There is no difference between equal chances and equal opportunity. They mean the same thing. I don't need these things i use them because they make an arguement stronger. Once again you accuse my of being a marxist without any proof but your delusions So because i happen to agree with the facts i can't think for my self? I believe in thinking for my self. i also believe on using the research of people who know more than me about a topic to help improve my ideas. Sadly you seem incapable of doing that.
The Republican Party was never a Left Wing political organization, the Democrats were the one to move left, starting with FDR, and exacerbated by LBJ, the Republicans have always stood of Capitalism, Strong Military, Tough on Crime, and Personnel Rights. There is no such thing as Equal Chance , There is Equal Opportunity, and people who make the opportunity, are the people who take the chance, by getting there first, up early, stay late, get a education, be the first to the job interview, the first to come up with a new Idea, don't depend on anyone else to give them a opportunity, they make their own opportunities. But you are a Marxist, you believe in taking from those who have and earn and giving it to yourself because you deam yourself needy. What facts? Consensus, isn't fact and it isn't proof, consensus isn't scientific, consensus is a bunch of nobodies who are afraid to speak for themselves, and hide among the crowd.
do you know the history of the republican party? cause from this statement no you don't. Only reason i said chance was i couldn't spell opportunity and i know your anal about spelling. also chance and opportunity are synanyms. Considering i have never said anything remotely close to that. If you researched marxism and had the decency to be honest about my beliefs you would know i am not. not replying to my quote but than not suprising.
You: he made continuous asserations going against the consensus and the expert views with no proof The implications of this statement is that you need consensus and "expert" views to make an argument. Once again, this is a marxist philosophy. It is practiced daily in the mainstream media of America. Have you not ever noticed that only "experts" are allowed to comment on issues? And that expert is one who has received a high degree through one of our lovely universities of indoctrination. Then you say:I don't need these things and why because: they make an arguement stronger. No, it is because you are incapable of making your own argument. You need those things to have an argument. The only proof I need of this is your list of what a marxist is. That list while certainly tenable was not indicative of the greater philosophy of marxism which is complete and absolute state control of society. Sadly, you seem incapable of diaagreeing with that sentiment. You have also made some pretty stock comments that reflect your belief. So because i happen to agree with the facts i can't think for my self? Is it really that you happen to agree with the facts? What the hell does that mean? Facts are not the same as analysis. Here is an analysis based on facts: there are two basic schools of thought in society individual responsibility or government responsibility. Those who believe in individual responsibility fall on the right side of the line (not axis, line). These people tend to be conservative, libertarian, and anarchist. Those who fall on the side of government responsibility (for individuals I mean) land on the left side of the line. These people tend to socialist, fascist, communists. Or in other words marxist. Now it is true that there is a center where both are mixed, but one tends to go towards a specific idea one starts placing themselves to that side of the line. In America today, that center area has grown to include more government interference and unfortunately many republicans with it. Our nation, no thanks to Bush, has moved decided left. That was my analysis of where we stand today. It was based on facts on individual responsibility v government responsibility. While I admit to this being my analysis, I truly believe it is spot on. I have concluded this on my own through my own studies. I did not need consensus, nor did I need an "expert" to help with these conclusions. Name me one time you have sided with on individual responsibility? You haven't, therefore I can only conclude you are a marxist. Marxism is about more than what you posted previously. It is centered around the idea of governmental responsibility. Read the ten tenants of marxism and you will see what I mean. So what facts are you talking about? I agree with facts too, if they are true. Sadly, you have shown that you are incapable of checking your facts to discover the truth. But I am glad you decided to fight, instead of give in. Kudos to you for that!!!
Yes, I do, and consensus: con·sen·sus Audio Help (kən-sěn'səs) Pronunciation Key n. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: "Among political women . . . there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have traditionally faced" (Wendy Kaminer). See Usage Note at redundancy. General agreement or accord: government by consensus. Consensus, isn't fact and it isn't proof, consensus isn't scientific, consensus is a bunch of nobodies who are afraid to speak for themselves, and hide among the crowd. Consensus is jut a general agreement be it right or wrong.
Would it startle you in anyway to know that it was the republican party was the party that worked towards civil rights during the civil war? Proof? President Lincoln was a republican. The Ku Klux Klan's terror served the democratic party.
No, I am from the state were the Republican Party was formed. And Yes, I know that the KKK was almost exclusively Democrats. Just as I know that it was the Democrats from the South who set the Civil War in Motion. I do Civil War Re-enacting, and history is my favorite subject. I am 57 years old, and I learned history before it was popular to blame the U.S. for everything.
Guess how scientific opinion is established. Democratic governments, justice systems, laws, social change in non-dictatorial systems. hint: not by authoritarian rule or marching brainlessly into foreign countries to kill people because someone else told you to.
I'm glad that you know that, most of the people I know don't acknowledge this. Among other things, history is one of my favorite subjects as well.
Opinion is established that way, science is not. And what does that have to do with consensus? Just more of your brainless anti American diatribe.
Oh so how is science established?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Soldiers are brainless, they are brainwashed to stop thinking independently.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Then just how exactly is science established with out experimentation, test and result? The only thing brainless here is you endless anti Americanism.
No, Sam, soldiers are trained to take orders, but they are still Human. The reason is because the military needs organization and hierarchy to run properly, and the soldiers who take orders now may be giving them tommorow. They deserve respect, regardless of what country they fight for, and they're most certainly not "brainwashed freaks" or whatever yous aid.
A good soldier is one who only follows orders, basically cannon fodder. It doesn't matter how far up you go in the military, they can only think in terms of killing people as victory. You won't find any forgiveness there, except for their own atrocities on other human beings.
But that's his duties. They willingly enlist, do they not, to serve their nations. And for this they deserve respect.
Like throwing nuclear bombs on civilians? Killing women and children? Torturing innocent people? Running death squads? Occupying foreign countries? Heh. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
