On October 25 2012 11:20 nevermindthebollocks wrote: Hey check this out. When you get away from fox news and get an unbiased view of who is better this is the result
single digits in almost every country for romney sounds about right
I'm sorry, but this thread has shown several times that Canada is probably the only country that has citizens that understand American politics even remotely well (and even then it's pretty shoddy when you get the the nuances). The rest of the world just hates republicans because they like to hate Bush. True Story.
The rest of the world hates Republicans because they're further right than most of their right-wing extremist parties.
You can tell yourself this all you want, but it simply isn't true.
It is true. If the Republican party came to Australia, they would be laughed out of town.
Being against universal healthcare, clinging to guns, being ideologically against government regulation, etc., these sorts of policies are completely unfathomable in any other advanced country other than the US.
Apart from guns and the more extreme pro-life, we actually have a party representing faith, "family values", pro-Israel, anti-EU and very tough immigration laws in Denmark. Almost 20 years ago DPP was formed as a breakout from a protest party. Its main character was untill recently Pia Kjærsgård. It was a one issue party to start out, being for strenghtening immigration and it was among the first in europe to go as far to the right as they did. They eventually started running on issues like increasing social security too, recognising that their voters were mainly elder people. After 10 years as the party holding the key to for the prime minister of Denmark, the laws on immigration has been strenghtened to a point where every fullstop has been turned to be as hard as the international obligations allow. Social security is not something you can increase in a crisis and the anti-eu is not something they are exclusive representation for. Therefore they have started reincenting themself and they are pretty clear on being inspired by the republican party on social issues and foreign policy (hawkish). A new party was branded as liberal alliance in 2008 after a project that failed hard. They are going for flat taxes and minimal state. They have been vocal in supporting Ron Paul, while they are cautious about republicans in general. That is the other part of the extreme right wing in danish policy which is supported by about 15-20% of the voters. Even in the moderate catch-all party Venstre, members of their youth party has been actively helping Ron Paul and later Mitt Romney by registering republican voters in the swing states for the upcoming election. Saying that the republican values does not exist outside USA is not correct. Much of what is killing these views are the experts and the media. Experts are generally very sceptical of austrian economy and the social conservative values and with that the medias picture of those things are being a little biased against it, but even that is starting to change. On allegiance about 65 % of the people in Denmark supported Democrat, 20 % supported Green party and 15 % supported republicans in 2000. The study was done through a comprehensive walkthrough of each of the party platforms and giving the people as unbiased a view as possible. It was a pretty well executed study and the only one I am aware of, of its kind. Therefore I am certain that it is not just Bush-hate informing the opinions against republicans. My bet is that republicans are winning more support this time around with a "moderate" businessman, but given the insurmountable lead for Democrats I am still certain the Democrats are the clear hope from Denmarks people.
Looks like Obama finally won Powell over today; to me that's a good endorsement. Powell had previously been unwilling to endorse Obama, but it seems the foreign policy debate turned him around.
On the other hand, pretty sure he would never endorse Romney anyways...
On October 25 2012 17:02 heishe wrote: As an outside I'm completely baffled how people can even for one second consider voting for Romney.
He has now shown several times how competely incompetent he would be to run a country. The methods he proposed to cut taxes were shown to be mathematically impossible, he has shown complete incompetence in terms of understanding of the military, and worst of all he's a blatant liar. He lies and is constantly contradicting himself, flip flopping on his own views on a subject constantly, sometimes in really short timespans of less than an hour.
Of course, that he's the follower of a completely nutjob religion and seems like a rich sleezy douche in general doesn't help at all.
Romney was the Governor of Massachusetts and did quite well for himself. He's actually had more experience running a state than Obama, actually.
Maybe more than Obama had four years ago. Obama has had more experience at running a nation now than Romney, about four years more.
