Why are there so many left-wingers on NSG?

[Vestr-Norig]

Mmm. He will probably kill more than that guy who were arrested ever would be able to do by closing down hospitals all over the country outside of the capital (which happens to be where he also is from). By that, I would say he is a menace to society.

Dude, he's the Prime Minister of Norway, not Turkmenistan. He can't exactly just up and shut down every hospital outside the capital like Niyazov.

Not all of them. Just the ones he sees as inneffective and insufficient, which is quite a few. The distance for people to travel matters not to him. Not he alone, of course, but also by the rest of the leaders of the party he represents, and the bureaucrats he seem to have grown such a custom to. As Vecherd said, no touch with the common man whatsoever. As people who know him has said so often, he seems to enjoy being around the "intellectual elite" rather than common men.

[Zaras]

If the rich exist the communists hate them i dont see the difference, only population wise do i see a difference.

Some communists are all "Fuck the rich maaaan", but the actual theory dictates that the capitalist system is the root cause of most of the ills you're complaining about.

Therefore, the hate is most often reserved for rich people who buy into and reinforce the system consciously and openly.

[Marxian 1848 Utopia]

Usually as people get older, they become less liberal. Whether that's good or bad is up to personal opinion.

Wait, is there something that makes people care less about others/be more intolerant as they grow up?

I'm not entirely sure. The whole notion of "caring about others" and "tolerance" varies depending on one's age, as well as their worldview and ideology. I would suggest that the whole concept of "tolerance" in today's society is merely a shell game.

[quote="Marxian 1848 Utopia";p="10863485]Usually as people get older, they become less liberal. [/quote]
That isn't exactly true.[/quote]

Thats why I used the word "usually." Liberal ends meaning different things to people depending on their age. At my age I would consider true liberalism to be an indication of personal freedom, not economic policy and national policy. However, today's current political distinctions in american politics seems kind of misleading. Todays "liberals" are essentially statists and nationalists with socio-fascist beliefs. The same thing however could be said of today's American conservatives as well. (Notice how both advocate for different forms of both social and economic control by the Federal Government/National Government.

[Free Soviets]

Usually as people get older, they become less liberal.

That isn't exactly true.

in fact, it's the opposite of true. granted, older people don't often move left as fast as the younger crowds do. but consider the people rioting and throwing rocks at black kids trying to go to school? by 2000, they were mainly still alive and kicking. and also mainly on-board with at least the theoretical existence of black people being allowed to use the drinking fountain. for at least the past century, in the US, people have moved way left as they age.

[The SAC Syndicalist Federation]

Oh dear... You consider Social Democracy an extreme position? I'm Swedish, I consider our Social Democratic party, which you might recognize as having been in government almost constantly since 1931, a centre-right party under red banners. Damn it, son. "Outright socialists"? No... Just no... Neither of these are extremes.

[Zaras]

Dude, he's the Prime Minister of Norway, not Turkmenistan. He can't exactly just up and shut down every hospital outside the capital like Niyazov.

Not everyone. Just the ones he sees as inneffective and insufficient, which is quite a few. The distance for people to travel matters not to him. Not he alone, of course, but also by the rest of the leaders of the party he represents, and the bureaucrats he seem to have grown such a custom to. As Vecherd said, no touch with the common man whatsoever. As people who know him has said so often, he seems to enjoy being around the "intellectual elite" rather than common men.

Shutting down hospitals, while dumb, still doesn't strike me as enough to put him in "menace to society" mode. I mean, he's not actively trying to destroy the welfare state.

[Scrooge Mc Duck Company]

Ok, I will bring you a simple example.

Let's say I can design cars and you can make lollypops. I want so much to have a lollypop! And you need a car so badly!
So we make a deal. I'll make a car for you and you'll make a lollypop for me. Again, it's a very theoritical example targeting on your leftists view about "product exchange market".

So we start.

-You make the lollypop in one hour mostly (You where watching TV at the same time ).
-As for me, I spend dozens of hours designing, manufacturing and finally assembling the car. The energy I've put in this project is immensly great, the resources I have used are difficult to find and manufacture, not to mention the risk of getting an accident, etc.

The time for the exchange has come. But as you can see (and mostly I), the essence of the exchange is not beneficial for me, only for you. (That's the point where you all are wrong) So I say to you: "Hey, you know what, I 've tried so hard for this car-much harder than you. So to balance the supply, I ask you to make 999 lollypops more in order to equal my workhours. I am not stupid." So there you have your first currency: 1 car= 1000 lollypops (and there is the point when all the things about money and exchange market begin). No money, no nothing like that. Only workhour and workforce.

