[Rob Instigator]

The US Constitution is a document written to forge a brand new government by some of the most learned men of their generation, based upon their colected centuries of reading and analysis and study of old governmental systems, thinkers, and political writers.
It was never meant to be a declaration of who is good and who is not, who is put in and who is left out. at the time, and this is a horrid thought but it is true, white folks considered anyone not white to be beneath them, not in class or status, but in SPECIES. it was the accepted religiouscentric view.
obviously to us that is a backwards and ridiculous stance to take, but it was what it was. the US constitution allowed for changes to itself which would express the ongoing changes in society. that is genius.
think about how impossible it was for a people to change the laws of their country before that. the magna carta took countless lives to accomplish and it was just a small step.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

The US Constitution is a document written to forge a brand new government by some of the most learned men of their generation, based upon their colected centuries of reading and analysis and study of old governmental systems, thinkers, and political writers.
It was never meant to be a declaration of who is good and who is not, who is put in and who is left out. at the time, and this is a horrid thought but it is true, white folks considered anyone not white to be beneath them, not in class or status, but in SPECIES. it was the accepted religiouscentric view.
obviously to us that is a backwards and ridiculous stance to take, but it was what it was. the US constitution allowed for changes to itself which would express the ongoing changes in society. that is genius.
think about how impossible it was for a people to change the laws of their country before that. the magna carta took countless lives to accomplish and it was just a small step.

I just get so turned off by its authors, that I would prefer we threw it out and started fresh.. at the least, I abhor the concept of "lets look at what the founding fathers/authors intended" because we already know they had no intentions of do what was said, that their document while sounding nice, was strictly rhetorical.

Originally Posted by dale_gribble

clearly he's arguing that the constitution is good and i would agree with him. just because it's about the rights of free men and it was written by slaveholders doesn't make it any less relevant. i like most of your posts and that wouldn't change if i found out you were a hypocrite. the arrangement of words is important despite who wrote them.

very good point.. my bias is that I am so offended by the hypocrisy that I am blinded to the substance of the words themselves, but you have indeed made the best point on this thread

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by knox

the definition of tyrannical.
you might not think he is, but to a lot of people america is tyrannical.
are you really trying to say the us did not support any tyrannical fascist dictatorship? because.
and are you trying to say that it was done in the name of democracy? if so, you got a lot of places to invade and a lot of people to kill.

for real, every tyranical government in south and central america was supported and pretty much installed by the USA, plus Saddam Hussein was America's boy for a while in the 80s till he decided to bite the hand that fed him.

[gualbert]

I can hardly differentiate left wing and right wing politicians.

I just watched a documentary on Mussolini: he started as a socialist, but didn't succeed as such, so he turned right wing/fascist.
A modern guy, I say.

[knox]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

for real, every tyranical government in south and central america was supported and pretty much installed by the USA, plus Saddam Hussein was America's boy for a while in the 80s till he decided to bite the hand that fed him.

yes, yes yes.

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

even better, Garcia-Marquez with Marx! (or was that what you meant )

that is what I meant, but it sounds better if you drop the Garcia

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by gualbert

I can hardly differentiate left wing and right wing politicians.

I just watched a documentary on Mussolini: he started as a socialist, but didn't succeed as such, so he turned right wing/fascist.
A modern guy, I say.

In a way that encapsulates elements of my original question. The twentieth century was marked by a conflict between the extreme Right and the extreme Left. Since the fall of the wall though, and especially since 9/11, the Left seems to have lost any real political profile, with the Right's greatest critics now coming not from the Left (at least not in any kind of visible way) but from a hyper conversative strain of Islam. This doesn't just question the modern-day validity of the Left but also liberalism, and especially the kind of Left-Liberalism which seems so incapable of forming a coherent position with regards the conflict in the Middle East.

[SONIC GAIL]

I hate the left as much as I hate the right. No matter how you look at it, it will always be about money. That is the only thing politicians are really concerned with.

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Since the fall of the wall though, and especially since 9/11, the Left seems to have lost any real political profile

You should read ian svenonius's essay about the fall of the soviet union (and the left as a visible presence in world politics) coinciding with the rise in consumption of anti-depressents

[Rob Instigator]

we wants the moneys Lebowski

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

You should read ian svenonius's essay about the fall of the soviet union (and the left as a visible presence in world politics) coinciding with the rise in consumption of anti-depressents

Yeah, I think ni'k mentioned that in another thread. It sounds really interesting. Is it in his book, The Psychic Soviet? That's all I can find on Amazon that's been written by him.

