Are you Liberal or Conservative or somewhere in between? [Archive]

Crazedclerkthe2nd

10-07-2011, 05:28 PM

Wanted to drop by this thread again since I didn't finish saying everything I wanted to say this morning.

By "Fiscal conservative" I meant I am someone who believes that everyone should be responsible with money from individuals to the government. Continual debt based spending never does anyone any good and is an unsustainable model.

Of course there's no realistic way to balance the Federal Budget right now without massive cuts that would send the country over a cliff, BUT we at least need to think about finding ways to trim the deficit in order to eliminate and that should be much less painful than a one time massive cut.

Bottom line: I think it's important to spend within your means.

For the record I do believe in rape/incest/life of mother exemptions as far as abortion laws go.

Second point I wanted to add was that even though I might self identify as liberal on some issues and conservative on others, I do not necessarily think of myself as a Democrat or Republican.

There are differences between true Liberal ideology and current democratic ideology just like there are differences between true Conservative ideology and current Republican ideology.

I heard the differences in parties (in the U.S. anyway) described thusly:

- Democrats want to regulate your business but not your personal life
- Republicans want to regulate your personal life but not your business

Of course these are simple blanket statements but they do sort of give a general overview of the way things are in America today.

Both parties want control in one form or another, so it comes down to a question of not whether or not you want government control in your life, just what level and in what areas.

I also feel politicians tend be hopelessly shortsighted and absolutely suck when it comes to enacting legislation that will help support future generations. Note I am not really talking about monetary support, but actions to ensure the environment will be preserved and whatnot.

Definately Liberal now.

I used to consider myself conservative, but the war in Iraq, economic situation, and change in religious views caused me to rethink things. Basically, I like the liberal philosophy of helping the little guy out. The conservatives on the other hand, want to take everything away. Maybe not all of them are like that, but I think they are ignorant of how difficult it is for the every day man to get by. All while being caught up in other issues like abortion and gay marriage, which is only a very small piece of the pie.

For a lot of people the differences you describe boil down to the old "give a man a fish" proverb.

That is to say, the Democrats want to keep handing out the fish and the Republicans want to teach people to fish.

In reality it's more like Democrats want to hand out fish primarily to keep people from starving in the streets, not just to everyone who is hungry I.e. if you make 50K/year you shouldn't really be getting government handouts. Republicans, on the other hand, do want you to learn how to fish, they'll just charge you out the ass for the pole and send you to the cruddiest lake around.

HYHYBT

10-07-2011, 11:28 PM

I saw a bumper sticker not long ago which seems appropriate here. It said something like "Liberals think the glass is half full. Conservatives think the glass is theirs." Or maybe it was the other way around; it works pretty well both ways.

Boozy

10-08-2011, 11:59 AM

By "Fiscal conservative" I meant I am someone who believes that everyone should be responsible with money from individuals to the government. Continual debt based spending never does anyone any good and is an unsustainable model.

That's not the way fiscal conservatism is defined by political scientists, and it's not what most people think when they hear the term.

Fiscal conservatism in the last twenty years has usually referred to:

- A strong belief in free trade
- A strong belief in the free market
- A strong belief that tax cuts bring prosperity

Deficit spending is better considered a non-partisan practice, used by both sides to fuel their agenda (usually tax cuts for the conservatives, program spending for the liberals).

Gravekeeper

10-08-2011, 12:28 PM

According to the ever helpful www.politicalcompass.org (http://www.politicalcompass.org) I'm just past the center point of the Liberal / Libertarian square and basically almost exactly where Gandhi is on the chart (http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif). But just a tiny bit more Libertarian. -.-

mikoyan29

10-08-2011, 03:21 PM

I'm not exactly sure where I stand because it depends on the issue:
1. Abortion - I think they should be kept legal up until the point of viability. If that point keeps getting younger, so be it. However, I myself wouldn't advocate one if I were involved with someone.
2. Welfare - I don't like the free ride version of the New Society. I think that if you are going to get a hand out from the government and if you are able to work, you should. There's a ton of infrastructure in this country that needs work....that's where we should be putting the unemployed. Admittedly, Construction takes some skill but still, if it worked in the 30's, it should work now.
3. Education - I think that if you want to go to a public university or college it should be free if you can meet the requirements for admission to said university. I don't think everyone should go to college. I think teachers aren't paid enough in this country and it seems like they are getting more screwed over now. But then again, I don't see education as a right-left issue.
4. Defense - This is kind of a touchy subject for me because I love military aviation but I think we waste too much money on defense. It doesn't seem like we ever hold defense contractors to task when they can't deliver on time or on budget. I mean take the F-22, that thing has been under development for almost 20 years and we are just now getting operational wings and they still have issues. This is from the same industry that developed the Hellcat in under a year. There are several other examples of waste in defesne acquisitions....I think part of it has to do with our requirements but some of it has to do with has to with the contractors pushing the envelope because they can. Another wasteful practice is how different projects end up getting built in all 50 states. I don't mind pandering to Congress but not on our dollar. But anyways, I think Defense should be just that....defense. NOw I realize that we have many obligations all over the world but I think it's time that some of our allies foot their own military bills.
5. Death Penalty - I'm mostly against it but there are a few exceptions I can make.
6. Wall Street - I think Wall Street has moved from its intial role as finacier to business to finacier of itself.
7. Taxes - I think we need a progressive tax system as I think wealthier people benefit more from the things that taxes bring than the poor people. However, I think it should be a relatively flat tax. When the tax code is larger than the Bible, there is a problem.

I'm not sure where all this puts me......

Andara Bledin

10-08-2011, 07:44 PM

I'm not sure where all this puts me......
Take the test Gravekeeper linked. It actually has questions for most of your concerns.

I seem to have drifted rather a bit leftward in my fiscal views, so that I'm now notably further over than I used to be, putting me on the same fiscal footing as Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, and Gravekeeper, but with the social views closer to the Dalai Lama (http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/internationalchart.gif).

^-.-^

blas87

10-09-2011, 03:53 AM

Mostly conservative, but liberal when it comes to gay rights and abortion. It's a common sense thing. The most basic of rights should not be denied to someone because of sexual orientation.

Note that I am pro-adoption rather than abortion, but I'd rather not judge a random pregnant girl because it's definitely a situation I'd never want to be in, and as gross as it sounds, I'd rather there be more terminated pregnancies than more rampant child abuse/neglect, and also pregnant girls who can't or don't want to take care of themselves.

ExRetailDrone

10-09-2011, 03:58 AM

According to that test, I am somewhere around the ideals of the Dalai Lama and Gandhi. A little less than half-way left, and a little more than halfway Libertarian.

Gravekeeper

10-09-2011, 07:46 AM

According to that test, I am somewhere around the ideals of the Dalai Lama and Gandhi.

<Distinctly Non-Violent Brofist>

Hyena Dandy

10-09-2011, 07:50 AM

According to that, I am as Libertarian as Mandela, and as Liberal as Pope Benedict.

Panacea

10-09-2011, 01:46 PM

Take the test Gravekeeper linked. It actually has questions for most of your concerns.

I seem to have drifted rather a bit leftward in my fiscal views, so that I'm now notably further over than I used to be, putting me on the same fiscal footing as Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, and Gravekeeper, but with the social views closer to the Dalai Lama (http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/internationalchart.gif).

^-.-^

As did I. I used to be a Reagan Republican. Then I realized even Reagan wasn't a Reagan Republican :p, at least not in the sense that modern conservatives try to portray him and imitate him . . . which is why they fail and why I no longer identify myself as a Republican.

I fit in where you and Gravekeeper seem to fall now.

To me, fiscal conservatism has the wrong definition. It should include investing in ideas that prevent waste in other sectors, a "stitch in time saves nine" kind of approach. If we were just willing to work on problems that are very costly down the road, like health care, then government spending might be better controlled.

victory sabre

10-09-2011, 07:07 PM

I used to be involved in politics as a Republican, back when I was younger (in the 1990's).

I was delegate to numerous local and State conventions during that time period. I knocked doors for candidates, was a College Republican (and the Chair of the CR's in 1994-5), voted Republican, and worked on campaigns.

I, really, started leaving the Republican party back in 1992. I was totally pissed off at President Bush for singing the tax increase, and wanted to support Pat Buchanan for President. In the end I didn't. I voted to re-elect President Bush, but i didn't like it.

In 1994 I was working on a congressional campaign, and got to meet Rep. Newt Gingrich. I was not impressed, to say the least. I was far more impressed with Rep. Ernest Istook, and former Rep. Arlan Stangland (whom I also met in person), because they seemed more real, and honest. I lost what limited respect I had for Speaker Gingrich when he was complaining about "the perfectionist caucus", who wanted real cuts from the budget. Also him not defending Rep. Dornan in the vote fraud that cost him his seat didn't help, ether.

I voted for, and worked on Arne Carlson's re-election campaign. I had so many qualms about him, but did it anyway to be a "good Republican", even though we had little in common when it came to political beliefs. In all honesty, the only reason I was on board was because my friend Joanne Benson was his Lt. Governor candidate. My qualms about him were confirmed in 1998 when he stabbed his Lt. Governor in the back, and endorsed party switcher, Norm Coleman for Governor. More on that subject later.

Further cracks appeared in 1996 when Bob Dole was running for President. I highly respect him for his war service, but we are very far apart politically. I didn't support him in caucuses, or at the State convention. I really wanted another choice for President. In the end I voted for him, but didn't support him.

Also in 96' we had a US Senate election. I was firmly behind Rudy Boschwitz to reclaim his Senate seat from Paul Welstone. Oh, my. He ran such a horse-shit campaign, and undercut other Republican candidates in Minnesota. I was working on a congressional campaign in 96', on staff. We were supposed to have a fund raiser with Speaker Gingrich, to raise much needed cash for the campaign. The son of a bitch ordered us to cancel the fund raiser, because Gingrich was "too toxic" in his opinion. That just made my blood boil, and also, everyone working on the campaign. This was right before the election. We threw out every piece of campaign lit. supporting Boschwitz. I voted for the SOB, but only because I couldn't stand Sen. Welstone. I also wasn't able to get paid because of that prick canceling the fundraiser.

Going to 2000, I was a Alan Keyes supporter for President. When Gov. Bush got the nomination, I knew there was no way I could support him for President. I decided to research other candidates. I discovered the Constitution Party. I voted for Howard Phillips for President. This was the first vote for President I felt proud of. I did the same thing in 2004, and 08'.

Going on toward the future: could I ever support a Republican for president again? Maybe. In 2012 I'd vote Republican for President if one of 2 people are nominated: Ron Paul, or Michelle Bachman. They both, in my opinion, believe in the same general things I do. I'd be proud to vote for them. Any of the other candidates, I won't vote for, and would vote for the Constitution Party again. No way in hell would I vote for President Obama.

I'm opposed to abortion, because it's murder. Pure and simple.
I'm for limited government, and limited government spending.
I believe that we should get out of the U.N, and get the U.N out of the US.
I'm pro Second Amendment. The government will NEVER take my guns away from me, at least not alive.

So there's me in a nut shell, and where I stand.

Gravekeeper

10-09-2011, 08:38 PM

In 2012 I'd vote Republican for President if one of 2 people are nominated: Ron Paul, or Michelle Bachmann. They both, in my opinion, believe in the same general things I do.

Ow, that was actually a fairly interesting read till you hit that part and threw it alllll away. >.>

Proud to vote for Bachmann? No offence, I'm not sure if you're crazy or just terribly uninformed. I might have given you just Ron Paul, as he has a few decent positions once you strip away his more fanciful ideas and at least he is what he presents himself to be. But Bachmann? Dear Lord. I have no idea how you can look at her and take her seriously. The lunancy there is unsettling at best. Nevermind her blatant disregard for things like, you know, honesty and integrity.

Greenday

10-09-2011, 09:00 PM

I'd say I'm pretty moderate. I believe in social equality which automatically makes me far left to a lot of people. I'm against drugs, pro-weapon ownership, pro-law enforcement. I'm for education funding, pro-choice, pro-environment.

Pretty sure that leaves me somewhere towards the middle.

Political Compass says I'm kinda left and very slightly libertarian.

Hyena Dandy

10-09-2011, 10:03 PM

Why would you vote for Bachmann?

I'm not going to insult you over it, but I don't see the appeal. Maybe you can explain more?

AdminAssistant

10-09-2011, 10:12 PM

I honestly do not understand why people oppose our involvement with the UN. A worldwide organization to bring countries together isn't a bad thing, is it?

Panacea

10-09-2011, 11:48 PM

I honestly do not understand why people oppose our involvement with the UN. A worldwide organization to bring countries together isn't a bad thing, is it?

Especially when you consider the UN was OUR idea . . . .

Hyena Dandy

10-09-2011, 11:55 PM

Crazedclerkthe2nd

10-09-2011, 11:56 PM

I honestly do not understand why people oppose our involvement with the UN. A worldwide organization to bring countries together isn't a bad thing, is it?

According to many Christians the Bible says it is. This is why you'll find a lot of religious conservatives oppose the U.N., any U.S. involvement in the U.N, the EU, NAFTA and so on. To elaborate on what Hyena said:

These beliefs stem from verses in the Book of Revelation, which deals heavily in End Times prophecy, describing the coming of the Anti-christ, the war between Heaven and Hell and the eventual return and victory of Christ and formation of the New Heaven and the New Earth.

Here are the relevant scriptures:

From Revelation 13

"And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy."

And from Revelation 17:

And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

A widely accepted interpretation of this prophecy is that the Ten horns/Ten Kings who have received no kingdom yet are individuals or groups working to create a one world government or one world currency (that's why a lot of Christians freaked out about the Euro, it's not exactly one world but it's a step in that direction).

The Beast is of course, the Antichrist, who has yet to come to earth and begin his reign of terror before Christ returns.

Of course interpretations of Revelation vary widely. The book is filled with metaphor and symbolism and there is no universally agreed upon meaning. Some feel it describes events that have already happened, others believe it tells of things yet to come.

Greenday

10-09-2011, 11:59 PM

I honestly do not understand why people oppose our involvement with the UN. A worldwide organization to bring countries together isn't a bad thing, is it?

Cause. Merica! Fuck yea! God bless America, and no place else!

Or some stupid shit like that.

In 2012 I'd vote Republican for President if one of 2 people are nominated: Ron Paul, or Michelle Bachman.

This is the first time I've EVER heard someone say they'd vote for Bachman. But that woman just plain scares the hell out of me.

Rageaholic

10-10-2011, 01:28 AM

That political compass pointed me to a libertarian/liberal, which is accurate.

I was suspicious of it because of the way some questions were worded, but it looks legit to me.

phoenixv07

10-10-2011, 04:39 AM

I honestly do not understand why people oppose our involvement with the UN. A worldwide organization to bring countries together isn't a bad thing, is it?

Some people see the UN as a precursor to a one world government. Some of those think that that will result in the antichrist.

Some people think strange things.

A lot of people also feel like the UN has become overtly anti-American over the last 20 years or so. Also, the UN's track record in terms of successfully addressing human rights and peacekeeping issues is spotty at best.

According to the political compass, I'm economically moderate and socially libertarian. I'm pretty sure I knew that.

Panacea

10-10-2011, 01:16 PM

Some people see the UN as a precursor to a one world government. Some of those think that that will result in the antichrist.

Some people think strange things.

They also overlook the fact that the UN is more dysfunctional than the US Congress when it comes to getting anything done.

A lot of people also feel like the UN has become overtly anti-American over the last 20 years or so. Also, the UN's track record in terms of successfully addressing human rights and peacekeeping issues is spotty at best.

The people who say that are just whining because the UN doesn't always do what the US wants them to do. We Americans need to get over the fact that it's not always about us and what we want.

You're right about their track record though.

DrFaroohk

10-10-2011, 01:44 PM

I have a bunch of oddball views on stuff.

Some middle of the road, like gun control. Some people think you should be able to just have a gun at any time, any place, regardless of who you are or what you've done with your life. Ummm...no. And other people think no one should ever have a gun. Also...no. Both of those are shitty ideas. Middle of the road there.

