|
|
On July 31 2012 18:54 Critter wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 16:33 Defacer wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 31 2012 15:52 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 15:20 Risen wrote:
So you're fine with withholding rights from gays, misleading the public intentionally and sabotaging things intentionally then painting their sabotage as the other party's failure? I am fiscally conservative and I use common sense for my social viewpoints. I will never vote Republican, the party that should be my party, because of how bigoted and snakelike they are. If you vote Republican you're saying you value money more than equal rights, something I can't get behind. That's why I say any Republican is a selfish prick. You're voting to keep others oppressed, so fuck you. I hate most Democratic economic policies, but I hate lying pieces of shit more, so I'm forced to vote for third party candidates and Democrats.
THAT is why I can't stand people like xDaunt.
Edit: What it comes down to for me is that Republicans show their real worth by holding other people back. They're not good enough to succeed on their own without holding other people down. Ah ha, now I see what you were saying. Misunderstood the first time. That's a valid point - although there is some level of terrible economic policy where I'd vote for a modern-day conservative Republican over a Democrat who was, say, socially tolerant but wanted to implement actual Soviet-style socialism. That leads to human suffering, too. Luckily (hah) the Republicans' economic record isn't any better than the Democrats', and over-regulated welfare state capitalism isn't nearly the failure that true leftist economics was. Obama's policies don't even approach Canadian-style socialism. Anyway, I'll just chill up here with my Canadian Pension Plan (secure for the next 75 years), universal healthcare and 6.2% unemployment rate. Can I join you? In all seriousness a few friends and I are looking into immigrating and would love some advice! Just seems like everything there fits us better, especially considering the current political climate down here. Quite serious, PM me. The only thing I really have to say about the election is that I'm glad the Dems have finally, officially announced their support of equal rights as a group. I don't understand how Republicans can get away with arguing 'traditional marriage' when it's pure descrimination.
It's easy when you have "God and the Bible" on your side. People will do stupid/amazing things when they believe they are working for a "higher power".
|
my buddy showed me this website called www.isidewith.com (sorry if it's been posted here did a google search with +teamliquid on it and i couldn't find anything) and i got 84% jill stein haha
it'd be cool to maybe post results here
|
On July 31 2012 15:56 Cutlery wrote:
I wonder if you know what went on in sovjet, how you can draw the comparisons, and how you define this failure. I just wonder. I read this alot, but I doubt many of them actually know of what they speak.
I can assure you that your lefties are very different from the former Sovjet. Former Sovjet should rather be compared to 'former' anything, when building infrastructure and industrialization was happening. But Sovjet was much more 'ravaged' by war. And eventually they broke. While alot of bad also went on "behind the curtains", this is not unique to this kind of socialism, but rather how a few people up top were given far too much power. These things, supposedly, could never happen in a democracy, even if it were to adapt extreme socialist policies (which you're not CLOSE to doing).
Remember that, in their attempt they became a superpower. Somewhere things went too far; doesn't mean everything is worth tossing in the bin. It is still part of history, history from which we can learn. I know not nearly enough. But history has taught us, and will teach us, in what ways our democracy and capitalism has 'underperformed' and might at some point fail aswell. Without taking the lessons from Sovjet, both the good and the bad, I'm not sure we can hope to rebuild something better, when needed.
On July 31 2012 16:33 Defacer wrote:
Obama's policies don't even approach Canadian-style socialism.
Anyway, I'll just chill up here with my Canadian Pension Plan (secure for the next 75 years), universal healthcare and 6.2% unemployment rate.
It's not my intent to compare the American left to Soviet politics. I'm just providing an example where voting for a social conservative would be an obviously better choice than the alternative. Sorry if that was unclear.
|
On July 31 2012 21:25 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 15:56 Cutlery wrote:
I wonder if you know what went on in sovjet, how you can draw the comparisons, and how you define this failure. I just wonder. I read this alot, but I doubt many of them actually know of what they speak.