He has nearly 4 years of experience now, yes. Does that really mean anything when he hasn't done all too much but make things worse? His record is what counts, not what he says or how many years he has done less than adequate at his job. I see it the opposite, these 4 years have proven what I already knew and expected; he is not qualified to run this country, nor does he seem to even understand how it works.
To him, it's all class warfare, and blame. Regardless of his situation, he the leader of this nation and it his responsibility to get things moving forward, he couldn't even do that with full control for 2 years.
Social and foreign issues are not of utmost importance, this is about our saving our economy before everything recedes into chaos.
How has Obama made things worse? Things are getting better, employment is increasing, unemployment is decreasing. You can argue that things aren't getting better fast enough, but things are not worse. That's simply wrong. The economy is recovering. If you want to see things getting worse go look at the UK, where their economy was slowly recovering under Brown, and then contracted a couple a quarters into Cameron's term because he suddenly pivoted to austerity. Now the UK is stuck in a double-dip recession and it's not getting better.
Note that this article isn't some after the fact justification. Reinhart and Rogoff wrote a book in early 2008, chronicling the history of financial crises and showing that they're followed by slow recoveries.
If you want to make things worse, then vote for Romney. He'll give tax cuts, mostly for the rich, which will have little stimulative effect, and would cut spending and balance the budget, rather than pushing for more spending to create jobs. For example Obama's stalled jobs bill is estimated to create around 2 million jobs by independent experts: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/07/812251/republicans-blocked-jobs-act-one-year/
On October 25 2012 11:20 nevermindthebollocks wrote: Hey check this out. When you get away from fox news and get an unbiased view of who is better this is the result
single digits in almost every country for romney sounds about right
I'm sorry, but this thread has shown several times that Canada is probably the only country that has citizens that understand American politics even remotely well (and even then it's pretty shoddy when you get the the nuances). The rest of the world just hates republicans because they like to hate Bush. True Story.
The rest of the world hates Republicans because they're further right than most of their right-wing extremist parties.
You can tell yourself this all you want, but it simply isn't true.
It is true. If the Republican party came to Australia, they would be laughed out of town.
Being against universal healthcare, clinging to guns, being ideologically against government regulation, etc., these sorts of policies are completely unfathomable in any other advanced country other than the US.
Apart from guns and the more extreme pro-life, we actually have a party representing faith, "family values", pro-Israel, anti-EU and very tough immigration laws in Denmark. Almost 20 years ago DPP was formed as a breakout from a protest party. Its main character was untill recently Pia Kjærsgård. It was a one issue party to start out, being for strenghtening immigration and it was among the first in europe to go as far to the right as they did. They eventually started running on issues like increasing social security too, recognising that their voters were mainly elder people. After 10 years as the party holding the key to for the prime minister of Denmark, the laws on immigration has been strenghtened to a point where every fullstop has been turned to be as hard as the international obligations allow. Social security is not something you can increase in a crisis and the anti-eu is not something they are exclusive representation for. Therefore they have started reincenting themself and they are pretty clear on being inspired by the republican party on social issues and foreign policy (hawkish). A new party was branded as liberal alliance in 2008 after a project that failed hard. They are going for flat taxes and minimal state. They have been vocal in supporting Ron Paul, while they are cautious about republicans in general. That is the other part of the extreme right wing in danish policy which is supported by about 15-20% of the voters. Even in the moderate catch-all party Venstre, members of their youth party has been actively helping Ron Paul and later Mitt Romney by registering republican voters in the swing states for the upcoming election. Saying that the republican values does not exist outside USA is not correct. Much of what is killing these views are the experts and the media. Experts are generally very sceptical of austrian economy and the social conservative values and with that the medias picture of those things are being a little biased against it, but even that is starting to change. On allegiance about 65 % of the people in Denmark supported Democrat, 20 % supported Green party and 15 % supported republicans in 2000. The study was done through a comprehensive walkthrough of each of the party platforms and giving the people as unbiased a view as possible. It was a pretty well executed study and the only one I am aware of, of its kind. Therefore I am certain that it is not just Bush-hate informing the opinions against republicans. My bet is that republicans are winning more support this time around with a "moderate" businessman, but given the insurmountable lead for Democrats I am still certain the Democrats are the clear hope from Denmarks people.
