Your Political Leanings

[Joe Redifer]

Note:  This is not to be confused with the "Is Obama a Fucktard?" thread.

Anyway, how do you feel about things politically? 

I myself am registered as an Independent or "Unaffiliated" because I certainly don't want to belong to any particular party.  That may seem like a safe thing to say, but realistically I lean more towards the conservative side than the liberal.  I generally think they are more logical and far more balanced whereas the Democrats seem like everything is based on emotion.  I voted for McCain (I don't believe he would have been "Bush 2" and I think choosing Palin ruined everything for him).  Last time I voted for Kerry even though I hated him.  However I  have liberal views on abortion, religion and several other things.  I thought Bush was an awful president for the most part.  Obama is OK so far and I hope he does well.

So what's your story?

[albinoMithos]

I'm a Libertarian/Independent.

[guyjin]

realistically I lean more towards the conservative side than the liberal.  I generally think they are more logical and far more balanced whereas the Democrats seem like everything is based on emotion. 

You aren't serious. You can't be. You think the party of creationism and stem cell bans is more logical? You think the party of Glen Beck and Ann Coulter isn't based on emotion?

At least your other troll threads have been somewhat believeable, but this one is so ridiculous that it's not even offensive. You fail.

[CrackTiger]

I think that pretty much anyone who gets anywhere as a politician isn't worth voting for and political parties and left/right ideals are contradictive (freedom for everyone except for guns VS pro-life + pro-death penalty). Members of left or right parties would label me "liberal" based on a few key issues (pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-freedom of speech, anti-capital punishment), even though many of the issues I have a fairly solid opinion on could be considered super-conservative (get tough(real) with sentencing criminals, reduce rights for certain criminals, give law enforcement more "tools", much "different" prison conditions, do way more to profit from natural resources).

I think that driving heavily enough under the influence of anything should carry the same punishment as manslaughter. I also think that there shouldn't be any less of a sentence for "attempted" murder (the "extra" punishment for managing to pull it off obviously isn't a deterrent). I think that people charged with stealing money shouldn't be allowed to use that money to defend themselves, let alone receive a fine less than what they stole after being found guilty. I want extreme punishment for animal abuse while still protecting the food industry.

I also think that political parties shouldn't run governments the way they do in North America. A local representative should represent the people who voted them in, not their party.

[Joe Redifer]

You think the party of creationism and stem cell bans is more logical?

Like I said, I have more liberal views on religion and abortion.  Creationism is retarded.  The stem cell thing is a bit different.  I am not against it but I hear we can do similar things with adult stem cells.  However at the same time why not use cells from aborted fetuses?  They are dead already.  At least using their stem cells can provide some good from it.  It's not like people are getting knocked up and getting abortions just to provide stem cells, so the whole "embryonic stem cells take a life" argument simply doesn't hold up.

There are many aspects of the Republicans that I hate, but I agree with them more on taxes and economics and that kind of crap, plus the whole "smaller government" thing.  I hate people like Rush Limbaugh, but then again I hate all radio DJs.

And I am definitely pro-gun.

At the same time, I don't take issues with homosexuality..  I do take issue with transgender, that's just gross.

[termis]

free-market economic policies
more integrative foreign policy
smaller government
free-speech, civil rights
open immigration
pro-life
right to self-defend (aka pro-gun)
anti-capital punishment
separation of church & state

Libertarianism hits up on most of those points, so that's where my vote (would) go.

[Keranu]

Anarchy / libertarianism.

[Nazi NecroPhile]

I'm registered as a Republican, but my views are on the left side of moderate and I've voted Democrat ever since Clinton's second term.  Actually, it looks like I agree with Black Tiger, except I'm against exploitating the environment.

Anarchy / libertarianism.

Are you mentally deficient or just a liar? 

I should let you know that I don't believe in anarchy. I'm assuming you may be getting that impression because of my views on how to run an internet forum (and posting "ANARCHY FOR THE INTERNET"), but I don't actually believe in anarchy politically .

*edit* - Imbecile forgot a question mark.

[Joe Redifer]

Necromancer, you beat me to it!  I was gonna post those exact quotes after I saw Keranu's reply.  And his retardation has already been well documented.