Socially...if it doesn't really affect me in any way, I'm liberal. Like gay marriage. Have at it fellas! What do I care?

Fiscally...is weird. It's one of those things where when the conservative makes his argument about how well he's done managing and earning his money and how unfair it is that the gov't takes X% of his tax dollars...yeah I can feel his pain. But when I see the numbers he's talking about (like the guy who "only" made 600K a year) I lose all sympathy. I just don't care.

Or the personal responsbility going with welfare. I don't think it's good for everyone to be on welfare, but I also don't think people should live in a cardboard box and eat ramen like some people want them to.

Which leads into entitlement. "YOu're not entitled to anything! If you can't afford your internet or cigarettes or popsicles you should never have them! Don't make me buy them!" Yeah well guess what pal, you're not entitled to anything either. Just because you went to college doesn't mean your entitled to be rich. It doesn't mean you're entitled to make 1 million a year and gouge the shit out of everything you sell and then pay your employees, you know, the people who MADE YOU RICH, next to NOTHING.

tropicsgoddess

10-10-2011, 02:23 PM

My political compass says I'm on the Libertarian side. Honestly, I consider myself more moderate.

Rageaholic

10-10-2011, 02:35 PM

Which leads into entitlement. "YOu're not entitled to anything! If you can't afford your internet or cigarettes or popsicles you should never have them! Don't make me buy them!" Yeah well guess what pal, you're not entitled to anything either. Just because you went to college doesn't mean your entitled to be rich. It doesn't mean you're entitled to make 1 million a year and gouge the shit out of everything you sell and then pay your employees, you know, the people who MADE YOU RICH, next to NOTHING.

That's why I lean left on economic issues. I just can't have a problem with people feeling entitled to basic things (like health care, food, shelter, and a chance to make a good living). So many conservatives want to take that away (or at least make it harder to get). The way I see it, it's much suckier to want to take something away than to want something.

ExRetailDrone

10-10-2011, 02:54 PM

In 2012 I'd vote Republican for President if one of 2 people are nominated: Ron Paul, or Michelle Bachman.

*twitch*

Bachmann scares the ever-living shit out of me. I personally find her to be such a whack job, and I can't tell if she's just bat-shit crazy or a supremely good actress. I'm leaning toward bat-shit crazy. I think that if she makes it to the Oval Office, I'm not leaving Korea -.-

I honestly can see why people agree with some of her views. A very small amount of her views. They're not my views, but whatever. But there are other candidates out there who hold those same views...who also don't have a long track record for saying blatantly false statements about things they know absolutely nothing about, and seeming to genuinely believe it >.> I have to wonder...out of all the potential candidates...why her?

mikoyan29

10-10-2011, 03:22 PM

I honestly do not understand why people oppose our involvement with the UN. A worldwide organization to bring countries together isn't a bad thing, is it?
My problem with the UN is that it is about as feckless as the League of Nations it replaced. I mean take the Kyoto Protocol, it forces the countries of Europe and North America to crutail their greenhouse emissions but does nothing for China or India, so where do you think all the factories are going to go? Or take Russia, it is supposed to go back to 1990 levels of greenhouse emissions....Well guess what, their emissions were higher then. So like any of a number of measures from our Congress, it feels good but doesn't really address the problem at hand.
And then there are some of the committees...I mean Sudan on the Human Rights Committees...I guess that is almost like hiring a hacker for your computer security because they are familiar with ways to exploit it.
That being said, I don't think US disengagement would do anything to fix those problems.

Greenday

10-10-2011, 07:06 PM

That's why I lean left on economic issues. I just can't have a problem with people feeling entitled to basic things (like health care, food, shelter, and a chance to make a good living). So many conservatives want to take that away (or at least make it harder to get). The way I see it, it's much suckier to want to take something away than to want something.

They are just against people being entitled to those things. They are against people being entitled to tons of free stuff without ever having to lift a finger in an attempt to earn any of it.

victory sabre

10-11-2011, 11:06 AM

Yes, I would vote for Rep. Bachmann. Yes I'm informed on the issues, and have been voting for her for Congress since her first election. I've been proud to vote for her, because I know where she stands, and I think she's close to me on the issues.

Actually I live in the loony part of the district (which won't be in the 6th after redistricting), which elected Rep. Bachmann's 2010 opponent to the State Senate twice. You want to talk about loonie, rude, and nasty, that's Tarrell Clark in a nutshell. I can say that because I've had personal dealings with her, and so have friends of mine. She blatently lied to me when I asked her if the Democrats would raise taxes to balance the budget. She said no in the interview. There were massive increases in their budget. She had to know it because she was a member of the Democratic leadership in the State Senate.

I may not be involved in a party anymore, but I do stay informed on politics, and I've been a analyst on the local talk station's election night coverage.

Hyena Dandy

10-11-2011, 06:38 PM

So that's personal involvement and trust. That makes sense, then.

But from my perspective, I don't trust her. She's often said things which are factually false, or are so easily proven false that I don't trust her to have done due diligence to find out if what she's been told is true.

So I, personally, don't trust her.

Gravekeeper

10-11-2011, 07:23 PM

Yes, I would vote for Rep. Bachmann. Yes I'm informed on the issues, and have been voting for her for Congress since her first election. I've been proud to vote for her, because I know where she stands, and I think she's close to me on the issues.

That reflects horribly on you if she's close to you on issues. Seeing as she wants prayer in schools, intelligent design taught in classrooms ( and has blatantly lied trying to support that position ), doesn't believe in climate change, opposes any increase in minimum wage, wants to get rid of social security and Medicare, isn't above nuking Iran, wants the US out of the global economy ( Hahahaha, how? ), she wants a federal ban on gay marriage and any legal equivilent, she thinks being gay is a dysfunction that you can pray away, she opposes abortion even for rape/incest and finally she's proven she's willing to blatantly lie to support her arguments. Without a shred of reservation.

She's also flat out lied about raising taxes herself after she said she opposed a state tax on wholesale cigarettes, then turned around and voted for it.

So if you're A) As informed as you say and B) Still proud to vote for her, then you sir, are at best an idiot. -.-

AdminAssistant

10-11-2011, 08:13 PM

Did someone let Bachmann's husband know it's National Coming Out Day? Because that closet door's wide open and he isn't fooling anyone, except her, apparently.

mikoyan29

10-11-2011, 08:17 PM

Yes, I would vote for Rep. Bachmann. Yes I'm informed on the issues, and have been voting for her for Congress since her first election. I've been proud to vote for her, because I know where she stands, and I think she's close to me on the issues.

Actually I live in the loony part of the district (which won't be in the 6th after redistricting), which elected Rep. Bachmann's 2010 opponent to the State Senate twice. You want to talk about loonie, rude, and nasty, that's Tarrell Clark in a nutshell. I can say that because I've had personal dealings with her, and so have friends of mine. She blatently lied to me when I asked her if the Democrats would raise taxes to balance the budget. She said no in the interview. There were massive increases in their budget. She had to know it because she was a member of the Democratic leadership in the State Senate.

And there lies our problems in a nutshell. People don't wnat to hear that taxes are going to go up, so our politicians tell them what they want to hear. Take the Federal Budget, roughly 1/3 of it is deficit. To think that we are going to make that up with strictly spending cuts is folly. Basically that would mean that we would cut everything that isn't SS, Medicare or Defense.

Andara Bledin

10-11-2011, 08:56 PM

Didn't you know? She can pray him straight.

I don't really care if he is or isn't. What I care about is that he cares about whether other people are. That's what matters.

^-.-^

Panacea

10-11-2011, 09:41 PM

And there lies our problems in a nutshell. People don't wnat to hear that taxes are going to go up, so our politicians tell them what they want to hear. Take the Federal Budget, roughly 1/3 of it is deficit. To think that we are going to make that up with strictly spending cuts is folly. Basically that would mean that we would cut everything that isn't SS, Medicare or Defense.

Which we're already doing.

The Bowles Simpson Commission came up with some good ideas for fixing the deficit. Those recommendations were universally ignored because they:

1) Recommended tax increases along with fixing the tax code (which is by itself seen as a tax increase by right wing extremists)
2) Recommended changes to Medicare and Social Security.

There was something there for everyone to hate . . . which means it was probably a good plan.

Didn't you know? She can pray him straight

Assuming she didn't turn him gay in the first place . . . .

(with apologies to our LGBT members)

victory sabre

10-12-2011, 01:05 AM

I will support a tax increase (even though I don't think we need it). I say tax those who have publicly stated that their taxes are too low, at 75%. This includes Warren Buffet, and others. They can put their money where their mouths are.

I totally believe that we should phase out Medicare, Social Security, and the welfare state. They have proven disastrous for this nation, and these programs are bankrupting us. I don't think we should do it right away, but slowly phase them out. This nonsense didn't happen overnight, and it can't be fixed overnight.

I think we should pull out of the UN, though if you think it's because of "The Rapture" you're sadly mistaken. The only rapture I care about is from a pretty woman. I'm not religious (I'm sure that will send shockwaves through you all). I just don't think the UN is in our best interest. I believe in getting out of Iraq, and Afghanistan. We've done what we need to do over there. Nation building shouldn't be part of our agenda (and some of my best friends have served over there). I believe that we shouldn't use military force, unless it's in our national interest. Libya is a perfect example - there's no reason we're over there, except to try to make President Obama look good. It was a civil war and we should have let them take care of themselves, just like the US did in the Civil War/War between the States.

So there's a few more things for you.

AdminAssistant

10-12-2011, 02:49 AM

So basically, you want small government, except when it comes to a woman's uterus, right? Let me ask you this question. Since you support forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, regardless if it's a result of rape or incest, or will kill the mother, why do you also want to eliminate the programs that will allow her to support the child? Because I'm also going to assume here you're against any kind of sex education or Planned Parenthood services that provide contraception.

When we've torn apart a nation, we're obligated to re-build it. A Democratic Libya would most definitely be in our interest. If nothing else, we, as part of the world, should have the duty to cooperate with other nations to find and prosecute a war criminal.

But, y'know what? If you want to live in your happy, isolationist, libertarian utopia where the poor and disabled are left to starve and we build a giant fence around our country..then by all means.

FArchivist

10-12-2011, 03:12 AM

Yes, I would vote for Rep. Bachmann. Yes I'm informed on the issues, and have been voting for her for Congress since her first election. I've been proud to vote for her, because I know where she stands, and I think she's close to me on the issues.

Just to check, so you agree with her that:
- that where life should begins should be extended to conception, making abortion for ANY reason, including rape or incest, illegal
- on creating a Balanced Budget Amendment
- re-instituting DADT
- on creating a Federal Marriage Amendment defining marriage as solely being between a man and a woman
- not prosecuting anti-gay hate crimes
- no paid parental leave for any government employee, regardless of reason
- refusing to protect whistleblowers from employer discrimination
- declare English as the official language of the USA and ban all other languages from official documents
- eliminate SS and Medicare entirely; recipients of those programs need to rely entirely on family or charity
- reinforcing 3 Strikes and Zero Tolerance at all levels nationwide; expand the War on Drugs

I'm just asking to clarify.

Gravekeeper

10-12-2011, 03:24 AM

I will support a tax increase (even though I don't think we need it). I say tax those who have publicly stated that their taxes are too low, at 75%. This includes Warren Buffet, and others. They can put their money where their mouths are.

Well, you've already proven yourself uninformed. So congrats there I guess. The best approach right now would be a mixture of budget cuts and tax increases + closing tax loopholes. The reason Buffet said he pays too low of a tax rate, is because he does. His taxable income rate is 17.4%. What's yours? =p

The reason is because of capital gains tax on investments. The rate was slashed in 2003 as part of the Bush tax cuts ( You know, those things Obama has been trying to let expire, but the GOP would strangle a kitten to keep ) under the theory it would lead to more capital investment and thus boost the economy + job creation. Obviously it hasn't done jack and shit save make the rich even richer, so he's calling to have it restored to the previous rate.

I totally believe that we should phase out Medicare, Social Security, and the welfare state. They have proven disastrous for this nation, and these programs are bankrupting us.

What's bankrupting you is fighting two wars and keeping them off the books until Obama took office and put them back on. As for the welfare state, you obviously know nothing about the term, what it entails, or the effect it has had on the modern world. This is why the rest of us in the modern world outside of the US are always in such awe. We don't understand how you don't have things like free healthcare. Something which practically every modern country in the world has except for you. Countries which are happier and healthier than yours at the moment. -.-

Welfare and social programs directly reduce poverty, and reducing poverty reduces all sorts of social ills. The only one with a counter argument seems to be half of America, and that counter argument amounts to "Fuck you, I got mine already".

I believe that we shouldn't use military force, unless it's in our national interest. Libya is a perfect example - there's no reason we're over there, except to try to make President Obama look good. It was a civil war and we should have let them take care of themselves, just like the US did in the Civil War/War between the States.

It has nothing to do with making Obama look good, it's a UN action and thus a joint mission. It is also people rising up against evil, which is a worthy cause which I for one support and my country has followed suit ( We're over there too, you know. Hell we're bombing them. >.> ). How far would they have gotten by themselves without air support? Not too far I imagine. The UN action was taken to protect Libyan civilians from Gaddafi.

We're not talking two armies clashing here. It was an army vs civilians.

Andara Bledin

10-12-2011, 03:31 AM

We're not talking two armies clashing here. It was an army vs civilians.
But you forget - in his world, whoever has the army is in the right.

^-.-^

mikoyan29

10-12-2011, 03:54 AM

Andara Bledin

10-12-2011, 07:45 AM

The reason I've heard for low capital gains is to spur on investment, how is me starting a business any different?
Rich people who have lobbyists invest in the market... poor people and those who want to dabble start businesses and actually contribute to society.

^-.-^

Crazedclerkthe2nd

10-12-2011, 03:55 PM

This is why the rest of us in the modern world outside of the US are always in such awe. We don't understand how you don't have things like free healthcare. Something which practically every modern country in the world has except for you. Countries which are happier and healthier than yours at the moment.

Welfare and social programs directly reduce poverty, and reducing poverty reduces all sorts of social ills. The only one with a counter argument seems to be half of America, and that counter argument amounts to "Fuck you, I got mine already".

Universal health care. Not free healthcare. There may be limited out of pocket costs, BUT many developed nations have higher tax rates than the U.S. does. Having come from Canada to the U.S. I can see how much higher the tax rates were there compared to here.

Now I don't necessarily mind that. Single payer saved my ass (and my bank account) several times while I was in college and had no other insurance. If I had been born in America, I'd probably have some medical debt to pay off right now and I'm a reasonably healthy guy.

It never fails to boggle my mind that in the United States we pay more per capita for healthcare than just about any other country in the world, including most major developed nations that have single payer!

That right there ought to tell you the system is seriously broken.

I think the main explanation for this is that the U.S. government and political system is heavily tilted to favor the wealthy and privileged and the vast majority of things they do are meant to do nothing else make life easier for the rich and the corporations they run. If they fuck over the rest of us, who cares?

It's amazing to me to see some of things being suggested by Presidential candidates so far:

- Eliminating the EPA (dirty water and air FTW!)
- Eliminating the Federal Reserve
- Eliminating Obamacare (Perry has promised to repeal it on day one with an executive order)
- Cut taxes
- Eliminate the department of education
- Eliminate and/or seriously curtail social security/medicare
- Restoring DADT and Federally mandating marriage to be between one man and one woman
- Further abortion restrictions

I could go on, but tell me, how many of these measures do you think will create jobs or boost the economy. Other than the tax cuts notion (which, with the deficits we have is a really bad idea right now) there are none.

In fact these measures combined will probably kill more jobs than they will create.

Also, did you know the U.S. is losing significant ground to the Chinese and other nations when it comes to science and innovation, not to mention educating our kids?

I think medicaid/social security/etc. should be kept, but they should have more stringent rules and be more tightly regulated.

Also can we do something about stagnating wages already? Working full time at minimum wage is simply not enough to get by on in just about every city in America.

mikoyan29

10-12-2011, 06:05 PM

I remember when Clinton became President and the declaration was with much fanfare that we were moving to a service economy. Basically saying that we would let other countries produce our goods while we reap the benefits (or something like that). I also remember thinking that was a bad idea for a number of reasons. Now that I'm a little more experience and am starting to see the effects of that, my suspicions were concerned.

