9 Forum Posts by "joshrxr"
Good god man, way to throw out all my aspirations.
Oh well, but how about the other questions I raised?
I was thinking about how strongly most newgrounds members feel about politics, and I thought, "What if newgrounds members created their own political party." The support for that would be phenomonal I think, considering the huge fanbase this site has. It wouldn't be too bad, certainly would give the smaller parties a competition. But first we need party ideals. So the question I pose is one that many political theorists must think of A. Are humans naturally good or bad, and B. Taking A into consideration, what is the best government to deal with it?
At 7/5/04 08:43 PM, NotYouZ wrote:
No, I wasn't actually. I wasn't talking about anyone specifically, I just don't like people who like canidates for the wrong reasons.
The wrong reason? Do you include voting for Kerry simply because he is not Bush a wrong reason?
At 7/5/04 07:39 PM, NotYouZ wrote: I don't like the types of people who vote for Ralph Nader just because they're less likely to be criticized on internet forums. Sort of like the, "just becasue I'm black," mentality.
If you're implying me, I am avidly conservative and pro-bush. I would never vote for Nader, but not because he's the less popular, but because he's a liberal. Also, that "because I'm black thing" is irrelevant, racist, not to mention fucking retarded.
At 7/5/04 06:05 PM, Proteas wrote:At 7/5/04 05:53 PM, joshrxr wrote: A vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader.Thank you Mr. Obvious. But what you fail to see is that the few people who don't want to vote Bush or Kerry are going to vote for Nader, and that does have an effect on who wins this upcoming election. And the effect that everyone is predicting is simple; same number of votes for the republican candidate, few votes for the democratic canidate, and a small percentage of the vote going to the third party candidate.
A full on repeat of the 2000 elections, minus the recount.
No, I got what the point he was trying to get across, and my point is this: while it may hurt John Kerry that Nader runs, we (not even liberals) can say that him running is a bad thing. We need more people running than what we have, for it is the lack of options that started the whole voting for Kerry on the basis that he is "not bush". The solution to this is to have more of a selection. Because to many people, Kerry is not who they want to see but they feel he is better than Bush.
At 7/5/04 05:36 PM, Sabrina wrote: Do you guys not care at all that Bush will most likley win the next election? To me it's a scary scary thought what this idiot could do another 4 years. People say Nader is taking a small percentage of people away from Kerry but that small percentage could really hurt him in the long run when Bush is leading by a few points. Voting for Nader is simply foolish given the fact that he can't win it's just pointless to take that away from Kerry especially when Kerry and Nader have so much in common. Voting for Nader is sorta voting for Bush think about it.
Yeah let's get rid of Nader. Well we're at it let's get rid of Bush. It's always a good idea to take away the number of people available to vote for. We can have a big happy Kerry dictatorship. See that's the beauty of democracy, that people who disagree with Kerry and Bush yet like Naders have the ability to vote for Nader. A vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader.
If Nazi Germany can be compared to the conservative American today, I think it is plausible to make a similar comparison between Communist Russia and modern day American Liberalism. And if Bush is Hitler, let Kerry be Stalin. Of course, neither of these are true. It certainly matches the person with the side of the political spectrum, however Hitler and Stalin are the poles of this spectrum, while Bush and Kerry differ only because of formailities.
And, in fact I will. Please refer to "liberalism in 1933" thread.
At 7/1/04 03:08 PM, PruneTracy wrote:
How about Germany, when the Weimer government was in place, their first attempt at a new liberal reform, Hitler came in preaching conservatism, nationalism, and preserving their great state, sound familiar? Hitler even declared himself a right-winger, (Don't believe me ask and college history professor, and no, you're high school teacher who coaches football just won't do)
Hitler was a bit too far to the right to consider him anything close to a conservatist. If you really want to draw this comparison, I could say to you that Stalin was a left winger and had many beliefs that democrats have today. Don't try to feed us BS.