[Ceti Alpha]

I'm a card carrying Liberal. heh. I'm looking forward to seeing the Liberal Party of Canada pwn the Conservatives. It's funny how the Democrats and Liberals always get voted in after the Republicans and Conservatives have made a mess of things.

I believe in a free market with a good measure of governmental regulation. Obviously, the current economic laissez faire economics (especially in the US) only leads to even more government interference. The way I see it, if a country's economic survival relies heavily on a specific company or bank, that organization should be run by government.

Social justice is also very high on my list. Education, health care, public transportation, and low-income housing should be given high priority. If you're going to have a free market you need to make sure that people are on as much of an equal footing as possible.

[nectarsis]

I'm a card carrying Liberal. heh. I'm looking forward to seeing the Liberal Party of Canada pwn the Conservatives. It's funny how the Democrats and Liberals always get voted in after the Republicans and Conservatives have made a mess of things.

I believe in a free market with a good measure of governmental regulation. Obviously, the current economic laissez faire economics (especially in the US) only leads to even more government interference. The way I see it, if a country's economic survival relies heavily on a specific company or bank, that organization should be run by government.

Social justice is also very high on my list. Education, health care, public transportation, and low-income housing should be given high priority. If you're going to have a free market you need to make sure that people are on as much of an equal footing as possible.

"if a country's economic survival relies heavily on a specific company or bank, that organization should be run by government. "

COMMIE PINKO!!!! ;)

[Ceti Alpha]

I'm a card carrying Liberal. heh. I'm looking forward to seeing the Liberal Party of Canada pwn the Conservatives. It's funny how the Democrats and Liberals always get voted in after the Republicans and Conservatives have made a mess of things.

I believe in a free market with a good measure of governmental regulation. Obviously, the current economic laissez faire economics (especially in the US) only leads to even more government interference. The way I see it, if a country's economic survival relies heavily on a specific company or bank, that organization should be run by government.

Social justice is also very high on my list. Education, health care, public transportation, and low-income housing should be given high priority. If you're going to have a free market you need to make sure that people are on as much of an equal footing as possible.

"if a country's economic survival relies heavily on a specific company or bank, that organization should be run by government. "

COMMIE PINKO!!!! ;)

[Joe Redifer]

Here's one example where I absolutely do not agree with the Democrats:

In my state (Colorado) there was a bill that was trying to be passed that would give state-provided tuition to illegal immigrants.  Most Democrats sponsored it and most Republicans opposed it.  I cannot even imagine why this bill exists, but it is likely because of the Democrats' more "emotional-based" thoughts.  Everyone is a person and EVERYONE needs our help!  We should help everyone no matter what!  Peace and love!  The good news is that the bill was killed thanks to 5 Democrats voting against it.  But the head Dem in our state chastised the 5 Dems who "crossed party lines" and voted against it as if it were the end of the world or something.

Truly pathetic, but I am very glad the bill was killed when it was.

[Ceti Alpha]

Here's one example where I absolutely do not agree with the Democrats:

In my state (Colorado) there was a bill that was trying to be passed that would give state-provided tuition to illegal immigrants.  Most Democrats sponsored it and most Republicans opposed it.  I cannot even imagine why this bill exists, but it is likely because of the Democrats' more "emotional-based" thoughts.  Everyone is a person and EVERYONE needs our help!  We should help everyone no matter what!  Peace and love!  The good news is that the bill was killed thanks to 5 Democrats voting against it.  But the head Dem in our state chastised the 5 Dems who "crossed party lines" and voted against it as if it were the end of the world or something.

Truly pathetic, but I am very glad the bill was killed when it was.

Yeah, that bill doesn't make any sense at all. Give state sponsored tuition to illegal immigrants, but snub actual citizens.  Good to see that common sense prevailed.

[guyjin]

Here's one example where I absolutely do not agree with the Democrats:

That's the problem with Democrats. They aren't really the party of Liberals, they're the party of everybody who's not a Republican. ("I don't belong to an organized political party; I'm a Democrat" and all that.) Because of this, they often seem to be more interested in their own survival than (what should be) their principles. Which is why they pull shit like that.