1. If we ever get into a full blown war with someone, we will not have the manufacturing capacity to replace our weapons. Sure, we still build our weapons here but what about all the computer chips and other things that go in them. Ever since the Civil War, the scope of industry has pretty much determined the outcome of a war between nations.
2. Manufacturing drives innovation. In order to design things, you need to make things. When you stop making things, you start losing the ability to design them because you don't quite get to see how they work. I mean you can get a rough idea but in order to do the nitty gritty, you really have to see how they are made.
3. Manufacturing moves people into the middle class. One of the reasons why we had a large middle class in this country was because mass production enables you to pay your workers alot better. Any time I've ever looked at production costs, labor costs were a pretty low percentage of the total cost, so I can never understand why we use China as our factories because transport and materials are usually larger cost factors. I can't believe that materials in China are cheaper than here...unless there is some other things going on.

It seems like about the only thing we've been making here for the past 20 years is more money and that is not going to last, I think. It's only a matter of time before other countries realize they don't need the United States to back their manufacturing efforts. Now I realize that even if we opened up every factory that existed again, they wouldn't employ nearly what they used to. So what do you do with those folks that would have been otherwise employed?

I do not think our country is heading in the right direction. When you start seeing the wealth discrepancies that are being seen now, bad things happen.

HYHYBT

10-13-2011, 01:24 AM

Why is it that people who promise blatantly unconstitutional acts (such as "repealing" a law with a mere executive order) remain viable candidates?

Andara Bledin

10-13-2011, 02:12 AM

Because bigots and religious fanatics don't care if they screw over people who aren't their kind.

^-.-^

Panacea

10-13-2011, 02:28 AM

Here's what I don't get about the tax code. If I decide I want to start a business and that business makes a profit, that profit is basically taxed like income. IF I instead decide to invest that money in stocks and I keep those stocks for a while before I sell them, they are taxed at a much lower rate. The reason I've heard for low capital gains is to spur on investment, how is me starting a business any different?

It shouldn't make any difference at all. Income is income, regardless of how it is derived.

It never fails to boggle my mind that in the United States we pay more per capita for healthcare than just about any other country in the world, including most major developed nations that have single payer!

That right there ought to tell you the system is seriously broken.

The system IS seriously broken. We in the US pay more for our health care than anywhere else in the world.

We DON'T have better outcomes based on what we pay into the system. We actually have worse. We don't have the best health care system. We just have the most expensive health care system. We waste huge amounts of money on unnecessary care that is not supported by medical evidence because we have a "right" to demand whatever we want from the system, because we lack the knowledge to know what to ask for and when to stop asking, and because we insist on the right to shift the costs of those unreasonable demands on everyone else so insurance will "pay" for the unnecessary care we demand.

But heaven forbid if we actually extend these rights to the poor. The world would come to an end!

1. If we ever get into a full blown war with someone, we will not have the manufacturing capacity to replace our weapons. Sure, we still build our weapons here but what about all the computer chips and other things that go in them. Ever since the Civil War, the scope of industry has pretty much determined the outcome of a war between nations.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. Bush Jr. allowed a Chinese company to take over manufacturing of a highly classified magnet system that controls our advanced missle systems and drones. Guess what government now has that advanced technology?

2. Manufacturing drives innovation.
3. Manufacturing moves people into the middle class.

There's some good news here. Businesses are starting to realize the high cost of doing business with China and are moving manufacturing back to US soil where they can control quality. They're tired of replacing or refunding money for poor quality Chinese goods because the managers of those factories have so much work they don't give a shit if they do a good job or not anymore.

It seems like about the only thing we've been making here for the past 20 years is more money and that is not going to last, I think. It's only a matter of time before other countries realize they don't need the United States to back their manufacturing efforts. Now I realize that even if we opened up every factory that existed again, they wouldn't employ nearly what they used to. So what do you do with those folks that would have been otherwise employed?

You're on to a truth here. We like to brag about American exceptionalism, but truth is that doesn't exist anymore. We did so well after WWII because we had the manufacturing capacity and NO competition. Now we have loads of competition. We Americans need to get used to the fact we can't run roughshod over the rest of the world economically anymore. We are actually going to have to be competitive on a level playing field, for the first time in decades.

Why is it that people who promise blatantly unconstitutional acts (such as "repealing" a law with a mere executive order) remain viable candidates?

Silly rabbit. Rules only apply to Democrats, not Republicans!

Boozy

10-13-2011, 11:36 AM

1. If we ever get into a full blown war with someone, we will not have the manufacturing capacity to replace our weapons. Sure, we still build our weapons here but what about all the computer chips and other things that go in them. Ever since the Civil War, the scope of industry has pretty much determined the outcome of a war between nations.

That's the single best part about global free trade. Two nations who trade with each other are unlikely to ever go to war. Two superpowers that rely on each other willl never go to war.

It's only a matter of time before other countries realize they don't need the United States to back their manufacturing efforts.

The machines and technology that countries like China use to make our shoes and toys and appliances are made and developed in the US. The market for selling their goods is in the US.

I know there's been a lot of talk about the sky falling and the rise of China as the new economic superpower, but the fact remains that China needs the US more than the US needs China.

The Chinese economic threat is being used as the new Red Scare to get voters to back isolationist and dangerous economic policies proposed by hayseed politicians who don't know any better. Don't fall for it.

Gravekeeper

10-13-2011, 12:05 PM

I know there's been a lot of talk about the sky falling and the rise of China as the new economic superpower, but the fact remains that China needs the US more than the US needs China.

Yep. Not only is their economy more dependent on the US than the other way around, but their propping their economy up by artificially keeping GDP growth up. Mainly through constant, pointless construction. Plus they're going to suffer the same worker decline the US is currently in as the Babyboomer's retire, but at a much much faster pace. So they'll kinda be double fucked in another 20-30 years.

mikoyan29

10-13-2011, 03:01 PM

That's the single best part about global free trade. Two nations who trade with each other are unlikely to ever go to war. Two superpowers that rely on each other willl never go to war.

The machines and technology that countries like China use to make our shoes and toys and appliances are made and developed in the US. The market for selling their goods is in the US.

I know there's been a lot of talk about the sky falling and the rise of China as the new economic superpower, but the fact remains that China needs the US more than the US needs China.

The Chinese economic threat is being used as the new Red Scare to get voters to back isolationist and dangerous economic policies proposed by hayseed politicians who don't know any better. Don't fall for it.
At some point they are going to realize they have the knowhow to produce those machines on their own.

And to your first point...If I remember correctly, Germany's largest trading partner was France...

Andara Bledin

10-13-2011, 03:54 PM

I know there's been a lot of talk about the sky falling and the rise of China as the new economic superpower, but the fact remains that China needs the US more than the US needs China.
It's actually getting to the point where enough industry is putting money into the hands of the Chinese people that they're starting to become their own best customer. I get a lot of electronics-related trade publication emails for work, and things are slowly shifting out of the US having as much economic power.

However, they still need the rest of the world to keep them producing their gadgets for them. They don't do a whole lot in the way of creating things, just producing them.

^-.-^

Gravekeeper

10-14-2011, 03:39 AM

And to your first point...If I remember correctly, Germany's largest trading partner was France...

Global economies and industries are much much more deeply entwined these days then they were in WW2 and there are vastly more "virtual" assets in play that you can't just loot from a building because they are not physical assets and may not even be in the city or country that owns them.

France's markets crashing because its being invaded would have a catastrophic ripple effect throughout Europe now. Germany was rather self sustained at the time hence being able to manufacture their own army and what not. Remember, WW2 as a massive industrial war machine where entire countries devoted everything they had to weapon production. These days most countries have purchased at least some of their military equipment from the US.

Also, they could walk to France. -.-

Panacea

10-14-2011, 03:43 AM

Yep. Not only is their economy more dependent on the US than the other way around, but their propping their economy up by artificially keeping GDP growth up. Mainly through constant, pointless construction. Plus they're going to suffer the same worker decline the US is currently in as the Babyboomer's retire, but at a much much faster pace. So they'll kinda be double fucked in another 20-30 years.

Another thing China does is artificially keep the value of its currency low by pegging it to the US dollar, making their exports cheap, and our imports expensive. That cheap money is driving their economic engine. If they were to actually do what we (the US that is) want them to do and allow their current to reflect its real (higher) value, their economic engine would slow.

Dreamstalker

10-14-2011, 01:56 PM

I consider myself socially liberal, but somewhat fiscally conservative.

I'm also pretty close to Ghandi on the politicalcompass chart.

guywithashovel

10-14-2011, 07:11 PM

I have some liberal opinions. I support equality for the LGBT community. I'm pro-choice. I think drugs are stupid, but I think good arguments can be made for making them legal. I also favor some kind of national health insurance or single-payer system.

While we're on this subject, I have noticed a bit of a trend where people will voice one liberal opinion after another, but still try to find ways to say that they're conversative. I'm not sure why this is. Maybe it's because the right wing has managed to get such a strong hold on the concepts of "values" and "morality." Nonetheless---and I've seen it on this very board----people will say things like, "I support universal health care, gay rights, abortion rights, and I oppose the death penalty, but I'm still conservative because of *insert obscure reason*." Um, no. You're a bleeding heart liberal.

Andara Bledin

10-14-2011, 07:34 PM

Context is of particular importance in this issue.

Also, the media has done a bang-up job of trying to tie liberal to socialist to communist to "the enemy" and there are people who are ignorant beyond what their news outlet of choice feeds them who will do anything to distance themselves from that progression despite it being nothing more than a whole lot of HWFO.

^-.-^

Gravekeeper

10-15-2011, 04:25 AM

Also, the media has done a bang-up job of trying to tie liberal to socialist to communist to "the enemy" and there are people who are ignorant beyond what their news outlet of choice feeds them who will do anything to distance themselves from that progression despite it being nothing more than a whole lot of HWFO.

Pretty much, the US media, and US politics since Bush's big with us or against us crap, have turned words like Liberal or Socialist into dirty words. Amongst others. Then the reverse began to happen in response. Now you're completely divided. You cannot hold a political position in the US without it being associated to one team or another. Its kind of surreal in a way. The political spectrum is more complex than liberal/conservative. But America likes everything neatly classified into teams that they can cheer for or rail against and will force you into one camp or another based on a single political belief you hold.

Hence multinational political dicussions on these forums get a bit tricky at times. As the concept of liberal or conservative is quite a bit different once you leave the US.

draco664

10-15-2011, 06:24 AM

I honestly do not understand why people oppose our involvement with the UN. A worldwide organization to bring countries together isn't a bad thing, is it?

Simply, yes. It is.

What is good for one country is not necessarily good for another. And bringing together countries without fixing the shit going on between them just leave things like Israel/Palestine.

Consider this, the UN has bodies that oversea things like 'the rights of women' and appoint (ie, without a vote) to said body countries like Iran, a country where women have fuck all in the way of rights.

It's no wonder that the UN can't get shit done.

Gravekeeper

10-15-2011, 07:12 AM

What is good for one country is not necessarily good for another. And bringing together countries without fixing the shit going on between them just leave things like Israel/Palestine.

Sorry, I simply can't see how a collective forum where every nation in the world is free to discuss topics with every other nation as a bad thing. When problems occur in the world, the first course of action is take it to the UN. Where you can address another nation, and more importantly, appeal to other nations for support. I vastly perfer this over the original "Fuck this, bomb them" course of action we had before. The entire point of an organization like the UN, and the LON before it, is to maintain peace and avert WW3. LON was formed after WW1 to try and avert a WW2. It failed. So the UN was formed and thus far has managed to keep our asses out of WW3. This is a good thing.

Consider this, the UN has bodies that oversea things like 'the rights of women' and appoint (ie, without a vote) to said body countries like Iran, a country where women have fuck all in the way of rights.

You do see such occasionally stupidity, yes. But its due to regional politics. They can gurantee an appointment by only putting forth one candidate for the appointment from a given region. Libya ended up on the human right's council at one point too, but got booted off by the other countries. Iran as well got booted from the women's right panel last time by the US and Canada.

Plus, if you haven't noticed, Iran is basically a running joke in the UN. Most people leave or nap through anything Iran has to say. >.>

It's no wonder that the UN can't get shit done.

It gets a lot of shit done but like any political body it is a lumbering, preening beast. Also, we're not in the middle of WW3. So job done right there.

blas87

10-15-2011, 11:05 PM

This may come across as really rude, but I don't think it's very fair to call victory uninformed, or that he (she? terribly sorry if I'm wrong!) isn't as informed as "you" all, more liberal types, are.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions on this site. A small few of us conservatives are in this group. And hell, sling your mud away at me, call me a monster for being in favor of the death penalty, call me a drooling idiot who drinks FOX news Koolaid, and that's fine. But when you start on how that person is wrong JUST because they like a particular candidate you don't, and your opinion is the RIGHT one just because your political leanings take the more understanding moral high ground, that's not right. That's when I start to feel the same disappointment and irritation that ya'll feel about us monster conservatives. Your opinion is not the RIGHT one just because you feel it's the "better" way of going about things. Neither is mine. That's just sloppy and makes the debate "I'm right because candidates I support aren't her" instead of going about the real issues at hand.

Just for the record, I am not pro life nor am I anti-gay rights. Quite the opposite. I felt the need to defend victory because I felt that he was being treated like an idiot simply because he favors Bachmann and his research and details have been squashed and laughed aside, because a few more liberal posters just despise her and what she stands for. And apparently, your research is better than his.

Andara Bledin

10-16-2011, 01:15 AM

His defense was that her opponent was a liar, which is irrelevant, because she has been proven to also be a liar. So that's not an option.

He opposes Social Security, which would be self-sustaining so long as nobody fucked with it. So that shows a lack of knowledge on that subject.

He thinks that welfare is bankrupting us. It's not. Corruption is bankrupting us. Those with the money and power to circumvent the legal system and have undue and incestuous influence with the government on all levels are what are bankrupting our country.

Ignorance is what is fucking bankrupting this country, and the ones in power are doing their best to continue to support ignorance. Poverty makes acquiring knowledge difficult. Keeping the women pregnant and having kids they can't support and then gutting the very systems that would give them and their progeny a way out is what is bankrupting this country. Keeping the downtrodden "in their place" is what is bankrupting this country.

The fact that anyone who is not among the "us" part of the "us vs them" mentality fostered, supported, and in some ways created by the "us" side would support that side truly leaves me baffled.

^-.-^

Mytical

10-16-2011, 03:00 AM

Not to defend Iran, but isn't that a symptom of the issue GK? That places like Iran can be booted out (even if rightfully so), and ignored?? Shouldn't a nation have the right to speak it's mind in a United Nations, even if the rest of the the world pretty much ignores it? Shouldn't it have a say? Now you can say "They have a say, but it is just ignored/outvoted"..but then what is the point for that nation to be in the UN? If every country that had a policy the others didn't like pulled out, the UN would be quite empty.

There I go rambling again, return to your regularly scheduled discussion.

AdminAssistant

10-16-2011, 04:06 AM

Gravekeeper

10-16-2011, 06:24 AM

Iran does have a right to speak its mind. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes speeches on a semi-regular basis. If others are walking out because he's saying ridiculous things (like there was no Holocaust) and doesn't even really have power...eh.

Yeah, no one prevents him from talking. Its just that he'll go on for 2 hours denying the Holocaust or something. So people start to get up and leave. >.>

Gravekeeper

10-16-2011, 07:13 AM

This may come across as really rude, but I don't think it's very fair to call victory uninformed, or that he (she? terribly sorry if I'm wrong!) isn't as informed as "you" all, more liberal types, are.

Why, exactly? He/she claimed they were informed, then proved they were not. I don't see how its unfair to call a spade a spade. Ignorance is the biggest threat to the political process there is.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions on this site. A small few of us conservatives are in this group. And hell, sling your mud away at me, call me a monster for being in favor of the death penalty, call me a drooling idiot who drinks FOX news Koolaid, and that's fine.