I get what you're saying, but that's in Adam's article too, the part about money being used as a "scoreboard" for the work being done in society and a reward showing that you have done enough productive work.

Exactly. Now you are getting my point and it seems we both agree to this matter. Money is nothing more than a mean of assessing and rewarding overall effort. It's important, in order to maintain the faireness of the exchange system.

So I don't want to hear again you leftists talking crap for example: "money is evil" or "money is not essential". (not you Zaras, generally speaking).

[Algaia]

While there are many rich people who exploit others they're not all bad...I come from a well off family and we're nothing like the oh so evil rich people you've described in your posts

Well, hey, I tend to be a bit pessimistic after reading a lot about the disasters of deregulation and the way modern CEOs tend to be short-term-thinking sociopaths who only care about profits...

Profits are always going to be a major priority since with out them a company sinks, however, my dad owns a multi national company and he is a pretty decent guy...the media doesn't usually do a story on those type of people because they're boring to read about so the general populace mostly hears about the company owners that are border line evil.

[Marxian 1848 Utopia]

That isn't exactly true.

in fact, it's the opposite of true. granted, older people don't often move left as fast as the younger crowds do. but consider the people rioting and throwing rocks at black kids trying to go to school? by 2000, they were mainly still alive and kicking. and also mainly on-board with at least the theoretical existence of black people being allowed to use the drinking fountain. for at least the past century, in the US, people have moved way left as they age.

I'm not sure how the civil rights movement is a manifestation of the "left."

[Free Soviets]

in fact, it's the opposite of true. granted, older people don't often move left as fast as the younger crowds do. but consider the people rioting and throwing rocks at black kids trying to go to school? by 2000, they were mainly still alive and kicking. and also mainly on-board with at least the theoretical existence of black people being allowed to use the drinking fountain. for at least the past century, in the US, people have moved way left as they age.

I'm not sure how the civil rights movement is a manifestation of the "left."

well then you have deeper problems...

[Zaras]

I get what you're saying, but that's in Adam's article too, the part about money being used as a "scoreboard" for the work being done in society and a reward showing that you have done enough productive work.

Exactly. Now you are getting my point and it seems we both agree to this matter. Money is nothing more than a mean of assessing and rewarding overall effort. It's important, in order to maintain the faireness of the exchange system.

So I don't want to hear again you leftists talking crap for example: "money is evil" or "money is not essential". (not you Zaras, generally speaking).

I hate it when people get that Bible quote wrong. It's the love of money is the root of all evil, ferfuckssake!

Then again, there's quite a bit in the Bible that sounds left-wing...

[Ragonia]

While there are many rich people who exploit others they're not all bad...I come from a well off family and we're nothing like the oh so evil rich people you've described in your posts

Well, hey, I tend to be a bit pessimistic after reading a lot about the disasters of deregulation and the way modern CEOs tend to be short-term-thinking sociopaths who only care about profits...

In term, firing a bunch of workers to generate a profit will actually be more beneficial to the employees than letting the company go bankrupt and having to lay them all off. Besides, if a corporation is doing bad, it should simply be up to the board to fire the people responsible without compensation. That should motivate anyone in charge to do what's best for the company and generate jobs and capital. Generating a profit is not suppressing the poor, it's beneficial to them as long as adequate wages and working conditions can be guaranteed through correct union intervention.

[Zaras]

Well, hey, I tend to be a bit pessimistic after reading a lot about the disasters of deregulation and the way modern CEOs tend to be short-term-thinking sociopaths who only care about profits...

Profits are always going to be a major priority since with out them a company sinks, however, my dad owns a multi national company and he is a pretty decent guy...the media doesn't usually do a story on those type of people because they're boring to read about so the general populace mostly hears about the company owners that are border line evil.

Yeah, well, have you seen some of Alien Space Bats' posts? Deregulation since the 1980s seems to have increased the distance between companies and their customers and encouraged a corrupt culture where you aren't expected to think twice before fucking somebody over for profit.

I'm sure your dad's a swell guy, but just because some people are good doesn't mean laws to punish wrongdoers aren't necessary. Most people don't steal or murder, but we still need laws against it, y'know?

[Norstal]

Being a conservative means you're for the status-quo or you are reactionary against something. Which is it?

Shit, Norstal is interrogating me... stay calm, stay calm.
One word cannot describe me. I know I am right of center. And every test I have taken has supported that claim.
Reactionary is an one word fringe label and Status quo fails to describe me.

I'm in the bottom right quadrant of the PC. I'm to the right. What do you describe me as then, all mighty Norstal?

Not sure why you're being sarcastic, but I was going to point out you're a libertarian, not a conservative.

