Why are there so many left-wingers on NSG?

[Post War America]

Because this is a website, and part of the internet. The Internet tends to be used most by the young. The young have a strong liberal leaning. Ergo NSG is liberal.

[Free Soviets]

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.

'politicize'? dude, how does one 'politicize' politics?
here's the thing. we didn't just all come together to sing hippie songs after suddenly realizing we'd forgotten to grant equality to black people. people opposed civil rights. in fact, an entire side of the political spectrum did. conservatives. when william buckley was standing athwart history yelling stop, he was literally calling for segregation today, segregation tomorrow, and segregation presumably forever.

[Scrooge Mc Duck Company]

And then again, let's all remember an important speech about free market and the greed that money cause:

"Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures, the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind."

~ Gordon Gekko

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vscG3k91s58

You realise the irony, yes?

Oliver Stone does not want you, the viewer, to agree with Gordon Gekko here! Hell, not even the actor who played him agreed with the character here! This is a caricatural statement!

Greed has never worked better than mutual cooperation, aid and friendship.

I am not so sure about that. Anyway I have business so continue the chat tomorrow maybe? Thank you for the small talk.

[Choronzon]

Well now that's a gross stereotype and a lousy reason to claim one side of the political spectrum is better. I'm pretty sure there are easy women on both sides, and women on both sides who won't 'put out without a ring on their finger.'

What Rep said. Horsefish, get the fuck off my side, we don't need sexists on it.

Heel.

[Sondstead]

Yes, but the political party opposed to it at the time, specifically in the South was part of the American left at the time. But that is irrelevant. No American now dissents to the idea of equality for all under the law. However the notion of forced "equality" by the government upon individuals in matters of finances, property, schools, economics, ect is not advocated for completely by neither of the two current political parties.

They were Democrats, yes, but as this time there was a very big right-wing faction of the Democratic Party, which has since almost entirely deserted for the Republican Party, and for that matter there were a lot of moderate and socially liberal Republicans, although the progressive Teddy Roosevelt and Bob La Follette Republicans were mostly extirpated by that time (Though there were still a few left though even as late as the 1950s, like Wayne Morse and Bob La Follette Jr).

[Horsefish]

Fucking hell, it's a joke.

It could've been more obviously satirical though. Make it more blatant you're mocking the mindset and all that.

I know, I know. Been a long day and all that, needed an extra level of stupid on the end.

Will try harder next time

[Zaras]

What Rep said. Horsefish, get the fuck off my side, we don't need sexists on it.

Heel.

No, I'm a face!

[Choronzon]

It could've been more obviously satirical though. Make it more blatant you're mocking the mindset and all that.

I know, I know. Been a long day and all that, needed an extra level of stupid on the end.

Will try harder next time

Wouldn't worry about it. Some people need to just lighten the fuck up.

[Norstal]

What Rep said. Horsefish, get the fuck off my side, we don't need sexists on it.

Fucking hell, it's a joke.

You got caught by the PC police. You are charged of making bad humour.

[Zaras]

I know, I know. Been a long day and all that, needed an extra level of stupid on the end.

Will try harder next time

Wouldn't worry about it. Some people need to just lighten the fuck up.

And some other people need to not sound like jerks and insist that other people find everything funny.

[Zaras]

Fucking hell, it's a joke.

You got caught by the PC police. You are charged of making bad humour.

Well, it wasn't a very good joke...

[Horsefish]

You got caught by the PC police. You are charged of making bad humour.

In all fairness it was a very shitty joke. Wasn't quite fully formed, a joke abortion if you will.

Christ, I'm not doing well tonight.

[Socialdemokraterne]

Yeah... I did set everything to "maximum importance" because I thought I'd unbalance the thing and get a ridiculous result.

I even said, like, legalise drugs, more ecology, more regulation, easier to become a citizen, all the things.

Setting everything for the maximum level of importance might be distorting the results. You should try it with all emphases in the neutral position, see what pops out. Also, bear in mind that if you're taking the test I think you are (isidewith...) then the results aren't based on left/right positions, but rather they are a measure of your proximity to the various positions of each presidential candidate.

Hypothetically you should've ended up with either Jill Stein or maybe Rocky Anderson if you wanted a left-wing candidate in your results, so you'd have to match your positions to them. Those are about the only flavors of left-wing that running.

[Zaras]

Yeah... I did set everything to "maximum importance" because I thought I'd unbalance the thing and get a ridiculous result.

I even said, like, legalise drugs, more ecology, more regulation, easier to become a citizen, all the things.

Setting everything for the maximum level of importance might be distorting the results. You should try it with all emphases in the neutral position, see what pops out. Also, bear in mind that if you're taking the test I think you are (isidewith...) then the results aren't based on left/right positions, but rather they are a measure of your proximity to the various positions of each presidential candidate.

Hypothetically you should've ended up with either Jill Stein or maybe Rocky Anderson if you wanted a left-wing candidate in your results, so you'd have to match your positions to them. Those are about the only flavors of left-wing that running.

Yeah, I tried isidewith. I'll try it again, without distorting the emphasis.

I hope it's not silly enough to misinterpret "I'm pro-choice, but I also think we should have extensive social services, mandatory sex education classes and stupidly easy to access birth control".