I am not mud slinging and we are not talking about opinions. We're talking about easily researched facts. Hence "uninformed". I disagree with you over the death penalty, but I would not call you a monster. Nor have I ever called you a drooling idiot.

But when you start on how that person is wrong JUST because they like a particular candidate you don't, and your opinion is the RIGHT one just because your political leanings take the more understanding moral high ground, that's not right.

It is not a matter of like/dislike and I did not say they were wrong JUST because they like a particular candidate. In fact I elaborated at length over two posts exactly what the problems were and what issues were being misunderstood.

That's when I start to feel the same disappointment and irritation that ya'll feel about us monster conservatives. Your opinion is not the RIGHT one just because you feel it's the "better" way of going about things. Neither is mine. That's just sloppy and makes the debate "I'm right because candidates I support aren't her" instead of going about the real issues at hand.

You're edging dangerously close to a persecution complex. We've been discussing the real issues at hand. I don't know what thread you're reading, blas. This is also not about what I "feel" is "better". Things like taxes, the budget, human rights, etc are all concrete topics with demonstratable causes and effects. Bachmann's record and positions are also demonstratable facts.

She lacks integrity and understanding, and holds positions that are A) demonstratably false, B) Too extreme to fly in a general election and C) Have the potential to cause harm to large groups of people for no other reason than her personal beliefs.

I felt the need to defend victory because I felt that he was being treated like an idiot simply because he favors Bachmann and his research and details have been squashed and laughed aside, because a few more liberal posters just despise her and what she stands for. And apparently, your research is better than his.

All of his "research" can be resoundingly defeated by a 30 second Google search. We're not talking deep, complex issues here. I've already explained the issues with Bachmann, and I would hold the same viewpoint about her if she was a Liberal.

Let me make this as clear as possible: Being Conservative is a political position, being ignorant is not and being ignorant is the biggest political sin you can commit when you possess the right to vote.

It has nothing to do with liberal, conservative or anything inbetween.

Also, yet again, I'd like to point out I'm Canadian, so your definitions of Liberal/Conservative don't really fit me nor do I wish to be forced into the Us vs Them sports team mentality going on down there. I'm not against conservatives ( and I don't even vote Liberal for that matter ), I'm just against ignorance and stupidity. -.-

Rapscallion

10-16-2011, 09:16 AM

Everyone is entitled to their opinions on this site. A small few of us conservatives are in this group. And hell, sling your mud away at me, call me a monster for being in favor of the death penalty, call me a drooling idiot who drinks FOX news Koolaid, and that's fine. But when you start on how that person is wrong JUST because they like a particular candidate you don't, and your opinion is the RIGHT one just because your political leanings take the more understanding moral high ground, that's not right. That's when I start to feel the same disappointment and irritation that ya'll feel about us monster conservatives. Your opinion is not the RIGHT one just because you feel it's the "better" way of going about things. Neither is mine. That's just sloppy and makes the debate "I'm right because candidates I support aren't her" instead of going about the real issues at hand.

Difference for me, Blas, is that you're not a monster conservative. I'd identify closest to liberal/democrat over in the US were I there, but I don't have a complete faith in everything done and said by those of that stripe - I agree with the death penalty in certain circumstances instead of an outright ban for example. I think about issues and likely outcomes. I get the feeling that you're similar in your approach.

Truth to tell, the board - and the world - needs more people such as you (conservatives who aren't loonies) speaking up. There are some good aspects of the right wing philosophy, but right now the GOP seems to have been hijacked by the lunatic fringe.

If memory serves, the left wing lunatic fringe ruined the labour party's chances for election on many occasions. That was one of the reasons Thatcher and her team stayed in power for so long - it lead to her lot being very arrogant. I still remember the look on Heseltine's face as he announced at a press conference that they were going to close down yet more coal mines - part of the revenge for the miner's strike. He was astounded that anyone would complain that he'd taken the decision to wreck entire communities yet again. Even the journalists were booing him.

By lunatic fringe on the socialist side, we're talking about the sort who wanted the term 'blackboard' eradicted in case it offended a racial minority, and nobody was ever a victim - they were a survivor. That shade of person.

Unless you speak up, you won't be heard. The lunacy infecting the republican party won't go away without sense being heard. It may take crushing election defeats to knock sense into the party, or it may take a more moderate approach to be debated.

Right now, swing voters are the ones sought after by politicians. There are many in the US who aren't keen on Obama for whatever reason, but the alternative is doing its best to out-bizarre itself on a distressing basis.

Rapscallion

Gravekeeper

10-16-2011, 09:52 AM

Truth to tell, the board - and the world - needs more people such as you (conservatives who aren't loonies) speaking up. There are some good aspects of the right wing philosophy, but right now the GOP seems to have been hijacked by the lunatic fringe.

This is why I find these types of discussions so frustrating. When I point out a particular position or politician that is misinformed/wrong/fucking crazy/whatever, it gets defended because hey that person is on their "Team". Facts be damned. It gets reduced to Us vs Them yet again, and I get lumped into Them.

The US desperately needs people on the right wing who aren't crazy/ignorant. But those few people like that don't have a rats ass of getting the nomination now because the right wing's base has been taken over by the monster they helped create. It'd be funny if it wasn't so damn sad.

In order to get the GOP nomination, you have to hold views that will never get you elected in the general election. But if you hold views that would actually get you moderates/swing votes, you'd never get the nomination with the GOP in the state its in these days.

The entire political spectrum in the US has basically been dragged 200 feet to the right by the fringe dragging the scale further and further in that direction. So now you'll get labeled a Liberal or a Socialist for having any position left of Glenn Beck.

I just shake my head whenever the Liberal Elitist tag gets trotted out for Obama. Obama is not a Liberal. He's a centerist through and through. If he was actually liberal as defined by he rest of the world he might have actually accomplished some of what he set out to do in the first place. ;p

But Liberal has become the dirty word for anyone that doesn't agree with the right side of the spectrum in the US.

Andara Bledin

10-16-2011, 10:50 AM

This is why I find these types of discussions so frustrating. When I point out a particular position or politician that is misinformed/wrong/fucking crazy/whatever, it gets defended because hey that person is on their "Team". Facts be damned. It gets reduced to Us vs Them yet again, and I get lumped into Them.
Partisan political bullshit. It's part of what's hard at work to destroy things in this country right now and everybody who buys into it is part of the problem.

Everybody's so hard at work to prop up their particular "tribe" that they can't see that the entire thing is sinking fast and it's going to drag everybody down with it if people don't start waking the hell up and thinking for themselves instead of repeating back the latest talking points like a well-trained parrot.

^-.-^

Crazedclerkthe2nd

10-16-2011, 09:01 PM

I get where you're coming from Andara and I agree but I would like to remind you and everyone else that Gravekeeper is, like myself, a Canadian.

The Canadian political system is generally a lot more sane and rational than the American one, especially when it comes to things like abortion, gay marriage and so forth.

During the last Federal Election campaign, Stephen Harper (A conservative mind you) damned near threatened to disown a party member who suggested steps be taken to defund planned parenthood because they provide abortions.

This is of course, a common position of many U.S. Republicans.

Fact is, even CONSERVATIVE politicians in Canada are Liberal commies compared to many of the Republicans down here today.

Canada has had plenty of political bullshit of course, but in all my time living there I do not recall things ever being as batshit crazy as they are down here right now.

I suspect Gravekeeper agrees with me.

Rapscallion

10-16-2011, 10:20 PM

Fact is, even CONSERVATIVE politicians in Canada are Liberal commies compared to many of the Republicans down here today.

Similar for the position in the Yurp states.

Rapscallion

guywithashovel

10-16-2011, 10:53 PM

I've heard a lot about how the American concept of liberal and conservative is different from the concepts held in the rest of the world. I've also heard that in Canada, many of the conservatives would be considered liberal in the US. I've also heard it said that Obama would be deemed conservative in Canada and other parts of the globe. That may shock some people, but it shouldn't. Obama is really not that liberal even by American standards. I mean, take a look at that jobs bill he's pushing. Except for additional taxes for the top earners, any Republican could have authored it.

Anyway, I have to ask, what sorts of policies might a Canadian liberal support? What about a British liberal, or a liberal in any other country?

Rapscallion

10-17-2011, 12:21 AM

There are things about the US that shock me - coming from this perspective.

Holidays/vacation - I was astounded to find that people getting more than ten paid days off work a year was uncommon. I'm guaranteed 28 by law (bank holidays to come out of that) - I actually get 33. Yes, all paid. Goes to 34 next year.

Tax everyone for a national health care type system - not this affordable bollocks that puts money into the pockets of big business, but something run for the benefit of everyone so that everyone can attend a dentist, a primary care physician, or a hospital as and when they actually need it. Sure, you could come up with a better system that we have, as ours is suffering from 'reforms' every time a politician wants to look as if they're doing something, but when you get minimum wage and have to pay out of that for health care? The tax I pay isn't that huge as a percentage of my income.

A minimum wage that goes up with inflation. I may be wrong, but I understand that the US minimum wage hasn't altered in some time, though that can vary from state to state.

Of course, you can pay for extra on top with private firms, but the government would be obliged to provide the basic needs of the people. There's probably more. Do you have guranteed care for the elderly in a nursing home over there?

Of course, the clarion cry will erupt as it always does that this is going to cost jobs and everyone's going to see increased prices and the US will become less competitive. Meh - Yurp's been doing the above for some time and we're not doing badly - if it affects everyone equally then it's no burden. Our citizens are generally speaking better off in terms of benefits, though again there is variance from country to country. I fully expect complaints about how this is socialist and therefore evil to come forth, but what's wrong with making sure that your citizens are fit and healthy? What's wrong with the benefit of time off from work?

Why is it that every time I look at the US, I see people proclaiming with one mouth 'we the people' and with another mouth saying that the citizens there shouldn't have similar rights and freedoms? Oh, you've got rights - rights to starve or go into crippling debt if you can't afford treatment. "We the people who can afford" is a better way of putting it. "My fellow americans who aren't inconveniently ill" is another.

The truly scary thing? There are people who would benefit from the adoption of the ideas above or similar who would benefit from their enaction, but would vote against it with all their heart and passion. Why? I can't say for sure, but the old spectre of communism and socialism reared by McCarthy still lingers in the US psyche, and the US is one of the most xenophobic places in the world. Don't want those funny foreign ideas coming in.

Rapscallion

lordlundar

10-17-2011, 12:49 AM

I'm not too sure about the Canadian Liberal party as they've been pretty quiet since the last election and were more intent on getting back in power than actually doing anything before that.

Andara Bledin

10-17-2011, 01:39 AM

I get where you're coming from Andara and I agree but I would like to remind you and everyone else that Gravekeeper is, like myself, a Canadian.
I'm quite aware, thanks. It's just that I find that he is far more conversant with the way of American politics than the vast majority of my fellow countrymen.

Obama is really not that liberal even by American standards.
Obama is a "dirty liberal" to every conservative with an axe to grind and an inability or unwillingness to learn any actual facts. And he's a "traitor to his party" to every liberal who doesn't think he's liberal enough. His policies are actually quite moderate and in a sane country, he'd likely be able to get quite a bit done. Unfortunately, we're not currently a sane country and rather than let things actually get done, one side would rather burn it all down than let anything good happen under his watch, and the other side just can't get their shit together enough to actually make what needs to happen actually happen.

Why is it that every time I look at the US, I see people proclaiming with one mouth 'we the people' and with another mouth saying that the citizens there shouldn't have similar rights and freedoms?
That would be "we the 1% and the rest of us who can't figure out that they're screwing us."

^-.-^

HYHYBT

10-17-2011, 01:44 AM

I may be wrong, but I understand that the US minimum wage hasn't altered in some time, though that can vary from state to state.It went up about two years ago for the first time since 1995. Well, not quite: I think it went up a little and then the rest six months or a year later, but it was passed at the same time.

The whole "the country's in the toilet, and we'd rather flush than risk The Enemy getting credit for fishing it out" business is sickening. Surely, SURELY it wasn't like that 50 years ago? Please tell me it wasn't.

blas87

10-17-2011, 03:23 AM

mikoyan29

10-17-2011, 04:52 AM

There's no room in politics for an honest, sane person of either side of the spectrum. Only lunatics on both side.

I'm ashamed of President Obama and his police station bombing, Hitler Youth czars as much as I am ashamed of the bigotted front runners for the Republican side of the election.
As they like to say, we get the government we deserve. People are too apathetic to care about the reasonable voices out there. It is only the batshit crazy voices that get heard it seems.

FArchivist

10-17-2011, 05:36 AM

There's no room in politics for an honest, sane person of either side of the spectrum. Only lunatics on both side.

I'm ashamed of President Obama and his police station bombing, Hitler Youth czars as much as I am ashamed of the bigotted front runners for the Republican side of the election.

Bwah?
When did a police station get bombed?
And what 'czars' are members of the Hitler Youth?
*truly puzzled*

blas87

10-17-2011, 05:43 AM

FArchivist

10-17-2011, 06:18 AM

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/05/16/obama%E2%80%99s-czars-and-their-left-wing-affiliations/

There's my research.

I will stop by later and see who de-bunks it because it came from a conservative webpage.

Well, I don't think it's wrong because it comes from a conservative webpage. :) Obama certainly has czars and has appointed quite a few. It's a common practice in Washington DC; czars were first appointed in 1920s and 1930s by Presidents.

But I can't say I'm seeing anything there about bombing police stations or the Hitler Youth.

Edit: Unless you're talking about Bill Ayers during the 1960s for the police bombing bit?

blas87

10-17-2011, 06:22 AM

Yes. I heard that on the radio a while back.

Andara Bledin

10-17-2011, 06:38 AM

his police station bombing
Citation, please.
Hitler Youth czars
Citation, please.

I will stop by later and see who debunks it because it came from a conservative web page.
That site lists Obama's czars and acts like this is some huge thing that he brought to the picnic. Never mind that we've had them since the 1930's. And never mind that until the last administration, there were fewer than a dozen per administration (usually only a few), and it was George W Bush who took it from single digits up into the 30s.

What I do find intriguing is that the site goes on to list so many different individuals, but not all of them. However could they have missed those? One would think any proper journalist writing an article on "each of Obama's czars" wouldn't have managed to miss two of them entirely.

Debunking has nothing to do with who or where something comes from and everything to do with how much, or little, truth and accuracy is involved.

^-.-^

blas87

10-17-2011, 06:53 AM

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81027

That would be the former Hitler youth.

Apparently, the police bomber and his fellow terrorist wife are only good buddy croonies of Obama and not czars. The wife worked for Michelle Obama previously.

Cass was one I was struggling to name as well. He's a scary one as well.

Anyone who associates themselves with those kinds of people isn't anyone I want running the country.

Rapscallion

10-17-2011, 06:59 AM

There's no room in politics for an honest, sane person of either side of the spectrum. Only lunatics on both side.

In the US, correct - or at least it seems that way. Either your country does something about it, or it sinks under the weight of lunacy.

Rapscallion

Andara Bledin

10-17-2011, 07:05 AM

You either didn't read the article by von Campe, or it went entirely over your head.

That isn't a citation for Obama conspiring with former Hitler youth; that's an example of grasping at straws for something to be angry over without any reflection or even investigation.

Not only is he questioning Obama, but he honestly raises the question of the birth certificate which has been so thoroughly and utterly debunked that anyone who brings it up is outing themselves and incapable of accepting reality as it stands.

^-.-^

blas87

10-17-2011, 07:13 AM

I read it.

I picked that one because it was the first one I figured any of you would read. It didn't help that my search mostly only encouraged anti-communist and anti-socialist webpages, which doesn't help.

Andara Bledin

10-17-2011, 07:35 AM

Color me confused, then. What was the point?

^-.-^

blas87

10-17-2011, 08:18 AM

You all thought I was talking out of my ass about czars. And since nothing is good enough without research, preferably from a source that the majority of you would be more apt to read, there you go.

Though I wouldn't buy into that crazy anti-Communist stuff myself, but I figured it best to stick away from the more conservative point of view pages. After all, those are all bunk anyway with incorrect facts.