I wouldn't vote for 'em (at least, not as a group) if I didn't feel like I had to, but considering what the GOP did to the country in just over 6 years, it would be insane not to.

[Keranu]

Anarchy / libertarianism.

Are you mentally deficient or just a liar? 

I should let you know that I don't believe in anarchy. I'm assuming you may be getting that impression because of my views on how to run an internet forum (and posting "ANARCHY FOR THE INTERNET"), but I don't actually believe in anarchy politically .

*edit* - Imbecile forgot a question mark.

My political thoughts have changed since then; is that not possible?

[Nazi NecroPhile]

My political thoughts have changed since then; is that not possible?

In the span of a week?  Possible, yes; likely, no. 

[Keranu]

Believe it .

I think I've always had anarchist views, but never really realized it. Ragtime's post inspired me and I had actually been doing a little reading on anarchism before his post. I actually see anarchy and liberterianism as going hand in hand in many ways with religion, or at least with my own religious beliefs.

[Nazi NecroPhile]

Believe it .

I think I've always had anarchist views, but never really realized it. Ragtime's post inspired me and I had actually been doing a little reading on anarchism before his post. I actually see anarchy and liberterianism as going hand in hand in many ways with religion, or at least with my own religious beliefs.

You've answered my question.  You're mentally deficient. 

[Keranu]

I think you're just mad because you can't actually debate that post since 88% of your posts crave on debating, even when you're in agreement with something.

[Nazi NecroPhile]

I think you're just mad because you can't actually debate that post since 88% of your posts crave on debating, even when you're in agreement with something.

You got me, tex.  I just love debating people with half formed ideologies, especially when they're incapable of understanding exactly what is being refuted.

I stand by my assessment: anyone that truly believes that government should not exist is an idiot.

[Keranu]

I knew that would get your gears a' grinding, Necro-chap!  Lets go watch a Huskers game together so you can accept my friendship instead of constantly opposing it.

I asset that governments are overrated and full of fat people.

[rag-time4]

Anarchy / libertarianism.

Believe it .

I think I've always had anarchist views, but never really realized it. Ragtime's post inspired me and I had actually been doing a little reading on anarchism before his post. I actually see anarchy and liberterianism as going hand in hand in many ways with religion, or at least with my own religious beliefs.

I think it was Allah Who inspired you, not my post! As we read in Qur'An 59:24, His is the glory. It must have been Him who inspired you while you were reading!

The combination of an Anarchist/Libertarian political structure with Islamic beliefs is very interesting. My question is how can such a political structure be built and still be consistent with the Qur'An?

For example, the Qur'an mentions a punishment for adultery in 24:2. The Qur'An, then, sets forth punishments for certain behavior. How does an Anarchist/Libertarian political structure account for this?

For the most part, though, I think political views are discussed too much, and cultural preferences and values are discussed too little. It may be the chicken and the egg, but I think that people's cultural values  will determine the types of political structures they favor.

The major problem with American Libertarianism, in my opinion, has been the idolatry of private property in American culture. I think the U.S. started out as Libertarian, among white males, but racism and accumulation of private property have led us to where we are today.

"if a country's economic survival relies heavily on a specific company or bank, that organization should be run by government. "

COMMIE PINKO!!!! ;)

Quite the contrary, government run agencies can fit in perfectly well in a Libertarian structure. The framers of the U.S. constitution included a provision that the Congress shall have the power to coin money -- the Congress being made up of elected representatives of the people.

Today, the Federal Reserve System has the power to coin money, a power given by a law, but not by the Constitution. There is a debate about how "Federal" the Federal Reserve System is with regard to how much it is a part of the Federal Government, or whether it is a Federation of private banks.

Nectarsis, I realize your comment was tonue-in-cheek, but many Americans do tend to associate 'Government run' with totalitarianism. I don't think it has to be that way, and I think having more public ownership would make society much more free than having widespread Corporate (private) control.

[guyjin]

I asset that governments are overrated and full of fat people.

And what's wrong with fat people? 

[Keranu]

I asset that governments are overrated and full of fat people.

And what's wrong with fat people? 