I can assure you that your lefties are very different from the former Sovjet. Former Sovjet should rather be compared to 'former' anything, when building infrastructure and industrialization was happening. But Sovjet was much more 'ravaged' by war. And eventually they broke. While alot of bad also went on "behind the curtains", this is not unique to this kind of socialism, but rather how a few people up top were given far too much power. These things, supposedly, could never happen in a democracy, even if it were to adapt extreme socialist policies (which you're not CLOSE to doing).
Remember that, in their attempt they became a superpower. Somewhere things went too far; doesn't mean everything is worth tossing in the bin. It is still part of history, history from which we can learn. I know not nearly enough. But history has taught us, and will teach us, in what ways our democracy and capitalism has 'underperformed' and might at some point fail aswell. Without taking the lessons from Sovjet, both the good and the bad, I'm not sure we can hope to rebuild something better, when needed.
Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 16:33 Defacer wrote:
Obama's policies don't even approach Canadian-style socialism.
Anyway, I'll just chill up here with my Canadian Pension Plan (secure for the next 75 years), universal healthcare and 6.2% unemployment rate.
It's not my intent to compare the American left to Soviet politics. I'm just providing an example where voting for a social conservative would be an obviously better choice than the alternative. Sorry if that was unclear.
I thought it was a weird comparison you were making ...
|
On July 31 2012 15:45 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 15:16 1Eris1 wrote:
Yes and no. Most Libertarians (I consider myself somewhat of a Libertarian, but with a realistic and alternative twist), at least those that are for capitalism (as i'm still not sure what the point of libertarian socialism is), would argue that it's selfishness that drives our actions, and thus our economy and all of it's sucesses. Therefore it is not something to be demonized, but encouraged, within reason. Of course as you say, it also believes that most government interventions interfere with this, and thus should be kept to an useful minimum.
And I agree completely. It's really a bad combination and I'm not sure how the Republican Party plans to survive when the younger generations become a majority. Hopefully it'll shift towards a more straight moderate libertarianism, and away from this convoluted christian-theocratic neo-con anarchy shit, but I'm not sure. True. I guess I was thinking of it more in terms of -- a libertarian probably doesn't view a policy of government non-intervention in the economy as being selfish, even if the economic actors themselves are selfish. The future of politics when Gen X and the Millennials are the critical voters will be interesting, and I can't see it possibly not being an improvement over the shitfest we're stuck in now. I'm also hoping for libertarian R vs progressive D since I find both of these ideologies at least morally defensible. Lots of people think the GOP will effectively implode once enough current seniors die, then reinvent itself without its more vile aspects. But I can also see it playing out where the Republican party becomes more extreme and paranoid over time, libertarians start trickling over to the Democratic party (which in turn causes the Democrats to make some concessions on economic policy) while socially conservative Democratic groups trickle over to the GOP, and it's effectively temperamental conservatives versus a coalition of everybody else - with the latter having financial advantages but less group cohesion and possibly smaller numbers. I think that if many liberals really internalized just how socially conservative our lower class is in its politics (and for that matter the elderly), they'd be less inclined to want anything resembling a European welfare state. Not necessarily all or most liberals, but enough that their party could afford to make a few economic accommodations for a libertarian bloc. That's a more cynical future, but things don't always turn out the way we want...
From what I have seen, the next generation of republicans is going to be more libertarian with regards to social issues while remaining fiscally conservative and hawkish on foreign policy. I think democrats have the most think about with regards to what their future is going to be as their key social policy issues continue to disappear and as they continue to drift left on fiscal and economic policy.
|
On August 01 2012 00:20 xDaunt wrote:
From what I have seen, the next generation of republicans is going to be more libertarian with regards to social issues while remaining fiscally conservative and hawkish on foreign policy. I think democrats have the most think about with regards to what their future is going to be as their key social policy issues continue to disappear and as they continue to drift left on fiscal and economic policy.
