Does this fit you?

2007-05-10 23:08:15

#1

Ty: Mass Media Casualty; +2,398|7222|Noizyland

Winston Churchill once said if you're not a socialist at the age of 20 then you have no heart, but if you're not a capitalist by the age of 40 then you have no brain.
I also hear the phrase when regarding people of my age group, (I'm 19,) "if you don't vote left now you never will."

So I ask, are these statements true when regarding this community? Do the older ones here always stay right while the younger folks sway towards the left?

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

2007-05-10 23:12:04

#2

Parker: isteal; +1,452|6842|The Gem Saloon

no, not from what have seen in my short time here.

2007-05-10 23:14:03

#3

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,993|7079|949

I've been the same my whole life pretty much, except for being raised Catholic through high school.

Although I would say I know why I have my worldview more and more as I age.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-05-10 23:15:17)

2007-05-10 23:58:29

#4

apollo_fi: The Flying Kalakukko.; +94|6978|The lunar module

I've got two years until 40, and cannot see any dramatic change happening in my political leanings in that time.

So, I have no brain

2007-05-11 00:23:30

#5

TrollmeaT: Aspiring Objectivist; +492|7120|Colorado

I had no interest in politics until recently, after reading several books on philosophy, economics & the world political systems I discovered that capitalism is the only system geared to the life of a rational being & the only moral politico-economic system in history. According to the political poll on here a while back most of this community are communist / socialists. All I can say about those forms of government is look at the failure to their people over time & the wholesale slaughter that has occurred in these systems.
Now the united states came close to capitalism but never laid the philosophical foundation for it, that is laissez - faire capitalism. The consequences for this is what we are seeing today in a mixed economy half capitalism half statist, with the statist part ripping capitalism apart.
The statement would be true with me except about the 20 year old part, I was a total anarchist at the time even though I didn't know what that meant. Now I'm 33 & on fire for capitalism so I guess it's true for me but only because I did my homework out of disgust of the things going on in the world. I want to make a difference but we are going to need a sweeping ideological change in this country like the one I just had.
On closing Winston sounded like a very wise man, I wish we had more in the world like him.

2007-05-11 02:24:45

#6

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|7003

I think Winston got it wrong. Where is the middle ground? The middle ground is the way forward - not leaning in too socialist or too capitalist a direction. I'm 27 and currently lean slightly to the left and probably always will. Unfettered capitalism is ruthless and unhealthy producing societies with far too great a divide between rich and poor. It's pretty un-christian which is ironic given how a lot of the braindead bible-thumpers are right wing.

lol at Trollmeats inaccurate description of the American political scene.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-11 02:27:52)

2007-05-11 02:35:35

#7

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7257|Nårvei

I reckon many youngsters are leaning towards sosialism when they are at that age and have little or no worries, when you get older you find out you need to secure yourself economicly, provide for children and such - those lines can easily be drawn at age 20 and age 40 but the analogy really doesn`t hold imho.

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2007-05-11 03:40:29

#8

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6967|Πάϊ

Churchill's got many quotes like this... sometimes he gets it right, sometimes he doesn't. I guess this is the latter. Not because it doesn't happen, but because its a bit too straightforward a statement.

I have many examples of people who were once leftists of some sort slowly turn to the right, not so much in economics, mostly in social matters. Knowledge and age may bring about a little cynicism which opposes the idealism of the young, I'll give him that. But capitalism is certainly not the political equivalent of maturity as Mr. Churchill obviously implies.

Last edited by oug (2007-05-11 03:41:11)

_ƒ³

2007-05-11 03:57:32

#9

Janysc: Member; +59|7131|Norway

I've been leaning more to the right the last few years, but I'm still out on the red plain... but the overall trend fits the deal.

Damn that pitbull man.

2007-05-11 04:19:22

#10

Cerpin_Taxt: Member; +155|6650

The older I get, the more I lean towards the right on economic issues, but towards the left on many social issues. When you start a career and begin making a decent living, things get put into perspective.

Many younger people, especially on this forum, have a one-track mind when establishing their political alignment:

Right = Bush = Bad.

Last edited by Cerpin_Taxt (2007-05-11 04:19:32)

2007-05-11 04:24:13

#11

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7257|Nårvei

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
The older I get, the more I lean towards the right on economic issues, but towards the left on many social issues. When you start a career and begin making a decent living, things get put into perspective.

Many younger people, especially on this forum, have a one-track mind when establishing their political alignment:

Right = Bush = Bad.

So economic and social issues are not bonded ?

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2007-05-11 04:25:50

#12

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|7003

The best and most egalitarian countries I've ever been to are overwhelingly socialist: Norway & Sweden. Norway in particular has nailed politics perfectly.

2007-05-11 04:37:37

#13

DesertFox-: The very model of a modern major general; +796|7132|United States of America

Hmm, there is a similar quote, supposedly said by Mr. Churchill as well but it wasn't, saying the a close message: "If you're a liberal at 20, you have no heart; if you're still a liberal at 40, you have no brain." Still, I don't believe that is anywhere near a logical arguement for either statement.

2007-05-11 04:42:50

#14

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7257|Nårvei

CameronPoe wrote:
The best and most egalitarian countries I've ever been to are overwhelingly socialist: Norway & Sweden. Norway in particular has nailed politics perfectly.

We still complain about a lot of things that could still have been better, think we are the little rich spoiled brat of the western civilisation

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2007-05-11 04:43:06

#15

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6967|Πάϊ

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
Many younger people, especially on this forum, have a one-track mind when establishing their political alignment:

Right = Bush = Bad.

Young people's one-track mind goes the other way as well:

Left = Communism = Stalin = Bad

It's the ignorants' way of dealing with complicated stuff. Can't really blame either one of them. Education ftw!

_ƒ³

2007-05-11 04:57:21

#16

Cerpin_Taxt: Member; +155|6650

Varegg wrote:
Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
The older I get, the more I lean towards the right on economic issues, but towards the left on many social issues. When you start a career and begin making a decent living, things get put into perspective.

Many younger people, especially on this forum, have a one-track mind when establishing their political alignment:

Right = Bush = Bad.
So economic and social issues are not bonded ?

Many aren't. You can favor right-wing economics and gay marriage at the same time. Likewise, you can favor left-wing economics and be against abortion.

2007-05-11 05:00:03

#17

Cerpin_Taxt: Member; +155|6650

oug wrote:
Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
Many younger people, especially on this forum, have a one-track mind when establishing their political alignment:

Right = Bush = Bad.
Young people's one-track mind goes the other way as well:

Left = Communism = Stalin = Bad

It's the ignorants' way of dealing with complicated stuff. Can't really blame either one of them. Education ftw!

That isn't ignorance, it's just observation. Communism has generally failed throughout history.

Personally, I don't even think it is viable in theory (well it is, just not preferable). That is because you remove the competitive drive from society, and, as a result, advancement. BF2 wouldn't exist had this world chosen communism.

Does communism potentially help the poor? Yes, but it also makes life equally lame and stagnant for everyone.

Last edited by Cerpin_Taxt (2007-05-11 05:02:20)

2007-05-11 05:00:08

#18

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7257|Nårvei

So gay marriage is considered a left wing sosial issue and abortion is considered a right wing one ?

That`s new to me.

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2007-05-11 05:01:08

#19

Cerpin_Taxt: Member; +155|6650

Varegg wrote:

So gay marriage is considered a left wing sosial issue and abortion is considered a right wing one ?

That`s new to me.

In the US those are some of the major issues dividing the two wings.

Last edited by Cerpin_Taxt (2007-05-11 05:02:55)

2007-05-11 05:05:58

#20

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7257|Nårvei

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
oug wrote:
Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
Many younger people, especially on this forum, have a one-track mind when establishing their political alignment:

Right = Bush = Bad.
Young people's one-track mind goes the other way as well:

Left = Communism = Stalin = Bad

It's the ignorants' way of dealing with complicated stuff. Can't really blame either one of them. Education ftw!
That isn't ignorance, it's just observation. Communism has always failed throughout history.

