It's ok when Democrats do it. Remember: Obama also promised to build a wall and nobody complained.
Biden. Better than Trump. Are you on drugs?
The consequences of allowing fascism to grow and spread, however, are very real. When a political party chooses to stand for cruelty and against basic human rights, everybody must stand in opposition to them, even those unaffiliated with any party.
LMAO if I was as petty as you I'd be putting that quote in my signature for sure. Political parties don't choose their own policy platforms? What about elect leaders? I'm sure your social studies/civics teacher loved you.
LMAO if I was as petty as you I'd be putting that quote in my signature for sure. Political parties don't choose their own policy platforms? What about elect leaders? I'm sure your social studies/civics teacher loved you.
If I'm being slightly less facetious, I can maybe interpret your statement to mean everybody within a party is an individual, but let's be real: if your preacher, your party's leaders, and the talking heads on TV are all telling you the same thing, you're probably gonna fall in line.
Wrong, the core of my comment is that fascism and authoritarianism must be resisted and undermined at all costs, by people of all political affiliations AND people of no political affiliation. It's not a controversial statement. The only reason you might possibly take offense to that is because you know of and/or support a current party which is slowly embracing those tenets, but if so that's an indictment solely on you and that party.
The core of your comments suggest that people should take a stand against a political party, which cannot happen without favoring political parties. The comment you responded to basically said, "political parties suck," and your comment reads, "yeah they do, but have you thought about these political parties?"
Fascism doesn't belong to any one party, but any party that embraces it, in part or in whole, must be crushed. You don't have to embrace a contrasting political party, or any party at all, to be part of that resistance. Simple concept.
The point that undermines your argument is that it isn't a "political party". The system that determines the terms of "political party" itself is bought and paid for. You keep elevating their status in response to comments that plainly criticize them. You show no comprehension of the conversation.
If we're referring to the US specifically, maybe, but the ideologies of fascism and authoritarianism existed before this country was founded.
Incorrect again. You're making the conscious choice to interpret my criticisms of a given party as an endorsement of another, but I'm not even thinking within the confines of a two-party system here. I don't need to present a contrasting option in order to say, "this thing is bad and anything it touches becomes bad," it's a statement that can stand all on its own.
You are endorsing the party system in response to a comment that criticized it.
My mistake then, I assumed you were speaking within the context of a two-party system because your arguments are hard to interpret outside of that context.
Oh I get it, you're trying to spin Flame's words into a criticism of democracy in general. I don't believe that was his intent, but I won't presume to speak for him either. Certainly the way the US and the UK have handled their own democracies has been lacking, but still vastly preferable to submitting to a dictator or king.
BakerMan
Psionic Roshambo
@
Karma177:
)
@
Karma177:
@
DinohScene:
@
TwoSpikedHands:
] zzzzzzzzzzzzzz