Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: jdjtcagle on July 31, 2004, 09:23:18 pm

Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: jdjtcagle on July 31, 2004, 09:23:18 pm: But I'm not sure why, we both quite ignorant on the subject, he's a democrat because he's drinking buddies with the Oklahoma State Representative (shhh... don't tell anybody :p) and I don't know what to believe, what am I talking about?

Republican or Democrat?

I need help understanding them...
Personally, politics don't matter to me

But, I am the curious one that always has to get the truth out of things (EX. Ninja VS Samuri :p)

I'm also posting a poll, so keep it clean guys :)
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Grey Wolf on July 31, 2004, 09:27:55 pm: Umm.... Neither.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Thorn on July 31, 2004, 09:36:50 pm: Two party systems suck. Particularly when both parties are very similiar (even though they wont admit it).
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: jdjtcagle on July 31, 2004, 09:38:48 pm: Does it even matter what party you sign up with?
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Bobboau on July 31, 2004, 09:42:37 pm: Dem'publicans
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Grey Wolf on July 31, 2004, 09:46:38 pm: Not really. Only signifigance of party affiliation is primaries.
Title: Re: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Rictor on July 31, 2004, 09:53:49 pm: Quote
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
Personally, politics don't matter to me

I don't mean to insult you, but thats very, very sad. But, hey, you're asking questions and trying to learn, thats good.

*deep breath*, alright, here we go

In Theory

Republicans - They believe in individual success, and small government. If everyone is left to their own devices, without the intereference of a huge government, people will natuarally be happy and prosperous. Economically, they are cautious and thrifty, and believe in a balanced budget and low taxation. They believe in minimal healthcare, welfare and other things which they percieve as money out of their pockets to help some lazy unemployed slob. They also believe that "the markets know best", which means that profit is the highest priority, and that people should not be burdened with restriction, such as environment or labour, to stand in the way of their success. They believe in a strong military, but only to protect the homeland. Non-interventionist foreign policy. Rather more religious than Democrats.

Democrats - Protecting the poor and exploited against the evil, billionare fat-cats. They love peace, democracy, and just want to make every happy. They believe in equality, whether its on the basis or race, religion, gender etc. They believe in perserving the environment, in worker's rights and in civil liberties. In regards to foreign policy, they believe in self-determination and peaceful co-existance, not forcing their values upon others. They think that the best way to bring about good in society, at least in the short term, is to have a centralized government control key industries, both due to the efficiency of centralization and due to the fact that governments are (or should be) accountable to "the people". Also, capitalism is at best a flawed system, which must be regulated to prevent exploitation. People before profits, thats their motto.

In Practice

Republicans - Believe that America has not only a right, but a duty, to dominate the world, militarily, economically, culturally etc. They believe that anyone who is poor is that way because they are lazy, unskilled or just stupid, and that the rich and powerful are just more capable, and therefore deserve whatever they can get. The almighty dollar rules all, nothing should stand in the way of making a profit. They believe in upholding "American values", which are deeply rooted in Christianity. Anyone without at least two flags is a traitor, and a terrorist. Though in theory they want a small government, in practice some of the biggest and most intrusive governments have been under Republicans, Dubya being the prime example. Have no problems with excessive corporate power.

Democrats - Also believe that America should dominate the world, but that it should do so with a big smile on its face. They make token gestures toward the above-mentioned In Theory values, but their desire to be a dominant power (not necesarilly with evil intentions) over-rides that. There is a little voice inside their heads saying "this is not how it should be, we need to strive for a better world", but because of their utmost trust in their leaders, and the need to de-throne Bush, they ignore it.
Title: Re: Re: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: jdjtcagle on July 31, 2004, 10:03:49 pm: Quote
Originally posted by Rictor

I don't mean to insult you, but thats very, very sad.

First off, I'm not insulted... :)

I don't even have a driving license yet, I'm halfway through 15.
It doesn't matter to me yet, it probably never will. Also, you can ask half the people in my small little town that has to WORK to make a living, poor, little town that doesn't have any intrested but to live there lives productive, having no call in there government actions, hell they don't know the difference.
I am I politic to my god and that is all, I seriously have no hope for this multigovernment world ruled by arrogent people in my eyes, it's a sad but almost true observation.

