are breaking the guidelines and in the microcosm we would call this a mutation.
I'm not trying to describe this as a perfect metaphor, in fact if I'm trying to say anything I'm saying that we should make government work more like an organism, not that it already is. But evolution follows the same laws on the macrocosm as the microcosm. There is something bigger than the self, it's the group you serve. Your family protected you, because of them and their love for you, you did not die. Because of your empathy (if you're not a psychopath) you are able to form bonds with other people and thus form a network where people look out for each other. Like your cells telling your brain what you need, the voters express their needs in the ballot box.
Unfortunately right now this works in a very top-down manner and it should work in a bottom-up manner. A healthy person listens to their body, they don't read a book about health care. A healthy company listens to their experienced employees, they don't hire an outside consultant.
Are there other people taking sides in this debate? You are putting forth the argument here that society is a living organism. It is your job to justify and defend it, so far all you have actually said is the Constitution and Protestant religion. Everything else is pure fluff, and that is me being kind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
No, the "self" is a concrete example because it is actually on a physical plane. Even if the "self" is an abstract idea, there is still a gap between your conclusions. Why do individuals have no self, yet they are cells that composed a greater organism? If people are conditioned to follow the law then why are there law breakers? You are already assuming there is a hegemonic tradition in human history that allows you to say what is and isn't a "mutation." Where did you get this tradition? What are the others that supposedly surround individuals?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Yes you can form bonds and friendships but these are things you choose to incorporate and you do these things because they serve to better you in some capacity. Again, nothing is higher the the self. We are all just egoists running around doing things in our own self-interest because all action is purposeful behavior and serves as means to an end we are trying to achieve. We act to better our environment around us. That is the whole point of action and it is always about us, therefore even logically there is nothing beyond the self. Also, are you trying to say that voters aren't electing these officials into office? Then how are they getting there if not by the voting public? And yes, sometimes a company does hire outside consultants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Yet you desire higher taxes? Very weird....like that guy who is for NASA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suicideking
higher for the ultra rich, see my original commentQuote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
Still doesn't match with your support of Ron Paul.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suicideking
Ya Ron Paul is pretty cool....except for, ya know the fact that he is a creationist and he doesn't believe in separation of church and state, no biggie.
People are not taking sides because no one else wants to deal with you. I frankly don't care. Troll on, I say, you'll come around or suffer more. It doesn't matter to me if you get the wisdom or not. I enjoy formulating my arguments with other people. I just prefer open discussions where we can create platforms of agreement to build upon with multiple people involved. If you lurk moar, you'll see lot's of people doing it right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
The cells exist on the physical plane, too. They are concrete, real things. They operate with basic components which form very complex orders. At the end of the day, the line between physical and abstract is purely conceptual. The cells in our bodies work together for the same reason we work together, because it allows them to survive. Single celled organisms became multicellular in order to survive. Animals form herds and packs in order to survive. They're all doing it for selfish reasons. Including the cells. The concept of a single "self" is only compatible with God. A human being is a collective. Cells work in harmony for their own benefit. They made an agreement. When they break the agreement and work for themselves, it's cancer. I see a metaphor here.
Holy biology misunderstanding, batman!Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Single-celled organisms do not become multicellular in order to survive--that would imply some sort of intelligence on their part. A single-celled organism does not evolve into a multicellular organism because the cell thought: "Hey, if I become multicellular, I could better survive in this environment!" Organisms at that level do not possess such a level of intelligence. The same goes for cells allegedly acting selfishly.
And the notion that cells "made an agreement" is a major breakdown in your metaphor. Have you ever taken a biology class? Material doesn't come together because atoms decide "hey, let's go for it!" The same goes for humans existing because cells had some sort of convention.
I'm not implying cells are intelligent. I'm implying humans are a collection of stupid cells, actually. These cells happen to conglomerate via mutation, the same mechanism every organism evolves with. The reason multicellular organisms are able to out compete single celled organisms is because of this mutation. Intelligence is a myth.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
You imply cells possess intelligence when you say they act selfishly and made an agreement because those actions require intelligence. I don't know why you think intelligence is a myth so you'll have to explain that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Yea I have problems with him too. Seems like everyone does.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
Called it...well kindaQuote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
"You know what, let's just get this over with.
My above response.
*Crickets*
Your Response: You're a troll."
