|
On September 17 2010 12:06 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 11:48 Signet wrote:
On the other hand, the "I'm a libertarian, except when they don't want to invade X country or when they take socially liberal positions" type is laughable. Just say you're a conservative Republican. Probably 40% of the country holds those views, it won't make you an outcast. What if I'm a libertarian who thinks we should have invaded twice the number of countries we did, but is socially pretty liberal with about one exception?
Well... at this point I'd call myself liberal, but I don't believe in affirmative action, generally support gun rights, and am a big proponent of nuclear power and biotechnology. Few people are going to agree with an ideology 100% of the time, and even fewer will agree with a party 100% of the time.
But you know what I'm talking about with these people who call themselves libertarians but agree with the GOP basically 99% of the time, right?
|
woo! great news for the democrats
|
It pains me to see the amount of people that have swallowed whitewashed communist ideals.
|
On September 17 2010 12:06 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 11:51 FindingPride wrote:
Bush wasn't conservative lmao. Bush was just as bad as obama in these socialistic policies.
patriot act anyone? The term conservative has many meanings, I was obviously using it in the "right of center" sense, not in terms of what it means to be conservative 100 years ago. But for what it's worth, if you made a statement like "Ron Paul is more of a true conservative than George W. Bush" then I would be in complete agreement. How is the Patriot Act socialist? If anything it's fascist or statist. Do you understand what the term "socialist" means? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialismSocialism doesn't mean placing regulations on the companies in a competitive market, or taxing people, or giving subsidies to the poor. It's when the government actually controls production. Think Cuba, not Canada.
To be fair, most people who use "socialism" - no matter what their political views - in the USA by now mean "European-style democratic socialism" (is there a better name for it?), which in turn they understand to mean that the state runs some stuff and redistributes other stuff.
(Except for the loonies who really do think that Obama is the second coming of Karl Marx (who of course only talked about socialism as an intermediate step, but the loonies don't remember that either), but I'm going to assume we can ignore them.)
Given that that's a common usage, I don't think it's unfair to characterize Obama, or Canada, or France, and many other "left-wing" (by American standards) politicians as "socialist". Inaccurate in the end, confusing, and not conducive to maintaining civil manners in debate, maybe, but not unfair. Of course, Bush wasn't particularly less socialist (in this inaccurate "Americanized") sense in kind, just in extent: he too signed Federal education bills and bailouts and stuff.
Basically, in the American political forum, "socialist" is a propaganda word. It's not used accurately, but there's a kernel of truth that keeps the scam going: regulation and taxation are forms of control, even if they come nowhere near real ownership. Of course, it goes both ways, as with accusations of "fascism" on the other side: almost no one would advocate real fascism, but again, regulations and limitations are control, so the illusion holds up (and the militarism, justified or not, doesn't help the image).
Back to the original point: After all that I've said, I'm really agreeing with you: yes, the Patriot Act was more fascist than socialist.
|
On September 17 2010 12:24 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 12:06 kzn wrote:On September 17 2010 11:48 Signet wrote:
On the other hand, the "I'm a libertarian, except when they don't want to invade X country or when they take socially liberal positions" type is laughable. Just say you're a conservative Republican. Probably 40% of the country holds those views, it won't make you an outcast. What if I'm a libertarian who thinks we should have invaded twice the number of countries we did, but is socially pretty liberal with about one exception? Well... at this point I'd call myself liberal, but I don't believe in affirmative action, generally support gun rights, and am a big proponent of nuclear power and biotechnology. Few people are going to agree with an ideology 100% of the time, and even fewer will agree with a party 100% of the time. But you know what I'm talking about with these people who call themselves libertarians but agree with the GOP basically 99% of the time, right?
Absolutely, I was just genuinely curious if you thought the vaguely isolationist/pacifist stance was integral to being libertarian.
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 17 2010 11:02 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 10:46 Jibba wrote:First of all, remember this is Delaware. On September 17 2010 10:31 Signet wrote:
If I were to guess, I'd say America elects a bunch of Tea Party candidates this fall, the divided Congress gets nothing done, more Tea Party candidates are elected and Obama loses to Palin in 2012... and the Mayans end up being right after all. Well not quite, more like 20%+ unemployment followed by a rapid shift to the left a-la the 1930s. Uh... crazy lady is still down in the polls 10-15% to the D nominee. Kaufman isn't running again, but this is a state that elected the other Democratic senator with 70%. Your description isn't quite how Congress works... nothing may get done but that onus will be on the Democratic party. The Tea Baggers might steal a few seats but the whole Mr. Smith Goes to Washington story is a myth. They'll get there and immediately get pushed around by the Leader/Chairs. You need clout to get things done, and they have none. They may have it with the public, but that doesn't count for much once you enter the chambers. So if they take seats, they can enter Congress as Republicans which will throw all the moderate Rs for a loop. It'll then be much easier for Ds to court Republican votes. If they stay independent or whatever they want to call themselves, then they're basically a no show. They'll divide the right and make it easy for the left to pass things. That latter is really unlikely, however, because a third party just doesn't work in American politics. Maybe they'll do it for a term but the Ds will absolutely crush them in Congress if they do. Single voter district winner takes all elections = 2 parties. Most likely, however, they won't be getting many seats. They can contest the regular GOP seats which will basically just give the seat up for Democrats for the above stated reason. If the GOP integrates the Tea Baggers, then they alienate the moderates which are really what direct things. If they don't, they stand to become a distant #2 party which is also a death spell. Their best hopes are to poach some Blue Dog Democrats or simply try and make the Tea Baggers go away. I'm a little confused - how was my description of Congress inaccurate? (not issues with predictions) I know that the "Tea Party" is not literally a separate party from the GOP, but that is just what these conservatives are calling themselves. The onus being on the Democrats is exactly what could hurt them in 2012. Currently 538 is projecting a 53-47 Democratic edge in the Senate (net 6 R pickups) and a 225-210 Republican edge in the House. This includes a likely O'Donnell loss, however other Tea Party and establishment GOP candidates are faring well in polls. If Congress is split like this, I don't forsee Obama/Dems getting anything done. The GOP is content to stonewall and blame the president, which thus far has worked out for them even with only 41 senators. Teabaggers are not taking seats from Dems. They're taking it from Republicans. If Republicans retake all their seats, they'll have greater strength to stonewall anything. If the Teabaggers contest in elections and contest in Congress, the Democrats will come out far ahead.