This is a curiousity of mine, that's all...
I'm curious what all these so called political figures believe in, it's not sad...
But I think you summed it up, so thanks :)
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Rictor on July 31, 2004, 10:04:00 pm: Let me just add that there is a very important third system, if I can be so general, and that is anarchism. Its quite a bit more complicated to explain than either "liberal" or "conservative", but I think thats its a unique and interesting philosophy.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: phreak on July 31, 2004, 10:05:29 pm: KEN JENNINGS FOR PRESIDENT
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Ford Prefect on July 31, 2004, 10:06:58 pm: I think you're making it too general. The system may be two-party, but people's ideologies certainly aren't. As an example, the policies of Bush's administration have led to a great deal of dissent within the Republican party. There is a siginificant portion of American conservatives who are upset with Bush because of the deficit spending and the infringement on civil liberties.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: jdjtcagle on July 31, 2004, 10:07:00 pm: Rictor, did you read my post, before your last post?
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Rictor on July 31, 2004, 10:11:48 pm: yeah, but I posted before I read it. I think its good that you are taking an interest in the different political systems, because its important for people to be aware of the word in which they live.

phreak: who?

ford: yeah, well, thats mostly personified by the Buchanan crowd, both those in the Reform Party and those still within the GOP. But seriously, they're as much a joke to mainstream conservatives as Nader is to mainstream liberals. dissidents from the main two parties usually run off and join either the libertarians or Reform for conservatives, or the Greens, Nader or anarchists for the Dems.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Ford Prefect on July 31, 2004, 10:16:07 pm: Actually I saw an interview on Bill Moyers a little while ago with a guy from the American Conservatives Union, and he expressed great dissatisfaction with the amount of spending this administration has indulged in. (Of course, that's just because they don't want the government to spend any money because they're lunatics, but you get the point.)
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: jdjtcagle on July 31, 2004, 10:19:32 pm: It's a hard choice...

I want to say Democrat, because it's looks better to me.

Because Republican, is just giving dangerous power more power
Do you see what I mean?

and plus basically you have to be born rich or born into that lifestyle
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Rictor on July 31, 2004, 10:26:25 pm: Let me ask you this: why do you have to choose either?

There is a multitude of idealogies and political parties, not only the two. There is no need to shoe-horn you beliefs into one of the two big parties which claim to have a monopoly on political thought in America.

In any case, I think that someting of thing important should warrant more investigation than merely my summary. I wish there was a single resource that would describe the variety of political and social systems in place, but there isn't. If you'de like, there are certain books and authors I can recommend if you want to learn more about the different philosphies.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: jdjtcagle on July 31, 2004, 10:29:59 pm: I think your right...
I was leaning toward Democrat, but I'm going to search for more

This place only has two political systems that are EVER mentoned in school
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: redsniper on July 31, 2004, 10:30:37 pm: all I have to say on US politics is: read Give Me a Break by John Stossel
OSHA sucks
private market does it better
lawsuits cause more problems than they solve
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: jdjtcagle on July 31, 2004, 10:32:44 pm: What we need is a UNITED WORLD, but that is just a dream, the big question is why do people see it as only a dream?
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Ford Prefect on July 31, 2004, 10:33:53 pm: Quote
private market does it better

*puke* :D

Quote
What we need is a UNITED WORLD, but that is just a dream, the big question is why do people see it as only a dream?

Because it challenges the commonly held world view, like every societal change. One day it will happen. Where the economy goes politics will follow, sooner or later.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: jdjtcagle on July 31, 2004, 10:35:36 pm: http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

Would this be the right site to look for them, Rictor?