Well at least you think the self is now concrete, see you're coming around. Oh wait no...you think the line between physical and abstract is conceptual..which is weird because a concept is an abstraction so you think the line between physical and abstraction is abstraction. Either that or you misused the word conceptual. Let's go with the latter because I think you know the difference between the physical and the mental plane. If not, try putting your hand through your computer screen in a fast, jerking manner. You'll understand then. What I myself don't understand is how you think intelligence is a myth and that human cells are stupid yet they somehow work in harmony for their own benefit and are capable of making an agreement. It's as if you think my cells combine into...wait WAIT....I have witness this before....Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbW5s...eature=related
I AM CAPTAIN PLANET!!
No...wait..that's not true. You just don't know what you're talking about.
Those actions do not require intelligence. Competition proves what strategies are beneficial to an organism and which are not through time. When a mutation prospers within a species that mutation has proven itself beneficial through the act of being beneficial. These cells were not thinking about what way to best survive. They either survived better, or they did not.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
And Laughing Man. It seems the reason to me that you have no interest in formulating cohesive responses to my argument is because you don't have any interest in understanding what I'm saying. Let me just apologize right quick for being wrong, okay?
I am wrong about everything I say. You are infallible. Now that we've settled what's what, please feel free to lurk moar.
I don't even know where to begin. Laughing Man beat me to the punch, but you said cells act selfishly and made an agreement, which REQUIRES INTELLIGENCE no matter how you spin it, yet cells are stupid. Now you're saying acting selfishly and making agreements doesn't require intelligence while simultaneously agreeing with me that cells don't willfully evolve. What the hell is going on?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
This thread amply demonstrates that if any political ideology is inordinately represented on DV, it's libertarianism.
That is an odd impression. There never really was a vocal Christian majority, and the majority of people in any religion-oriented discussion have always been atheist and/or New Age, with typically one to three truly nutter Christians with something to prove entering the fray--that hasn't changed. There remained a barely-visible majority of politically moderate Christians who mostly kept to on-topic and the lounge, and those do seem to have waned, though it's hard to tell given that they were never vocal about the relevant variable. If anything, I suppose DV has gone increasingly and inordinately gay/pansexual, which does tend to correlate with liberal politics (though far from perfectly). Regardless, the number of Christian views expressed in R/S should not be taken for the predominance of Christianity on DV in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Interesting that you would contrast the OP's professed Nationalism as a view opposite of "statism." Care to elaborate? Keep in mind that the nation being -ismed by the OP is England (he might take offense at a designation as broad as Great Britain or The United Kingdom) and he's already cited Stormfront as an ideological inspiration.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Just because you are wrong doesn't mean I am infallible. See there you go again making incoherent statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
A British Nationalist. It's kind of ironic because the British kingdom once spanned 20% of the world population and 22% of the world land.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Just because you're jumping to conclusions does not mean I implied any of the bullshit you're claiming I did. I'm attempting to show you how evolution works on the bigger scale by showing you how it works on the smaller scale. You're taking everything I'm saying at face value. Good Job. Congratulations at being able to twist words to mean whatever the fuck you want. If you'd stop aggressively attacking everything that raises an eyebrow and simply attempt to understand a different point of view you might learn something.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
You see, this contains everything I need to refute both your arguments so I'll just repeat it. Try again
Those actions do not require intelligence. Competition proves what strategies are beneficial to an organism and which are not through time. When a mutation prospers within a species that mutation has proven itself beneficial through the act of being beneficial. These cells were not thinking about what way to best survive. They either survived better, or they did not.
When did I say that? I never mentioned the OP. Boy, I hope you're not asking me to be accountable for imaginary things I never said!Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Low-hanging fruit, omnomnom.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Ok, so I mentioned the OP. But I didn't address whatever the fuck he said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Whatever, let me make it clear now: Nationalism is clearly a type of statism. Personally, I think nationalism is vile and retarded.