|
On September 17 2010 12:16 bumatlarge wrote:
I guess I'm the only person on TL that likes her? Yay me *little flag* go radical christians!
I like the fact that she'll say what she thinks. I'm disturbed by some (many) of her positions (by which I mean, the only ones I agree with 100% are her position on abortion and probably her fiscal policy).
But even if I liked everything she stood for, I really think that no matter how she got elected in a primary it's a problem practically: she's unlikely to win a general election, is likely to splinter the party in the area (I wouldn't be surprised to see one of her primary opponents run, even as an independent if necessary), and if elected probably won't get anything done. If she does get anything done, it will most likely just be funding for some SIG study about the harms of masturbation or public education or Darwinism or something. I mean, it's a nice anti-Obama (I guess) symbolic vote, but I don't see how she can be effective.
|
|
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 17 2010 12:32 Musoeun wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 12:16 bumatlarge wrote:
I guess I'm the only person on TL that likes her? Yay me *little flag* go radical christians! I like the fact that she'll say what she thinks.
Think back to highschool or college. Did you really like your classmates who spoke whatever was on their mind as soon as it was there? For me, most of the time the class was better off if they had never spoken at all.
|
On September 17 2010 12:32 Musoeun wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 12:16 bumatlarge wrote:
I guess I'm the only person on TL that likes her? Yay me *little flag* go radical christians! I like the fact that she'll say what she thinks. I'm disturbed by some (many) of her positions (by which I mean, the only ones I agree with 100% are her position on abortion and probably her fiscal policy). But even if I liked everything she stood for, I really think that no matter how she got elected in a primary it's a problem practically: she's unlikely to win a general election, is likely to splinter the party in the area (I wouldn't be surprised to see one of her primary opponents run, even as an independent if necessary), and if elected probably won't get anything done. If she does get anything done, it will most likely just be funding for some SIG study about the harms of masturbation or public education or Darwinism or something. I mean, it's a nice anti-Obama (I guess) symbolic vote, but I don't see how she can be effective.
Oh yeah, I don't expect her to get anywhere, but some of her opinions about abortion and moral issues I personally feel are more important then others. All she is trying to accomplish is what every religious conservative is, not so much the economic aspects. That's why candidates like O'Donnell and Palin run for positions is to further Christian ideals, and in the process look a lot less educated then the liberal counterparts. They just have a mission.
|
Oh my. I dearly hope her Democrat opponent defeats her- he can't possibly be worse than her. Right?
...
Right?
|
Oh god, I can imagine masturbation police coming into effect far into the future.
*secretly masturbating*
BAM!!
"Freeze, it is masturbation police! We arrest you for breaking the law!"
"NOOOOO!!"
bam bam bam bam bam bam
|
On September 17 2010 12:37 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 12:32 Musoeun wrote:On September 17 2010 12:16 bumatlarge wrote:
I guess I'm the only person on TL that likes her? Yay me *little flag* go radical christians! I like the fact that she'll say what she thinks. Think back to highschool or college. Did you really like your classmates who spoke whatever was on their mind as soon as it was there? For me, most of the time the class was better off if they had never spoken at all.
Preach, brother. Freedom of speech includes the Freedom to SHUT UP. More people should exercise that right.
|
|
|
On September 17 2010 12:45 Hesmyrr wrote:
Oh god, I can imagine masturbation police coming into effect far into the future.
*secretly masturbating*
BAM!!
"Freeze, it is masturbation police! We arrest you for breaking the law!"
"NOOOOO!!"
bam bam bam bam bam bam
Immediate detainment for anyone suspected of masturbating or having masturbated in the past 2 weeks.
All works by Galileo, Newton, and Darwin are to be burned immediately. The devil planted dinosaur fossils to test our faith. Welcome to Delaware.
|
There are so many things wrong with this thread I don't even know where to start. most of them are based on prior misconceptions and false platforms, as well as being contextually inaccurate.
|
On September 17 2010 12:48 whiteguycash wrote:
There are so many things wrong with this thread I don't even know where to start. most of them are based on prior misconceptions and false platforms, as well as being contextually inaccurate.
Welcome to politics.
|
On September 17 2010 12:48 whiteguycash wrote:
There are so many things wrong with this thread I don't even know where to start. most of them are based on prior misconceptions and false platforms, as well as being contextually inaccurate.
Her previous positions are real though. That's enough to go by at least.
|
On September 17 2010 12:57 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 12:48 whiteguycash wrote:
There are so many things wrong with this thread I don't even know where to start. most of them are based on prior misconceptions and false platforms, as well as being contextually inaccurate. Her previous positions are real though. That's enough to go by at least.
we've had senators involved with the KKK.
i dont see how this is worse
|
Politics....along with religion is the the 2 dumbest thing humans ever came up with.
Both are based on lies and deceit. Pitiful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://fitsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/nfrw-main.jpg)
