Political discussion thread

stonebeard wrote:

I've been to a site with a compass just like that one, and I could never understand why all libertarians ended up on the left  It seems like there's a little liberal bias:  you take the survey and give high marks for gov't trade intervention, and they put you at left libertarian...I think what they really mean is socialist or humanist.  And right wing = neo-liberalism?  It's still quite interesting though, it shows John Kerry and George Bush right next to each other in the top right:  sort of makes the 2004 presidential election look silly (Nader, FTW).

jimmy_row wrote: stonebeard wrote: I've been to a site with a compass just like that one, and I could never understand why all libertarians ended up on the left  It seems like there's a little liberal bias:  you take the survey and give high marks for gov't trade intervention, and they put you at left libertarian...I think what they really mean is socialist or humanist.  And right wing = neo-liberalism?  It's still quite interesting though, it shows John Kerry and George Bush right next to each other in the top right:  sort of makes the 2004 presidential election look silly (Nader, FTW).

Bush and Kerry right next to each other? Dems and Reps NOT very different at all?

Forgotten Son wrote: Novalis wrote: I was thinking the other day about reft vs. right. Isn't the primary difference between the left and the right their view on inherent human nature? I mean, the right seems to think that humans are inherently "bad", that is to say laws are needed to restrict human nature from acting out on it's "baser" instincts. Whereas the left seems to think that if left to our own devices, it'll all work out (with a whole lot of social tampering first of course).   Now this is not entirely correct, because it is not necessarily a question of right vs. wrong (i.e. morality), but of what works and what doesn't. Can a society survive without basic family structure, regulated borders and some sort of underlying universal moral foundation?   History would suggest no, although it remains to be seen whether modern Western culture will survive.   Perhaps conservatives are just pessimists, but then again maybe they are realists. Irving Kristol describes change in political leaning as being a "liberal mugged by reality".   "The path to hell is paved with good intentions". The Left - Right spectrum is pretty useless, really. It fails to acknowledge the complexity of political views. Using your difference, capitalist "Libertarians" have a much higher regard for human nature than Lenin or Stalin, who are lumped on the "Left". Economically, on one hand we have state ownership of the economy (Left) and Free Market Capitalism (Right). But then Anarchists, Council Communists and Democratic Socialists etc don't want the state to control the economy, and they are widely considered extreme left political positions. Similarly the Corporatism of Fascism and Nazism is neither full state ownership nor full free market, so would fall somewhere in the middle, despite being widely considered extreme right political positions.

Edited by Novalis - December 22 2007 at 02:01

I suppose it's just very uncommon to be conservative and anarchic at the same time, which is why few people are in the bottom right corner of the grid. Maybe this signifies that it's not entirely accurate?

jimmy_row wrote: ...and they love to think that they're so very different.   Damnit we need a visable socialist party in the states...

We need the democrats to be as socialist as they are accused of.

1800iareyay wrote: Huh, I didn't know Brian lived in my corner of the world. Georgia is still firmly entranced by that anti-intellectual movement that hit after 9/11. No matter how many times you show them facts, they still support Bush. If I end up going back to Georgia to live after I get out of college I'll feel like Klinger at the end of MASH.

Aye, Georgia is pretty retarded. But so is the entire Bible Belt. Welcome to Amerikkka.

jimmy_row wrote: Obama is a terrible speaker and I get the feeling he would not be a competent leader...he can't even stand up to Hill-dog, and she's such an easy target.  It's painful to watch.

Having seen Obama speak myself, I don't agree at all. His debate performances were somewhat lackluster, but his public speeches are top-notch -- he's the only candidate with any license running ads containing his speeches (and he has done so). I didn't think Hillary debated very well either, and her interviews are broken-record style. Her speeches are dull and repetitive (with a few exceptions) if you ask me. The exceptions? Those depend on where she is. She's a bigger panderer than John Kerry could ever have hoped to have been.

stonebeard wrote: Politics is a dirtier game than war, with much more collateral damage.  I can't believe the sh*t that goes on in Congress, though. There are some truely despicable goings on there. Attaching totally unrelated bills together to get them passed, and just ignoring doing their f**king job. It's all so sneaky and dishonorable. F**k them all, the dirty b*****ds. Ron Paul at least has a spine. I don't care what his policies are (which can't be too retarded with all the attention he gets), at least he stands up and speaks his mind. He's like Dennis Kucinich but less pitiful and annoying.

Ron Paul is just a libertarian. And speaking of dirty politics, this isn't a new thing. Two-party systems and a lack of accountability standards as well as the political machine which keeps most good (see: clean) candidates out will always keep the U.S. Congress under the command of the highest bidder.

And speaking of fear politics, whatever happened to "Give me liberty or give me death!" and "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" and their ilk?

"After months of campaigning and saturation advertising in the early caucus and primary states (which, at last count, includes everywhere except the US Virgin Islands), none of the candidates have caught fire, although after listening to many of them speak, the idea isn’t without merit.

The American electoral process has become so fouled with what is called “campaign finance” that, in 2007, war-chest totals were reported as the actual contest. The unspoken truth of this matter is that the large of wallet had the first and only right of refusal concerning political viability. Former Alaska senator Mike Gravel was excluded from the Democratic debates because he hadn’t raised enough money. No one seemed to have a problem with this...

Dems:

John Edwards? In a pinch, and this sure is one.

Dennis Kucinich? Absolutely, if anyone would give him a chance.

Joe Biden? The difference between a neolib and a neocon is the neolib pays lip service to you before he f**ks you over.

Chris Dodd? See Biden.

Bill Richardson? See Biden and Dodd.

And the R’s:

Fred Thompson? All the charisma of Deputy Dawg but none of the intellectual acumen.

John McCain? Could gain steam from new Iraq fictions bolstering his jingoistic position, but he’s older than the dirt Bush threw at him in 2000.

Ron Paul? Against the war but also opposes reproductive rights for women and the human right of health care. Thanks just the same.

Tom Tancredo? See Millard Fillmore.

Duncan Hunter: See Birth of a Nation.

Regardless of who takes office in 2009, George W. Bush is still the president now. For the next year, we’ll be told how we’ll have to wait for history to render a judgment on him.

Like hell we will.

Bush led us onto a one-way, protracted path of violence and that’s his legacy — a legacy as unavoidable as 2007 itself."

Barry Crimmins

http://thephoenix.com/Article.aspx?id=53198&page=1

Edited by Slartibartfast - December 26 2007 at 06:38

I'm not a Republican, but I do think  Mr. Paul vs. Mr. Kucinich would make for the most interesting contest.  Guiliani/Clinton would just be very ugly.

Well, what can you say? Obama did weed, and coke.

Edited by JJLehto - December 26 2007 at 19:26