I suppose there are two types of fat people: funny ones and fat cats. The former category is much cooler of course.

[nat]

I used to think of my myself as a pretty middle-of-the-road guy, but I lean further left as I get older. I find myself in agreement with 90% of what the Democrats are all about, although that bill Joe talked about sounds ludicrous. I guess the Democrats in Colorado suffer from borderline retardation, that's really the only explanation. On the other hand, I find myself in agreement with about 5% of what the Republicans are all about.

In talking with people, there are two majors I find that play into someone's decision that they side with the Republicans. And these often come with absolutely zero knowledge of the party outside of these two issues: gun control and taxes. What they don't realize is that Democrats are not going to take away their guns, and Democrats are not going to raise their taxes. The Democratic ideals of today are about imposing steep taxes on people making millions of dollars a year. If you make under $250,000/yr, you will get a tax cut. Actually, I think it went into effect just this month. And I can virtually guarantee that everyone I talk to on this issue is not making millions of dollars a year. The includes the members here. Before Ronald Reagan's term in office, the top marginal tax rate on people making shitloads of money was from 70-90%. During his term this number dropped into the high 20's/low 30's, where it has remained until today. It's no coincidence the pre-Reagan era was the most profitable and prosperous era our country has ever had, versus the trickle-down era we now live in which has proven to be a complete and utter failure. Please now explain to me how the Republicans have a better handle on economics.

But it's funny when discussing politics with people, bringing up these two issues usually the only response I get from the Republi-wannabes is a glazed stare and head twitch before they launch into a tirade about how John McCain is a war hero.

[Joe Redifer]

Shut up, Nat! John McCain fought for this country and suffered many years as a POW.  What did Obama do?  Nuthin'!  He ain't never even killed a gook!  Therefore he is not fit to be president.

[CrackTiger]

I don't like the idea of bailouts as they seem to be (I don't follow politics or the news super closely) proposed on this continent right now (with the Canadian government waiting to see what the U.S. does and then just copying them). Just giving money to companies seems ultra-non-capitalist nor fair in a democracy sorta way. At the very least the money should buy shares of each company, keeping it from being a straight hand-out as well as giving the government some say in how the companies spend. I'm sure that if every CEO was fired and the job was posted with a zero-bonus $100k/year salary there'd be at-least-as-qualified people lining up to take their place.


Something I've wondered is what the official excuse is for the U.S. embargo against Cuba? If it's for them being commies and human rights abuse issues, then why doesn't the U.S. boycott China?

[Ceti Alpha]

It's no coincidence the pre-Reagan era was the most profitable and prosperous era our country has ever had, versus the trickle-down era we now live in which has proven to be a complete and utter failure. Please now explain to me how the Republicans have a better handle on economics.

But it's funny when discussing politics with people, bringing up these two issues usually the only response I get from the Republi-wannabes is a glazed stare and head twitch before they launch into a tirade about how John McCain is a war hero.

I find the term "trickle-down" amusing. Notice how it likens to a faucet slowy dripping, instead of a gushing waterfall? What a joke. An even bigger joke that people actually bought into that crap. 

When you watch CBC, CTV, CNN, FOX, and MSNBC all the commentators talk about what it will take to get the economy back to where it was. The economy should never go back to where it was - that's what caused all this shit in the first place. Capitalism needs a serious shake down. You can't have companies doing whatever they want, falsifying the books and off-shoring jobs. I thought the whole crux of capitalism was "owning the means of production". Now you just have a bunch of MBA douche bags managing, while all the factories are in Taiwan, Mexico and where ever else they can find hard up cases to work for 15 cents a week. I can call it many things, but I can't quite bring myself to call it capitalism.

[esteban]

I'll be blunt:
I am a "radicalm leftie" (I just made that up, to emphasize the "calm"): A fun-loving, "mellow",  far left-leaning human-being when it comes to economic, political and social issues.  I really hope (naively, perhaps), that compromises are possible--especially with folks who completely disagree with me. This means that I will always be striving to make things better, but that I'll never be completely satisfied, yet I am willing to acknowledge that compromises are, at least, a "step in the right direction", even though I would prefer more radical, swifter, progressive changes.