What have you been smoking? Women in some states get a mandatory vaginal probe MANDATED BY REPUBLICAN GOVTs when they go to ask about pregnancy terminations!
|
On August 01 2012 00:29 Zorkmid wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 00:20 xDaunt wrote:
From what I have seen, the next generation of republicans is going to be more libertarian with regards to social issues while remaining fiscally conservative and hawkish on foreign policy. I think democrats have the most think about with regards to what their future is going to be as their key social policy issues continue to disappear and as they continue to drift left on fiscal and economic policy.
What have you been smoking? Women in some states get a mandatory vaginal probe MANDATED BY REPUBLICAN GOVTs when they go to ask about pregnancy terminations!
Try reading a post before you respond to it. It helps.
Specifically, read the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth words in my post.
|
Well I'd like it if it became socialists vs libertarians (as opposed to crazies vs centrists), but it'll probably be way more fuzzy than that. I don't think for a second that republicans are going to lose the crazy though. And it's hard to say how the religion and educational angle will play out. It could cause a rift between the religious authoritarians and libertarians in the party. All speculation really.
|
On August 01 2012 00:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 15:45 Signet wrote:On July 31 2012 15:16 1Eris1 wrote:
Yes and no. Most Libertarians (I consider myself somewhat of a Libertarian, but with a realistic and alternative twist), at least those that are for capitalism (as i'm still not sure what the point of libertarian socialism is), would argue that it's selfishness that drives our actions, and thus our economy and all of it's sucesses. Therefore it is not something to be demonized, but encouraged, within reason. Of course as you say, it also believes that most government interventions interfere with this, and thus should be kept to an useful minimum.
And I agree completely. It's really a bad combination and I'm not sure how the Republican Party plans to survive when the younger generations become a majority. Hopefully it'll shift towards a more straight moderate libertarianism, and away from this convoluted christian-theocratic neo-con anarchy shit, but I'm not sure. True. I guess I was thinking of it more in terms of -- a libertarian probably doesn't view a policy of government non-intervention in the economy as being selfish, even if the economic actors themselves are selfish. The future of politics when Gen X and the Millennials are the critical voters will be interesting, and I can't see it possibly not being an improvement over the shitfest we're stuck in now. I'm also hoping for libertarian R vs progressive D since I find both of these ideologies at least morally defensible. Lots of people think the GOP will effectively implode once enough current seniors die, then reinvent itself without its more vile aspects. But I can also see it playing out where the Republican party becomes more extreme and paranoid over time, libertarians start trickling over to the Democratic party (which in turn causes the Democrats to make some concessions on economic policy) while socially conservative Democratic groups trickle over to the GOP, and it's effectively temperamental conservatives versus a coalition of everybody else - with the latter having financial advantages but less group cohesion and possibly smaller numbers. I think that if many liberals really internalized just how socially conservative our lower class is in its politics (and for that matter the elderly), they'd be less inclined to want anything resembling a European welfare state. Not necessarily all or most liberals, but enough that their party could afford to make a few economic accommodations for a libertarian bloc. That's a more cynical future, but things don't always turn out the way we want... From what I have seen, the next generation of republicans is going to be more libertarian with regards to social issues while remaining fiscally conservative and hawkish on foreign policy. I think democrats have the most think about with regards to what their future is going to be as their key social policy issues continue to disappear and as they continue to drift left on fiscal and economic policy.
Does that translate to, "Republicans are currently crazy, but I'm going to vote for them anyway because there's a small chance that they will be less crazy in the future"?
|
Mitt Romney caused a stir in Jerusalem by suggesting Israel’s economic superiority over the Palestinian territories was a product of “culture” and “providence,” but the Republican candidate insists that he was misunderstood.
FOX News’s Carl Cameron grilled Romney on his remarks, which top Palestinian officials immediately denounced as “racist,” in an interview from Poland on Tuesday. The Obama campaign also accused Romney of needlessly inflaming tensions in the region.
