You wrote:

"I know nothing about your beliefs? Then coming here to express yourself must serve no purpose whatsoever. You
                                          have said more in this thread for me to come away with certain conclusions about your personality, and the way you
                                          process information emotionally, than if you had been seen sleeping with Morrissey himself."

I did not come here to express my personal beliefs on politics and sexuality. I wrote about Morrissey -- not me. In fact, your conclusions about my own beliefs are completely wrong! I'm not:

(1) Christian
(2) anti-gay
(3) heterosexual (on Tuesdays and Thursdays)
(4) conservative

I myself am liberal! But we weren't talking about me, were we?? (Well, you were! -- but please stop because you're getting it all wrong)

Do you think Morrissey would want to see a strong, centralized state, with huge, powerful bureaucracies overseeing lots of daily activity?? I don't. So how could he be a socialist when he's so individualistic and anti-authority... It's not obvious. I know gay, English vegetarians who aren't socialists. Nor are they fascists or communists.

Morrissey is probably bi-curious. Sure he incorporates gay things in his art for lots of reasons. Bi-curious is not gay. He certainly likes women, at least.

I think you're more interested in attacking me than talking about _Morrissey_.

This will be the last I post on this topic because youa re impossible to get rid of.

*I did not come here to express my personal beliefs on politics and sexuality.*

But inevitably you do. This idea is addressed in an entry level psychology course at your local community college.

*I wrote about Morrissey -- not me. In fact, your conclusions about my own beliefs are completely wrong! I'm not:*

I purposely never assumed you were any of those things, and only asked if you were some of those things in the most sarcastic manner I could muster.

Your ego is wrong and should be disappointed in itself.

And again inevitably you do end up bringing your own personal beliefs into any debate.

*I myself am liberal! But we weren't talking about me, were we?? (Well, you were! -- but please stop because you're getting it all wrong)*

We are talking about your beliefs and how they associate with your conclusions.

"You" mentioned the fact that you were liberal, and I have no interest.

*Do you think Morrissey would want to see a strong, centralized state, with huge, powerful bureaucracies overseeing lots of daily activity?? I don't. So how could he be a socialist when he's so individualistic and anti-authority... It's not obvious. I know gay, English vegetarians who aren't socialists. Nor are they fascists or communists.*

This is truly ubelievable. Although not a Socialist myself, I can still say that your opinion of what a Socialist is is your own personal philosophy. In fact I think many would agree that the majority of people who back the Socialist party in Great Britian are the more liberally minded individualistic types who see government as a way to end the issues of poverty, insufficient healthcare and worker exploitation.

So in other words the right-wing party in Great Britian is the true home of the individualistic anti-authority type. Come on! Take an international politics course, this is all rather tedious.

And ponder this my friend, you readily agree that Morrissey claimed a Socialist affiliation during the Smiths era. So in effect he lacked complete individuality and anti-authority sentiments during that period? Do you see how ridiculous that statement was by you? You have to accept the fact that some people view the Socialist party much more differently than you do. I hope you are also aware that if you are indeed American and voted for any of the liberal candidates in the last election that many Conservative minded people would indeed label you as a Socialist, and maybe even a Communist if they are truly ignorant.

That's what a Socialist is, a person who believes in universal healthcare, worker wage increases, unions, tough civil liberties, affordable or governement provided funding for education, and etc. Only more vehemently and more rigidly.

Republican = Supporting Business
Democrat = Supporting the individual

You see, in America it's called being a Democrat. In England it's called being a Socialist. However recently in America the Democratic party might be considered more moderate than it is truly liberal, but the definition still serves the point.

These are the things that most liberals are for in the United States, and what most Socialists are for in Great Britian. There are different degrees that allow you to call yourself what you will, but in the end they hold a relative sentiment.

I also wonder if you even know what these terms mean because you seem very naive when speaking about them.

It is all semantics.

When all is said and done Philosophy is more about language than actual ideas.

And by the way saying that all gay, vegetarian Englishman were Socialist was meant as a joke.

*Morrissey is probably bi-curious. Sure he incorporates gay things in his art for lots of reasons. Bi-curious is not gay. He certainly likes women, at least.*

And how do you know this? What gleam of insight spread itself upon this fact?

Read the rest of this comment...