Well I'm guessing so...
Could someone change the poll to add some others on this site
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: redsniper on July 31, 2004, 11:16:43 pm: Quote
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
*puke* :D

ahem...
FedEx vs US mail
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: PeachE on July 31, 2004, 11:56:08 pm: meh, there's an old joke: Our Republican Party is a lot like the British Tory party, and Our Democratic Party is a lot like the British Tory party.

and it's true, they're basically the same. they both believe that America should be the center of the world (and the known universe for that matter), culturally economically and militarily. they both feel that it is our "responsibility" to "protect" the rest of the world.

the only real difference is who they're taking their payoffs/campaign contributions from. republicans like taking their money from the old school industries - oil, manufacturing, etc, whereas the dem's tend to like biotechnology, telecommunications, and pharmaceuticals.

which is probably the only real reason why they differ on the following issues (tho more and more slightly these days. while coincidentally, the big lobby's have recently starting putting more effort into paying off both parties.. hmmmm...): abortion/public health care, the environment/new energy, free market vs regulated economy (tho in actuality, they both want to raise taxes on middle america - they just want their tax cuts to go to different groups of wealth people).

the values, the morals. yeah, it's all just filler so they can sell the product.

the only issue that has anything to do with morals and values that's on the table this election is gay marriage, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if the only reason the republicans are against it is that corporations don't want to have to pay out for any more spousal coverage.

but don't take my word for it. i'm much much more cynical than most.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Knight Templar on August 01, 2004, 01:34:15 am: PeachE nailed it, more or less.

My Advice: Go independent, and take the side of whatever you think is right.

Spoiler:
Although, if you're being forced upon the issue... No child has ever trifled in the affairs of the Republican Party and lived to tell about it.

Pure Evil can be a cool thing.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: karajorma on August 01, 2004, 07:05:33 am: Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
Let me just add that there is a very important third system, if I can be so general, and that is anarchism. Its quite a bit more complicated to explain than either "liberal" or "conservative", but I think thats its a unique and interesting philosophy.

It's also crap. Anarchy is the most unstable form of government. It breaks down into order within minutes.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Rictor on August 01, 2004, 07:41:41 am: Methinks you have some baseless stereotypes as to what exactly anarchism as and how it functions. There are many, many groups today that practice anarchism, and they're quite stable. Noteably, Spain following Franco's uprising was almost completely run by anarchists (the CNT). They managed to organize the peasant population into a military force effective enough to stop the advance of the Spanish army ffs. People with no military experience, not even the ability to read, with nothing but the will to fight for their freedom, were able to stop the Loyalists dead in their tracks and hold line, working (yes, within the military as well) on the principle of anarchism. Sounds plenty organized to me. Most of the Communist forces that would later fight in the war were trained and equipped behind the shield that the anarchists and others provided, before they were suppressed by the Communists themselves.

Remeber, people supportive of monarchy said the same thing of democracy, that it would be too disorganized and could never function.

I'm not saying that its the best system to have, not for the time being anyway, but its a very unique and interesting alternative. Most people, myself included, are not really ready yet to accept such a radical departure from current political organization (e.g. democracy), but hey, its an option.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Aspa on August 01, 2004, 07:54:30 am: [problary OT]

Politicians. We need a new way to look at them. They should be the peoples *****es, not some kind of petty selfimportant asshole trying to lord it around.

Take away their clothes and put em in a big brother bunker for constant surveillance, I say.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: karajorma on August 01, 2004, 10:19:58 am: Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
Methinks you have some baseless stereotypes as to what exactly anarchism as and how it functions. There are many, many groups today that practice anarchism, and they're quite stable. Noteably, Spain following Franco's uprising was almost completely run by anarchists (the CNT). They managed to organize the peasant population into a military force effective enough to stop the advance of the Spanish army ffs. People with no military experience, not even the ability to read, with nothing but the will to fight for their freedom, were able to stop the Loyalists dead in their tracks and hold line, working (yes, within the military as well) on the principle of anarchism. Sounds plenty organized to me. Most of the Communist forces that would later fight in the war were trained and equipped behind the shield that the anarchists and others provided, before they were suppressed by the Communists themselves.

Remeber, people supportive of monarchy said the same thing of democracy, that it would be too disorganized and could never function.

I'm not saying that its the best system to have, not for the time being anyway, but its a very unique and interesting alternative. Most people, myself included, are not really ready yet to accept such a radical departure from current political organization (e.g. democracy), but hey, its an option.

