Attention US/World Populace: Prepare To Run For Your Lives

[SOCL]

Actually, that's really funny, Tex! Had me rolling for a bit.

[Darth_Rob]

I'm a Republican

 

 

A Republican from Texas?! Now I've heard everything!

[DarthTofu]

I'm a Republican

 

 

A Republican from Texas?! Now I've heard everything!

 

*Falls over laughing*

 

You know, based on political sociology, the fact that Tex is apparently older than dirt and a Republican indicates one of three things: 1) He's rather wealthy. 2) He's not really as old as he claims to be. 3) He's in the minority so far as political socialization tendancies go for his age group.

[SOCL]

I'm a Republican

 

 

A Republican from Texas?! Now I've heard everything!

 

*Falls over laughing*

 

You know, based on political sociology, the fact that Tex is apparently older than dirt and a Republican indicates one of three things: 1) He's rather wealthy. 2) He's not really as old as he claims to be. 3) He's in the minority so far as political socialization tendancies go for his age group.

I was under the impression that studies showed aging normally makes people become more conservative...

[Jahled]

I was reading something about a Republican Presidential candidate who criticised Donald Rumsfeld on his military conduct today coming home from work, but can't even remember the fella's name. My dodgy memory even remembers he has previously had a go at some evangelical people, any association with is which is why I normally switch off to the Republican Party. Who is this guy? I know nothing from this side of the pond, but how does he figure in US politics?

[Darth_Rob]

I think it was John McCain. I'm still on Rudy's side. I feel that he is a stronger candidate than McCain...

[DarthTofu]

I'm a Republican

 

 

A Republican from Texas?! Now I've heard everything!

 

*Falls over laughing*

 

You know, based on political sociology, the fact that Tex is apparently older than dirt and a Republican indicates one of three things: 1) He's rather wealthy. 2) He's not really as old as he claims to be. 3) He's in the minority so far as political socialization tendancies go for his age group.

I was under the impression that studies showed aging normally makes people become more conservative...

 

According to my textbook younger voters are more liberal, middle adged folks are more conservatives, and the "Gray Army" of senior citizens tend to be more liberal. These are, of course, subject to such things as the political attitudes those you live with have, the political attitudes of one's home State, etc. However, the age thing is fairly succesful in predicting voting patterns. Something in the area of 70-80% of the people in the age groups fit the the projections for their voting patterns. (I'd actually check the numbers, but I'm developing a steadily increasing hatred for that textbook.)

[DarthTex]

I was reading something about a Republican Presidential candidate who criticised Donald Rumsfeld on his military conduct today coming home from work, but can't even remember the fella's name. My dodgy memory even remembers he has previously had a go at some evangelical people, any association with is which is why I normally switch off to the Republican Party. Who is this guy? I know nothing from this side of the pond, but how does he figure in US politics?

Rob got it, John McCain. McCain is a retired Navy pilot with experience from the Vietnam War. Unfortunately I think he's a bit "touched" in the head. He's probably the most liberal Republican you can get without actually being called a ... Democrat Even Rudy has liberal tendencies . Maybe Newt will drop his hat in the ring; that would be more favorable to me. Oooww, even better ... Ollie North Hoozah!!

 

just my two bits worth

[Darth_Rob]

Maybe Newt will drop his hat in the ring; that would be more favorable to me.

 

I thought Gingrich (sp) was dead!!!

[DarthTex]

Maybe Newt will drop his hat in the ring; that would be more favorable to me.

 

I thought Gingrich (sp) was dead!!!

Nope, he's alive and kickin'

[Jahled]

I was reading something about a Republican Presidential candidate who criticised Donald Rumsfeld on his military conduct today coming home from work, but can't even remember the fella's name. My dodgy memory even remembers he has previously had a go at some evangelical people, any association with is which is why I normally switch off to the Republican Party. Who is this guy? I know nothing from this side of the pond, but how does he figure in US politics?

Rob got it, John McCain. McCain is a retired Navy pilot with experience from the Vietnam War. Unfortunately I think he's a bit "touched" in the head. He's probably the most liberal Republican you can get without actually being called a ... Democrat Even Rudy has liberal tendencies . Maybe Newt will drop his hat in the ring; that would be more favorable to me. Oooww, even better ... Ollie North Hoozah!!

 

just my two bits worth

 

I rate you as a mate Tex fella from being around here and all, but have never understood how you Americans use of the term liberal, and seem to despise the concept if your personal politics more or less falls in the Republican side of things. It's not like a dirty word or anything, it simply means 'open-minded,' which by definition in a democratic society is better that being close-minded, and inflexible to circumstances that fall upon our plates when we least expect or are ready for them. To use the word to label the Democratic party from my perspective is just kind of wierd.