For example: I feel that the U.S. should adopt many policies that European countries have been doing for ages (especially the Nordic countries), the U.S. is really behind the curve when it comes to many issues (i.e. the "war on drugs", immigration, same-sex marriage, family leave, healthcare, education, etc. etc.).

The Democrats are weak sauce. Our political system is pathetic, and while we have the ability to revamp things (to make third-parties viable), the two dominant parties have repeatedly fought this.

I have to practice what I preach, so here are some of my (hackneyed) mantras:
Put your money where your mouth is.
Think globally, act locally.
Recycle, don't be a lazy bastard!
Peace, love and harmony.
Retro gaming IS RECYCLING, motherf*ckers.
Suck my left one.

[termis]

Ideals behind socialism is great.  I'd really, really LOVE for the idea of everyone living at decent levels, with small gaps of income distribution.

The million dollar question is how do you spread all that wealth around effectively?

The problem is that, without capitalism, we wouldn't have such wealth accumulated in the first place to even think about spreading around.  And I'm only against socialism because I know it doesn't work.  Like people, markets also need freedom to operate at its peak.  By removing the freedom of the market to naturally price itself (aka socialism), you end up with EVERYONE being worse off in the long run -- the equilibrium amount of goods that'll be consumed will eventually decline through such policies (don't make me draw charts now ).  How much more proof do you need than seeing all the failed economies of former Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc countries, North Korea, etc?

Capitalism, on the other hand, has provided a lot of us with an escape from subsistence living.  Sure, there have been crap periods, and constant minor adjustments are needed, but you can't deny that the very reason we can sit around and bullshit on forums like this is because of capitalism.  Let me remind you that before the advent of capitalism (prior to industrial revolution), the average level of GDP per capita for everyone in the world in today's dollars was pitiful (Below $1000 per annum).

I'm not blinded to the bad-effects of capitalism, and am not backing a total laissez-faire policy.  The point that can be argued is how much government intervention is effective, but a heavy socialist policy?  No thanks. 

[Zeon]

Socialism governments fail almost exclusively due to the very innate nature of human beings. Our nature by instinct is to be selfish, only look out for ones self, get ahead of everyone else, and everyone else be damned. No matter how much we fight it or make strides to go against it, the temptation will always be there are more often than not we give into it. Nobody naturally wants to share, especially when we perceive others as less deserving. We value freedom. Nobody likes to be told what to do and have no say in the matter. If that weren't the case totalitarianism or a dictatorship would be the government of choice.

Capitalism also has it's faults, again originating from human nature. At it's base neither capitalism nor socialism are a better or worse choice, however capitalism isn't as heavily influenced or effected by human nature as socialism. You have to strike a good balance between control and freedom for a government to have any degree of success. I don't agree that we have met such a balance, and I can only hope we get close to it.

You will never make everyone happy, making someone or some group happy involves taking away/changing something that makes a different group or person happy. This is especially true with so many ignorant people in the worlds populace.

Unfortunately the people that strive to get into office or positions of power and succeed, are often the WORST suited for the job. Corruption by power aside, they often strive to get there for very selfish reasons whether it's for fame, power, glory, money, etc. It's also very unfortunate that most are very ignorant and/or not too bright. Sure we are all a bit selfish, but these people often are extremes. There are some exceptions but they are few and far between.

The best way to solve this is with a system like checks and balances that actually works nowadays. It's not a good idea to put power in the hands of few and it is also dangerous if their power is not spread apart where they must check in with one another both to give and receive approval. Finally having too many people with similar beliefs that agree on most things is not a good idea.

One big problem with our government is the office positions are either dominated by republicans or democrats at any given point in time, very rarely is there a good, fairly even split nor is there much diversity amongst people of either party.

Any form of anarchy is suicide again due to human nature. If people were allowed to fall back completely on their selfish innate nature with no ramifications or repercussions whatsoever, how would we expect anything to get done. This is fine if you enjoy instability and chaos, and fighting for resources just like any other animal.

There is a reason all countries ruled by anarchy are tiny severely underdeveloped third world countries, because it doesn't work. With no organization or guidance people are left to their own devices. You still have the problem of not everyone being happy, people will take things and make changes by their own sheer will and individual power making others who do not share their viewpoints unhappy. This leads to an endless cycle of fighting back at each other.