Romney responded that he “did not speak about the Palestinian culture or the decisions made in their economy,” while adding broadly that a nation’s “choices” affect their outcomes.
Source
So now Romney says stuff that is recorded, causes more unrest in the region, and claims he never said it.
|
On August 01 2012 01:43 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +Mitt Romney caused a stir in Jerusalem by suggesting Israel’s economic superiority over the Palestinian territories was a product of “culture” and “providence,” but the Republican candidate insists that he was misunderstood.
FOX News’s Carl Cameron grilled Romney on his remarks, which top Palestinian officials immediately denounced as “racist,” in an interview from Poland on Tuesday. The Obama campaign also accused Romney of needlessly inflaming tensions in the region.
Romney responded that he “did not speak about the Palestinian culture or the decisions made in their economy,” while adding broadly that a nation’s “choices” affect their outcomes. SourceSo now Romney says stuff that is recorded, causes more unrest in the region, and claims he never said it.
It's a shame that he's backtracking, because he was correct.
|
On August 01 2012 01:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 01:43 Saryph wrote:Mitt Romney caused a stir in Jerusalem by suggesting Israel’s economic superiority over the Palestinian territories was a product of “culture” and “providence,” but the Republican candidate insists that he was misunderstood.
FOX News’s Carl Cameron grilled Romney on his remarks, which top Palestinian officials immediately denounced as “racist,” in an interview from Poland on Tuesday. The Obama campaign also accused Romney of needlessly inflaming tensions in the region.
Romney responded that he “did not speak about the Palestinian culture or the decisions made in their economy,” while adding broadly that a nation’s “choices” affect their outcomes. SourceSo now Romney says stuff that is recorded, causes more unrest in the region, and claims he never said it. It's a shame that he's backtracking, because he was correct.
How is he right when he completely ignores the restrictions Israel places on the Palestinians?
|
On August 01 2012 01:49 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 01:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 01:43 Saryph wrote:Mitt Romney caused a stir in Jerusalem by suggesting Israel’s economic superiority over the Palestinian territories was a product of “culture” and “providence,” but the Republican candidate insists that he was misunderstood.
FOX News’s Carl Cameron grilled Romney on his remarks, which top Palestinian officials immediately denounced as “racist,” in an interview from Poland on Tuesday. The Obama campaign also accused Romney of needlessly inflaming tensions in the region.
Romney responded that he “did not speak about the Palestinian culture or the decisions made in their economy,” while adding broadly that a nation’s “choices” affect their outcomes. SourceSo now Romney says stuff that is recorded, causes more unrest in the region, and claims he never said it. It's a shame that he's backtracking, because he was correct. How is he right when he completely ignores the restrictions Israel places on the Palestinians?
Don't get me wrong, the Israelis definitely are at least partially responsible for the current state of the Palestinians. However, at some point the Palestinians need to look in the mirror and account for themselves in this equation.
|
On August 01 2012 01:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 01:49 Adila wrote:On August 01 2012 01:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 01:43 Saryph wrote:Mitt Romney caused a stir in Jerusalem by suggesting Israel’s economic superiority over the Palestinian territories was a product of “culture” and “providence,” but the Republican candidate insists that he was misunderstood.
FOX News’s Carl Cameron grilled Romney on his remarks, which top Palestinian officials immediately denounced as “racist,” in an interview from Poland on Tuesday. The Obama campaign also accused Romney of needlessly inflaming tensions in the region.
Romney responded that he “did not speak about the Palestinian culture or the decisions made in their economy,” while adding broadly that a nation’s “choices” affect their outcomes. SourceSo now Romney says stuff that is recorded, causes more unrest in the region, and claims he never said it. It's a shame that he's backtracking, because he was correct. How is he right when he completely ignores the restrictions Israel places on the Palestinians? Don't get me wrong, the Israelis definitely are at least partially responsible for the current state of the Palestinians. However, at some point the Palestinians need to look in the mirror and account for themselves in this equation.