 

I consider myself as a liberal type of guy, I work with a gay guy that hasn't proven to be a problem given I am not, am quite open to people living their own lives as they see fit, and yet don't feel threatened. I consider my own politics more or less centre of the road, given I despise socialism, but in equal amounts the concept of an unregulated capitalist economy. I'm an atheist who has dabbled in religious learning but have come to own open-ended conclusions, but don't have a problem with my mum being religious and going to church every Sunday, or anyone else that matter.

 

But would you still classify me a 'liberal,' for me wishing doom and violence upon those who advocate the destruction of my liberal society where I am allowed to think so? I am one by the definition of the word.

 

I despise the current anti-war mob, because in reality they obviously don't give a fuck about human life, rather than yelling their heads off about Bush and Blair. If they were so concerned about life they would be marching in the various capitals making large amounts of noise about the current slaughter in Defur that has recently moved to Chad. Death-toll close to million now, or is the fact the victims are all black and African not suitable to their otherwise anti-Bush agenda?

 

Also, where are the Muslims protesting about this slaughter as well, it's occurring in Muslim countries for christ sake! Call me liberal but i'm also up to meating out Daisy-Cutters to foul and repugnant Islamic regimes like Sudan, and their populace, if they consider non-Muslim human life, as in Defur, expendable.

 

liberal/blog

[Evaders99]

Both liberal and conservative, as used in American politics, are generalizations of the very left-wing and right-wing positions. A better word would be leftists and rightists (though I've never heard of rightists is usage). It doesn't really have anything to do with the idea of liberalism as thought of by the focus on freedom.

[DarthTex]

I rate you as a mate Tex fella from being around here and all, but have never understood how you Americans use of the term liberal, and seem to despise the concept if your personal politics more or less falls in the Republican side of things. It's not like a dirty word or anything, it simply means 'open-minded,' which by definition in a democratic society is better that being close-minded, and inflexible to circumstances that fall upon our plates when we least expect or are ready for them. To use the word to label the Democratic party from my perspective is just kind of wierd.

 

I consider myself as a liberal type of guy, I work with a gay guy that hasn't proven to be a problem given I am not, am quite open to people living their own lives as they see fit, and yet don't feel threatened. I consider my own politics more or less centre of the road, given I despise socialism, but in equal amounts the concept of an unregulated capitalist economy. I'm an atheist who has dabbled in religious learning but have come to own open-ended conclusions, but don't have a problem with my mum being religious and going to church every Sunday, or anyone else that matter.

 

But would you still classify me a 'liberal,' for me wishing doom and violence upon those who advocate the destruction of my liberal society where I am allowed to think so? I am one by the definition of the word.

 

I despise the current anti-war mob, because in reality they obviously don't give a fuck about human life, rather than yelling their heads off about Bush and Blair. If they were so concerned about life they would be marching in the various capitals making large amounts of noise about the current slaughter in Defur that has recently moved to Chad. Death-toll close to million now, or is the fact the victims are all black and African not suitable to their otherwise anti-Bush agenda?

 

Also, where are the Muslims protesting about this slaughter as well, it's occurring in Muslim countries for christ sake! Call me liberal but i'm also up to meating out Daisy-Cutters to foul and repugnant Islamic regimes like Sudan, and their populace, if they consider non-Muslim human life, as in Defur, expendable.

 

liberal/blog

I respect everybody's opinion J (I might not necessarily understand it though ). Please remember the United States of America is a "republic" and NOT a "democracy" in the true sense of the word.

 

Let me put down a little foundation work: I believe Republicans want a small, but strong central government. The Federal government should be responsible for items that affect the nation as a whole (i.e. national defense, national transportation regulation, etc), and all other matters should be governed by the states (i.e. legal drinking ages, drivers licenses, etc). Basically people should be responsible for themselves (as much as they possibly and legally can) and NOT have the Federal government be their legal guardians (for lack of a better term, not exactly as "wards of the state" so to speak).

 

The Democratic party (which believes in BIG government, with lots of bureuacracy) wants to give away tax dollars to "help" every single citizen live their lives exactly equal to everyone else (or as close as possible). They want to "help" everyone, so then "everyone" will then vote them back into office (so they can continue to "help" the people). Which sounds nice, at least on paper; because really all Democrats want is power, and money! They are really doing it for themselves and NOT for the people (that's just an excuse).