This graph has already been posted in this thread:
On Austrian economics, the reason it isn't taken seriously is because it's utter nonsense. It rejects empiricism in favor of praxeology, i.e. axiom instead of evidence. Austrian economists want to return to the gold standard. They've been predicting hyperinflation for years as a result of the Fed's QE program. They've been dead wrong, there's no hyperinflation, or even high inflation. But I'm sure they're not too troubled by this, because they reject empiricism.
As for Romney being a moderate. Are you joking?
You might call these videos cherry-picking, because you can find quotes where Romney is taking a moderate position on any issue. Of course, but that's because he's taken virtually every position on every issue. He's flip-flopped on everything.
On October 25 2012 11:20 nevermindthebollocks wrote: Hey check this out. When you get away from fox news and get an unbiased view of who is better this is the result
single digits in almost every country for romney sounds about right
I'm sorry, but this thread has shown several times that Canada is probably the only country that has citizens that understand American politics even remotely well (and even then it's pretty shoddy when you get the the nuances). The rest of the world just hates republicans because they like to hate Bush. True Story.
The rest of the world hates Republicans because they're further right than most of their right-wing extremist parties.
You can tell yourself this all you want, but it simply isn't true.
It's true.
It's not at all true. I'm a Republican, but I think most people would consider me a liberal if they talked policy with me.
It's true. Once again people needa stop throwing out minority examples in an attempt to discredit a larger trend.
Where is your proof?
Now you're gonna make me go through my posts to find a graph I posted a long time ago... sigh.
I'm still waiting...
Your statement was incredibly ridiculous, Suoma, and it shows just how polarized the left has become, that they have resorted to calling anyone who disagrees with them "neo-Nazis" and equates opposition to abortion with an "ethnic cleansing."
Edit: I just read your other post, in which you said you were no longer even going to try to back up your statement.
On October 25 2012 11:20 nevermindthebollocks wrote: Hey check this out. When you get away from fox news and get an unbiased view of who is better this is the result
single digits in almost every country for romney sounds about right
I'm sorry, but this thread has shown several times that Canada is probably the only country that has citizens that understand American politics even remotely well (and even then it's pretty shoddy when you get the the nuances). The rest of the world just hates republicans because they like to hate Bush. True Story.
The rest of the world hates Republicans because they're further right than most of their right-wing extremist parties.
You can tell yourself this all you want, but it simply isn't true.
It's true.
It's not at all true. I'm a Republican, but I think most people would consider me a liberal if they talked policy with me.
It's true. Once again people needa stop throwing out minority examples in an attempt to discredit a larger trend.
Where is your proof?
Now you're gonna make me go through my posts to find a graph I posted a long time ago... sigh.
I'm still waiting...
Your statement was incredibly ridiculous, Suoma, and it shows just how polarized the left has become, that they have resorted to calling anyone who disagrees with them "neo-Nazis" and equates opposition to abortion with an "ethnic cleansing."
Edit: I just read your other post, in which you said you were no longer even going to try to back up your statement.
Uh, he didn't use the words "neo-Nazis" or "ethnic cleansing" in his post you quoted, so I'm not sure why you quoted them. Unless you're saying the current far-right extremist parties worldwide are all neo-Nazis in favor of ethnic cleansing? Even then quotes are inappropriate.
On October 25 2012 16:55 Alex1Sun wrote: So if I understand it right (please correct me if I'm wrong), a main difference between two parties is as follows:
Republicans are liberal in economic terms (yes to free market, yes to low taxes etc.) and conservative in social terms (no to minorities, no to abortion etc.)
Democrats are conservative in economic terms (no to free market, no to low taxes etc.) and liberal in social terms (yes to minorities, yes to abortion etc.)