[Horsefish]

Cause we're fucking awesome.

EDit: Horsefish made an unfunny funny. Bad horsefish

[Zaras]

in fact, it's the opposite of true. granted, older people don't often move left as fast as the younger crowds do. but consider the people rioting and throwing rocks at black kids trying to go to school? by 2000, they were mainly still alive and kicking. and also mainly on-board with at least the theoretical existence of black people being allowed to use the drinking fountain. for at least the past century, in the US, people have moved way left as they age.

I'm not sure how the civil rights movement is a manifestation of the "left."

You're deluded if you don't think the Civil Rights Movement was leftist.

MLK agitated for affirmative action and programs to redistribute wealth, for one.

[Vestr-Norig]

Not everyone. Just the ones he sees as inneffective and insufficient, which is quite a few. The distance for people to travel matters not to him. Not he alone, of course, but also by the rest of the leaders of the party he represents, and the bureaucrats he seem to have grown such a custom to. As Vecherd said, no touch with the common man whatsoever. As people who know him has said so often, he seems to enjoy being around the "intellectual elite" rather than common men.

Shutting down hospitals, while dumb, still doesn't strike me as enough to put him in "menace to society" mode. I mean, he's not actively trying to destroy the welfare state.

I do see your point, and I agree that "menace to society" may be exaggerating a bit, but what he stands for and is doing, may destroy many people's and familie's lifes. All I am saying is that you should not idolizing him, there are far better politicians to look up to.

[Norstal]

Cause we're fucking awesome. And left wing women put out without a ring on their finger.

But they're all ugly. >:

[Sondstead]

I hate it when people get that Bible quote wrong. It's the love of money is the root of all evil, ferfuckssake!

Then again, there's quite a bit in the Bible that sounds left-wing...

As my dad says; when the Republicans talk about a brown skinned non-Christian socialist who gave people free healthcare, they aren't talking about Obama, they're talking about Jesus.

[Marxian 1848 Utopia]

I'm not sure how the civil rights movement is a manifestation of the "left."

well then you have deeper problems...

If by refusing to politicize an important time in history and the issue of civil rights based on one's race indicates I have deeper problems, then I am content to have said deep problems.

[Vecherd]

Dude, he's the Prime Minister of Norway, not Turkmenistan. He can't exactly just up and shut down every hospital outside the capital like Niyazov.

Not all of them. Just the ones he sees as inneffective and insufficient, which is quite a few. The distance for people to travel matters not to him. Not he alone, of course, but also by the rest of the leaders of the party he represents, and the bureaucrats he seem to have grown such a custom to. As Vecherd said, no touch with the common man whatsoever. As people who know him has said so often, he seems to enjoy being around the "intellectual elite" rather than common men.

Why would he care? He could pretty much do what ever he likes.

[Zijeme]

I'm a convinced libertarian and economic right-wing, and I also notice that there are almost no other Romney supporters on in the Romney vs Obama topic. It's true though that the age group that is by far the most represented on NS is generally more leftist than average. In some cases, even extreme leftism, as evidenced by all the communist/socialist topic on here. I do see a few very competent Romney supporters on he forum, but most seem to be avoiding the R vs O topic.

Might be because many people think Mitt Romney is a silly cunt.

[North Calaveras]

I'm not sure how the civil rights movement is a manifestation of the "left."

You're deluded if you don't think the Civil Rights Movement was leftist.

MLK agitated for affirmative action and programs to redistribute wealth, for one.

ive always hated affimative action, always turns into " give me something because im (insert ethnicity/race)"

and i thought liberals were against wealth distribution(though personally i think they are for it, just that whenever they are called on it they get defensive and claim not to idk)

[Zaras]

In term, firing a bunch of workers to generate a profit will actually be more beneficial to the employees than letting the company go bankrupt and having to lay them all off. Besides, if a corporation is doing bad, it should simply be up to the board to fire the people responsible without compensation.

I'd just advocate having workers occupy their workplaces and convert them to workers' self-management, but that's just me

That should motivate anyone in charge to do what's best for the company and generate jobs and capital.

Unfortunately, some company leaders are dishonest, psychopathic creeps who can't tell the difference between "what's best for the company" and "what's best for us/me"...

Generating a profit is not suppressing the poor, it's beneficial to them as long as adequate wages and working conditions can be guaranteed through correct union intervention.

Exactly. And given the war on workers' unions conducted by cunts like Reagan and Thatcher, my pessimism sometimes doesn't seem so far-fetched.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

Cause we're fucking awesome. And left wing women put out without a ring on their finger.

But they're all ugly. >:

That's what the light switch is for.