Mytical

10-17-2011, 09:09 AM

Raps, those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. Most people seem not to even know yesterday, let alone history. Every major power that has come, pretty much has collapsed for the same basic reasons. Stretched too thin (America is in a catch 22..if we try to be the 'world police' we are dictators yada yada yada, if we don't we are heartless beastards :shrug:), corruption (Rome), and/or economic.

Honestly, it's time we throw down our spears, and start worrying about our homeless/starving/etc. I know, go ahead, throw eggs at me. America needs to focus on rebuilding ourselves, rooting out corruption, and remember that charity begins at home. Once we have our own backyard in order, then we can worry about what everybody elses looks like.

Rapscallion

10-17-2011, 11:06 AM

Honestly, it's time we throw down our spears, and start worrying about our homeless/starving/etc. I know, go ahead, throw eggs at me. America needs to focus on rebuilding ourselves, rooting out corruption, and remember that charity begins at home. Once we have our own backyard in order, then we can worry about what everybody elses looks like.

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree, but reality does intrude, regrettably. There are problems of poverty in every country. No matter what you do, there are going to be poor people. There's always going to be crime, or people with criminal intent. It's where you draw the line. Do you not go out of your country's boundaries until you've not had a pickpocket incident for six months? Do you wait until everyone owns three cars and a large house before sorting out famine victims in Africa?

I don't think for one minute that this is acceptable, nor would most people. It's where you consider the 80/20 rule - 80 of the work can be done with 20% of the effort, and the remaining 20% of work would take the remaining 80% of your effort. That's what you're up against in the domestic department. Talking completely off the top of my head, I would imagine that the US isn't far from those percentages. I'd imagine most of the western world isn't far from it.

However, much of what happens for US forces abroad comes under one of two headings.

1: philosopical dick waving.

2: you have oil and we want it.

The second explains quite a bit of recent wars and the like. The former explains the last fifty years - the US got involved in many theatres around the world to combat the communist menace. Korea, for example - no real benefit other than to stop the blasted commies. No oil, no real practical benefit I know of. I may be corrected, but many of your young service people killed young service people (and vice versa) on their side to stop commies. Many of the bases abroad are a result of past military actions.

Without tallying up, I reckon that the majority of actions by the US outside of its own shores in the last fifty years have been a result of the two conditions above and not philanthropy.

Rapscallion

ExRetailDrone

10-17-2011, 02:53 PM

The second explains quite a bit of recent wars and the like. The former explains the last fifty years - the US got involved in many theatres around the world to combat the communist menace. Korea, for example - no real benefit other than to stop the blasted commies. No oil, no real practical benefit I know of. I may be corrected, but many of your young service people killed young service people (and vice versa) on their side to stop commies. Many of the bases abroad are a result of past military actions.

Without tallying up, I reckon that the majority of actions by the US outside of its own shores in the last fifty years have been a result of the two conditions above and not philanthropy.

Rapscallion

I think I would agree with you, with the little I admittedly know about politics (which is why I rarely get involved with these discussions, although I do enjoy reading them). The US involvement in Korea and Vietnam seemed like nothing more than jamming our noses in others' business because "we gerta get dem dayem commies". It also seemed like a catalyst point where the rest of the world started to kind of expect the US involvement in every little scuffle that happened around the world, whether the countries involved actually wanted us there or not. And even if they didn't want us there, it still seemed expected, and if we weren't there, we were the bad guys somehow. Now, I may very well be way off base, and I readily admit that, but from the few things I've read and heard, and perhaps my own crazy inner-brain-workings, it seems that's how things have gone. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. And if those wars were part of the starting of that, the country placed itself in that Catch-22.

Bleh, I should not be blathering about this kind of thing with a tired brain.

Panacea

10-17-2011, 04:30 PM

While we're on this subject, I have noticed a bit of a trend where people will voice one liberal opinion after another, but still try to find ways to say that they're conversative. <snip>-and I've seen it on this very board----people will say things like, "I support universal health care, gay rights, abortion rights, and I oppose the death penalty, but I'm still conservative because of *insert obscure reason*." Um, no. You're a bleeding heart liberal.

Well, yes and no. Conservatives in the United States themselves split into two camps with two completely different agendas: fiscal conservatives, who are usually disinterested in social issues, and social conservatives, who are usually disinterested in fiscal issues. Fiscal issues tend to bore listeners to tears, so fiscal conservatives like Reagan latched onto the idea of using social conservatives to sell a relevant social message along with the fiscal message to attract voters. It worked beautifully and the two camps have never managed a divorce even though their goals are at odds.

Then throw in the libertarians desire for limited government.

None of these factions can stand alone, so they band together to have any hope of opposing the Democrats, who are even more disorganized and chaotic as a party.

Hence multinational political dicussions on these forums get a bit tricky at times. As the concept of liberal or conservative is quite a bit different once you leave the US.

And I find it funny as hell that folks elsewhere in the world see our politics for what it is so clearly, whereas most of us Americans do not. Try to point out what we look like to the rest of the world though, and you get a "damn furriners don't know nothin' and yer unAmerricun to say such a thing."

Corruption is bankrupting us. Those with the money and power to circumvent the legal system and have undue and incestuous influence with the government on all levels are what are bankrupting our country.

Ignorance is what is fucking bankrupting this country, and the ones in power are doing their best to continue to support ignorance. Poverty makes acquiring knowledge difficult. Keeping the women pregnant and having kids they can't support and then gutting the very systems that would give them and their progeny a way out is what is bankrupting this country. Keeping the downtrodden "in their place" is what is bankrupting this country.

The fact that anyone who is not among the "us" part of the "us vs them" mentality fostered, supported, and in some ways created by the "us" side would support that side truly leaves me baffled.

^-.-^

Applause.

In order to get the GOP nomination, you have to hold views that will never get you elected in the general election. But if you hold views that would actually get you moderates/swing votes, you'd never get the nomination with the GOP in the state its in these days.

But Liberal has become the dirty word for anyone that doesn't agree with the right side of the spectrum in the US.

Well, Liberal as a dirty word has been true since the first Clinton administration, if not earlier.

But you're spot on when it comes to the GOP nomination. This is why I left the Republican party during the 2008 election (I started out as a Reagan Republican). When McCain picked Sarah Palin as his VP candidate, I was done, then and there.

I'm a fiscal conservative, not a social conservative. The GOP has abandoned all pretense of fiscal conservative since electing Bush Jr as President, and so deeply embraced social nuttery that I can't stomach it anymore. And as you've pointed out, Obama is a centrist. I am much more comfortable with him than anyone in the GOP field.

If the GOP picks anyone other than Romney, then they can kiss the White House goodbye for another 4 years. The country doesn't want a social conservative. I think the GOP senses this, which is why they're pushing social issues in Congress right now: trying to get it done while they can.

Obama is really not that liberal even by American standards. I mean, take a look at that jobs bill he's pushing. Except for additional taxes for the top earners, any Republican could have authored it.

Republicans did author a lot of these ideas. Obama took many pages out of their playbook in an effort to be bipartisan. Repubs are having none of it. If it comes from Obama, they oppose it no matter what just as they did with health care reform (which was built on Republican ideas that were created during the last attempt at health care reform during the Clinton administration).

It isn't about doing what's best for the country, or even following ideology for the GOP right now. It's about opposing and beating Obama. That's been the whole goal since he was elected. So they'll slit their own throats and fight even their own ideas all in the name of "defeating" Obama.

Meanwhile the country goes to hell in a handbasket. :burnup:

There are things about the US that shock me - coming from this perspective.

Holidays/vacation - I was astounded to find that people getting more than ten paid days off work a year was uncommon. I'm guaranteed 28 by law (bank holidays to come out of that) - I actually get 33. Yes, all paid. Goes to 34 next year.

Tax everyone for a national health care type system - not this affordable bollocks that puts money into the pockets of big business, but something run for the benefit of everyone so that everyone can attend a dentist, a primary care physician, or a hospital as and when they actually need it.

A minimum wage that goes up with inflation. I may be wrong, but I understand that the US minimum wage hasn't altered in some time, though that can vary from state to state.

Rapscallion

We believe in the myth of the self made man here. Pull your self up by your own bootstraps. And forget the community driven efforts that actually built this country into what it is.

The first settlers were not individualists or wild frontiersmen. They were communities who worked together in order to survive. Individualists died. Collectivists lived. Just look at what happened to the Lost Colony of Roanoake or the Plymouth colony in its earliest days. The former died because individualists started a fight with the natives they couldn't finish even while the country itself was becoming their enemy while the latter very nearly went the same route (and survived only because they managed to make peace and keep the individualists in check).

Even the individualists who did survive and make a name for themselves did so after the Revolution, and were the exceptions not the rule. But we want to treat our entire society as if that were the rule, that to be respectable you have to "make it on your own" , with no help and no community. And it's NEVER been that way in this country.

We've also elevated free markets from a sensible economic theory into a religion. Corporations are the bishops and CEO's are the popes. They're regarded as infallible when it comes to the best interests of this country; you see it when you hear GOP candidates like Herman Cain brag about their "business" street cred.

Running a business is NOTHING like running a government. Government's purpose is NOT to make a profit for its owners (shareholders), but to serve the needs of its entire population and preserve social order. It requires an entirely different skills set, one we have made completely unrespectable by our mockery of career government employees. Providing police, fire, rescue, teachers, garbage removal, and other essential services of government should not be subject to issues of profit-loss.

And if you read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations," (which is the basis for all our treasured ideals on free market capitalism) he clearly excepts two groups from his theories on free markets: lawyers and doctors. He believed that access to the courts and health care were too socially important to leave to free markets. And he was right.

Blas, I think your point would have gone over better, and been better debated on its merits, had you simply referred to Ayers directly and left the whole czars thing out of it. You mixed your subjects and undermined your own point.

I don't care much for Bill Ayers, and don't like that he never was held accountable for what he did. I certainly wish Obama didn't associate with him.

But we don't have "Attainder of Blood" in this country. Obama himself never bombed any police stations, does not advocate violence, and his views are centrist not ultra liberal. I prefer to judge him by his political views and his own political actions rather than judge him on the activities of a friend of his, someone Obama has never tried to bring into his administration or even hinted that he wanted to.

It's just not that big a deal.

Rapscallion

10-17-2011, 04:55 PM

And if you read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations," (which is the basis for all our treasured ideals on free market capitalism) he clearly excepts two groups from his theories on free markets: lawyers and doctors. He believed that access to the courts and health care were too socially important to leave to free markets. And he was right.

Interesting. On the doctors thing, I have to say that I've yet to hear of a country that was worse off for having a healthier citizenry.

On the court thing, it's not something I had given any thought to, but on initial impressions it does make sense.

Rapscallion

Gravekeeper

10-17-2011, 07:30 PM

I will stop by later and see who de-bunks it because it came from a conservative webpage.

I don't debunk things because of their source, I debunk things because they're wrong.

However, I'm not entirely sure what I'm suppose to be looking for with this Obama czar's thing. Czar's have been around forever. This is absolutely nothing new, and your link proves....what? That he has czars that lean left? I don't understand what point you're trying to make?

Apparently, the police bomber and his fellow terrorist wife are only good buddy croonies of Obama and not czars. The wife worked for Michelle Obama previously.

Argh, see, this is the damn problem. The whole Bill Ayers police bomber thing was a big right wing talking point scare during the election. It was a classic guilt by association political attack. If you had looked into it, even for 30 seconds, you'd know it was entirely bullshit. Do you know who Bill Ayers is? I mean for crying out loud it has its own Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers_presidential_election_controversy) page. Read. Instead of just blindly swallowing what some twat on the radio said.

As for Cass, Cass who? Cass Sunstein?

Anyone who associates themselves with those kinds of people isn't anyone I want running the country.

But you obviously don't even know what "kinds of people" they even are, and as a result you don't even know what kind of person Obama is either. This is the problem and why these discussions are so frustrating.

And I find it funny as hell that folks elsewhere in the world see our politics for what it is so clearly, whereas most of us Americans do not. Try to point out what we look like to the rest of the world though, and you get a "damn furriners don't know nothin' and yer unAmerricun to say such a thing."

That's damn frustrating too. -.-

FArchivist

10-18-2011, 12:05 AM

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81027

Oh, you chose World Net Daily. Ow.

Word of advice in the future: Never, EVER, take anything coming from World Net Daily, Huffington Post, the Daily Mail, or anything from Andrew Breitbart or Jonah Goldberg as fact. Ever. Especially the Huffington Post when it comes to science. Even if any of them are saying that water is wet or the sun is shining.

Anyway, that's for the future. Moving on to the article in question...

That would be the former Hitler youth. Apparently, the police bomber and his fellow terrorist wife are only good buddy croonies of Obama and not czars. The wife worked for Michelle Obama previously.

First, that article is by one Hilmar Von Campe, a former Hitler Youth member. He claims, in the article, that Obama is setting the stages for a violent coup by 'radicals' in order to set up a fascist state. Apparently, he provides all the proof for this in the book he's hawking.

Nowhere does he say that people affiliated with Obama were or are members of the Hitler Youth.

As for Bill Ayers, contrary to popular propaganda he's not best buds with Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers_presidential_election_controversy). Or even cronies of any type. Their interaction was limited to:
- they lived in the same neighborhood and were at the same neighborhood functions, including neighborhood parties hosted by people living there
- Obama was president of the board of directors for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, while Ayers worked in the operational division of the same
- they both served three years on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, an anti-poverty association

Aaaand that was it. Definitely not a bromance. Which is why it's been dropped out of the news.

As for his Ayer's wife, Bernardine Dohrn, she DIDN'T work for Michelle Obama. Both Michelle Obama, Barack Obama, and Bernardine Dohrn worked for the law firm Sidley Austin at the same time in the 1980s. Sidley Austin has quite a few hundred employees; there's no documentation that they knew each other when working there.

Cass was one I was struggling to name as well. He's a scary one as well.

Cass Sunstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein)? OK...what's wrong with him?

Panacea

10-18-2011, 12:41 AM

Interesting. On the doctors thing, I have to say that I've yet to hear of a country that was worse off for having a healthier citizenry

In spite of what the GOP likes to claim about the US having the world's "best health care system," it's just ain't so. We just have the most expensive. Outcomes should be far, far better for what we pay.

I don't debunk things because of their source, I debunk things because they're wrong.

Applause.

That's damn frustrating too. -.-

You ain't whistlin' Dixie. It makes me embarrassed to be an American sometimes. Just makes me want to scream, "Our country's not full of paranoid nut jobs! Really, it's not!"

*sigh*

Andara Bledin

10-18-2011, 12:47 AM

It makes me embarrassed to be an American sometimes. Just makes me want to scream, "Our country's not full of paranoid nut jobs! Really, it's not!"
What's worse is how much evidence we have that they're willfully ignorant paranoid nutjobs.

I just don't get why people who display signs of being otherwise intelligent and who have access to the internet still can't manage to do any sort of research into the people they endorse and argue for.

^-.-^

Gravekeeper

10-18-2011, 02:33 AM

What's worse is how much evidence we have that they're willfully ignorant paranoid nutjobs.

What's worse is being out here with the rest of the world as we watch in horror while you treat some of them as viable political candidates. >.>

But again, damn foreigners, etc.

The debt ceiling fiasco was a prime example. That could have been catastrophic to the global economy. But American politicans dicked around like children, while the rest of the world watched in horror. You know there were more than a few angry phone calls to the White House from overseas during it. But nobody cares because it seems like the opinion of non-Americans can't penetrate the forcefield of American Exceptionalism(tm).

Mytical

10-18-2011, 03:19 AM

Honestly right now, I wish I could move to England. Has more to do with a certain special somebody who is there, but meh :angel:

mikoyan29

10-18-2011, 04:49 AM

What's worse is being out here with the rest of the world as we watch in horror while you treat some of them as viable political candidates. >.>

But again, damn foreigners, etc.