The choice seems quite limited. What if some people like liberal approach to both economic and social issues?
On Austrian economics, the reason it isn't taken seriously is because it's utter nonsense. It rejects empiricism in favor of praxeology, i.e. axiom instead of evidence. Austrian economists want to return to the gold standard. They've been predicting hyperinflation for years as a result of the Fed's QE program. They've been dead wrong, there's no hyperinflation, or even high inflation. But I'm sure they're not too troubled by this, because they reject empiricism.
Oh goodness there was this guy another forum who had such a hard-on for praxeology it was ridiculous. His favorite last-stand was "Do you agree that humans act? If you agree that humans act, you must accept praxeology and Ludwig von Mises!" Any evidence that didn't match up was casually (at first, and later more and more stridently) dismissed as being irrelevant because, uh, "praxeology sez evidence don't matter, reason > evidence, evidence doesn't even deserve to be compared to reason it's so inferior."
New Associated Press / GfK poll out today, 47-45 nationally Romney, Obama only up one with women and Romney only up five with men. There has to be something screwy with this one, there's no way Romney's only up 5 with men and Obama only up one with women. But it's yet another Romney-leading poll, it's been more than a week of Romney leading one poll after another. The last poll Obama led was the IDB/TIPP poll.
It's less than two weeks before the election and the president has been losing in all the polls but one for a week. How is he supposed to win when he can't even get to 50%, much less a consistent lead, over several polls?
On Austrian economics, the reason it isn't taken seriously is because it's utter nonsense. It rejects empiricism in favor of praxeology, i.e. axiom instead of evidence. Austrian economists want to return to the gold standard. They've been predicting hyperinflation for years as a result of the Fed's QE program. They've been dead wrong, there's no hyperinflation, or even high inflation. But I'm sure they're not too troubled by this, because they reject empiricism.
Oh goodness there was this guy another forum who had such a hard-on for praxeology it was ridiculous. His favorite last-stand was "Do you agree that humans act? If you agree that humans act, you must accept praxeology and Ludwig von Mises!" Any evidence that didn't match up was casually (at first, and later more and more stridently) dismissed as being irrelevant because, uh, "praxeology sez evidence don't matter, reason > evidence, evidence doesn't even deserve to be compared to reason it's so inferior."
New Associated Press / GfK poll out today, 47-45 nationally Romney, Obama only up one with women and Romney only up five with men. There has to be something screwy with this one, there's no way Romney's only up 5 with men and Obama only up one with women. But it's yet another Romney-leading poll, it's been more than a week of Romney leading one poll after another. The last poll Obama led was the IDB/TIPP poll.
It's less than two weeks before the election and the president has been losing in all the polls but one for a week. How is he supposed to win when he can't even get to 50%, much less a consistent lead, over several polls?
Because and this is honestly the most likely scenerio, Obama will win electoral college but lose the popular vote. The national vote seems to be having Obama lose ground in NE which he will win and South which he will lose so they basically dont matter. He is still winning in enough states to hit 270 with room to spare provided his 5 point lead in Ohio holds.
On October 25 2012 11:26 BluePanther wrote: [quote]
I'm sorry, but this thread has shown several times that Canada is probably the only country that has citizens that understand American politics even remotely well (and even then it's pretty shoddy when you get the the nuances). The rest of the world just hates republicans because they like to hate Bush. True Story.
The rest of the world hates Republicans because they're further right than most of their right-wing extremist parties.
You can tell yourself this all you want, but it simply isn't true.
It's true.
It's not at all true. I'm a Republican, but I think most people would consider me a liberal if they talked policy with me.
It's true. Once again people needa stop throwing out minority examples in an attempt to discredit a larger trend.
Where is your proof?
Now you're gonna make me go through my posts to find a graph I posted a long time ago... sigh.
I'm still waiting...
Your statement was incredibly ridiculous, Suoma, and it shows just how polarized the left has become, that they have resorted to calling anyone who disagrees with them "neo-Nazis" and equates opposition to abortion with an "ethnic cleansing."