[Not Safe For Work]

You got caught by the PC police. You are charged of making bad humour.

In all fairness it was a very shitty joke. Wasn't quite fully formed, a joke abortion if you will.

Christ, I'm not doing well tonight.

Come on, back into the swing of things. Back in the saddle.

So don't admit the joke was less than perfect, and never apologize - the correct response is to invoke 'Political Correctness Gone Mad' ^(tm).

[Marxian 1848 Utopia]

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.

'politicize'? dude, how does one 'politicize' politics?
here's the thing. we didn't just all come together to sing hippie songs after suddenly realizing we'd forgotten to grant equality to black people. people opposed civil rights. in fact, an entire side of the political spectrum did. conservatives. when william buckley was standing athwart history yelling stop, he was literally calling for segregation today, segregation tomorrow, and segregation presumably forever.

The issue of civil rights wasn't political in nature. It primarily examined the clash of worldviews finally coming to bear that was long overdue. However it became a vehicle for politicians to use to advance their own agenda. I would suggest that most politicians today don't care about about "civil rights" nor "equality under the law." What they care about is staying in office, making sure they can acquire more power in the future, and when they finally retired, have much more money then when they entered politics.

[Edward Richtofen]

Because hippostania has failed to use the most powerfull military machine in the world to rid NSG of anyone who doesn't believe in his beliefs
(no offense intended)
also
because as the younger generations are growing up they see the Left as less corrupt and more humane than the right
even though ALL politics are CORRUPT and inefficent

[Immoren]

Because hippostania has failed to use the most powerfull military machine in the world to rid NSG of anyone who doesn't believe in his beliefs
(no offense intended)
also
because as the younger generations are growing up they see the Left as less corrupt and more humane than the right
even though ALL politics are CORRUPT and inefficent

Wat?

[Choronzon]

Wouldn't worry about it. Some people need to just lighten the fuck up.

And some other people need to not sound like jerks and insist that other people find everything funny.

Not finding something funny does not give you licence to shriek "GET OFF MY TEAM!" at someone.

[Ragonia]

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.

Especially in Europe. "He's a republican, so he must be stupid. Obama on the other hand is a democrat, so he must be super-smart. America sucks and is corrupted by republicans." I hate it. For that reason alone, I'm all for Romney.

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

Having workers manage their working environment is fine, but leading the company to generate a profit is an entirely different skill and requires different people, who are willing to sacrifice a lot for their job (don't underestimate the position). Sadly, this sometimes requires cutting in employee's wages and benefits, but if they feel they're being abused, they can always leave or strike.

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"...

In those cases, I'm all for firing them without compensation. Their credibility will be seriously damaged, making them pay for their irresponsibility.

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

Actually, by correct I mostly meant in a way that it would harm anyone else, which was not always the case back then. I'm thinking British Leyland or the air traffic control strike that caused mass stranding of air travelers. The latter is all too common in Belgium too, in the public transport sector. This is simply irresponsible behavior.

[Sondstead]

I am not so sure about that. Anyway I have business so continue the chat tomorrow maybe? Thank you for the small talk.

Stone, as far as I know, is pretty progressive; he's a big fan of Hugo Chavez who tried to meet with FARC and many of his other movies are sympathetic to leftist causes.

[Frisivisia]

Because hippostania has failed to use the most powerfull military machine in the world to rid NSG of anyone who doesn't believe in his beliefs
(no offense intended)
also
because as the younger generations are growing up they see the Left as less corrupt and more humane than the right
even though ALL politics are CORRUPT and inefficent

Wat?

Richtoven is funneh.

[Free Soviets]

It was a political movement by virtue of the fact that there was an organised political party opposed to it.

And it's still a political movement because some people seem to regard the promotion of equality in culture and society as somehow un-American or shit.

Yes, but the political party opposed to it at the time, specifically in the South was part of the American left at the time.

nope. they were part of the conservative coalition. the parties of the time were completely fucked - large sections of the republicans were to the left of large sections of the democrats. so party ID is of no direct use in placing people left and right back then. in fact, it doesn't actually work until the conversion of southern dems to southern republicans is complete in the early 90s. the last remaining move was the drumming out of new england republicans from the newly unified conservative party, which only got done in the past decade.

[Free Soviets]

'politicize'? dude, how does one 'politicize' politics?
here's the thing. we didn't just all come together to sing hippie songs after suddenly realizing we'd forgotten to grant equality to black people. people opposed civil rights. in fact, an entire side of the political spectrum did. conservatives. when william buckley was standing athwart history yelling stop, he was literally calling for segregation today, segregation tomorrow, and segregation presumably forever.

The issue of civil rights wasn't political in nature.

this is crazy bullshit. i refuse to accept that you believe it.

[Marxian 1848 Utopia]

Yes, but the political party opposed to it at the time, specifically in the South was part of the American left at the time.

nope. they were part of the conservative coalition. the parties of the time were completely fucked - large sections of the republicans were to the left of large sections of the democrats. so party ID is of no direct use in placing people left and right back then. in fact, it doesn't actually work until the conversion of southern dems to southern republicans is complete in the early 90s. the last remaining move was the drumming out of new england republicans from the newly unified conservative party, which only got done in the past decade.

You've made my point, or at least part of it:)