And what you've basically described is a system that broke down into another system almost immediately. Anarchy starts breaking down the second it starts. Usually it breaks down in to despotism (Often on a local rather than national scale) but the fact remains that anarchy is NOT stable. Someone comes along and organises everything again.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Zarax on August 01, 2004, 10:32:33 am: Swedish system all the way! :P
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: BlackDove on August 01, 2004, 12:47:00 pm: "If I have to choose between republicanism or democratism, I choose communism" - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

True story.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Drew on August 01, 2004, 12:56:52 pm: Quote
Originally posted by BD
"If I have to choose between republicanism or democratism, I choose communism" - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

True story.

go back and read what he did. Every word of that is true.

Republicans are way to liberal to be called real conservatives now adays. Democrats are nutz. My advice to you, figure out what you believe now, read alot of history from independent scources, then read alot on economics from independent sources, then look at at the voting records of each party (not what they say, look at what they have actually done. The stuff thats on the news now dosnt reflect at all what the politicians have voted for in the last 10 years). Then figure out what you belive in after you have done all that stuff, because now you will have more to think about than just your own opinions. I hope you dont read only stuff writen by democrats, or stuff only writen by republicans, and i encourage you to read things written by the people who founded our country, because like it or not, what they wrote helped keep this country around for 200+ years.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: vyper on August 01, 2004, 12:59:38 pm: The US voting system needs an enema - preferably with civil uprising included for those hard to reach places.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: pyro-manic on August 01, 2004, 02:09:00 pm: F'ckin' right. It'll happen anyway, as soon as the oil runs out...

Quote
Originally posted by AspaPoliticians. We need a new way to look at them. They should be the peoples *****es, not some kind of petty selfimportant asshole trying to lord it around.

Take away their clothes and put em in a big brother bunker for constant surveillance, I say.

Spot on! :D:yes:

Whatever happened to "by, for, and of the people"?

cagle: Yeah, you're young, but you're not that young, and you'll be middle-aged before you know it (damn....I'm not even 20 yet and I feel old:blah: ). And by then it's too late. As Rictor said, don't feel constrained to a political party, particularly not the Big Two in America. They're so similar it's not even funny - the US is now almost a corporate dictatorship.

Read a lot, talk to people, ignore the mainstream media (it's full of ****), and keep your eyes open. You'll soon find where you fall. :)

Drew: Republicans? Liberal?? Eh? I'm at a loss as to how you can see that. Proto-fascist, maybe (at least in part), but no way are they liberal....
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Rictor on August 01, 2004, 03:18:31 pm: Drew: Republcans are too liberal if you are reffering to the views classically held by conservatives - small government, low taxation, non-interventionist foreign policy. But what is today assosciated with conservativism is more leaning towards fascism than conservative ideals.

Thomas Jefferson once said that there are two kinds of people, aristocrats and democrats (NOT reffering to the Dems as a political party, but only as a political mindset. The Democratic Party didn't even exist then). Aristocrats, be they from the left or from the right, think that their views are the best, and want to force them on the dumb, confused masses, for their own good. They believe that the governance of society should best be left to "wise men", and that democracy is a dangerous idea. Democrats believe that the people have a right to chose their own fate, be it good or bad, and usually it will be good. They have faith is the people to decide what is best for themselves, and oppose the rule by elite groups of powerhunry individuals.

That I think is a very, very important distinction. That is essentially whats wrong with the American system, and not just in America, pretty much everywhere else too. All the major parties are aristocrats. But it is especially pronounced in America because the two party system is so entrenched, more so than in many other countries.

Here is an excellent (and beautifully designed, damn the Swiss, there's just no point in even trying to beat them, they're the best designers) Flash presentation on Swiss democracy. I consider it to be among the best in the world.
http://www.swissworld.org/dvd_rom/eng/direct_democracy_2004/content/politsystem/politsystem.html
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Rictor on August 01, 2004, 03:32:23 pm: Quote
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

Would this be the right site to look for them, Rictor?

Well I'm guessing so...
Could someone change the poll to add some others on this site

Thats looks like a good resource. I actually learned quite a bit about some of the more obscure political parties in America from that website.