Edit: I just read your other post, in which you said you were no longer even going to try to back up your statement.
Uh, he didn't use the words "neo-Nazis" or "ethnic cleansing" in his post you quoted, so I'm not sure why you quoted them. Unless you're saying the current far-right extremist parties worldwide are all neo-Nazis in favor of ethnic cleansing? Even then quotes are inappropriate.
I suggest you re-read what he posted. He said that the "American Republicans are further right than European/"global" extremist parties," so I asked him to clarify and he said he was referring to parties such as the BNP, National Front (France), and the NDP (Germany). These parties are effectively neo-Nazi parties, and according to him, "the Republican Party is just as, if not more, extreme as them."
On October 25 2012 15:22 Souma wrote: Swazi Spring: Sorry, I really can't be assed to wade through all my posts to find the graph. It was something I snatched off a power point presentation from my Comparative Politics class and I'm too lazy to wade through all those power points as well. I'll let the Europeans/Canadians refute you instead if they want to take the time.
On October 25 2012 15:17 BluePanther wrote:
On October 25 2012 15:14 Jumbled wrote:
On October 25 2012 15:09 BluePanther wrote:
On October 25 2012 15:00 sevencck wrote:
On October 25 2012 14:58 Swazi Spring wrote:
On October 25 2012 14:42 aksfjh wrote:
On October 25 2012 11:26 BluePanther wrote:
On October 25 2012 11:20 nevermindthebollocks wrote: Hey check this out. When you get away from fox news and get an unbiased view of who is better this is the result
single digits in almost every country for romney sounds about right
I'm sorry, but this thread has shown several times that Canada is probably the only country that has citizens that understand American politics even remotely well (and even then it's pretty shoddy when you get the the nuances). The rest of the world just hates republicans because they like to hate Bush. True Story.
The rest of the world hates Republicans because they're further right than most of their right-wing extremist parties.
You can tell yourself this all you want, but it simply isn't true.
It's true.
It's not at all true. I'm a Republican, but I think most people would consider me a liberal if they talked policy with me.
Do you consider yourself a typical example of the Republican core?
Core is an odd word. I'm definitely on the left side of the Republican Party, but I'm by no means alone. I think you find people who align with me are the "silent majority" in truth. We're not nearly as vocal or involved (usually). It's usually 10% from the far right doing 80% of the talking in this party.
That's true too. The Republican party (as in, the constituents) are generally more liberal than the representatives make them out to be.
Souma, a few things. I don't think it's fair to compare American federal politics to European politics. Two different cultures (with good reason). It's comparing apples to oranges. Maybe if you did State politics or local politics, but even then I think it's a little different based on the fact that much of the US is far less densely populated. That plays a huge role in the differences.
Yes, population density is important. The smaller your community, the more likely it's going to be tied together by religion and more traditional ways. I would also chalk it up to the fact that the US was settled thousands of years after Europe by pirates, speculators, and outcasts, and never lived under a monarchy or knew any strong federal authority until the middle of the 19th Century.
The second thing about the Representatives being more conservative than the actual voters. This is true. Very true. A huge reason for this problem is the primary system. People in the middle tend to be less militant about their views. They are less likely to volunteer, less likely to get involved, less likely to debate and get worked up over politics. It takes a lot of man-hours and sweat and money to run a federal primary campaign. You literally have to build a small military to do your bidding and poeple who are so pumped about your views that they will donate money. This is nigh impossible from the middle. So what you get is more extreme members of the party getting more help, and being able to run significantly more effective campaigns. And you know who votes in these Primaries? Those same individuals who are donating time and money. The ones who care more than they probably should. It's the same on both sides. So what do these candidates do? They adopt the positions of farther right/left voters to court them for the primary. This pigeonholes them in the general and they're stuck in a place they may not even want to be. It's a serious problem that demands serious change. I'm going to start a topic about this after the November general with you guys
It's not a serious problem. The fact is that, in the general election, the only people that really matter (and get the politician's attention) are the centrist swing-voters like yourself that haven't made up their minds yet because they've been disengaged and they have no core principles beyond "stick with the status quo". That status quo represents the mainstream of American political thought. Even if a president is extreme in his views, he can't actually bring about extreme changes because he's tempered by congress and the public. There has never been one president to exceeded his campaign promises once he got in office. Always, the president is forced to move to the middle and give up on a lot of their agenda.
