Liberal?? Conservative?? Democrat?? Republican?? explain yourself

[maatsmom843]

these perceived divisions within our society are both arbitrary and illusory.

neither agenda is truly concerned with the advancement and collective well-being of humanity, or even the citizens of its own country! instead it is a deliberate and calculated means of dividing the general population against itself.

as long as we are fighting each other over antiquated values, and notions of preservation of or improving an inherently corrupted system, we will never be able to achieve any real progress, and the power and autonomy that we mistakenly believe we own and are entitled to will always be out of our reach.

if you are at all familiar with Hegelian philosophy, you may have more of an insight as to what i mean, as this psychology and dynamic is one of many that are employed against us in an attempt to limit the scope of power to a minimal, global elite circle.

i'm just saying. . . .

 

[Avatar4321]

And what antiquated values are you refering to?

What exactly do you want us to progress to?

 

[Mr Liberty]

And what antiquated values are you refering to?

What exactly do you want us to progress to?

Oh yes please tell us! please tell us! i CAN'T WAIT.

 

[maatsmom843]

And what antiquated values are you refering to?

What exactly do you want us to progress to?

the antiquated values i refer to would be The WASP conservative attitudes that are so prevalent amongst our countrymen. the mentality and lifestyle associated with that paradigm are no longer in tune with reality for the average american man or woman, let alone people of color!

the restrictive, prudish, bigoted ideals of the conservative version of democracy can appear pure and palatable on only a very superficial level. any objective, unbiased analysis of conservatism will illuminate its weaknesses and generally prohibitive disposition. it isn't my aim or desire to highlight the specifics, or to make this into an essay about the disadvantages of conservatism so if you're not versed in the philosophy, you'll either have to acquaint yourself or take my word for it.

however, this is not to imply that the other extreme is a better option. the liberal point of view generally encourages cunning, immorality, and irresponsibility. it also gives the impression that enacting of legislation can ensure that governmental power cannot be abused. in reality you are being given a choice between overt control and consented control (in your own words, as per the legislation you enact)

so then, what type of society should we aspire to?

this is not one that i can honestly say that i feel that i am qualified to answer. i do know however, that it cannot be one in which there is such a dramatic imbalance in wealth, and social representation.

the ideal society would be one in which all necessities (education, decent housing, employment, transportation, food, healthcare, and sanitation) are adequately met and in which every person has a vital function and necessary role in the community. this way no one group can be devalued or degraded, because it would be counterproductive to the advancement of the society.

instead of ruthlessly dominating those countries which have not reached the level of industrialization we have, we can incorporate them into our system and vice versa in a way that would allow everyone to have what they need!

this may sound utopian to you, but such a way of living has (and in some secluded parts of the world) does still exist and with no small measure of success. it is only the destructive Western way of living that is so inherently divisive and

 

[bucs90]

I disagree. Labels are important. Like labeling "cancer". Or "ebola". A deadly or destructive force must be identified to be defeated. And left wing ideology is like cancer. It can be benign like Norway. Or malignant like the USSR.

I'd rather just not have cancer. So a label helps me know what to avoid or fight against.

 

[Avatar4321]

So working hard, being honest, personal, responsibility, and loving our fellow man, etc are antiquated values,?

If you don't have any idea where we should go, why are you so eager to get there?

 

[The T]

these perceived divisions within our society are both arbitrary and illusory.

neither agenda is truly concerned with the advancement and collective well-being of humanity, or even the citizens of its own country! instead it is a deliberate and calculated means of dividing the general population against itself.

as long as we are fighting each other over antiquated values, and notions of preservation of or improving an inherently corrupted system, we will never be able to achieve any real progress, and the power and autonomy that we mistakenly believe we own and are entitled to will always be out of our reach.

if you are at all familiar with Hegelian philosophy, you may have more of an insight as to what i mean, as this psychology and dynamic is one of many that are employed against us in an attempt to limit the scope of power to a minimal, global elite circle.

i'm just saying. . . .

EXPLAIN further...

 

[007]

Sorry... but this thread and it's premise sounds and looks like a bunch of philosophical psycho babble to me. A liberal trait. Over complicating and psycho analyzing things that are inherently simple, only to hear their own lips flap.

 

[The T]

Sorry... but this thread and it's premise sounds and looks like a bunch of philosophical psycho babble to me. A liberal trait. Over complicating and psycho analyzing things that are inherently simple, only to hear their own lips flap.

*BINGO* and Good Form. REP to follow.

 

[hortysir]

Who are you that I should explain myself to you?

or better, still;

Who do you think you are that you'd think that people *should* explain themselves to you?

 

[The T]

Who are you that I should explain myself to you?

or better, still;

Who do you think you are that you'd think that people *should* explain themselves to you?

To sokme? *INDIVIDUALISM* doesn't mean a thing my friend...this person (OP)is obviously a LIBERAL Statist*

 

[JFK_USA]

A liberal democrat and damn proud of it.

 

[maatsmom843]

Who are you that I should explain myself to you?

or better, still;

Who do you think you are that you'd think that people *should* explain themselves to you?

To sokme? *INDIVIDUALISM* doesn't mean a thing my friend...this person (OP)is obviously a LIBERAL Statist*

did you even read the thread???

you couldn't have, because if you did it would have been clear to you that i do not subscribe to either political argument.

i'll be happy to expand on my point, but not if it will only give you a means to hurl insults and not consider the point i am raising in the first place!