The debt ceiling fiasco was a prime example. That could have been catastrophic to the global economy. But American politicans dicked around like children, while the rest of the world watched in horror. You know there were more than a few angry phone calls to the White House from overseas during it. But nobody cares because it seems like the opinion of non-Americans can't penetrate the forcefield of American Exceptionalism(tm).
The Debt Ceiling Debate pissed me off the most. Despite what just about everyone said, the REpublicans pretty much said, "We don't believe it". I guess they were taking a page from the Creationism playbook...We don't care how much evidence you can pull saying this is bad, we're not going to believe it. AS if that's not bad enough, the Air Traffic thing followed on its coattails.

And quite frankly things like blowjobs, Bush's service records, Kerry's service records, Obama's birth certificate are all bullshit because they distract from the real issues. This country is definately at a crossroads and neither party really gives a shit except for how to manipulate that to remain in power.

blas87

10-18-2011, 01:38 PM

Blowjobs did amazing for the economy.

I suggest Obama get someone a sucking, and soon.

Andara Bledin

10-18-2011, 03:12 PM

Blowjobs did amazing for the economy.
The government spent $40 million dollars on that shit investigation.

For a little perspective, we spent only $15 million dollars on the 9/11 investigation.

And that doesn't factor in any of the costs for the shit that didn't get done while the republican party scrabbled did they're damnedest to get rid of Clinton. That was a fiasco, but they're really outdoing themselves this administration for outright dickery, waste, and tribalist bullshit.

^-.-^

Gravekeeper

10-18-2011, 05:03 PM

The government spent $40 million dollars on that shit investigation.

For a little perspective, we spent only $15 million dollars on the 9/11 investigation.

....Wait, seriously? Argh. ><

Andara Bledin

10-18-2011, 07:58 PM

....Wait, seriously? Argh. ><
The opposition at the time spent nearly $80 million going after the Clinton administration, nearly $50 million being used for the combined Whitewater/Lewinsky debacle.

And, it is worth noting that these are "independent counsel" figures. Due to the sheer amount of wasteful overlap involved in the 9/11 investigation, the actual total is likely closer to $30 million, but we still spent more to try to prove a charismatic guy with a shit-ton of power managed to receive a blowjob than we did on an event where thousands of people lost their lives.

Even worse than the sheer waste are the people who support the ones that threw all of the time, effort, and resource away on bullshit and continue to defend their actions. >_<

^-.-^

Panacea

10-18-2011, 08:50 PM

The debt ceiling fiasco was a prime example. That could have been catastrophic to the global economy.

It has been catastrophic to the global economy; it weakened an already weak recovery. We kicked the can down the road; when the super committee fails to agree on how to fix the deficit, then automatic cuts will take effect and we'll be right back in recession. Europe is already teetering on the brink; another economic disaster from America will be all it needs to push it over the edge.

And that doesn't factor in any of the costs for the shit that didn't get done while the republican party scrabbled did they're damnedest to get rid of Clinton. That was a fiasco, but they're really outdoing themselves this administration for outright dickery, waste, and tribalist bullshit.

^-.-^

The only thing Repubs learned from that fiasco was not to waste that kind of money again going after a charismatic Democratic President . . . because it doesn't work.

The opposition at the time spent nearly $80 million going after the Clinton administration, nearly $50 million being used for the combined Whitewater/Lewinsky debacle.

And, it is worth noting that these are "independent counsel" figures. Due to the sheer amount of wasteful overlap involved in the 9/11 investigation, the actual total is likely closer to $30 million, but we still spent more to try to prove a charismatic guy with a shit-ton of power managed to receive a blowjob than we did on an event where thousands of people lost their lives.

Even worse than the sheer waste are the people who support the ones that threw all of the time, effort, and resource away on bullshit and continue to defend their actions. >_<

^-.-^

Yeah, our priorities are quite messed up. If the Republicans put the same energy into actually legislating that they put into trying to defeat Obama, then they might actually have accomplished something.

I really don't think Republicans want things to get better. They like the crisis after crisis because they can just point fingers at the Dems and complain, and not actually have to act and do something.

Andara Bledin

10-18-2011, 09:33 PM

I really don't think Republicans want things to get better. They like the crisis after crisis because they can just point fingers at the Dems and complain, and not actually have to act and do something.
They don't. Not on his watch. Not of they can't claim absolute and unshared credit for whatever it is that makes things better.

They would much rather set fire to the sinking ship and point fingers and blame the captain than grab a bucket and help with the bailing.

^-.-^

Greenday

10-18-2011, 09:49 PM

Blowjobs did amazing for the economy.

I suggest Obama get someone a sucking, and soon.

They make me happy. And they make every other guy I know happy. Which leads me to a theory that if every guy got them once a day or even once a week, government and everyone would be calmer and more peaceful.

Rapscallion

10-19-2011, 08:56 AM

Anyway, I have to ask, what sorts of policies might a Canadian liberal support? What about a British liberal, or a liberal in any other country?

I put a few in the post after yours. Awaiting comment.

Rapscallion

guywithashovel

10-19-2011, 07:56 PM

Of course, the clarion cry will erupt as it always does that this is going to cost jobs and everyone's going to see increased prices and the US will become less competitive. Meh - Yurp's been doing the above for some time and we're not doing badly - if it affects everyone equally then it's no burden. Our citizens are generally speaking better off in terms of benefits, though again there is variance from country to country. I fully expect complaints about how this is socialist and therefore evil to come forth, but what's wrong with making sure that your citizens are fit and healthy? What's wrong with the benefit of time off from work?

Why is it that every time I look at the US, I see people proclaiming with one mouth 'we the people' and with another mouth saying that the citizens there shouldn't have similar rights and freedoms? Oh, you've got rights - rights to starve or go into crippling debt if you can't afford treatment. "We the people who can afford" is a better way of putting it. "My fellow americans who aren't inconveniently ill" is another.

The truly scary thing? There are people who would benefit from the adoption of the ideas above or similar who would benefit from their enaction, but would vote against it with all their heart and passion. Why? I can't say for sure, but the old spectre of communism and socialism reared by McCarthy still lingers in the US psyche, and the US is one of the most xenophobic places in the world. Don't want those funny foreign ideas coming in.

Rapscallion

I saw this post a while ago. I just couldn't think of much to say at the time.

From my experience, people here in the states who support the ideas you described are usually called "very liberal" or even "socialist." The word "frightening" or "nutcase" gets used in regards to such people, too.

Back when Obama was running for office and talking about health care reform, I heard it said a few times that a national health care program would cause unemployment to rise and stay elevated because having private health insurance through employers is motivation to look for a job.

I have, however, heard the recent problems in Europe blamed on social policies like the ones you described. I'm talking about all the debt defaults and EU bailouts.

Overall, the reactions to policies like national health care seem to fit into at least one of a few categories.

1. It'll make people lazy and not want to look for a job. (I hope the people who say this don't take advantage of the liberal social policies that already exist and benefit them, like Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits, farm subsidies, etc.)

2. People who support such policies "just want the government to take care of them."

3. Such policies are tyranny because they go against the liberty that our Founding Fathers died for. (Maybe I just didn't notice it before, but these "Founding Fathers" started to be lionized a great deal after Obama took office.)

Rapscallion

10-19-2011, 10:03 PM

Interesting thought occurs. Socialised (or similar) health care means people live longer into retirement, leaving less money for those in power now.

Number two on the objections you report on is interesting - what else is the government for? Arranging an army is supposed to be to defend the citizens, taking care of them from enemies foreign and domestic. Are they saying they don't want to government to take care of them when they're old and infirm? Are they saying that they want huge debt owed by them to vast medical corporations for life-saving treatment?

That baffles me.

As to the recent problems in Yurp, I don't know enough about them to make decisive commentary about what went where. Greece was interesting in that the government wanted EU assistance in the form of a bailout, yet to get it they needed to perform some austerity measures. The people rioted as a result of the jam being taken away. Still doing it from what I understand.

I've just reread what you said - people were saying that people wouldn't go for work if they got free medical care? They were serious? Truthfully, it's something that would cause a shift in the economy, but effectively the benefit cost of the medical insurance would be converted into a tax on the employment of an individual if it goes down the route of the UK system. I pay a relatively minor chunk of my income - and I usually only look at the net value so I don't notice it - and it covers me if I am ill or unemployed, and it goes towards paying for my pension.

Actually, either people over there know their fellow citizens, or the xenophobia often on display has turned inwards.

Rapscallion

Gravekeeper

10-19-2011, 10:15 PM

I have, however, heard the recent problems in Europe blamed on social policies like the ones you described. I'm talking about all the debt defaults and EU bailouts.

They have nothing to do with social policies. The epicenter over there is Greece, whose government spent 9 years lying about their economic conditions with the help of Goldmann Sachs. So they could keep spending.

It rippled out from there, and banking dickery is at the centre of a lot of the problems. Much like the US.

Conversely, the socialist gay marriage free health care commie liberal wasteland that is Canada weathered the intial economic bomb better than any other country in the world. On the back of our strict bank regulations that prevent dickery.

1. It'll make people lazy and not want to look for a job.

This is an element of the "Fuck you, I got mine" mantra that seems to be rather prevalent in the US. It seems like a combination of the upper tier going "Fuck you, I got millions" and the lower tier going "Fuck you, I got nothing, but I might have millions one day, and when that day comes you can't have any". Which relies on the total delusion being sold to them by the upper tier that some day they could be just like them.

2. People who support such policies "just want the government to take care of them."

Which is another silly one. I don't think anyone's asking for the government to wipe their ass. But not going bankrupt and losing everything you own if you get injured or sick would be nice. -.-

3. Such policies are tyranny because they go against the liberty that our Founding Fathers died for. (Maybe I just didn't notice it before, but these "Founding Fathers" started to be lionized a great deal after Obama took office.)

I've found the more someone lionizes the Founding Fathers, the less they tend to know about them. Its bad enough anyone buys into the Christian Nation bullshit. As I recall, many of them were Deists. Franklin was a filthy scientist, Washington was all about religious tolerence and freedom, Jefferson loathed clergy and the Catholic Church especially and Madison was so private about his faith no one even knows what it is.

That leaves Adams, Hamilton and Jay. Adams was Unitarian, but rejected orthodox Christian dogma and would not gel remotely with the modern American Christian. Hamilton was an evangelical to begin with, but then spent near 20 years making jokes about it and not giving a shit.

That leaves Jay and his quote: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.".

So I assume thats where all of the bullshit started. One quote from one of the Founding Fathers. Except Jay was Protestant. -.-

So 1 out of 7?

Gravekeeper

10-19-2011, 10:25 PM

As to the recent problems in Yurp, I don't know enough about them to make decisive commentary about what went where. Greece was interesting in that the government wanted EU assistance in the form of a bailout, yet to get it they needed to perform some austerity measures. The people rioted as a result of the jam being taken away. Still doing it from what I understand.

Yeah, some of the measures were irrational too and done just to meet whatever criteria the EU laid down. But practically all of the austerity measures cut people's pay and benefits ( everyone's, not just government employees ), lowered their pensions and raised income tax and sales tax. Then raised the taxes on tobacco and booze by 10% for when they went to drown their sorrows over it.

That'd get you a riot in any country me thinks.

Andara Bledin

10-19-2011, 10:28 PM

Actually, either people over there know their fellow citizens, or the xenophobia often on display has turned inwards.
There is a toxic "us vs them" mentality slowly eating away at this country, fomented by those with the power with the purpose of keeping those without the power divided and distracted so that the ones who aren't fighting just to survive don't realize that they could be doing better and if they don't act they will end up doing worse.

There is so much rage against the idea that someone, anyone, might possibly receive something that they did not earn, that they did not deserve, that they are more than willing to let those with genuine need go without just to spite the tiny minority of those who would abuse the system.

^-.-^

guywithashovel

10-19-2011, 11:29 PM

Number two on the objections you report on is interesting - what else is the government for? Arranging an army is supposed to be to defend the citizens, taking care of them from enemies foreign and domestic. Are they saying they don't want to government to take care of them when they're old and infirm? Are they saying that they want huge debt owed by them to vast medical corporations for life-saving treatment?

Admittedly, I don't talk about this much offline, but if what I read online is any indication, the military is not seen as "taking care of people" in the same sense as something like national health care. People who support national heath care are often accused of wanting the government to be "Mommy and Daddy."

If you want an illustration, here is a clip of Sean Hannity interviewing Rush Limbaugh in early 2009. At around 6:50 minutes into the clip, Limbaugh starts speaking against nationalized health care and people being "dependent on the government."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4YcwI4NlKA&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL777477518140FD2B

HYHYBT

10-20-2011, 01:27 AM

This is an element of the "Fuck you, I got mine" mantra that seems to be rather prevalent in the US. It seems like a combination of the upper tier going "Fuck you, I got millions" and the lower tier going "Fuck you, I got nothing, but I might have millions one day, and when that day comes you can't have any". Which relies on the total delusion being sold to them by the upper tier that some day they could be just like them.Very much the same way that slavery held on in the South as long as it did, if I remember history class right.

On the Founding Fathers... they were people. They were right about some things, and wrong on others, and all had their faults like anybody else. Yet the way they're often treated amounts to idolatry. (And, as the people most likely to be that way seem to be certain segments of Christianity, they ought to be reminded that that's, like, HALF the Ten Commandments.)

There is so much rage against the idea that someone, anyone, might possibly receive something that they did not earn, that they did not deserve...Importantly, this comes with the silent caveat "...and anything that *I* receive is earned by definition, whether others receiving the same or less in the same way is or not."

Panacea

10-20-2011, 03:00 AM

I've found the more someone lionizes the Founding Fathers, the less they tend to know about them.

You know, I find it scary, pathetic, and sad that Canadians know more about the American Founding Fathers than the Americans themselves do. When I debate with local ultra conservatives, and they start quoting the Founding Fathers, they ALWAYS get it wrong.

There's this tendency to romaticize the Founding Fathers and forget that they themselves had bitter differences about how government should work. It's really a miracle we managed to get the governmental system we did, really. We're very lucky we didn't end up with a monarchy or a dictatorship.

Gravekeeper

10-20-2011, 06:10 AM

You know, I find it scary, pathetic, and sad that Canadians know more about the American Founding Fathers than the Americans themselves do.

In all fairness, our politics, like our TV shows, are rather boring so we have to tune in to stuff from the States. >.>

Kids in the Hall aside of course.

Mongo Skruddgemire

10-20-2011, 06:15 AM

I've been called a very liberal conservative or a very conservative liberal.

In reality I see myself as neither. I am a social realist.

I am what seems to be a rare breed that can see that both sides have good points.

I am for the rights of people to have guns. I also do not see why a hunter should be allowed armor piercing ammunition. As Robin Williams once put it "How many deer wear a bullet proof vest?"

I believe in the right for everyone to marry while at the same time I'm all for the right of the various churches to decide for themselves if they are willing to perform the marriage ceremony. After all a marriage in the US is a civil union that can be but does not have to be ratified by a church elder or official. So let gays marry and let the churches decide for themselves what they wish to do.

I'm pro-choice but anti-abortion. That's a really odd one I know. But do not approve of using abortion as the first and only option for when someone makes a mistake and gets knocked up. I would rather there be other options put into place (the safe haven laws are a tentative baby step in the right direction but we need more) and abortion lowered to a third, fourth or a fifth choice. BUT I am not the sort that is going to force my morals on to someone else when it is not my body so to do.

In many cases there are good and bad points to either side's arguments. This is why there is supposed to be a compromise. Sadly however we (in the US at least) live in a society where the extreme right 2.5% and the extreme left 2.5% are governing the remaining 95% that live in the shades of grey between them.

Gravekeeper

10-20-2011, 07:18 AM

I am what seems to be a rare breed that can see that both sides have good points.

Both sides, on a normal political spectrum ( Not the extremist fringe being inhibited lately ), do make good points.

I am for the rights of people to have guns. I also do not see why a hunter should be allowed armor piercing ammunition. As Robin Williams once put it "How many deer wear a bullet proof vest?"

I on the other hand, do not see why someone would need to have a gun in their house if they were not a hunter. I do not view them as something one should possess if one does not require it. That said, after several debates on this site, I have come to recognize this as a cultural issue. I do not see why someone would need a gun, because where I live there is no threat to myself or my home that would warrant having one. But there are places in the US where this is a completely different story.