 

If you check, there are more millionaire Democrats in office than Republican; with most Republicans being millionaires before they got into office and more Democrats becoming millionaires while in office. Sounds like something pretty fishy is going on if you ask me

 

As an appropriate example, the US Social Security system is a gigantic ponzi scam that should be totally reworked from the bottom up. Basically it gives away taxes dollars of future generations to pay for those here and now (retirement funds and disability funds). They expect Social Security to "payout" more benefits than money "coming in" in ~20 years, and go broke" in 35 years. So, poor ol' Tofu is going to be paying about 8% of his future gross earnings until the day he "retires", but in all likely hood will never collect a cent back. That really sucks (especially if I was Tofu, which I'm definitely glad I'm NOT ). Social Security has generated a whole generation of "welfare" families. Consider: if you were "disabled" (even temporarily, let's say several months long) you can collect Social Security disability benefits. If you could get half your pay, and NOT have to work again another day in your life, would you go back to work? When poor income families receive welfare benefits based on the size of their families, is it right for the mom's to "pump-out" more kids just to get a bigger check? How on earth did America survive prior to Social Security? With hard work, and strong family/community ties, that's how. They fended for themselves as much as possible, and would only ask for "help" begrudgingly (some will even refuse help because of their pride). So basically that's why I'm a Republican. I like alot less government interference with my life (especially my tax money), and I want my "local" representatives to make good decisions for me, instead of some "local" in another state when that law gets plastered on everyone whether or not is acutally applies. Stand up on your own two feet people! We're human beings, not pets!

 

I guess that's the end of my conservative rant. I'm sure I missed several things, maybe gotten others confused, and ... there all always exceptions. Everything needs to be looked at on a case by case basis, because there isn't a one single "fix-all".

 

Presidents never say "never" - Ronald Reagan

[SOCL]

Can we all agree that what works for one may not work or may not sit well with another? Democratic-Socialism works for the Scandinavian countries quite well, despite what we in the Further West may think of any form of socialism. In that same sense, Absolute Capitalism is what (independent) Hong Kong has more-or-less functioned on forever and it seems to work for them quite well.

 

In the United States, democracy in the strictest sense of the word (what we term "direct democracy") isn't so much not good as it is not feasible--or at least wasn't and may still not be. Thus, a republican form of government exists here which serves the people quite well. I happen to be of any opinion that given the rise of information technology and the ease of accounting for many, many, many forms of data, a more direct form of democratic elections (i.e. without the electoral college) is now feasible, or should be within a short span of time. Does it seem realistic that this will happen? Not likely since radical change is difficult to carry out anywhere in the world, much less in a free democratic nation as large and populous as the USA.

 

But then, capitalism has not worked in all places. Puerto Rico, a territory of the United States, has suffered greatly since the decline of the socialist-nationalist party (and please do not try to associate this with the nationalist-socialist approach of the Nazi Party--it's quite different and you I'm quite certain you all get my meaning) that following the Second World War. Where they socialist in the Marxist sense of the word? Of course not! They were socialist of the sense that we associate with popular Labour parties around the world, namely the United Kingdom. In Spanish, though, the word socialista does not carry nearly the same amount of stigma it carries in English, much less in the United States, but being a US territory, the socialist-nationalist party was put down and replaced by the Republican Party. Funny switch, wouldn't you say? But it's true! The aims of labour-style politics were dropped for the sake of the nationalism that the GOP offered Puerto Rico, and has it worked? Well, go to Puerto Rico and see for yourself. No, no it hasn't. Capitalism without independence does not work, not for a controlled territory. For the States, yes it does because they federalized, but Puerto Rico sits on the farthest orbit of the farthest reaches of the United States political periphery. Puerto Rico is now in the worst economic state of its entire existence.

 

It's really a matter of necessity and timing. A form of socialism worked for the New Deal in the United States during the Great Depression of the 1930s. I know, everyone hates to call it that word, but the fact is that it was a form of American Socialism. The government took direct control of most commercial and manufacturing industries in order to reinvigorate the economy. There was nothing bad about this, but would anyone stand for it today? I doubt even the Democrats, which are so often accused of being so far to the "left" (and in American politics, the left is somewhere just-right-of-centre for the rest of the world...), would stand for that much socialization--or if you prefer the modern term, "government contracting", today. Why? Bad timing. The United States is not in a situation where it is necessary or, more importantly in a democratic nation, wanted.

 

I think that led to the approximate location I meant for it to lead...

[Jahled]

I respect everybody's opinion J (I might not necessarily understand it though ).

 

Fair point mate, posting after some over-indulgence was never really a recipe to make make sense. HOWEVER.. whilst what you, and indeed SOCL, subsequently posted was thoroughly interesting, I think it missed the point I was attempting to make, however dreadfully on account of my stomach being full of rising bubbles...

