• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Political Compass

I.S.L.A.M617

I.S.L.A.M617

Illuminatus
Sterling Archer said:
Not sure which party you are referring to :p
Click to expand...
Antiquated Mass. laws stir modern-day worry - Metro - The Boston Globe
In 1951, the state passed a series of anti-Communism laws. Among them was a statute declaring the Communist Party a subversive organization and a law calling for up to one year imprisonment of people who allowed the Communist Party to hold functions in their auditorium, hall, or building.
Click to expand...
These laws are still on the books, just not enforced. Technically the Communist Party of Massachusetts is operating illegally. Then again, fornication is illegal, a black person can't walk in the Boston Common at night without a lantern, and a woman's not supposed to try on a hat until her husband does first...
 
Last edited:
Sha'irullah

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
I.S.L.A.M617 said:
Antiquated Mass. laws stir modern-day worry - Metro - The Boston Globe
These laws are still on the books, just not enforced. Technically the Communist Party of Massachusetts is operating illegally. Then again, fornication is illegal, a black person can't walk in the Boston Common at night without a lantern, and a woman's not supposed to try on a hat until her husband does first...
Click to expand...

This explains a lot. So many old defunct laws still around that have been overlooked. What Massachusetts needs to realize though is that Communism will one day rule America :yes:. Nobody needs to fear us
 
Sha'irullah

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
I.S.L.A.M617 said:
Not my America... It'll be Red Dawn all over again, except I'll be Patrick Swayze and it won't suck.
Click to expand...

tumblr_lq3hoxBIZz1qbbra7o1_400.gif
 
G

Galen.Iksnudnard

Active Member
pcgraphpng.php


I got -0.88 economic and -7.18 libertarian.

I'm a bit surprised that I'm on the left, even marginally for economics since I consider myself a fiscal conservative.

I dislike the term "libertarian" at least as it pertains to politics in the US, however since I think they have some policies that are unsound for the progress of social justice. For instance certain libertarians champion state's rights at the expense of individual rights especially on things like abortion or marriage equality, whereas I'd rather have a federal law that legalizes those things and the states wouldn't be allowed to say no.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Galen.Iksnudnard said:
I dislike the term "libertarian" at least as it pertains to politics in the US, however since I think they have some policies that are unsound for the progress of social justice. For instance certain libertarians champion state's rights at the expense of individual rights especially on things like abortion or marriage equality, whereas I'd rather have a federal law that legalizes those things and the states wouldn't be allowed to say no.
Click to expand...
To "champion states' rights" is to take the wrong perspective. You spoke of the small "L" style libertarian, your complaint seems more fitting of the the party (large "L"), which formally supports the Constitution as fundamental law, & opposes government's taking more authority than is granted them therein. Decentralization of authority is inherent in this law, ie, the fed has some powers, & others are reserved for the states. Consider how the fed ban on gay marriage has been successfully challenged by states which legalized it. What we champion is liberty, but the political system to achieve it is merely a tool to that end.
 
Last edited:
G

Galen.Iksnudnard

Active Member
Revoltingest said:
To "champion states' rights" is to take the wrong perspective. You spoke of the small "L" style libertarian, your complaint seems more fitting of the the party (large "L"), which formally supports the Constitution as fundamental law, & opposes government's taking more authority than is granted them therein. Decentralization of authority is inherent in this law, ie, the fed has some powers, & others are reserved for the states. Consider how the fed ban on gay marriage has been successfully challenged by states which legalized it. What we champion is liberty, but the political system to achieve it is merely a tool to that end.
Click to expand...

Well I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of having more freedom in our everyday lives (if two gay people want to get married, I think they should be able to), I'm just opposed to the way it is put into practice sometimes.

Also I think you have to draw the line somewhere. For instance I see discrimination as being wrong and I don't think that the government should guarantee the "right" of people to deny service to customers because of their race.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Galen.Iksnudnard said:
Well I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of having more freedom in our everyday lives (if two gay people want to get married, I think they should be able to), I'm just opposed to the way it is put into practice sometimes.

Also I think you have to draw the line somewhere. For instance I see discrimination as being wrong and I don't think that the government should guarantee the "right" of people to deny service to customers because of their race.
Click to expand...
I agree with your goals, but to give government great power is not a clean solution. Much of the discrimination was legally required by government. Any time we use them to fix a problem, we also give them the power to create a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top