Join the Anti-Party Movement! End the Bias!

[Quantum Windbag]

My movement has nothing to do with current or historic parties. It has to do with single topic, single opinion. Let me repeat that. Single topic, single opinion.

But when you are single topic/single opinion you get proven wrong sometimes. It's important to be a man or woman and admit when you are wrong. I've only had to go through that maybe 3 times in the last year.

My stance is always correct and FOR A REASON. I'm a REAL Patriot.

Have you admitted you are wrong since you joined this board? The reason I am asking is I know that many people have proved you wrong, some of them are actually people I disagree with.

Have you noticed that politics is opinion based?........(newbies)

I will take that as a no.

 

[Asclepias]

Spoken like somone who finally got tired of getting beaten up on these pages because his Party's policies and actions were too often indefensible and his Party's unholy alliance with the MSM was too often leaving him unprepared for battle against Conservative posters.

To borrow from our Founding Fathers: a decent respect for the opinions of your formerly fellow Liberals requires that you should declare the causes which compel you to this separation from their rancorous ranks.

I don't blame you.

It's the only smart thing to do.

How was I beat up in my party?

Every party has flaws. I have no flaws because my opinion is my own. You may not agree with my opinion but that's your opinion. SINGLE TOPIC, SINGLE OPINION.

Your biggest problem is that your opinion doesn't agree with the facts, not that people do not agree with your opinion.

Everyone has flaws, especially if they never listen to anyone else.

Are you really lecturing someone on being wrong? You lie, throw deflections, and create diversions in any and every conversation someone busts you on. The point is that you should not be tied to a political party. Basically you are shooting the messenger.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How was I beat up in my party?

Every party has flaws. I have no flaws because my opinion is my own. You may not agree with my opinion but that's your opinion. SINGLE TOPIC, SINGLE OPINION.

Your biggest problem is that your opinion doesn't agree with the facts, not that people do not agree with your opinion.

Everyone has flaws, especially if they never listen to anyone else.

Are you really lecturing someone on being wrong? You lie, throw deflections, and create diversions in any and every conversation someone busts you on. The point is that you should not be tied to a political party. Basically you are shooting the messenger.

Your personal attacks against me aside, the point is that the guy that made the thread is tied to a political ideology that is exactly the opposite of what he claims to represent.

 

[Asclepias]

Your biggest problem is that your opinion doesn't agree with the facts, not that people do not agree with your opinion.

Everyone has flaws, especially if they never listen to anyone else.

Are you really lecturing someone on being wrong? You lie, throw deflections, and create diversions in any and every conversation someone busts you on. The point is that you should not be tied to a political party. Basically you are shooting the messenger.

Your personal attacks against me aside, the point is that the guy that made the thread is tied to a political ideology that is exactly the opposite of what he claims to represent.

You know this how?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you really lecturing someone on being wrong? You lie, throw deflections, and create diversions in any and every conversation someone busts you on. The point is that you should not be tied to a political party. Basically you are shooting the messenger.

Your personal attacks against me aside, the point is that the guy that made the thread is tied to a political ideology that is exactly the opposite of what he claims to represent.

You know this how?

I can read.

 

[Asclepias]

Your personal attacks against me aside, the point is that the guy that made the thread is tied to a political ideology that is exactly the opposite of what he claims to represent.

You know this how?

I can read.

His mind?

 

[Wake]

In my opinion the attacks in this thread are a distractions to the real issue here.

AntiParty is a person who advocates the "Anti-Party" stance, which in time will become a party of its own should it garner enough members. It may be a party already, depending on how many people it takes to make an ideological group a party. Let's assume it's already a party. In that case, his stance is ironic, because he's already part of a group of people that persuades the decisions of other people on assorted topics (i,e: he's here, doing that).

And, if you notice, part of the thread title is "End the Bias!" Now, that does sound like a good thing but... his title says "Tea is the new Kool-aid." That alone is biased on account of the strong political undertones in that statement.

Championing a stance of "anti-party" or "non-biased" is extremely difficult if not impossible, because likely that same person is biased, and/or part or becoming part of a party.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You know this how?

I can read.

His mind?

No, his posts. You should try it, you might learn something.

 

[Asclepias]

I can read.

His mind?