What I think you ought to keep in mind is that parties usually embody a particular political system. All the "isms" if you will. Now, the specific alignment of a party tends to move around a bit on the Left-Right scale, depending on the times, but they usually adhere more or less to one or two ideaologies. Now I consider, and this is just my personal opinion, that these ideaologies form what is essentially the core of political thought, and that specific parties are secondary. I think this because knowledge of the different systems that exist (Liberalism, Socialism, Fascism etc) is not only more fundamental, but also more ...what the right word...concrete, than knowledge as a particular party's platform. The Democrats, for example, can (and do) drift quite a bit in the their official ideaology, not only that, but as I mentioned, what they say the stand for and what they really do stand for are quite different things.

I'm trying to explain this in as straight-forward a manner as possible, but I may not be doing too good a job. If you need something clarified, just ask.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Ford Prefect on August 01, 2004, 03:34:10 pm: If you want to assess your specific political allignment, I would highly recommend this site: http://www.politicalcompass.org
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Grey Wolf on August 01, 2004, 03:49:08 pm: Interesting.... I've moved farther to center and farther towards libertarianism since last time I took that test.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: phreak on August 01, 2004, 04:02:41 pm: Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
phreak: who?

some guy on jeopardy that has won about 35 days in a row and amassed a small forture (1 million+) in doing so. he's probably smarter than the entire capital combined
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Rictor on August 01, 2004, 04:02:51 pm: I'm almost exactly where Ghandi is, though economically I'm a bit authoritarian.

lets not derail the topic guys ;) ;)

edit: actually scrath that, this website is actually very good at explaining the different political concepts, and finding your place among them.The particularly like the 2-axis system, instead of the 1-axis Left-Right, and the supporting text that explains it all.

I'm impressed.

(http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/USPrimaries031002.gif)
I don't agree with where they placed Kerry and Dean, but for the most part, I concur with their analysis (I just concur didn't I? Better get my top-hat and monacle.)
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Ford Prefect on August 01, 2004, 04:56:13 pm: If you're right where Ghandi is, that puts you and I at about the same spot. Makes sense.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Grey Wolf on August 01, 2004, 05:14:34 pm: I would have put Dean a bit more to the left of center, but otherwise, that seems accurate.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: PeachE on August 01, 2004, 05:32:57 pm: yeah, no surprise i came up libertarian, leaning a little to the left. right about where the dalai lama is. i used to be right on the libertarian line.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Kamikaze on August 01, 2004, 05:55:45 pm: Hmm, I think I shifted a bit more toward libertarian this time. I think I was more of a left-winged, slightly-libertarian person before.

Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Ghostavo on August 01, 2004, 06:03:06 pm: :eek:

I'm Ghandi?!?!?

:eek:
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: karajorma on August 01, 2004, 06:04:36 pm: Last time I took it I was both more liberal and more left wing than Ghandi and the Dali Lama :D

Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
That I think is a very, very important distinction. That is essentially whats wrong with the American system, and not just in America, pretty much everywhere else too. All the major parties are aristocrats. But it is especially pronounced in America because the two party system is so entrenched, more so than in many other countries.

I'd agree with you if it weren't for one thing. The two party system might be ****e but there is nothing to stop a third party getting himself elected. The fact that despite this no one can unelect the two crappy parties in charge in America (or in the UK for that matter) is pretty much proof that the Aristocrats are correct and that the public is incapable of making important decisions.

Ironic I know but the Aristocrats keep getting elected because they are correct about democracy :)
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Grey Wolf on August 01, 2004, 06:04:56 pm: I was at about Left/Right -1.5 and Libertarian/Authoritarian -5.5.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Blaise Russel on August 01, 2004, 06:13:02 pm: Economic: -5.88
Social: -8.36

Ye gods.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: jdjtcagle on August 01, 2004, 07:12:13 pm: Well, thanks for your answer guys :)
I'm still looking over stuff, but I appreciate your "persuasive views" :D
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: BlackDove on August 01, 2004, 07:13:18 pm: Economic Left/Right: -4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.49

I'm Ghandi. Go figure.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Rictor on August 01, 2004, 08:13:03 pm: jdjtcagle: I noticed that they (the PoliticalCompass website) have a reading list, covering the four major groupings of political alignment.