It certainly can be associated with statism but the two are not married. Neither is liberalism and statism. Nationalism is about identifying with a national entity and preserving values based around the protection and sustainability of this national entity. In the case of the United States, one of the principles that Nationalists hold very dear is Purist Capitalism. The far end of the scope is a Radical or a Foreigner, someone with a different set of values. Inbetween are Liberals, people who identify with the national entity on some level but do not identify with the national values for the sake of being national values.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
If intelligence is a myth, it's only in with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
The bolded parts require intelligence to perform. This is a fact of life. I implore you to show how single-celled organisms became multicellular IN ORDER TO survive (without intelligence). Note the IN ORDER TO part. I implore you to show how cells act selfishly without intelligence. I implore you to show how cells work in harmony for their own benefit and make agreements WITHOUT INTELLIGENCE.Quote:
The cells in our bodies work together for the same reason we work together, because it allows them to survive. Single celled organisms became multicellular in order to survive. Animals form herds and packs in order to survive. They're all doing it for selfish reasons. Including the cells. The concept of a single "self" is only compatible with God. A human being is a collective. Cells work in harmony for their own benefit. They made an agreement. When they break the agreement and work for themselves, it's cancer. I see a metaphor here.
Of course you can't do that, because all of those actions require intelligence. No, don't copy & paste the same "explanation" you gave to me. It doesn't apply. You're giving me an explanation of natural selection, not explaining how cells make agreements or act selfishly or become multicellular in order to survive. Cells don't become multicellular in order to survive, they become multicellular because of natural selection. There is no "in order to." It simply happens.
Your metaphor broke the fuck down 20 miles back. Call AAA.
The internet is always more liberal. Although everyone and their dog has a computer and broadband now, that used to be for only the ones who could afford it. The more education someone has, the more money they tend to have. More education also tends to make people more liberal because they understand the issues better. So at the time when most websites were forming, mostly upper middle class people could derp around for hours, so websites tended to go that way. And in lots of countries, its still that only the top educated people can afford to screw around a lot on the net.
Graph of income vs political views
http://www.creativeclass.com/creativ...servative3.jpg
Graph of internet usage vs income
http://www.statsoft.com/Portals/0/bl...seByIncome.jpg
Very true indeed. Also, you can call me Ne-yo aka the Nutty Buddy! :goodjob2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Actually if someone were a devout Nationalist they were be a neo-mercantilist which is anti-antithetical to capitalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
cuz we blazin
Calm down bro. I'm sorry if my vocabulary in describing evolution is upsetting to you. Please do your best to get over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Everything I said was an attempt to explain basic biology. You pulled this intelligent design claim you're referring to out of thin air.
Evolution was introduced to me in terms of "intent", and "progress", with the emphatic insistence that these were simply figurative ways of understanding it. I don't see why benefit-of-the-doubt is so hard to give sometimes.
Where does intelligent design come into this at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
I'm explaining how empathy, cooperation and intelligence are emergent phenomena derived from natural selection. You're telling me that my point is that all these organisms are strategizing their evolution. I'm saying cause and effect was accidental, you're saying that I'm saying it was purposeful.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
I'm quite new to this concept of neo-mercantilist but I would say that nationalism generally opposes unregulated capitalism, as it doesn't work in the itnerest of the nation, but in the interest of the capitalist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
No. I'm telling you your metaphor breaks down because the cells don't possess the intelligence to perform actions such as "acting selfishly" or "making agreements." I said nothing about purpose or intelligent design or anything of that sort. I don't know where you got any of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
"Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? Was there no communication in this car?"
I just explained to you that selfishness is the root factor of natural selection and you're still trying to act like there's some intelligence going on. There is no intelligence, selfish behavior is initially rewarded by evolution with any new species or new circumstances in the habitat. Organisms end up grouping together because this is evolutionarily most beneficial to the individuals grouping up. When this happens, it changes the game and evolution rewards the most cooperative. The reason behind this cooperation is still for the preservation of individuals within the whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Gentlemen, I think we have a failure of communication here...Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Herman Cain 2012!
I had an epiphany about why dreamviews is more liberal than society at large before. Very lateral thinking epiphany.
And now I fucking forgot what it was :lol:
Maybe I'll remember later.
I already explained why, then trolls ate my posts. But does this have anything to do with your epiphany?
http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/q...conchart-1.jpg
Liberals are also more likely to do the following
Try drugs
Change their faith
Visit a foreign country
Read
Conservatives are more likely to do the following
Eat mostly traditional food (or fast food in US)
Attend community events such as church and fairs
Remain within their home town their entire life
You are basing these facts on..?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Stereotypes, Stereotypes everywhere
No, wasn't to do with that. As I said it was very lateral. Not just, we are interested in dreams, so obviously want to be more free.