No, his posts. You should try it, you might learn something.

I did read his post. What did you read?

Anti-Party is a complex stance. It basically means you don't and won't submit to a political parties platform. Anyone that has been in politics for more than a year has seen people justify HORRIBLE things because they think, "If I justify this, we might win and become the greater good"

My movement is don't justify anything. I believe in single topic, single opinion (no matter what a platform says). Believe in your opinion and follow your opinion. If the majority vote against your opinion, then that is what the Constitution wanted. People to vote and EVERYONES vote matters.

Never let a group of people persuade your decision on a topic! That is everything wrong with America today.

The good side of being me is I openly accept and learn from new information and study it to ensure it's true.

The bad side of being me is when someone corrects me I'm morally obligated to tell that person they were correct and I was wrong. This use to happen a lot more, but not so much anymore. Because when you feel shame for losing the argument you naturally don't want to lose and want to learn.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The 2 party system is a problem.. Only 5 people run this country because of it. NOTHING gets done in Congress if Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, and McConnell are against it.

And they don't actually have convictions other than hating each and winning.. OTH -- you are correct -- the Libertarian is TOO dogmatic about Liberty. But I am an active advocate of 3rd party politics because the only way you DEPOSE of parties that won't reform is to create new ones.

And you cannot reform if you are not organized. Plain and simple.. You and I don't owe our vote to ANY party.. But waiting for the right candidates to just magically appear out those parties is a lost cause..

Take a look at the gauntlet you have to run to get a Prez candidate on all 50 state ballots. Something only the Libertarian party has achieved in alternative politics in decades.. It's rigged and the choices are nearly none-existent..

As someone who's basically a libertarian, I agree with you wholeheartedly that libertarians are dogmatic about freedom.

What you don't seem to gather is that every single political philosophy out there is, at its most base level, dogmatic. AT some level, all of your political principles (if you have any) are based on your morals and values. Since there's no way to prove your morals or values "correct", they are dogmatic.

If you say that human lives are worth more than liberty, that is just as dogmatic as asserting the opposite.

 

[AntiParty]

Any time you see "anti party" or "no labels" or hear a political ad that says, "this isn't about left or right", it's about the left. Every time.

Having said that, anyone who calls themselves a Conservative and blindly votes for today's Republicans, is a mental midget.

You have just solidified the cult Fox News is today.

"If you think for yourself, you are a LEFTIST!" *PSYCHO STYLE REEN REEN REEN*

Cults teach that if you accept information from outside sources you are a flaw to the movement and they generally shun you or you leave. Stating that "no labels" means you are leftist is a stance against a cult and has nothing to do with politics at large. The Right openly states you are a weakness if you challenge their platform. The question is, are you strong enough to think for yourself?

Notice how they lynched and outcast this man after he stated this;
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8kwxlHf0cE]Jindal: GOP must "stop being the stupid party" - YouTube[/ame]

A time for a Republican party that talks like adults! OMG! That will be a big step for some!

Straw man argument from a leftist troll. Your PRAVDA is transparent. You are lock stock and barrel for the Far Left no matter how you try and sugar coat it.

Telling others to think for themselves, but if we say we are conservatives, support the TEA Party, and or some Libertarian principles we are radical or some other horse hockey . Your purpose is just to attempt to flame threads with the same worn out talking points of the left, attacking others beliefs and principles without any ideas posted other than attacks.

Why don't you and your party, aka the ASS party, start making solutions based on the REALITY of the situation our country faces today. We live in a REAL world, and our country faces mounting debt which can't be solved by EMOTION or HAPPY THOUGHTS. It has to be fixed with REAL CUTS, and LIMITS ON GOV'T that the FAR Left will never agree to, or the status quo from either party.

Our kids and theirs will pay the price for our refusal to fix and out of control Gov't as we destroy the AMERICAN DREAM by killing the dollar and our economy. Conservatives understand that which is exactly why we fight your kind at every turn, and will continue to do so.

You are extremely uneducated and don't seem to know how to intake new advice or perspectives. I actually plan to vote Right this year. Your entire attack is flawed and bias which is why you have no reason to be on my thread.

 

[AntiParty]

Have you admitted you are wrong since you joined this board? The reason I am asking is I know that many people have proved you wrong, some of them are actually people I disagree with.