 

E managed to detect my point I think, because what I was referring to was how you guys your side of the pond deploy the word liberal, the more so in politics. But I think it may be a simple language issue. Whilst we do indeed have a Conservative party and a liberal party by name over here in the UK, it's almost unheard of to deploy the word liberal in reference to someone as part of a derogatory remark. This was my point.

 

To me the days of the old left versus right axis of politics that were so crap and unfruitful for meaningful politics or dialogue for that matter, in the eighties are largely over given the end of the cold war. The principle of free enterprise prevailed over socialist nationalization, and the subsequent and inevitable squandering of initiative and talent, as simply proven in eastern Europe. This is to say, there may be aspects of policy that emerge from Republican politics that I completely find common ground with and agree on, and other points and may find completely wrong, from my own perspective. The same with the Democratic party. And it's the same song over here in the UK. Over here, the conservatives have been coming out with more environmentally-friendly policies thanthe Labour party, which is a complete turn around! I appreciate they are in opposition and can be slightly 'radical,' with their proposals, but it's completely alien to the Tory party under Thatcher my generation hated with such a venom in the eighties. Their new logo is tree for goodness sake!

 

 

[Darth_Rob]

Another reason to fear Hillary

[Eagle]

You lucky guys! We have Merkel and she trys to forbid nearly every Ego-Shooter.

 

And we´ve got these restrictions for decades now.

[Jahled]

http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/johann_hari/article2248747.ece

 

Well written article, from the UK's most liberal Broadsheet I read every day. And it quite rightly damns Islam, and apparently our dependency upon it's resources

 

Robin Williams was obviously very funny about not purchicing oil in the middle East , but to be quite frank, we can't manage can we?

 

/some dialolgue blog

[budious]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388372/

 

I found this article of interest... Hillary Clinton was once President of the College Republicans at Wellesley College... she gradually veered towards liberialism and by her senior year had embraced the idealogy Saul Alinsky on which she based her college thesis paper. Now from reading what was available in the article, I thought it was appropriate topic to discuss given her age and the fact that none of us are politically grounded at 21. The fact I don't like is that Bill and Hillary exploited their presidential authority to have the paper under wraps during Bill's presidency. I hope this thesis comes back to bite her in the ass now that she's running for president... that and her authentically fake southern black accent.

[Darth_Rob]

Exactly. That is a disgusting abuse of power. You see, I never liked Bill Clinton for that whole scandal. Why? I didn't care that he had "relations" with a woman outside his marriage. I can care less. But what I do care about is the fact that he lied, under oath, live to the nation. He would have a little more respect from me if he had just admitted it in the first place.

 

But back to the man of the Clinton family, Hillary. I don't like her. She scares me, and I hope she doesn't win. I rest my case.

[budious]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GINGRICH_AFFAIR?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-03-08-23-04-49

 

And this probably explains why we haven't seen Gingrich throw his hat into the Republican nomination arena...

[SOCL]

No personal issue with Hillary.

I much more prefer Mr. Obama.

Wouldn't be hurt if Guiliani (sp?) won.

I only disagree with McCain on the war policy.

 

That's why I'm thrilled about the 2008 Presidential Elections!

Unlike past elections where I had to choose between the better of the two idiots, this time around I get to choose from the better of some of the best candidates the US has had in many decades!

 

At least, that's how I see it. I'll certainly end up choosing one to vote on, but I won't be hurt if the person I choose doesn't win, as long as whoever wins is among the list I just typed. Anyone else...well, either I don't know them or their political view is so far to the right it scares me.

[budious]

Unlike past elections where I had to choose between the better of the two idiots, this time around I get to choose from the better of some of the best candidates the US has had in many decades!

 

Well if you say so... I was feeling deja vu myself.

[SOCL]

Unlike past elections where I had to choose between the better of the two idiots, this time around I get to choose from the better of some of the best candidates the US has had in many decades!

 

Well if you say so... I was feeling deja vu myself.

Well, I think it's pretty well known I am not at all on the right of the general political center, and certainly not even close to the right of the American political center. In truth, I would be surprised if most people didn't know I have tendencies which go so far to the left they even scare me at times.

 

Hillary can be something of a liability, but she was the true power behind the administration of President Clinton, in which case I look forward to a third term of Clintonian policies. There are those who disagree with me, but I liked the economy and jobs and environment and... as they were before the current administration.