I believe in the right for everyone to marry while at the same time I'm all for the right of the various churches to decide for themselves if they are willing to perform the marriage ceremony.

Which is exactly how it would be. It was never and has never been about forcing churchs to marry anyone. Every gay marriage law proposed fully allows churches to decide for themselves. The gay marriage law in Canada, for example, clearly states it has no power over religious institutions to force them to marry anyone, and that their religious freedom is to remain completely intact in regards to the law.

Anyone that suggests otherwise is just trying to drum up fear.

I'm pro-choice but anti-abortion. That's a really odd one I know.

In all fairness, nobody is pro-abortion nor do I think anyone treats the decision lightly. The problem, however, is that carrying a child to term is very hard on the body and actually dangerous for younger mothers. Asking someone to endure all of that, risk their health and if we're talking a teen mother or single mother in one of the more "puritan" areas of the US, endure the stigma of the pregnancy for 9 months. Nevermind the potential trauma of being seperated from the child after its born ( That can be a much harder descision than abortion and presents a potential life long problem ). All just to fullfill your own personal belief on abortion is neither fair nor just. ( Not you personally, I just mean in general ).

Sadly however we (in the US at least) live in a society where the extreme right 2.5% and the extreme left 2.5% are governing the remaining 95% that live in the shades of grey between them.

Point of contention: The US does not have an extreme left. It doesn't even really have much of a left. It has extreme right and center, and the extreme right legitimizes its extremeness to a much greater except than the "left" does.

What the US calls left, the rest of us out here call a centerist. -.- Canada's government is Conservative, but its still left of your Democrats.

Mongo Skruddgemire

10-20-2011, 08:14 AM

All just to fullfill your own personal belief on abortion is neither fair nor just. ( Not you personally, I just mean in general ).

Hence the reason that I am pro-choice. This is my personal bugaboo and not something that I am willing nor should be allowed to force down the throats of people who think differently than me.

I just do not like the lack of options. I'll admit that I'm at a loss for ideas as to what these other options should be but I'd just like to see some more cards on the table than just abortion.

But because of the reasons that you mentioned (as well as others) I am personally content with supporting legislators that put forth those options and withholding my support for those who try to stop abortion.

A little considered fact was that Roe vs. Wade was not a decision to allow abortion for the sake of letting people kill unborn babies, but a law to prevent mothers from having to seek less than optimal choices in abortion practitioners. More women have been saved because they didn't have to go to a schmuck with dirty hands and a coat hanger in a seedy back alley room and could instead go to a place that was a fully licensed medical facility complete with hospital sterilization and proper after care options.

Point of contention: The US does not have an extreme left. It doesn't even really have much of a left. It has extreme right and center, and the extreme right legitimizes its extremeness to a much greater except than the "left" does.

What the US calls left, the rest of us out here call a centerist. -.- Canada's government is Conservative, but its still left of your Democrats.

Regardless of how our system is perceived by other nations, my point is still valid. You have a narrow band of people on one side of the political coin fighting with another narrow band of people on the other side. And both of these sides are so polarized that if one side said that the sky is blue the other would stick their head out a window, point at a cloud and say "See! That part is white! The other side LIED! Since they can't be honest about the color of the sky they obviously can't be trusted to be honest about what goes on in America!"

This is why you never see moderate members of the two parties anymore. At least not in the higher echelons. The Republicans are a great example of this. They have denounced and kicked out a number of Republican Moderates who looked at Obama's health care package and said "It's not perfect, but I have people who need something because they're lacking anything resembling quality healthcare."

And please let's not go into the merits of the healthcare package...that's really neither here nor there in this discussion and was brought up as an example of how the two parties refuse to play nice any more.

So while our "left" may not be all that left in the eyes of the rest of the world...it is our left. It is the polar opposite of the other party which considers itself the right.

Gravekeeper

10-20-2011, 08:30 AM

I just do not like the lack of options. I'll admit that I'm at a loss for ideas as to what these other options should be but I'd just like to see some more cards on the table than just abortion.

That's kind of the heart of it, there just isn't a lot of options on the table because ultimately there's only the two choices: Abortion or carrying it to term. I agree there should definately be more options on the table for the latter, but I don't think having more options for the latter should in any way lessen access to the former. Nor should said options be pressured onto someone that has chosen the former.

Regardless of how our system is perceived by other nations, my point is still valid. You have a narrow band of people on one side of the political coin fighting with another narrow band of people on the other side.

True. I think one side, the right, has fallen further than the other though. But that's due to who each side cater's too and relies on for their base. Which is the mistake the Republicans made. As you said, moderate Republicans are dying off. Because the GOP rallied the hard rights and evangelicals into their base, and now the base are demanding their due by trying to elect similar thinking candidates. Hence you get the alarming spectrum of current nominees. Few of which have a chance in hell with moderates.

Which is a good portion of Obama's problem. He is a moderate in the middle of the American spectrum. One side hates him because he's the other team, and his own team complains he's not enough like them. While he sits in the middle mistakenly thinking both teams will somehow work together if he just talks long enough.

AdminAssistant

10-20-2011, 01:28 PM

That's kind of the heart of it, there just isn't a lot of options on the table because ultimately there's only the two choices: Abortion or carrying it to term.

Actually, there are more options, such as: better access to cheap/free birth control, more sex education, and the morning-after pill (which is not an abortion). I recently got a copper IUD and it's fantastic....why aren't we giving them to more women? Non-hormonal, extremely effective birth control that's good for 10 years.

The other thing that would help would be to eliminate the teaching that Jesus thinks birth control is evil, but that's not going away anytime soon.

Rageaholic

10-20-2011, 03:01 PM

There is so much rage against the idea that someone, anyone, might possibly receive something that they did not earn, that they did not deserve, that they are more than willing to let those with genuine need go without just to spite the tiny minority of those who would abuse the system.

^-.-^

That's the impression I get from many of the far right capitalists. It's never about who can benefit from something, but always about who abuses it. I remember the thread about the drug testing people on welfare. Even though it would cost MORE money to impliment, quite a few people were willing to pay that price and potentially hurt those who actually need. Why, because *gasp* a few people might use the money to buy drugs!! We must punish them!

This is what I meant by being sick of the complaints about entitlement. There's a difference between a PFB letter to target about returns and someone who might die because their insurance won't cover the treatment and there job pays barely enough to get by.

Hyena Dandy

10-20-2011, 10:58 PM

Point of contention: The US does not have an extreme left. It doesn't even really have much of a left.

I would say it does have an extreme left. Its simply that the extreme left often keeps out of the political establishment, while the extreme right doesn't have a problem with it.

HYHYBT

10-21-2011, 04:30 AM

I do not view [guns] as something one should possess if one does not require it.How about historical interest? For example, Dad has maybe ten, ranging from reproductions of Civil War and before to modern, because he finds them interesting. They all work, but have only ever been used to show how they work or, in some cases, for target practice. The modern stuff is hidden and locked away, while the "oldest" tend to sit out in the den as curiosities, along with other things he has left over from reenacting, like hats and belt buckles. Unloaded, and even were the ammunition there instead of also being locked away, it would take an impractically long time to get one ready to fire even if you knew how to work them. (Powder, ramrod, etc.) Sure, if it were premeditated you certainly could kill someone with one of those... but then, there are usually going to be easier ways, and it wouldn't exactly be hard to narrow down a list of suspects. And the chance of anything happening by accident, in the heat of the moment, or even as self defense (except perhaps using one as a club of sorts) is zero.

HYHYBT

10-21-2011, 04:44 AM

Actually, there are more options, such as: better access to cheap/free birth control, more sex education, and the morning-after pill (which is not an abortion). I recently got a copper IUD and it's fantastic....why aren't we giving them to more women? Non-hormonal, extremely effective birth control that's good for 10 years.

The other thing that would help would be to eliminate the teaching that Jesus thinks birth control is evil, but that's not going away anytime soon.

All given, of course... but *once you are pregnant* there are only two options. And the biggest problem is that the point of contention between the sides is something that's inherently uncertain. You can *circumvent* the "when does life begin*" question by artificially defining the beginning as being at this point or that, but barring that, there may not *be* an answer specific enough to be useful, and even if there is, it may be inherently impossible to discover.

*Or personhood. After all, before they meet, the egg and sperm are already alive. Life does not begin, present tense, so far as is known. It begAn long ago and has continued unbroken since.

Gravekeeper

10-21-2011, 05:55 AM

How about historical interest? For example, Dad has maybe ten, ranging from reproductions of Civil War and before to modern, because he finds them interesting.

I don't have a problem with historical interests. Like you said, its not exactly a practical weapon and certainly not a spur of the moment one. Someone planning ahead that far could find a better option. -.-

I would say it does have an extreme left. Its simply that the extreme left often keeps out of the political establishment, while the extreme right doesn't have a problem with it.

Very true.

Gravekeeper

10-21-2011, 06:09 AM

Crazedclerkthe2nd

10-21-2011, 08:52 PM

Ah, here's an example of the Canadian right wing to demonstrate my point about the American spectrum: The Canadian right wing just released an It Gets Better (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/20/pol-mps-it-gets-better.html)video.

That's how far left our right is compared to the US spectrum >.>

In America, the conservative politicians in that video would be labeled RINOs (Republicans in name only)

It's the kind of stuff that makes me miss home. Honestly GK, I think you'd go crazy down here with the way politics are.

If I put a mark on my wall every time I saw something that made me think "what the hell are you people thinking?" I'd have a pretty scuffed up wall by now.

Gravekeeper

10-22-2011, 04:05 AM

It's the kind of stuff that makes me miss home. Honestly GK, I think you'd go crazy down here with the way politics are.

Watching it from afar is bad enough at times.

Mytical

10-22-2011, 08:04 AM

That video was awesome. I guess it makes sense I am right wing. I have a very live and let live mentality, and believe that basic things like food, shelter, and medicine should be for everybody. That you should be treated like a human being regardless of circumstances.

Gravekeeper

10-22-2011, 08:50 AM

I guess it makes sense I am right wing. I have a very live and let live mentality, and believe that basic things like food, shelter, and medicine should be for everybody. That you should be treated like a human being regardless of circumstances.

This is what I find so bizzarre about the political spectrum in the US. Your mentality, by the US measure, is left wing. But outside of the US, could be held by the right wing.

The other thing that always gets me about US politics is the constant....how do I put it? The government is always in a state of flux because both sides essentially vow to undo everything the other side does the next time they get in power. It feels like America in general, despite all of its bravado about Democracy, does not accept decisions made democratically.

If the majority decides something or elects someone, the minority never goes "Oh well, thats what the majority of Americans decided" and leaves it alone. They rail against it and come up with reasons why it can't possibly be the majority descision or why it was the wrong descision and how it must be undone.

Its like each political/cultural group in American can't seem to comprehend that the other groups exist and that their group doesn't speak for everyone. The Tea Partiers are a vivid example. They are actually a select minority, but believe they are "Real America" and that the rest of America has become un-American by falling away from the ideals that they themselves claim is America.

Conversely, ( Meanwhile. In Canada. -.- ) up north here the majority rule is accepted and we move on. Gay marriage is the best example of this. Obviously, many people rejected gay marriage based on their religious beliefs when it was first tabled. But they were the minority. Gay marriage was passed, and that minority went "Oh well, I don't believe in it, but the people have spoken" and we moved on from the issue. It was already decided.

When the Conservatives came into power, they didn't touch gay marriage. Our own Prime Minister does not believe in gay marriage because of his personal religious beliefs. But he would not revisit the issue because Canada had already spoken, and religious belief is considered private in Canada. Its considered a political faus pas to bring your religion into it if you're a politician here.

You can't stand up in Parliment and rant about God when the guy across from you is Sikh ( and wearing an awesome fabulous turbin (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/navdeep-purple584.jpg)to support anti-bullying ).

lordlundar

10-22-2011, 01:21 PM

When the Conservatives came into power, they didn't touch gay marriage. Our own Prime Minister does not believe in gay marriage because of his personal religious beliefs. But he would not revisit the issue because Canada had already spoken, and religious belief is considered private in Canada.

Despite the Liberal party's fear mongering that the Conservatives would do exactly that.:rolleyes:

Gravekeeper

10-22-2011, 01:34 PM

Despite the Liberal party's fear mongering that the Conservatives would do exactly that.:rolleyes:

I know, isn't it awesome? They're fear mongering that gay marriage will get taken away.

It's like Bizzarro world.

Crazedclerkthe2nd

10-23-2011, 12:03 AM

lordlundar

10-23-2011, 02:34 AM

Imagine how things would be in America right now if the GOP hadn't won the House in 2010 and weren't able to get away with all the obstructing they're doing?

You mean if the Democrats were actually "ramming things through" as the GOP kept screaming instead of trying to get bipartisan approval like they were before the midterms?

There'd be shit getting done for a start...:angel:

Panacea

10-23-2011, 02:55 AM

You know what else is interesting?

In Canada, we have no mid-term elections. So if a party wins a majority, they get to keep it for all 4 years (most of the time). Now that could be seen as a negative if a party with a platform you're not too fond of gets elected...

BUT...

Imagine how things would be in America right now if the GOP hadn't won the House in 2010 and weren't able to get away with all the obstructing they're doing?

Tell me about it. Ever since Obama was elected, I've been listening to Tea Party nuts rant on about how we have to "take our country back."

My response has always been, "I didn't realize we'd lost it." The TP crowd seldom has a good answer for that, other than insults.

After Obama was elected, liberals told conservatives the people had spoken and they needed to get over it.

After the mid term elections, the conservatives have been telling the liberals the people have spoke and they need to get over it.

I said both times that NO ONE had a mandate, and watch your step. Of course, I was ignored by my local crowd.

Unless there is a clear winner in both the House and Senate for one party or the other, nothing will get better. Who wins the White House is actually irrelevant. In order for things to move in any direction, one party or the other must gain total control of Congress.

I on the other hand, do not see why someone would need to have a gun in their house if they were not a hunter. I do not view them as something one should possess if one does not require it.

I respect your point of view even though I completely disagree with it.

I have three guns: two rifles and a shotgun. I have them because they are FUN!

I don't hunt and never have. My first gun was a handgun I bought for personal protection after someone tried to break into my house while I was home, and the cops didn't come (I've since sold it). The shotgun was a gift. The rifles I bought cheap and restored. I've spent many hours on private ranges shooting milk jugs filled with water or soda cans and watching them explode. Whee! Great fun :D

One of my rifles, ironically, is a Canadian Enfield Mark IV .303 from World War II. It's my favorite gun :) Easy to shoot, easy to clean, not much recoil.

Gravekeeper

10-23-2011, 04:54 AM

I respect your point of view even though I completely disagree with it.

I have three guns: two rifles and a shotgun. I have them because they are FUN!

You're only targetting shooting though, I don't have a problem with target shooting. As it doesn't require you to have anything full auto, belt fed, armour piercing or loaded and under your coat on your way to work. -.-

Also you have long rifles, which are less restricted in Canada as there are valid reasons to own them in a lot of places ( Bears, cougars, maybe Bieber fans, etc ). There are two big no nos up here: A) Handguns ( Which are more likely to be used in crime and B) Guns in cities ( Where there are no bears or cougars ). You may own a handgun for target shooting, but it has to be keep pretty damn secure at your house or left at the range. And they're heavily restricted by size and caliber. ( No Desert Eagles. ;p )

I don't hunt and never have. My first gun was a handgun I bought for personal protection after someone tried to break into my house while I was home, and the cops didn't come (I've since sold it).

Incidents like this are why I relaxed my views on guns after discussing it with a few Americans on this site. Someone breaking into my house and the cops not coming would be completely unheard of where I live. Plus, in the meantime, the person breaking into my house is likely to be lightly armed if at all. So things are likely to be more medieval, and I have a claymore by the bed. -.-

Andara Bledin

10-23-2011, 10:04 AM

Yeah, we don't have the funds to have an adequate police force. Because the places where they're most needed are full of poor people and the people who could most afford to help the situation are too busy holding onto their cash hissing "Mine!"

