EPTI believe that could be used in Barack's Campaign
2008 US Presidential Election - Page 45
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
I believe that could be used in Barack's Campaign | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On October 26 2008 11:41 The Storyteller wrote: This isn't exactly correct, but in the US liberal economics = conservative/right politics, socialist economics = liberal/leftist politics. I'm not sure when liberal became equated with leftist, but it is.Can someone explain the American view of two terms that have been used a lot in this election: liberal and socialist? McCain says Obama is "liberal" as if it's something bad, but I thought the US was supposed to be liberal. Isn't that what it was founded for? Doesn't the right to bear arms, freedom of worship and the right to live any way you want as long as you don't hurt anyone make the country liberal already? So what exactly does he mean by "liberal"? Now he's also saying that he's a "socialist". The country already has a minimum wage, welfare, powerful unions, government aid to prop up failing industries and government incentives to distort the free market (ethanol subsidies etc.). Now it also owns a large chunk of the banking system (although I accept that that is not the regular state of affairs). How socialist does it have to get before the country is considered "socialist"? | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On October 26 2008 12:13 Jibba wrote: I'm not sure when liberal became equated with leftist, but it is. 1791 | ||
|
The Storyteller
Singapore2486 Posts
On October 26 2008 12:00 Doctorasul wrote: Did you just defend the anti-intellectual, anti-contraception, pro-thought-crime crowd? I'm sorry, but it is hard to understand their point of view, since it is utter bullshit. Are you saying it isn't? Those that are backpedaling on some of these issues do so not because of their religious guidance, which would happily close their minds to the world forever, but because of common sense, reason and because people around them are calling them out on their stupidity and ignorance. As for the comparison to Ghandi, are you serious? What does the conviction of one's beliefs have to do with whether or not they are true or with whether or not they will help them? Suicide bombers have a lot of faith in their principles; if that's your criteria why aren't you making that comparison instead? What nonsense. First of all, my wife is Catholic. Are you calling her anti-intellectual and pro-thought-crime? People who label people as being idiots just because they disagree with their principles are no better than the very people they condemn. What's next, calling Muslims "anti-work" because they take a 3 hours break to pray on Friday? Calling geeks "ignorant about the world" because they spend most of their time on the computer? Calling pro-choice people "pro murder"? Is everyone who doesn't agree with you ignorant? No, it's not nonsense. You haven't understood what I'm saying. I am not defending these people's points of view, I am explaining their reasons for doing it. The principle is simple: what is convenient is not always the right thing to do. We all apply that principle, though we often disagree with other people's principles. Let me give another example. A fair justice system will ensure that a criminal gets a defence in court, even if it is obvious that he's guilty. This is because every man has the right to a fair trial. No matter how heinous the crime, no matter how obvious the guilt, the defending lawyer STILL has to do his best. Many people would argue as vehemently as you have about Catholics that no lawyer should touch such a criminal. But he still deserves a defence anyway because what is convenient (just hanging him) is not the right thing to do. And yes, we can talk about suicide bombers as well. They're sacrificing their lives for something they believe in. We condemn them for doing that because we don't agree with what they're sacrificing their lives FOR, but the principle of sacrificing your life is certainly something we can all understand. I'm sure Romanians did the same when the Austria Hungary stomped all over the country during WW1. Catholics don't change their minds because "people around them are calling them out on their stupidity and ignorance." That implies that Catholics somehow become stupid the moment they get baptised. They change their minds because of a variety of factors including society, education, economic situation and so on. Would you have any respect for someone who drops his principles whenever it's convenient? Where I come from, we call them snakes. | ||
|
The Storyteller
Singapore2486 Posts