I wasn't saying liberals want to be more free.
I was saying liberals experiment more. Conservatives follow traditions.
If liberals don't want to be free, the term just doesn't have a meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Trends are helpful. They provide insight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suicideking
Conservatives represent the nationalist core of a nation and the values intrinsic to the nationalist core. Liberals are everyone else still affiliated with that nation. Does that help?
(Tommo, maybe the movie Waking Life?)
"Liberal" means free... but the terms have changed drastically, just like our political parties. "Republican" has changed from a libertarian/anti-federalist party into conservative. Democrat has changed from a Federalist to... well maybe it hasn't changed aside from adopting progressivism.
Well yes and no. Yes in the idea that they opposed unregulated capitalism because they see it as "chaotic" and "disorderly." Why have 5 different shoe companies instead of just having one "good" one? It would be a waste of resources to them. Also because of the xenophobia, they dislike trading with other nations (hence the tariffs and subsidies to domestic businesses). That is another reason to dislike capitalism, because it is global and allows for the transportation of goods to another party without third party (the state) interference. So foreign businesses can trade together without the state being involved in the matter. So it's not just the interest of the capitalist but also the consumer because tariffs, subsidies, embargoes are harmful to the consumer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
You can have Nationalist Progressives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Henry Cabot Lodge.
Nationalistic capitalists can exist, think Reagan. But it only works as long as domestic companies are competing against each other and not international businesses coming in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
Yeah I'm mucking patriotism in with this dynamic. It's more about old tradition vs new idea and has less to do with arbitrary national borders so much as arbitrary focal points for different cultures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
Well I guess you can call it nationalistic capitalism. Maybe State capitalism but I prefer corporatism. However, I don't think it even works domestically because certain businesses still get monopoly grants and subsidies causing imbalance in the pricing system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suicideking
Reagan definitely wasn't laissez-faire or purist capitalist in any sense. He used freedom of enterprise as a guise to promote a corporatist agenda.
There was definitely some of that, but compared to Carter, he was still a huge step towards freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
The freedom to starve and die, beaten and diseased, for lack of corporate sponsorship? Do more research, son.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Wow, I'm speechless. Truly. Perhaps you should actually know even slightest bit of 1970s US history before you speak. Just a thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
First of all, DV is only a little bit to the left of "Society at large" as it refers to the world. For the US, views here may seem a bit extreme, but not all users are from the US.
Second, why does it matter? I'm the biggest Reagan-touting liberal-bashing bible-banging conservative for miles around here in NJ, but as per my beliefs, I'm fine with people having other beliefs. After all, we're here to LD, and whether you'd like to meet Benjamin Franklin or Karl Marx shouldn't matter.
If any of the Founding Fathers could be associated with modern-day US conservatism (really, the closest analogues at that time were the crown loyalists), Ben Franklin is probably not the best choice. Nor, really, does US liberalism much resemble Marx's ideas, with union influence waning and the liberal movement falling almost entirely into the hands of the middle class. If anything, Marx would probably champion libertarianism, to shift more of the middle class into the ranks of the working poor and hasten revolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neoquestmoo
Regardless, I've met more than enough passionately earnest coffee-shop revolutionaries; this liberal, for one, would rather meet Ben Franklin.
ETA:Cheap gas =/= freedomQuote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Reagan did nothing to support freedom in general except for more freedom for the oligarchs to exploit people internationally.
And like Taoaur said a liberal is much more interested in meeting Ben Franklin than Karl Marx. a conservative would probably not enjoy Ben Franklin's company. Karl Marx was a fine philosopher on political science but definitely not a messiah, his ideas need evolving to fit our world structure.
Besides, I am as liberal as they come. But I don't want a unilateral socialist federal government either. I want local and state governments handling socialism. I just want the private sector to stay the fuck out of government. That's my liberal agenda. I believe the conservative agenda has been usurped to support the private sector which communally owns the publicly traded company known as the Federal Government.
Reagan was whacky. He was against corporatism but he increased government spending hugely... I prefer consistency.
He was against corporatism with his rhetoric but everything the man did was statist in reality, he just wanted the State to be unaccountable to voters. Blurring the lines between private and public is socialism, no matter how it's done.
Hey we agree on something!Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei