- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

how would you describe your views

#21

@FC-in-the-UK everything depends upon view point what seems to u idiotic can be a good reason for @mAHiTh1708 u can't change someone's view point. So u can't insult someone's view point by saying his or her view point idiotic. May be you are right but idiotic is not the right word @FC-in-the-UK

@FC-in-the-UK everything depends upon view point what seems to u idiotic can be a good reason for @mAHiTh1708 u can't change someone's view point. So u can't insult someone's view point by saying his or her view point idiotic. May be you are right but idiotic is not the right word @FC-in-the-UK
#22

@FC-in-the-UK said in #20:

That's the most idiotic reason for hating communists I've ever read.
One, India fighting China (and conversely) is obviously not a good thing. Peaceful solutions should be looked for.
Two, China is only communist on paper. It has a 'market communism' policy, which is an oxymoron. I don't know about Indian communists, but I am sure most communist parties worldwide do not sympathise with China.
Indian communists attended the 100th inguration of CCP during 1962 war they said not even one communist should donate blood to indian soldiers and put up posters and what they meant by protesting was that india should leave the land ok then I say "I hate "Indian Communists"

@FC-in-the-UK said in #20: > That's the most idiotic reason for hating communists I've ever read. > One, India fighting China (and conversely) is obviously not a good thing. Peaceful solutions should be looked for. > Two, China is only communist on paper. It has a 'market communism' policy, which is an oxymoron. I don't know about Indian communists, but I am sure most communist parties worldwide do not sympathise with China. Indian communists attended the 100th inguration of CCP during 1962 war they said not even one communist should donate blood to indian soldiers and put up posters and what they meant by protesting was that india should leave the land ok then I say "I hate "Indian Communists"
#23

Mabye communists are defined differently in each country

Mabye communists are defined differently in each country
#24

@mAHiTh1708 said in #22:

Indian communists attended the 100th inguration of CCP during 1962 war they said not even one communist should donate blood to indian soldiers and put up posters and what they meant by protesting was that india should leave the land ok then I say "I hate "Indian Communists"
Communism in India is not very same now , Communists in 1962 war may have said that but Real problem was letting China annex Tibet and Making Menan defence minister .
Kerala is communist tended and it is most developed and most literate state .

@mAHiTh1708 said in #22: > Indian communists attended the 100th inguration of CCP during 1962 war they said not even one communist should donate blood to indian soldiers and put up posters and what they meant by protesting was that india should leave the land ok then I say "I hate "Indian Communists" Communism in India is not very same now , Communists in 1962 war may have said that but Real problem was letting China annex Tibet and Making Menan defence minister . Kerala is communist tended and it is most developed and most literate state .
#25

This doesn't change the fact that democracy cannot help a country develop and communism is the way to go for a developing country

This doesn't change the fact that democracy cannot help a country develop and communism is the way to go for a developing country
#26

@mAHiTh1708 said in #22:

Indian communists attended the 100th inguration of CCP during 1962 war they said not even one communist should donate blood to indian soldiers and put up posters and what they meant by protesting was that india should leave the land ok then I say "I hate "Indian Communists"
I am talking about nowadays. Not 1962. You were probably not even born in 1962.

@mAHiTh1708 said in #22: > Indian communists attended the 100th inguration of CCP during 1962 war they said not even one communist should donate blood to indian soldiers and put up posters and what they meant by protesting was that india should leave the land ok then I say "I hate "Indian Communists" I am talking about nowadays. Not 1962. You were probably not even born in 1962.
#27

@CosmicPegasus2006 I said his point of view is idiotic. I didn't call himself an idiot. Or a "raskel". I know someone here that can't say the same.

@CosmicPegasus2006 I said his point of view is idiotic. I didn't call himself an idiot. Or a "raskel". I know someone here that can't say the same.
#28

@mAHiTh1708 said in #19:

i think conservative,,radical will also differ from country to country right??

The specifics can differ significantly, but generally there will be strong overlap between specific categories. One big problem is that these designations are complex and rarely are all encompassing. You can have economic liberalists who have opposing views on immigration policy. You can have two politicians who support homosexual marriage equality, but one can be a progressive and the other libertarian.

Above all, it's important to remember a beautiful Otto von Bismarck quote: “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable—the art of the next best.”

What this means is that politicians may not be able to implement their ideal solution because of opposition politicians, or they have to compromise on other key points to garner support, or they want to risk public backlash. In my previous example, Thatcher would have loved to dismantle Britain's National Health Service but even as powerful as she was, she dared not risk public ire.

Richard Nixon proposed a Universal Basic Income for all Americans, not because he believed in it but thought the Democrats would try and push through their own more extreme version.

@mAHiTh1708 said in #19: > i think conservative,,radical will also differ from country to country right?? The specifics can differ significantly, but generally there will be strong overlap between specific categories. One big problem is that these designations are complex and rarely are all encompassing. You can have economic liberalists who have opposing views on immigration policy. You can have two politicians who support homosexual marriage equality, but one can be a progressive and the other libertarian. Above all, it's important to remember a beautiful Otto von Bismarck quote: “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable—the art of the next best.” What this means is that politicians may not be able to implement their ideal solution because of opposition politicians, or they have to compromise on other key points to garner support, or they want to risk public backlash. In my previous example, Thatcher would have loved to dismantle Britain's National Health Service but even as powerful as she was, she dared not risk public ire. Richard Nixon proposed a Universal Basic Income for all Americans, not because he believed in it but thought the Democrats would try and push through their own more extreme version.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.