Are you saying the Palestinians are the most significant cause of their own demise, rather than the Israelis who control the territory (and do many other things of which you should be well aware and of which need no reminding).
|
Strap yourself in boys, we're in for a Israel vs Palestine discussion 
|
Well isn't he partly accurate? I mean when the Israelis came didn't they immediately begin irrigating building infrastructure for the future? Why didn't the palestinians do that similarly? You can definitely make arguments for culture. At least at first.
|
Even if we mistakenly assume what he said was 100% accurate, he still fucking sucks at diplomacy.
|
On August 01 2012 02:20 DoubleReed wrote:
Well isn't he partly accurate? I mean when the Israelis came didn't they immediately begin irrigating building infrastructure for the future? Why didn't the palestinians do that similarly? You can definitely make arguments for culture. At least at first.
He should have compared Israel's economy to the rest of the middle east - not Palestine.
|
On July 31 2012 15:56 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 15:52 Signet wrote:On July 31 2012 15:20 Risen wrote:
So you're fine with withholding rights from gays, misleading the public intentionally and sabotaging things intentionally then painting their sabotage as the other party's failure? I am fiscally conservative and I use common sense for my social viewpoints. I will never vote Republican, the party that should be my party, because of how bigoted and snakelike they are. If you vote Republican you're saying you value money more than equal rights, something I can't get behind. That's why I say any Republican is a selfish prick. You're voting to keep others oppressed, so fuck you. I hate most Democratic economic policies, but I hate lying pieces of shit more, so I'm forced to vote for third party candidates and Democrats.
THAT is why I can't stand people like xDaunt.
Edit: What it comes down to for me is that Republicans show their real worth by holding other people back. They're not good enough to succeed on their own without holding other people down. Ah ha, now I see what you were saying. Misunderstood the first time. That's a valid point - although there is some level of terrible economic policy where I'd vote for a modern-day conservative Republican over a Democrat who was, say, socially tolerant but wanted to implement actual Soviet-style socialism. That leads to human suffering, too. Luckily (hah) the Republicans' economic record isn't any better than the Democrats', and over-regulated welfare state capitalism isn't nearly the failure that true leftist economics was. I wonder if you know what went on in sovjet, how you can draw the comparisons, and how you define this failure. I just wonder. I read this alot, but I doubt many of them actually know of what they speak. I can assure you that your lefties are very different from the former Sovjet. Former Sovjet should rather be compared to 'former' anything, when building infrastructure and industrialization was happening. But Sovjet was much more 'ravaged' by war. And eventually they broke. While alot of bad also went on "behind the curtains", this is not unique to this kind of socialism, but rather how a few people up top were given far too much power. These things, supposedly, could never happen in a democracy, even if it were to adapt extreme socialist policies (which you're not CLOSE to doing). Remember that, in their attempt they became a superpower. Somewhere things went too far; doesn't mean everything is worth tossing in the bin. It is still part of history, history from which we can learn. I know not nearly enough. But history has taught us, and will teach us, in what ways our democracy and capitalism has 'underperformed' and might at some point fail aswell. Without taking the lessons from Sovjet, both the good and the bad, I'm not sure we can hope to rebuild something better, when needed.
Imagine the Soviet Union with the politics it had throughout its entire period (including foreign relations, assume the world still hated whatever Russia had), completely unchanged, save for the economic system. Would it still collapse?
My family came from the USSR. It was definitely a political collapse. The economy, though in a recession, was fine right before the collapse.
|
On August 01 2012 02:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 02:20 DoubleReed wrote:
Well isn't he partly accurate? I mean when the Israelis came didn't they immediately begin irrigating building infrastructure for the future? Why didn't the palestinians do that similarly? You can definitely make arguments for culture. At least at first. He should have compared Israel's economy to the rest of the middle east - not Palestine.
Huh? It's not like there's a homogenous middle eastern culture. If he did that it would simply be a separate statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