Personally, I don't even think it is viable in theory (well it is, just not preferable). That is because you remove the competitive drive from society, and, as a result, advancement. BF2 wouldn't exist had this world chosen communism.

Does communism potentially help the poor? Yes, but it just makes life equally lame and stagnant for everyone.

And why has communism failed, ask yourself that question before you judge it.

Communism as intended and this is only the short version: Equal rights and benefits for all, share everything with everybody.

The reason communism have failed is because those in charge are not really communists, they are rather the prime example of a hard core capitalist, communism as it worked in the Sovjet Union was only for the people not for the leaders and that crashed even though it took many years.

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2007-05-11 05:08:47

#21

Switch: Knee Deep In Clunge; +489|6911|Tyne & Wear, England

I think I must have matured early then, from the age of 16 I was a bit of a leftie, but by 18 I was leaning more towards the center, which is the best place to be. Now at the age of 21 I think I'll end up center right in the future.

So I guess Churchill's concept of progressing left to right, is pretty accurate for me.

Last edited by KILLSWITCH (2007-05-11 05:09:14)

Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.

2007-05-11 05:11:14

#22

Cerpin_Taxt: Member; +155|6650

Varegg wrote:
Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
oug wrote:
Young people's one-track mind goes the other way as well:

Left = Communism = Stalin = Bad

It's the ignorants' way of dealing with complicated stuff. Can't really blame either one of them. Education ftw!
That isn't ignorance, it's just observation. Communism has always failed throughout history.

Personally, I don't even think it is viable in theory (well it is, just not preferable). That is because you remove the competitive drive from society, and, as a result, advancement. BF2 wouldn't exist had this world chosen communism.

Does communism potentially help the poor? Yes, but it just makes life equally lame and stagnant for everyone.
And why has communism failed, ask yourself that question before you judge it.

Communism as intended and this is only the short version: Equal rights and benefits for all, share everything with everybody.

The reason communism have failed is because those in charge are not really communists, they are rather the prime example of a hard core capitalist, communism as it worked in the Sovjet Union was only for the people not for the leaders and that crashed even though it took many years.

Yes, that is true. I was just making the point that even though communism can work, you are trading society's advancement among other things (i.e. entertainment and general consumer good quality) for equality.

Last edited by Cerpin_Taxt (2007-05-11 05:11:47)

2007-05-11 05:12:29

#23

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|7154|67.222.138.85

Economically, almost, politically, no.

2007-05-11 05:16:08

#24

max: Vela Incident; +1,652|7015|NYC / Hamburg

not really. I have always been a right wing/libertarian/just not anarchy mix. So basically low taxes for all, government only does the basics (pay police, very basic social security, build roads, maintain legal system,....) and anyone can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect others

_{once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.}

2007-05-11 05:17:43

#25

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7257|Nårvei

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
Varegg wrote:
Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

That isn't ignorance, it's just observation. Communism has always failed throughout history.

Personally, I don't even think it is viable in theory (well it is, just not preferable). That is because you remove the competitive drive from society, and, as a result, advancement. BF2 wouldn't exist had this world chosen communism.

Does communism potentially help the poor? Yes, but it just makes life equally lame and stagnant for everyone.
And why has communism failed, ask yourself that question before you judge it.

Communism as intended and this is only the short version: Equal rights and benefits for all, share everything with everybody.

The reason communism have failed is because those in charge are not really communists, they are rather the prime example of a hard core capitalist, communism as it worked in the Sovjet Union was only for the people not for the leaders and that crashed even though it took many years.
Yes, that is true. I was just making the point that even though communism can work, you are trading society's advancement among other things (i.e. entertainment and general consumer good quality) for equality.

Not so sure about that cause the Soviets had some of the best theaters and Opera facilities, you can`t oppress a people without entertainment. Just because they don`t have 500 television channels doesn`t mean they don`t have entertain of the same or even better quality.

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

Yes	32%	32% - 31
No	52%	52% - 49
Unsure	14%	14% - 14
Total: 94

BF2S Forums Does this fit you?

Poll

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

oug wrote:

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

oug wrote:

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

oug wrote:

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

Board footer