On October 26 2008 12:13 Jibba wrote: This isn't exactly correct, but in the US liberal economics = conservative/right politics, socialist economics = liberal/leftist politics. I'm not sure when liberal became equated with leftist, but it is. Sorry, that confuses me more. If liberal economics = conservative/right politics, socialist economics = liberal/leftist politics, how can McCain call Obama liberal AND socialist at the same time? Or does he mean socially liberal and economically socialist, whatever that means? | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On October 26 2008 12:24 The Storyteller wrote: You mean like Protestants!?Would you have any respect for someone who drops his principles whenever it's convenient? Where I come from, we call them snakes. Anyways, I think Doctorasul is arguing against the Catholic Church, not Catholics. There is an important distinction that I won't describe because it'll surely be offensive. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
God I hate stupid redneck white people, typical bitchass buckeye fans =-) That catholic video is utter garbage, my family is catholic and its pathetic, the church should stand up against those priests and stop trying to hide them away. The history and religious doctrine of the catholic church is a travesty and for the church itself to try to claim any sort of moral high ground is the height of hypocrisy. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On October 26 2008 12:26 The Storyteller wrote: Or does he mean socially liberal and economically socialist, whatever that means? Exactly. It's the hypocrisy of the Christian conservative movement. Government should be hands off when it comes to economics, but they should become involved for social issues such as gay marriage, etc. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
The Storyteller
Singapore2486 Posts
On October 26 2008 12:30 Jibba wrote: Exactly. It's the hypocrisy of the Christian conservative movement. Government should be hands off when it comes to economics, but they should become involved for social issues such as gay marriage, etc. Ah, I see what you mean. Thanks! | ||
|
The Storyteller
Singapore2486 Posts
I would say politicians, except that, incredibly, the politicians in charge of Singapore actually do stick to their principles - economic growth at all costs! | ||
|
XoXiDe
United States620 Posts
on another thought, with california possibly decriminalizing prostitution, i wonder how long it will be before we AT LEAST legalize marihuana. it seems like it is inevitable given the changing values of society as the younger generation grows into adults but how long i wonder. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On October 26 2008 12:34 Jibba wrote: I think it's awesome that the people who bring up 9/11 the most are often the people who were least affected by it, except that they got a tingle when they heard a bunch of New Yorkers died. Yeah, I'm sure you really need to be concerned with terrorism if you're living in Kansas or Ohio. It hasn't been their m.o. thus far, but if they really wanted to damage America, attacking its breadbasket would not be such a bad idea. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On October 26 2008 12:46 XoXiDe wrote: on another thought, with california possibly decriminalizing prostitution, i wonder how long it will be before we AT LEAST legalize marihuana. it seems like it is inevitable given the changing values of society as the younger generation grows into adults but how long i wonder. It will probably start passing by referendum, but drug companies will pressure the federal government against it. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
On October 26 2008 12:50 Jibba wrote: It will probably start passing by referendum, but drug companies will pressure the federal government against it. Oh yea... wait ? Wouldnt cigar companys and shit have massive capital/infrastructure to produce pot if it was legalized ? I mean, common, the first minute its convienient for them they will be lobbying for it like crazy | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On October 26 2008 12:46 Mindcrime wrote: It hasn't been their m.o. thus far, but if they really wanted to damage America, attacking its breadbasket would not be such a bad idea. Every goddamn political thread, there's gotta be like 50 (sarcastic?) appeals to bomb the southern states. Annoying. HEY LETWS KILL EVERYONE WHO ISN'T NEO MODERN LIBERAL WEEE!!! THEY ALL LIVE IN RED STSATSES!!! I WATCH THE NEWSS!!!!!! | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On October 26 2008 13:22 HeadBangaa wrote: Every goddamn political thread, there's gotta be like 50 (sarcastic?) appeals to bomb the southern states. Annoying. HEY LETWS KILL EVERYONE WHO ISN'T NEO MODERN LIBERAL WEEE!!! THEY ALL LIVE IN RED STSATSES!!! I WATCH THE NEWSS!!!!!! America's breadbasket is not located in the southern states. good try though! | ||
| ||