 

Barack Obama I view especially favorably because he brings new blood to American politics. There is the matter of a lack of experience, but I see this more as a lack of cynicism and the inherent corruption of federal politics. Everyone has a skeleton or two (or more!) in their closet, but the worst Mr. Obama has was a parking ticket he forgot to pay, which he did with the accumulated interest just today. The fact he is a minority helps a lot, too, since I and the rest of the minority community have been waiting for someone to throw our support behind. Whether this be an ethnic minority (such as in Mr. Obama's case) or a more general social minority (as in the case of Ms. Clinton), I view this as progressive and very favorable.

 

Mr. Guiliani is a conservative person I can agree with. He has nothing against the homosexual community and is an outstanding financier, as well as a proven education reformer. If only for the sake of the children, I would gladly see Mr. Guiliani sitting in the Oval Office. I do have some things I do not agree with him on, but that's just petty conservative versus leftist rubbish, which I can set aside as I don't even get to elect anyone! The electoral college does.

 

Mr. McCain is the man I have wanted in office since before 2000, and if it wasn't for the name "Bush", I'm quite certain he would be President at this very moment. In any event, the man is humble and doesn't stoop to the level most Republicans do of using ad hominem arguments against their opponents. Indeed, whenever someone doesn't agree with them, he just shrugs and doesn't take it personally. This I find remarkably great! This isn't a man who is going to get all hot and bothered over anything, and if he does, he will keep it to himself so as to convey calm and order to the public. Further, Mr. McCain, I believe, is quite capable of keeping American foreign policy in the green when it comes to international relations, while at the same time preserving American interests abroad. Granted, the "interests abroad" does begin to encroach into that territory we all love to discuss so much (that three letter word that starts with a "w" and ends with "-ar"), but if I had to choose someone to be Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces (presidency aside), it would be him. The man was a POW in the Vietnam War for goodness sake--he knows what it means to fight a war and to be forced against the enemy first hand. Again, though, he's for keeping the war going, which is something that I find disturbing, but to each his own because I can't do much about that expect elect my Congressional Representative and Senators, and I suppose, in theory, my President. Even so, if we have to remain engaged in Iraq, then I would much rather have John McCain at the helm than anyone else.

 

But those are only my two cents.

[budious]

Hillary can be something of a liability, but she was the true power behind the administration of President Clinton, in which case I look forward to a third term of Clintonian policies.

 

I agree with you in the sense of liability behind the Clinton Presidency... in any marriage the woman usually has an upper hand on decision making... where was Hillary when Bill had that little thing with Monica Lewinsky... I wouldn't be suprised if it were her idea that he should go national television and blatantly lie to the American people. Since becoming Senator she hasn't produced anything... bad as this Pelosi woman claiming to fix Washington in the first 100 hours

 

 

Barack Obama I view especially favorably because he brings new blood to American politics. There is the matter of a lack of experience...

 

Obama is fresh because he is a "clean black" in the literial since. He hasn't been in politics long enough to fail at anything or to have any other dirt upon him. Oprah pretty much put Obama in the presidential spotlight. Besides his sexy factor with some percentage of women voters, the average male is left wondering what the fascination with Obama is and more less need at least 5 beers before turning more than a blind eye to Hillary. Dispite his inexperience, Obama does carry himself strongly and his speeches are more inteligible than anything spewing from GW or Hillary, but I don't think he talk himself into the white house.

 

Mr. Guiliani is a conservative person I can agree with. He has nothing against the homosexual community and is an outstanding financier, as well as a proven education reformer...

 

As a moderate republican I do find Guiliani to be a good prospect for the Republican nomination. I am pro-life but Guiliani has stated while he is pro-choice in his personal beliefs those decisions are in the hands of the court and the legislators, that he would appoint conservative judges who would make decisions rationally and in accordance with existing law rather than radical judges who are trying to make political statements. I also differ from Rudy on gun control, Rudy is pro gun control, but he believes it to be a state issue and has expressed his desire not to pursue federal gun control statues. As a republican I definitely like seeing small federal gov't and more rights given back to the individual states. Guiliani's character is also very defining, I remember post-9/11 seeing Rudy on television giving moving and heart-felt speeches to the nation and residents of NYC. He stepped up and overshadowed GW. I believe if Guiliani had had the ability to led the NY National Guard to Afghanistan he could have hunted down Osama and Al Qaeda and brought some sense of vengence to the situation rather than getting the nation sidetracked and disposed in Iraq and now the insurgents in Afghanistan are on the rise again...

 

Mr. McCain is the man I have wanted in office since before 2000...

 

I have a similar feeling... the man used to be a leader in the Senate... but he has flip-flopped on the issues too much the past few years. He has too soft of an approach to deal with international affairs in my opinion. We need another Reagan in office, GW has tried to play the staunch cowboy but his tactics are juvinille and ineffective... that's where I see Guiliani playing his trump card on McCain.