Originally posted by Devil KingTo a degree I assume. Though I believe that in a true anarchist society many things would be required for people to adopt. Also, don't you, in the same way, express a huge amount of unwarranted faith in your fellow men? Your fellow men you choose to be your absolute rulers on top of that?
You express a lot of unwarranted faith in your fellow man.
Originally posted by Bardock42
To a degree I assume. Though I believe that in a true anarchist society many things would be required for people to adopt. Also, don't you, in the same way, express a huge amount of unwarranted faith in your fellow men? Your fellow men you choose to be your absolute rulers on top of that?
Not at all. We both know I'm a fascist.
Originally posted by Bardock42
But you have faith in one (or a few) person. As we know 95% of people are morons. The likelyhood that you will have a moronic leader is ... likely.
I have faith in me. That's why I'm not a registered fascist. As for 95%, I think that's a little high, but still a reasonable assumption.
As it is, I do not run things in this world; this is why I rarely argue from a fascist perspective. Obama is no more a fascist than is Ron Paul an anarchist.
Originally posted by Devil KingI think actually that Obama is a little less fascist than Ron Paul is anarchist.
I have faith in me. That's why I'm not a registered fascist. As for 95%, I think that's a little high, but still a reasonable assumption.As it is, I do not run things in this world; this is why I rarely argue from a fascist perspective. Obama is no more a fascist than is Ron Paul an anarchist.
But as I remember your form of fascism, it could very much be compatible with my form of libertarianism. We both don't like people interfering with private business. If no one is harmed (but possibly yourself) it's of no matter to anyone. The anarchist society I envision is the sort of utopia to that ideal, it is unlikely if not impossible to achieve, but I see no point in denying it. I am just as much a libertarian as I am an anarchist though. And I could see your idea of fascism in connection with my idea of libertarianism. As I said, Democracy sucks.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think actually that Obama is a little less fascist than Ron Paul is anarchist.But as I remember your form of fascism, it could very much be compatible with my form of libertarianism. We both don't like people interfering with private business. If no one is harmed (but possibly yourself) it's of no matter to anyone. The anarchist society I envision is the sort of utopia to that ideal, it is unlikely if not impossible to achieve, but I see no point in denying it. I am just as much a libertarian as I am an anarchist though. And I could see your idea of fascism in connection with my idea of libertarianism. As I said, Democracy sucks.
My idea of fascism is the first step towards that utopian society. A very harsh and bitter, seemingly dangerous step. But a vital one none the less.
Then perhaps we should have a moderator remove any posts in the thread that have nothing to do with the 2008 elections. Other forms of government, past elections, etc.
I doubt slightly askewed conversation detracts from the topic.
BUT, I have noticed that conversation abut the current elections have wavered. The primary process seems to have been so over publicized that the run up to the November ballots has begun to wear on people. I think this works in the favor of the republicans.
Something huge needs to happen to catch the interest of the public again.
I wasn't suggesting deleting the posts, just that we get back on topic.
And I disagree. Just because some people might be getting weary of election talk, I don't think that benefits the Republicans. By the way, are you referring solely to the Presidential race, or in other races too? Because Democratic candidates have been setting fund-raising records that show that no matter how long the process may go on, people know what they want.
As a parallel I would cite the filibuster of the Voting Rights Act of 1964. It was filibustered for 15+ hours, but in the end it still passed with a comfortable majority. The length of a process doesn't change one's goals.
Originally posted by Strangelove
I wasn't suggesting deleting the posts, just that we get back on topic.And I disagree. Just because some people might be getting weary of election talk, I don't think that benefits the Republicans. By the way, are you referring solely to the Presidential race, or in other races too? Because Democratic candidates have been setting fund-raising records that show that no matter how long the process may go on, people know what they want.
As a parallel I would cite the filibuster of the Voting Rights Act of 1964. It was filibustered for 15+ hours, but in the end it still passed with a comfortable majority. The length of a process doesn't change one's goals.
Yes, only to the presidential election. I recently spoke to some friends that I haven't had the chance to talk to for the last 8 months, and they all talked about being tired of it. And don't misunderstand, I'm not talking about the votes changing, but only about closing the gap between the vote. There's little the republicans can do to change the inevitable outcome of the election. As I have said before, the primary process has illustrated that much. Democratic votes outpacing republican votes by 3 to 4 is a pretty hard lead for the republicans to overcome. People are simply tired of hearing about the primary process. The primary here was moved up this year, so they're tired of hearing about the on-going process. And the reason it benefits the republicans is because they're often the ones who maintain a constant level of foot peddal slapping interest. So I think it's clear disinterest will benefit the republicans, but certainly not to the point they'd win the peresidency or gain seats in congress.
You'd think that because of the nature of the election and the reputation of the outgoing President, the Democrats would be the one keeping up the energy and "foot pedal-slapping interest". In fact, that's exactly what's happening.
Of course, this is in Indiana, where our primary is actually going to matter for the first time since the 60s. I could understand a certain weariness in states that have already voted.
Originally posted by Strangelove
You'd think that because of the nature of the election and the reputation of the outgoing President, the Democrats would be the one keeping up the energy and "foot pedal-slapping interest". In fact, that's exactly what's happening.Of course, this is in Indiana, where our primary is actually going to matter for the first time since the 60s. I could understand a certain weariness in states that have already voted.
There is little about foot-peddal slapping interest that involves energy; only tired experience and knowledge of the reward. And what is more comfortable to most people?
I have been able to experience, for the first time, a dualist perspective on a presidential election. Those who have voted are tired of the process and those who have yet to have a preliminary say in the matter are still waiting to be heard. That's why I think the democratic ticket going all the way to the convention won't hurt either candidate, because the super delegate has already been made out to be a figure of decisive proxy.
Special election update: On Saturday, April 5th, runoffs were held to determine the candidates in special elections in the 1st and 6th congressional districts in Louisiana.
In the 1st District, State Rep. Steve Scalise won the Republican Party runoff over State Rep. Tim Burns, 58-42%. He will face Democrat Gilda Reed, who avoided a runoff when she won the party primary 70-30%. However, CQPolitics rates the race as Safe Republican. The vacancy was created when Rep. Bobby Jindal was sworn in as Governor of Louisiana.
In the 6th congressional district the winners of the party runoffs were Republican former State Rep. Woody Jenkins and Democratic State Rep. Don Cazayoux. the 6th District is conservative but not necessarily Republican. Cazayoux is a conservative Democrat, and has received the endorsement of the National Rifle Association. CQPolitics rates the race as No Clear Favorite. The vacancy was created when Rep. Richard Baker resigned to head the Managed Funds Association.
On Tuesday, April 8th, a "jungle" special election primary will be held in California to determine the successor of Rep. Tom Lantos (D-12), who died in February. In a jungle primary, all the candidates from any party run on a single ballot. If any one candidate receives a majority (50+%), he/she is declared the winner and a runoff is avoided. However, if no candidate receives a majority, the top two vote getters will face a runoff on June 3rd. State Sen. Jackie Speier is the overwhelming favorite to win the special election and the general election in November, having been endorsed by Lantos himself in January and considering the district's heavy Democratic lean (CPVI: D+22). CQPolitics rates this race as Safe Democratic