Have you noticed that politics is opinion based?........(newbies)

I will take that as a no.

My opinion is always correct kid. You can't try to FORCE an opinion on me LOL. Who the hell are you!

 

[AntiParty]

Are you really lecturing someone on being wrong? You lie, throw deflections, and create diversions in any and every conversation someone busts you on. The point is that you should not be tied to a political party. Basically you are shooting the messenger.

Your personal attacks against me aside, the point is that the guy that made the thread is tied to a political ideology that is exactly the opposite of what he claims to represent.

You know this how?

He "knows this" because I don't submit to his parties platform and only Leftists don't submit to his parties platform.

He is expressing everything I'm against. He thinks that I have to agree with every topic he talks about in order to NOT BE a "Leftist". It's why I call them a cult. The basic principle of a cult is, "Never let outside information in" If someone questions a cult, the cult will fail

 

[Dot Com]

We all know that the two primary parties are corrupt to the core and only work to enrich themselves. Voting for them only encourages them as well. Voting AGAINST someone is not a good enough reason for me to vote anymore. What if they had another one of their *cough* "elections" between corrupt politician A & corrupt politician B & no one showed up?

 

[AntiParty]

In my opinion the attacks in this thread are a distractions to the real issue here.

AntiParty is a person who advocates the "Anti-Party" stance, which in time will become a party of its own should it garner enough members. It may be a party already, depending on how many people it takes to make an ideological group a party. Let's assume it's already a party. In that case, his stance is ironic, because he's already part of a group of people that persuades the decisions of other people on assorted topics (i,e: he's here, doing that).

And, if you notice, part of the thread title is "End the Bias!" Now, that does sound like a good thing but... his title says "Tea is the new Kool-aid." That alone is biased on account of the strong political undertones in that statement.

Championing a stance of "anti-party" or "non-biased" is extremely difficult if not impossible, because likely that same person is biased, and/or part or becoming part of a party.

You are wrong, sorry. Your post was intelligent and I thank you for that.

I love that your brain can't comprehend the anti-party part of my perspective though. I see it a lot in many but you break it down. You say that it will become a Party. It's almost an oxymoron.

My position is single topic, single opinion and NEVER agree to a platform. It's really that simple.

If my "party' ends up becoming popular, then it means Americans can think for themselves again instead of being lead by the Corporate leaders of America.

You can agree with 100% of a parties stance and not submit to that party. Once you submit the party might take a wrong turn and since you are 100% on board, you will turn with them. We have seen this happen with all parties in America today, not both, all.

 

[Dot Com]

^ I thought this was the CDZ? (no ad hominems)

Anyway, President Washington wasn't fond of entrenched parties. Read his farewell address if you haven't already.

 

[AntiParty]

We all know that the two primary parties are corrupt to the core and only work to enrich themselves. Voting for them only encourages them as well. Voting AGAINST someone is not a good enough reason for me to vote anymore. What if they had another one of their *cough* "elections" between corrupt politician A & corrupt politician B & no one showed up?

I don't agree.

ALL parties work for the $. Not just two. All have good intentions, but submit to the $ in the long run in some way shape or form.

Libertarians and the Tea Party have been more a part of the Right Wing lately than Republicans. Grover Norquist (Libertarian) basically owned all Right Wingers up until last election. And Ted Cruz shut down our government in an attempt to show that the sword is mightier than the pen.

I love that you think and thank you. And please don't hate me for disagreeing with you . I don't hate you for disagreeing with me. Knowledge can be fun if you don't take a Fox news style hatred of everyone that doesn't agree with you. That's cultish.

 

[AntiParty]

Anti-Party is a complex stance. It basically means you don't and won't submit to a political parties platform. Anyone that has been in politics for more than a year has seen people justify HORRIBLE things because they think, "If I justify this, we might win and become the greater good"

My movement is don't justify anything. I believe in single topic, single opinion (no matter what a platform says). Believe in your opinion and follow your opinion. If the majority vote against your opinion, then that is what the Constitution wanted. People to vote and EVERYONES vote matters.

Never let a group of people persuade your decision on a topic! That is everything wrong with America today.

The good side of being me is I openly accept and learn from new information and study it to ensure it's true.