[ni'k]

yeah its in the psychic soviet

[demonrail666]

Thanks! I'll order it off amazon.

[gualbert]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

The twentieth century was marked by a conflict between the extreme Right and the extreme Left.

Would you please explain what's Right and Left?
For example, Nazi means national SOCIALISM (ie left wing), but they're labeled as ultra-right by History.
That's mix up!

[demonrail666]

Yeah, I'm sure there's a reason why they adopted that name but, considering how many people the Nazi Party exterminated solely on the grounds of their Leftist sympathies, it does seem very odd.

EDIT: I just looked it up and it seems that the Nazi's opposed any non-national brand of politics, regardless of whether it was of the Left or the Right. I'm assuming that they opposed Soviet Communism because of its underlying 'internationalism'. Furthermore, according to this site the word was used "to appeal to German workers for political support during the tentative early years of Hitler's ascent to power. Apart from the occasional use of empty pro-worker political rhetoric, Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party had no inclination towards true socialism."

Edit 2: In terms of a difference between the Left and the Right, I've always assumed that the Right places a far great emphasis on the rights of the individual and as such believes in the idea of minimising government controls (except those involving the military and the police) while the Left has tended towards more community based policies with a far greater belief in 'bigger' government. When either of these become dictatorships though, the boundaries seem to blur a lot more. As seems to be the case when either tendency morphs into things like Anarchism or Libertarianism.

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by ni'k

yeah its in the psychic soviet

aka The Best Book of The 21st Century

[Lurker]

http://dailynietzsche.blogspot.com/2...socialism.html

473

Socialism with regard to its means.— Socialism is the fanciful younger brother of the almost expired despotism whose heir it wants to be—its endeavors are thus in the profoundest sense reactionary; for it desires and abundance of state power such as only despotism has ever had. Indeed, it outbids all the despotisms of the past inasmuch as it expressly aspires to the annihilation of the individual, who appears to it like an unauthorized luxury of nature destined to be improved into a useful organ of the community. On account of its close relationship to them it always appears in the proximity of all excessive deployments of power, as the typical old socialist Plato did at the court of the Sicilian tyrant—it desires, and sometimes promotes, the Caesarian despotic state of the present century because, as aforesaid, it would like to be its heir.
But even this inheritance would be inadequate to its purposes: it requires a more complete subservience of the citizen to the absolute state than has ever existed before; and since it can no longer even count on the ancient religious piety towards the state, it has [1] involuntarily to work ceaselessly for its abolition—that is, [2] it works for the abolition of all existing states. Socialism itself can hope to exist only for brief periods here and there, and then only through the exercise of the extremest terrorism. For this reason, it is secretly preparing itself for rule through fear and is driving the word "justice" into the heads of the half-educated masses like a nail so as to rob them of their reason—after this said reason has already greatly suffered from exposure to their half-education—and to create in them a good conscience for the evil game they are to play.
Socialism can serve to teach—in a truly brutal and impressive fashion—what danger there lies in all accumulations of state power, and to that extent to implant mistrust of the state itself. When its harsh voice takes up the watchword "as much state as possible," it thereby at first sounds noisier than ever; but soon the opposite cry comes through with all the greater force: "as little state as possible."


480

Envy and indolence in different directions.— The two opposing parties—the socialist and the nationalist (whatever their names may be in the various countries of Europe)—are worthy of one another: envy and laziness are the moving forces in both of them. In the former camp they want to work as little as possible with their hands. In the latter as little as possible with their heads; in the latter they hate and envy the prominent, self-evolved individuals unwilling to let themselves be enlisted in the ranks for the production of mass effect; in the former the better, outwardly more favoured caste of society whose real task—the production of the supreme cultural values—makes their inner life so much harder and more painful. If, to be sure, the nationalists should succeed in imposing the spirit of the mass effect upon the higher classes of society, then the socialist hordes would be quite justified in seeking to level them with themselves also outwardly, since they would already be level with one another in head and heart. Live as higher men and perform perpetually the deeds of higher culture—to this all that lives admits your right, and the order of society whose summit you are will be proof against every evil eye and evil claw!

[!@#$%!]

jeezus i lost track of this fucking mess, not sure i wanna spend the time answering.

[!@#$%!]

ps-

Originally Posted by knox

im in love with !@#$%!, ideologically.

except for this!

[!@#$%!]

speaking of politricks, i'm waiting for obama to appear...


http://mybarackobama.com/page/content/ofaconversation

i thought it would be video, all i see is chat ... hmfffff....