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/reading.html

They seem to have a fair overview of each, so I would recommend reading some of those books if you are in a position to do so. I can personally vouch for No Logo by Naomi Klein, and if you're looking for a one-stop source for reading about the Left, than Noam Chomsky is your man, and I have just recently found a collection of some (not all) of his many books, which I am currently reading through.

http://www.zmag.org/chomskybooks.htm
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Beowulf on August 01, 2004, 08:29:25 pm: Constitutionalists.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: jdjtcagle on August 01, 2004, 09:15:38 pm: Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
jdjtcagle: I noticed that they (the PoliticalCompass website) have a reading list, covering the four major groupings of political alignment.

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/reading.html

They seem to have a fair overview of each, so I would recommend reading some of those books if you are in a position to do so. I can personally vouch for No Logo by Naomi Klein, and if you're looking for a one-stop source for reading about the Left, than Noam Chomsky is your man, and I have just recently found a collection of some (not all) of his many books, which I am currently reading through.

http://www.zmag.org/chomskybooks.htm

I'll be sure to check up on this :nod:
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Liberator on August 01, 2004, 09:43:34 pm: Quote
Originally posted by Aspa
[problary OT]

Politicians. We need a new way to look at them. They should be the peoples *****es, not some kind of petty selfimportant asshole trying to lord it around.

Take away their clothes and put em in a big brother bunker for constant surveillance, I say.

The solution is non-reversable term limits for all public officials at every level(federal, state, local).

I'm sorry, that survey is crap. It showed me as being much further left of center than John Kerry. Not to mention that there is no way in hell that Kerry, John Edwards and the rest are anywhere near that far right.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Bobboau on August 01, 2004, 10:25:56 pm: have you seen some of the "screaming liberals" you'd be suprised how far a wimp like Kerry would get pushed to the center when you factor in some of the extreemists.

and term limits isn't 'the' solution, htough it would be a step in the right direction
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Rictor on August 01, 2004, 10:32:22 pm: Liberator, Bobbaou, here is a (partial) explaination:
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/extremeright.html

Also, their FAQ addresses alot of your concerns regarding the validity of the metric. Read it.

edit: a step in the right direction might also be to ban corporate campaign donations altogether. Corporations have no business messing around in politics, since the result is well documented and highly suspect. Make it so that large entities, those who would stand to benefit from such-and-such a person getting elected are incapable of providing immense funds to support their candidate. I don't know the specifics of the campaign finance reform stuff thats being discussed in the US, but I think its likely that it includes something along the lines of what I just suggested.

Quote
Originally posted by PeachE
it's quite possible it is crap, but on a global scale, liberals in america are actually pretty conservative.

yup. this is also true for the Britain. Both Bush, Kerry and Blair (not to mention Edwards and some other Democrats) are not only right of center, they're also authoritarians (aristocrats using Jefferson's example). Same goes for Dems such as Madeline Albright, Welsley Clark and others. Berluscioni (sp?) is also in that category, though I don't think that comes as a surprise.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: PeachE on August 01, 2004, 10:33:55 pm: term limits aren't the solution for anything. the problem isn't that people are in office too long. the problem is that americans don't give a **** anymore and the ones that do give a **** vote strictly party lines. term limits doesn't fix this problem.

Quote
Originally posted by Liberator
I'm sorry, that survey is crap. It showed me as being much further left of center than John Kerry. Not to mention that there is no way in hell that Kerry, John Edwards and the rest are anywhere near that far right.

it's quite possible it is crap, but on a global scale, liberals in america are actually pretty conservative.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Beowulf on August 01, 2004, 10:45:46 pm: Just for the record, the Kerry-Edwards ticket is the most liberal ticket in the history of the United States.

Kerry is the most liberal congressman; Edwards is the fourth.