The bad side of being me is when someone corrects me I'm morally obligated to tell that person they were correct and I was wrong. This use to happen a lot more, but not so much anymore. Because when you feel shame for losing the argument you naturally don't want to lose and want to learn.

You however are nothing more than a progressive drone. Let me know when actually mean what you say.

I mean what I say.

Perhaps you can tell me what is wrong with "progressive"? It depends on your perspective of progressive doesn't it? I'm certainly progressive with my thoughts. Once I learn something, I change, how about you? Do you learn things and decide it's better to be uneducated on the topic?

Progressive; Lead poisoning. Lead poisoning kills. Progressives make laws to prevent lead from being in childrens toys. Conservatives get mad because it's "regulation"....What's important to you? The people or the profits? You can learn a lot from that statement.

I absolutely take "progressive" as a compliment. But I certainly don't take it as a platform (Do progressives have a platform, good question, gonna search that)

Progressive doesn't mean Liberal. Progressive doesn't even mean leftist. "the world is round" ....."OMG YOU LEFTIST!"

 

[westwall]

^ I thought this was the CDZ? (no ad hominems)

Anyway, President Washington wasn't fond of entrenched parties. Read his farewell address if you haven't already.

Ahhh, you are correct! I will remove the post. I didn't realize we were in the CDZ, My apologies!

 

[westwall]

Anti-Party is a complex stance. It basically means you don't and won't submit to a political parties platform. Anyone that has been in politics for more than a year has seen people justify HORRIBLE things because they think, "If I justify this, we might win and become the greater good"

My movement is don't justify anything. I believe in single topic, single opinion (no matter what a platform says). Believe in your opinion and follow your opinion. If the majority vote against your opinion, then that is what the Constitution wanted. People to vote and EVERYONES vote matters.

Never let a group of people persuade your decision on a topic! That is everything wrong with America today.

The good side of being me is I openly accept and learn from new information and study it to ensure it's true.

The bad side of being me is when someone corrects me I'm morally obligated to tell that person they were correct and I was wrong. This use to happen a lot more, but not so much anymore. Because when you feel shame for losing the argument you naturally don't want to lose and want to learn.

You however are nothing more than a progressive drone. Let me know when actually mean what you say.

I mean what I say.

Perhaps you can tell me what is wrong with "progressive"? It depends on your perspective of progressive doesn't it? I'm certainly progressive with my thoughts. Once I learn something, I change, how about you? Do you learn things and decide it's better to be uneducated on the topic?

Progressivism has led to more death and destruction in the last 100 years than any other single source.

•H. G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.” Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: “I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic.” Calling for a “‘Phoenix Rebirth’ of Liberalism” under the umbrella of “Liberal Fascism,” Wells said: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.”
•The poet Wallace Stevens pronounced himself “pro-Mussolini personally.”
•The eminent historian Charles Beard wrote of Mussolini’s efforts: “Beyond question, an amazing experiment is being made [in Italy], an experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism.”
•Muckraking journalists almost universally admired Mussolini. Lincoln Steffens, for one, said that Italian fascism made Western democracy, by comparison, look like a system run by “petty persons with petty purposes.” Mussolini, Steffens proclaimed reverently, had been “formed” by God “out of the rib of Italy.”
•McClure’s Magazine founder Samuel McClure, an important figure in the muckraking movement, described Italian fascism as “a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.”
•After having vistited Italy and interviewed Mussolini in 1926, the American humorist Will Rogers, who was informally dubbed “Ambassador-at-Large of the United States” by the National Press Club, said of the fascist dictator: “I’m pretty high on that bird.” “Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government,” Rogers wrote, “that is, if you have the right dictator.”
•Reporter Ida Tarbell was deeply impressed by Mussolini's attitudes regarding labor, affectionately dubbing him “a despot with a dimple.”
•NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois saw National Socialism as a worthy model for economic organization. The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, he wrote, had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937 DuBois stated: “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”
•FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.”
•New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was “trying out the economics of fascism.”
•Playwright George Bernard Shaw hailed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as the world’s great “progressive” leaders because they “did things,” unlike the leaders of those “putrefying corpses” called parliamentary democracies.


Progressive Support for Italian and German Fascism - Discover the Networks