^-.-^

Gravekeeper

10-23-2011, 10:40 AM

Panacea

10-23-2011, 02:23 PM

You're only targetting shooting though, I don't have a problem with target shooting. As it doesn't require you to have anything full auto, belt fed, armour piercing or loaded and under your coat on your way to work. -.-
You may own a handgun for target shooting, but it has to be keep pretty damn secure at your house or left at the range. And they're heavily restricted by size and caliber. ( No Desert Eagles. ;p )

I had a friend who had the Chinese version of the AK 47 with a drum (held 75 rounds). He bought a kit to turn it from semi auto to full auto (perfectly legal, he didn't make any modifications to the gun, it just helped the trigger hit a "sweet spot" that made it fire full auto).

We mowed down a sapling with it. Very cool, very scary, and I would never ever do it again.

Incidents like this are why I relaxed my views on guns after discussing it with a few Americans on this site. Someone breaking into my house and the cops not coming would be completely unheard of where I live. Plus, in the meantime, the person breaking into my house is likely to be lightly armed if at all. So things are likely to be more medieval, and I have a claymore by the bed. -.-

It was the most terrifying night of my life. It started literally minutes after my boyfriend dropped me off after a date. I had a dog, who was barking like crazy but didn't scare them off. I dug around looking for my roomies gun (she was in the police academy at the time) and couldn't find it, DID find her nightstick and fell asleep with it hours later.

I'd lived in that house for six years with a variety of roommates (some good, some bad, lots of happy memories). I moved out two weeks later to a very small farming town.

I sold the handgun because the recoil was too powerful for me. My wrists aren't very strong, so I couldn't control the gun very well. That, and it was a .45, made it unreliable for self defense so after moving cross country (it was loaded and in the car on the trip because I was traveling alone) I sold it. If I have to use a gun for self defense, I'll use my shotgun: the spread makes it less likely I will miss in the dark, if I do miss I'll do less damage to my house (which is MY house, and I don't want to damage it), and because it's a long barreled weapon I can control the recoil fairly easily.

I also have a claymore I can use in a pinch . . . a real one (well, a real reproduction--it is a real weapon, not a cheap knock off) :D

Yeah, we don't have the funds to have an adequate police force. Because the places where they're most needed are full of poor people and the people who could most afford to help the situation are too busy holding onto their cash hissing "Mine!"

^-.-^

Filthy, nasty hippies! They steals the precious from us.

:rotflmao:

Hyena Dandy

10-23-2011, 06:56 PM

Crazedclerkthe2nd

10-23-2011, 07:28 PM

So Canada has set election dates?

I'm confused.

Actually no it doesn't.

In Canada, when a party is elected to power, the term they are elected to is I believe 5 years but it's usually customary to hold an election after four. This hasn't quite been the case in recent history.

In fact if my memory serves Canada has had four or five Federal elections since 2005.

In contrast, the U.S. has had only one.

There are a number of events in Canada that can trigger an election BEFORE four years. A vote of no-confidence for example, or the failure by the majority party to pass a budget. Also, I believe the ruling party can, at any time, choose to dissolve the government and call for another vote (though this rarely happens).

Unlike the U.S., Canada has no requirement in its constitution for elections to be held every four years.

There are benefits and drawbacks to both models but one thing I love about the Canadian system is since parties and politicians don't really know when the next election will be, they can't start campaigning and whatnot too far in advance and instead can focus on doing what we elected them to do: serve the country and their constituents.

Gravekeeper

10-23-2011, 07:39 PM

So Canada has set election dates?

I'm confused.

Essentially, yes. Though an election can be forced by a vote of No Confidence ( AKA enough of Parliment agrees our leader is being a dick ) or if the Queen thinks our leader is being a dick. In which case the Governer General ( The Queen's rep in Canada ) can force them to step down and dissolve Parliment. Essentially, unlike the American system, you can get tossed out for being a dick at any time by two countries >.>. Instead of having free reign for 4 years.

Additionally, our Prime Minister can choose to step down and call an election as well.

Also, the Canadian election cycle is very short compared to the US cycle. Typically around 2ish months on average from campaign to voting day. Hence we're not bombarded with stupidity like having 8 or 9 debates with an election still a year away and our media isn't constantly caught up in politics.

Political funding up here is extremely limited compared to the US. Political parties are actually subsidized with public funds based on how many ridings they are running candidates in. This is what allows us to have so a vast array of political parties instead of falling into a two party system. Anyone can form a political party here ( forming it only costs about $200 -.- ) as long as they commit to run in at least one riding. Private donations are limited to around $1100 / year per party or candidate and corporate donations are very limited. Also, any contribution over $200 publically discloses you as a doner.

Last election private donations only amounted to about 15 million ( out of 46 million ) total between all of the parties. But again, the total political funding of all of the parties in Canada last election was a mere 46 million. ;p

Comparitively speaking, Obama raised over $600 million in 2008.

Nyoibo

10-23-2011, 08:53 PM

One of my rifles, ironically, is a Canadian Enfield Mark IV .303 from World War II. It's my favorite gun :) Easy to shoot, easy to clean, not much recoil.

Is that the full length wood stock?

Panacea

10-23-2011, 11:34 PM

In fact if my memory serves Canada has had four or five Federal elections since 2005.

In contrast, the U.S. has had only one.

There are fundamental differences between the US system, and the system used by most of the rest of the world.

The US is a representative democratic republic. Our constitutional system is based on set terms.

Canada has a parlimentary system: if the government is not working effectively, it can be dissolved (ie disbanded) and new elections held.

These systems have their ups and downs. In the US system, you have certainty of your representatives; a scandal can't undo a government that is otherwise functional. OTOH, when the government becomes DYSfunctional (as it is now), we have to wait out the terms until the next scheduled election. This is our current situation.

Given the acrimony and partisanship we currently have in our politics, a parliamentary system would result in a round robin of disbanded governments and chaos. We'd turn into the North American Venezuela.

A parliementary system works in Canada because 1) Canadians are sane people by and large, and 2) they have a monarch who can pull their leaders up by the short ones when necessary.

Is that the full length wood stock?

I believe so. I mean, the stock runs the entire length of the gun, and is all wood. I'm not sure what one that does not have a full length stock would look like. Do you have pictures?

Rapscallion

10-24-2011, 12:02 AM

Essentially, unlike the American system, you can get tossed out for being a dick at any time by two countries >.>.

Hmm, if you squint a bit, the US is effectively abotu fifty countries or states tied together in a fractious coalition, so potentially there's more involved there... Granted, one doesn't have the power to throw a dick out, but rumour has it that one put a dick in.

Rapscallion

Hyena Dandy

10-24-2011, 12:50 AM

Essentially, unlike the American system, you can get tossed out for being a dick at any time by two countries >.>. Instead of having free reign for 4 years.

So, when was the last time that the Queen kicked someone out? I'm afraid I could be better at Canadian history.

HYHYBT

10-24-2011, 01:19 AM

since parties and politicians don't really know when the next election will be, they can't start campaigning and whatnot too far in advanceWhat stops them from staying in campaign mode *all* the time?

Granted, one doesn't have the power to throw a dick out, but rumour has it that one put a dick in.Are you thinking of Representative Wiener, or something a bit less literal?

lordlundar

10-24-2011, 01:37 AM

What stops them from staying in campaign mode *all* the time?

It becomes counter productive. Politicking outside of an election period simply shows all you care about is gaining power as opposed to trying to help the country.

As well, I do believe there's standing laws that prohibit campaigning outside of the election being called. The fines levied on a politician can be enough to kill the campaign before it even starts.

Gravekeeper

10-24-2011, 02:12 AM

So, when was the last time that the Queen kicked someone out? I'm afraid I could be better at Canadian history.

1896. -.-

What stops them from staying in campaign mode *all* the time?

What lordlundar said. Also, political parties in Canada are limited by law as to how much they're allowed to spend on campaigning based on the number of candidates they are running and how large the ridings ( districts ) they're running in are. So you effectively cannot stay in campaign mode as you'd just be pissing away limited money and embarrassing yourself. Basically, our system is designed so that you can't win with money, and everyone is assigned a fair share of bling to campaign with.

Canadians also react extremely poorly to negative politics, so we don't have shitloads of crazy negative attack ads flying around because they're basically political suicide. As both the Conservative and Liberal Parties can attest up here. The Conservatives especially ran an awful attack ad back in 93 and the backlash cost them 149 seats in Parliment. Leaving them with 2.

Farkin' *2*.

You don't fuck with Canadian's sense of politeness and manners. >.>

Nyoibo

10-24-2011, 02:45 AM

I believe so. I mean, the stock runs the entire length of the gun, and is all wood. I'm not sure what one that does not have a full length stock would look like. Do you have pictures?

http://gunnet.com.au/images/guns/bigs/NSW409842342_108_640x480_img1.jpg

Just looks strange in my opinion.

What stops them from staying in campaign mode *all* the time?

Here to an extent they are, they will constantly criticize the opposition and talk themselves up as if they were campaigning for election, however there are rules and regulations as to when they can run tv ads and put up posters and such, which are tightly controlled and there are fines handed out if they are breached.

It becomes counter productive. Politicking outside of an election period simply shows all you care about is gaining power as opposed to trying to help the country.

Unfortunately it doesn't stop them and there are enough morons out there who don't get that and vote for them anyway. :(

Hyena Dandy

10-24-2011, 02:52 AM

1896. -.-

Thanks. :)

KabeRinnaul

10-24-2011, 05:51 AM

Canadians also react extremely poorly to negative politics, so we don't have shitloads of crazy negative attack ads flying around because they're basically political suicide. As both the Conservative and Liberal Parties can attest up here. The Conservatives especially ran an awful attack ad back in 93 and the backlash cost them 149 seats in Parliment. Leaving them with 2.

I think a major part of why US politics are so negative and attack-focused is the fact that we're in a two-party system. Everyone "knows" that voting third-party is a "wasted" vote, so it comes down to either One or Two. In this situation, One doesn't have to tell us why he's good. He just had to tell us why Two is bad. If we're afraid to vote for Two, we're left with only one option, and wind up putting One into office.

I really want to see a couple more parties show up in this country and be seen as legitimate options. Even if that means the Tea Party becomes an actual political party. Anything to pull us out of the current red vs blue nonsense.

Rapscallion

10-24-2011, 06:13 AM

Are you thinking of Representative Wiener, or something a bit less literal?

I was thinking about the voting irregularities involving Jeb and the other Bushes.

Rapscallion

Panacea

10-24-2011, 03:41 PM

What stops them from staying in campaign mode *all* the time?

Even if the laws didn't prohibit it, the cost would be prohibitive. Even US political parties can't afford to do that.

That's why the GOP has been manufacturing political crises over the past year. They can't afford to campaign for two years, but create a crisis and get people all upset, and it might make them more amenable to GOP ideas.

This is essentially what Sarah Palin did when she quit being governor of Alaska. She knew in order to run for President in 2012 she had to stay relevant and in the public consciousness. So she had to stay in the news. She's done that very effectively.

I think the reason she chose not to run for office was she realized how much money she was making without having to actually produce anything. She's crazy like a fox, that one.

You don't fuck with Canadian's sense of politeness and manners. >.>

:lol: Too bad we can't import that.

I really want to see a couple more parties show up in this country and be seen as legitimate options. Even if that means the Tea Party becomes an actual political party. Anything to pull us out of the current red vs blue nonsense.

Good luck with that. The US has traditionally been a two party system. Third parties have never done well. Usually what happens is a third party becomes relevant and takes over as the 2nd party, while the former 2nd party fades into oblivion (example, the Whigs).

I don't think the Tea Party will manage that. They're too extreme in their view points in a country that is very much centrist. They'll hang on a bit (much like the Know Nothings did), then fade away into irrelevancy as soon as the economy gets better.

http://gunnet.com.au/images/guns/bigs/NSW409842342_108_640x480_img1.jpg

Just looks strange in my opinion.

It's a carbine. It's not the same model as the one I have. Carbines are shorter, lighter guns used by forces that need to be fast on their feet, like airborne troops or jungle fighters.

I said the name of my weapon wrong though: it's a Lee-Enfield Rifle No 4, Mark I. Looks very similar to the carbine you showed, but is longer and the stock goes almost all the way up the barrel, excepting a short bit for a bayonet. it also has a ramrod for cleaning.

Andara Bledin

10-24-2011, 06:39 PM

This is essentially what Sarah Palin did when she quit being governor of Alaska.
She quit because she wanted to make money off her book, which wasn't allowed while she was still governor.

^-.-^

Gravekeeper

10-24-2011, 08:15 PM

The US stays a two party system because its purely a money driven system. You can't be a politician in the US without cash and the amount of cash you have at your disposal denotes how far up the political ladder you can compete at. Which means either being filthy rich, or selling yourself out to be filthy rich.

In Canada, your campaign is publically funded and your private funding/spending is capped. So the playing field levels out and results in several viable parties. Historically this has given us around 4 major parties, with a 5th smaller party coming and going at times. Not to mention the variety of parties at a provincial level.

We do, for example, have three national Marxist/Communist parties. A couple of Libertarian parties, a Pirate party, several Marijuana parties and a Sex Party ( Yes, really. ). There are also satirical parties that are quite literally official parties capable of running candidates ( They tend to only run a few, and just hang around to poke fun at other parties shenanighans during elections ).

The Rhino party is a good example. Who, every election, vow to not keep any promises they make if elected. ;p

If I wanted too, even I could run in a federal election.

Andara Bledin

10-24-2011, 08:33 PM

I would very much like to see campaigns become a public-funding thing with limits on the sorts of things they are allowed to say.

It would be nice to see the elections not going to the highest bidder with the most charismatic smile.

^-.-^

Gravekeeper

10-24-2011, 08:48 PM

It would be nice to see the elections not going to the highest bidder with the most charismatic smile.

Who in turn needs to lie through his teeth in order to fit the parameters decided on by his political base to the exclusion of other supporters. Even if those are qualities that should never be placed in a position of leadership. -.-

That was one reason Bush baffled me so. At the time there was this real weird want for a leader that was "Just like us" that you could have a beer with ( Nevermind Bush isn't remotely like them ). Then that spiraled out into the strange anti-elitism vibe whereby it seems like a good chunk of America doesn't want anyone running the country thats more qualified to run it than they are.

I don't understand that. Why would you actively not want someone more intelligent and capable than yourself in the White House? I want the leader of my country to be smarter and more capable than me because of the level of responsibility they have to hold.

I want to look up to my leader, not across at him as I pour him a beer.

Panacea

10-24-2011, 09:09 PM

I don't understand that. Why would you actively not want someone more intelligent and capable than yourself in the White House? I want the leader of my country to be smarter and more capable than me because of the level of responsibility they have to hold.

I want to look up to my leader, not across at him as I pour him a beer.

Andrew Jackson was the first President to do this, and he did it very effectively. People respond to a politican who is "just like them" because of the implication that politician will understand and be responsive to their problems. "Elitists" are accused of being too remote and distant, and out of touch with the needs of the electorate. Woodrow Wilson had that problem, so did Hoover, and so does Obama now (in spite of the fact he got into politics as a community activist).

Teddy Roosevelt was another President who successfully cultivated this image. He was the cream of the East Coast upper crust crop . . . who spent a lot of time out West hunting, and who would do physical labor on the White House grounds to set up the image of a hard working man while reading a book every day.

Bush failed to cultivate this image because he was not a good public speaker and not particularly intelligent. However, he managed to appeal to the common denominator by validating their fears. Gore had the distant and remote problem (ie Al "Bore") and never managed to overcome it completely.

We don't value education in America, not really. We value hard work and cleverness, but that's not the same thing. Which is really funny, because in order to be successful at "entreprenureship" you have to be smart, and you have to be educated even if it's self educated.

Andara Bledin

10-24-2011, 09:10 PM

Welcome to Good Ol' Boy Tribalist Politics at it's finest. >_<

^-.-^

Crazedclerkthe2nd

10-24-2011, 09:40 PM