I don't know why they're pretending to be conservative... :doubt:
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Bobboau on August 01, 2004, 10:50:05 pm: beacse the left people will vote for notbush no matter what, so he's trying to get as many fence sitters as he can, and he figures it'd be better to play to the right side of the fence than the left side.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Rictor on August 01, 2004, 10:51:52 pm: If thats true, and I don't believe it is, that only shows how far US standards are from the rest of the world. Anyone with such an agressive foreign policy as Kerry-Edwards, that embodies traditional liberal values (abortion, gay marriage, environment, social programs) to such a slight degree, can hardly be called liberal. If Kerry is liberal, then that word (as interpereted today, not the classical definition which is quite different) is meaningless.

I believe the website accurately charts the position of various politicians on the scale. Its only if you have certain pre-concived notions about who is what, mostly unscientific, that you will try to fight against it. They (the website) uses voting records, just about the most accurate source of data available.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Beowulf on August 01, 2004, 11:06:31 pm: Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
If thats true, and I don't believe it is, that only shows how far US standards are from the rest of the world. Anyone with such an agressive foreign policy as Kerry-Edwards, that embodies traditional liberal values (abortion, gay marriage, environment, social programs) to such a slight degree, can hardly be called liberal. If Kerry is liberal, then that word (as interpereted today, not the classical definition which is quite different) is meaningless.

I believe the website accurately charts the position of various politicians on the scale. Its only if you have certain pre-concived notions about who is what, mostly unscientific, that you will try to fight against it. They (the website) uses voting records, just about the most accurate source of data available.

Well Kerry supports those things now, in order to--as Bobboau stated--win fence-sitting votes.

You see, Kerry has supported just about both sides of every issue. Honestly.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Rictor on August 01, 2004, 11:17:14 pm: I can agree with that, he's a professional fence-sitter. For example, during his college years, he gave an antiwar speech, and the very next day, went to volunteer for the Army.

But currently, he is definitely on the right, and most assuredly an authoritarian. My main beef with him is his staunch support of US hegamony, and the threat of military force (unilateral and pre-emptive, just like Bush) to sustain it.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Kosh on August 02, 2004, 12:52:26 am: Quote
If everyone is left to their own devices, without the intereference of a huge government, people will natuarally be happy and prosperous

Except of course if you believe differently, then they will outlaw anything that goes against their so called "values".

Personally, I'm 19 and I am not registered to vote. I have no desire to do so either. If everything goes according to plan, in a few years, it will not matter very much to me.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Janos on August 02, 2004, 01:11:07 am: Quote
Originally posted by Beowulf

You see, Kerry has supported just about both sides of every issue. Honestly.

Yeah right. Source, and as you are providing one, you could also check out the context of votes.

And, of course, getting new evidence or seeing how your decision was actually bad and trying to change it is flip-flop

IF I MAKE MISTAKE I STICK WITH IT, the colossal mammoth stance where you won't admit your mistakes and stick to the [wrong] path is morally superior to admitting your mistakes oh wait
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: Rictor on August 02, 2004, 01:41:07 am: Quote
Originally posted by Kosh

Except of course if you believe differently, then they will outlaw anything that goes against their so called "values".

Personally, I'm 19 and I am not registered to vote. I have no desire to do so either. If everything goes according to plan, in a few years, it will not matter very much to me.

err, I've read that a few times, and I'm afraid I don't get what you're saying.

...and what do you mean by that "it won't matter much" thing? Don't tell me you're one of the "rapture is just around the corner" crowd? Or, more plausibly, moving out of the country, in which case, you're wrong, it does matter, more than even now. You see, there is a nasty tendency of US foreign policy to afftect, well, foreign nations, especially the poorer ones. US citizens are ironically among the most protected from US policy SNAFUs.

Its also official company policy that any non-sensical statements which I am making at this point are to be attributed to lack of sleep.
Title: Me and my Dad, arguing again...
Post by: karajorma on August 02, 2004, 07:55:36 am: Quote
Originally posted by PeachE
it's quite possible it is crap, but on a global scale, liberals in america are actually pretty conservative.

Of course they are. And no one should be surprised that both parties are on the right wing either considering that in America socialism is considered a dirty word.