Souma thinking that the Republican party is further to the right than the BNP or National Front is just another indicator of how ignorant and malicious he is. Those parties would be considered no different from an Aryan nation compound here in America; they wouldn't even be political parties. They'd never win representation or election to anything more than dogcatcher of Puskeepatawnie Township, but over in Europe they're not-so-insignificant political forces. Europe today is far more racist than America is.
Because and this is honestly the most likely scenerio, Obama will win electoral college but lose the popular vote. The national vote seems to be having Obama lose ground in NE which he will win and South which he will lose so they basically dont matter. He is still winning in enough states to hit 270 with room to spare provided his 5 point lead in Ohio holds.
What really saddens me is that republicans no longer think about long term future. Thy denounce science, don't care about the environment etc.
This is especially sad since not long ago it was republican party that actually cared about such things. A republican president Richard Nixon for example made more environmental reforms than most other presidents combined, and his reforms were fantastic!
Nowadays it's just sad to see republicans in their current pitiful state. They still lie that there is no scientific consensus on climate change. That's really sad.
On October 26 2012 00:58 DeepElemBlues wrote: Souma thinking that the Republican party is further to the right than the BNP or National Front is just another indicator of how ignorant and malicious he is. Those parties would be considered no different from an Aryan nation compound here in America; they wouldn't even be political parties. They'd never win representation or election to anything more than dogcatcher of Puskeepatawnie Township, but over in Europe they're not-so-insignificant political forces. Europe today is far more racist than America is.
Thank you for once again showing that you have no idea about European Politics. Those parties are very much insignificant politicaly. Trying to call Europe more racist then America is laughable when you look at the actual measures being taken against ethnical minority's.
Yes you dont like to hear it but the Republican party would be as likely to get votes here as said radical parties.
On October 26 2012 01:01 Alex1Sun wrote: What really saddens me is that republicans no longer think about long term future. Thy denounce science, don't care about the environment etc.
This is especially sad since not long ago it was republican party that actually cared about such things. A republican president Richard Nixon for example made more environmental reforms than most other presidents combined, and his reforms were fantastic!
Nowadays it's just sad to see republicans in their current pitiful state. They still lie that there is no scientific consensus on climate change. That's really sad.
Yeah pretty much.
They're hypocrites for claiming to care about the debt "for our children", and yet (if they're not denying science) don't give it shit about climate change, which really will be for our children.
On October 26 2012 00:58 DeepElemBlues wrote: Souma thinking that the Republican party is further to the right than the BNP or National Front is just another indicator of how ignorant and malicious he is. Those parties would be considered no different from an Aryan nation compound here in America; they wouldn't even be political parties. They'd never win representation or election to anything more than dogcatcher of Puskeepatawnie Township, but over in Europe they're not-so-insignificant political forces. Europe today is far more racist than America is.
Thank you for once again showing that you have no idea about European Politics. Yes you dont like to hear it but the Republican party would be as likely to get votes here as said radical parties.
Thank you for showing you can't read?
I said those parties couldn't get votes here because of their rather explicitly racist nature, which is their appeal in Europe. Not that the GOP couldn't get votes in Europe.
Yes you don't like to hear it but you have parties that get 10-20% (or more!) of the vote on your Continent that couldn't crack 5% here. And the reason they get that many votes there and wouldn't here is the same.