The only difference here is there is no one to "police" the people, no one to enforce the "way things are going to be". People can do whatever they please on a whim. With any other government you can't make everyone happy, only some, and depending on the government the groups of people who are happy can and will change over time. With anarchy no one will ever be safe or happy for any extended period of time.

No government is perfect or anywhere near, but seriously anarchy is not the answer. I'd take a dictator over anarchy. At the very least I would have some piece of mind as long as I followed orders, with anarchy what's stopping some thug from assaulting you, torturing you and killing you, or someone from stealing your stuff or preventing you from getting food? With a dictator if you are following orders you can usually get by as you are valuable to him/her for getting stuff done. Unless he/she is demented or just plain evil, they aren't going to kill a valuable worker specially if you have a valuable skill, again assuming you do as you are told.

They are two opposite extremes, but I'd take safety and piece of mind over complete "freedom". I use the term freedom loosely as you aren't necessarily free in anarchy, someone stronger than you could essentially enslave you if they wished, and you certainly aren't free from worry or fear. I'm not saying either is a good choice just that anarchy is clearly the worse of the two.

EDIT: Yes I do realize their are different schools of thought in Anarchy, but at it's core they share the belief of very limited/no government. I don't know what every little section believes, but in general my statements stand. Keranu would you care to elaborate and clarify your views on government and politics? I would be very interested in hearing them.

[Ceti Alpha]

I certainly wasn't advocating socialism, or at least pure socialism. I was just saying that many ultra-capitalists aren't actually capitalists - i.e. they don't own the means of production.

Until we have self replicating replicators, capitalism is the only way. You have to have some sort of compensation for hard work. You can't have brain surgeons making the same amount of money as the guy working at Arby's......mmmmmm.....Arby's.....

But a certain amount of socialism for society to function. Pure, unadulterated capitalism is almost a form of anarchy. No rules or recourse to the law.

[rag-time4]

Socialism governments fail almost exclusively due to the very innate nature of human beings. Our nature by instinct is to be selfish, only look out for ones self, get ahead of everyone else, and everyone else be damned.

This may be the nature (culture) of the European, but in other parts of the world, like West Africa and the Philippines, for example, human nature is reflected in cultures based on sharing, communalism, and reciprocity.

The idea of accumulating and saving money is foreign and morally repugnant to some people, which is a part of the reason that these parts of the world remain "underdeveloped," to use a western sociological term, when capitalism is imposed on them by the west.

[Ceti Alpha]

Socialism governments fail almost exclusively due to the very innate nature of human beings. Our nature by instinct is to be selfish, only look out for ones self, get ahead of everyone else, and everyone else be damned.

This may be the nature (culture) of the European, but in other parts of the world, like West Africa and the Philippines, for example, human nature is reflected in cultures based on sharing, communalism, and reciprocity.

The idea of accumulating and saving money is foreign and morally repugnant to some people, which is a part of the reason that these parts of the world remain "underdeveloped," to use a western sociological term, when capitalism is imposed on them by the west.

I know you didn't mean to say that rags, but you've implied (or I've taken it this way) that Europeans are somehow less evolved because they're European. Whether it's because they believe in Christ or what have you, I don't know. Human beings share one important characteristic - being human. You throw a baby from Madagascar into LA and vice versa, there would be no way to know where that baby came from down the road. There are more differences within so called "races" than between. You'd probably find more genetic similarities between an African and a Swede, than between two Swedes or two Africans. That's the beauty of evolution - it thrives on diversity. You keep a people/tribe secluded and it will disappear and become extinct.

Human nature is not based on religion or capitalism. It's based on survival. The 10 Commandments aren't some revalation that Moses happened upon because he bumped into "the mountain God" on top of the mountain he happened to be God of. The 10 Commandments are based on ancient knowledge passed on from the first tribes of humanity. Those tribes realized, cus they developed a brain that could think outside one's self, that working together as a pack benefits the tribe and in turn the self.

Not sure what this has to do with politics...oh yeah, there are politicians that believe the world is 6000 years old.