They're hypocrites for claiming to care about the debt "for our children", and yet (if they're not denying science) don't give it shit about climate change, which really will be for our children.
Call us when the earth actually starts warming again and you have some computer models that actually predict what will actually happen, instead of the epic fail that they have been. Kinda sad that your models predicated on humans causing global warming couldn't manage to square up with the stagnancy of the last 14 years.
On October 26 2012 00:58 DeepElemBlues wrote: Souma thinking that the Republican party is further to the right than the BNP or National Front is just another indicator of how ignorant and malicious he is. Those parties would be considered no different from an Aryan nation compound here in America; they wouldn't even be political parties. They'd never win representation or election to anything more than dogcatcher of Puskeepatawnie Township, but over in Europe they're not-so-insignificant political forces. Europe today is far more racist than America is.
Thank you for once again showing that you have no idea about European Politics. Yes you dont like to hear it but the Republican party would be as likely to get votes here as said radical parties.
Thank you for showing you can't read?
I said those parties couldn't get votes here because of their rather explicitly racist nature, which is their appeal in Europe. Not that the GOP couldn't get votes in Europe.
Yes you don't like to hear it but you have parties that get 10-20% (or more!) of the vote on your Continent that couldn't crack 5% here. And the reason they get that many votes there and wouldn't here is the same.
Hes calling them "not-insignificant political forces" which infact they very much are. Guess i should have made that more clear.
On October 26 2012 01:01 Alex1Sun wrote: What really saddens me is that republicans no longer think about long term future. Thy denounce science, don't care about the environment etc.
This is especially sad since not long ago it was republican party that actually cared about such things. A republican president Richard Nixon for example made more environmental reforms than most other presidents combined, and his reforms were fantastic!
Nowadays it's just sad to see republicans in their current pitiful state. They still lie that there is no scientific consensus on climate change. That's really sad.
Hard to blame them though, considering how completely uninformed the vast majority of their voter base is.
On October 25 2012 14:42 aksfjh wrote: [quote] The rest of the world hates Republicans because they're further right than most of their right-wing extremist parties.
You can tell yourself this all you want, but it simply isn't true.
It's true.
It's not at all true. I'm a Republican, but I think most people would consider me a liberal if they talked policy with me.
It's true. Once again people needa stop throwing out minority examples in an attempt to discredit a larger trend.
Where is your proof?
Now you're gonna make me go through my posts to find a graph I posted a long time ago... sigh.
I'm still waiting...
Your statement was incredibly ridiculous, Suoma, and it shows just how polarized the left has become, that they have resorted to calling anyone who disagrees with them "neo-Nazis" and equates opposition to abortion with an "ethnic cleansing."
Edit: I just read your other post, in which you said you were no longer even going to try to back up your statement.
Uh, he didn't use the words "neo-Nazis" or "ethnic cleansing" in his post you quoted, so I'm not sure why you quoted them. Unless you're saying the current far-right extremist parties worldwide are all neo-Nazis in favor of ethnic cleansing? Even then quotes are inappropriate.
I suggest you re-read what he posted. He said that the "American Republicans are further right than European/"global" extremist parties," so I asked him to clarify and he said he was referring to parties such as the BNP, National Front (France), and the NDP (Germany). These parties are effectively neo-Nazi parties, and according to him, "the Republican Party is just as, if not more, extreme as them."
If they're "effectively" Neo-Nazi parties and don't actually advocate ethnic cleansing (most propose repatriation and immediate expulsion, not genocide) you still shouldn't put the words in quotes.
Plus, being "farther right" than extremist parties doesn't mean you advocate all of their policies. A party could be farther right than the Republican party and believe that marriage should not be defined at all by the federal or state government, for example. There's no reason to quote someone as calling you a Nazi when they didn't. All you're doing is bringing down the level of discourse.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/_63592042_worldservicepoll_464_obama_embargoed23102012.gif)
![[image loading]](http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/63592043_worldservicepoll_464_romney_embargoed_23102012.gif)
