Politics

[A_New_Dawn]

So any of you guys old enough to vote? if so who you looking at? I know this is a touchy subject but was curios anyway.

[DarnYak]

Ron Paul

I've got massive dissagreements on several big points with the guy, so I've been resisting supporting him for a long ass time despite the fact that I lean heavily libertarian, but I see the field on both sides being so bad. Granted, I'm not even allowed to vote in the republican primary in california since i'm an unaffiliated voter, but its who I "want" to vote for.

God I wish a good, solid libertarian canidate would come along. Ron Paul too often comes across as a crazy old fool even when you agree with him.

DarnYak

[A_New_Dawn]

Yeah, my family has been strong Republicans for many years partly due the the fact that they believe abortion is wrong. I was actually adopted shorty after I was born. My biological mother was going to have an abortion, as she walked through the clinic and eldarly couple sat her down and talked her out of it, (Thank God). So thats part of the reason. They are also big supporters of lowering taxes, reducing government power, cracking down on the borders, and strong defense. My dad is one of the hardest working men I know and struggles to keep my siblins in a privete school while an illegal can put his kids through for no cost using government fonds. Don't have anything against aliens, just them coming here non-legaly I guess. Like the idea of eliminating income tax and the IRS so Huckabee is one of my choices along with McChain. McChain is kinda liberal on some issues but a good guy all around I think, and Huckabee is good with people and seems to know what needs to be done. Granted, their not perfect, but no one is I guess.

[DarnYak]

Huckabee is good with people

I have to say, Huckabee is an amazing speaker, quite possibly the best of the entire field..Obama is really the only competition on that front, and he's rather hit and miss where Huckabee looks good in any situation. Can't agree with his policies though, and he leans too heavily on the religious issues.

They are also big supporters of lowering taxes, reducing government power, cracking down on the borders, and strong defense.

This is my real issue with the republican party at the moment: They CLAIM these, and don't live up to any except to last. They do tend to lower taxes more then democrats, but they fail to lower spending anywhere near as much as they should. Limiting government power is great, but currently the biggest infringment on this in recent history is the patriot act*, a republican bill. Illegal immigration is something republican people support, but the politicans don't becuase bussinesses love it for a giant supply of cheap labor.

Also, don't forget the most important part of what the republican party claims to be for: shrinking the federal government to empower state and local governments. Another ideal abandoned completley in practice. Perfect example is the Department of Education, a horrible federal entity that shouldn't exist yet was doubled in size under Bush.

This is why i'm pretty solidly Libertarian, they've stuck to the ideals that the republican party once held but have abandoned in favor of a slow creep towards socialism. That, and libertarians tend to stay the hell out of people's lives on issues that shouldn't be a matter of public policy.

Oh, and how could I forget:

*Note: I actualy support the patriot act, short term, and do not feel its intended or being abused as of yet. I do however feel its most likely unconstiutional, and could have been approached in a better way.

DarnYak

[A_New_Dawn]

Yeah, thats really true Yak, the Republicans to tend to not have a backbone and sometimes not live by what they say, and thats what kinda makes me pissed with them. Their main problem is that their too obsessed with trying to please Liberals and then they just piss off the rest of the Republicans, making the whole issue that much worse. Bush kinda fell into this, I'm not crazy about him, but he did do some things right and did an alright job considering the circumstances. Too it is VERY hard to do some of these things when other people will stop at nothing to hinder you, but with that said you should at least do everthing you can to honor your word.


I'm a strong supporter of this, people not interfering with personal lives. Did you hear about the issue with the Government sponsering new slot machines being put into casinos? well they were, and its totally wrong, I mean why should the government support something that is potential harmful to you? they're only doing it for money and could care less how much it screws over peoples lives, I realize its a choice to gamble but the government should have nothing to do with it. Also, they wan't to take away our right to bear guns? there is a reason why states with little or no gun control have a small crime rate. California has the highest or one of the hightest crime rates in the nation, and its mainly because no one can carry a gun.

Yeah, Huckabee has lost support for expressiong his beliefs, but he hasn't forced them on anybody and said he wasn't going too. Its really unerving when members of your religion start condemning people for not being like them or doing stuff they wouldn't do. This is partly why Huckabee and other Christains are not favored, cuz they'll judge or preach too much. Well sadly some Christains do do this, and it really only makes the rest of us look bad. I am a Christain, but I try to be a non-condemning one and I don't consider myself any better than anybody else, cuz I'm not, well all make mistakes and were all human here. I do believe however that people should be held accoutable for their actions, and that their is a HUGE difference between "judging" others and holding them accoutable for those actions. Lol, I've been condemned by other Christains and have to admit, sometimes they just need to shut up and stop preaching so much!...Anyway

[DarnYak]

Yeah, Huckabee has lost support for expressiong his beliefs, but he hasn't forced them on anybody and said he wasn't going too.

Judging people isn't something I have a problem with, one of the great mistakes of current society is (imo) the belief that judging others is inappropriate and that just about anything should be accepted. (Not going to get into the what should or shouldn't be acceptable)

But Huckabee sort of has said he wants to force his beliefs upon others, and that's the point at which he went from "scary but acceptable" to "dear god no" to me (before I found out about his history as governer). The quote was something to the extent of "we need to alter the constitution to be more in line with the bible". I don't know the exact quote, but I know for certain it implied that, not just an exaguration.

Did you hear about the issue with the Government sponsering new slot machines being put into casinos?

If this is the california thing we're voting on, then its a rather different issue. We're not sponsdering it, we're allowing it to happen. Due to the way all the agreements and such are setup, indian tribes can only have certain numbers of slot machines, and only the state can allow them to have past some amount (I believe this only applies to states where gambling is illegal). The deal is they can put in more machines, but only if the state gets more of those profits. The deal is shady and horrible for many reasons, but I have little issue with the gambling itself nor would i call it sponsership.

California has the highest or one of the hightest crime rates in the nation, and its mainly because no one can carry a gun.

I'm pro-gun, but this arguement is possibly false (I dont think we're actualy the highest) and overly simplistic. There are many reasons we have above average crime: mexico, shitty state government, location, and yes gun laws too.

DarnYak

[A_New_Dawn]

Not sure what exactly was involved as far as indians and what not, all I do know is that the US government sopported it for the sole purpose of gaining more money,

I do realize your state has many other reasons for being high in crime rate, I guess I was refering to the overall reason. Although its more than likely more than one...

Hmm, well if Huckabee does become president sure hope he doesn't become too preachy, God knows Christains are hated enough because of that,

Yeah I do realize there is a point when you as a citizen have to put your foot down as say enough is enough, I guess its finding the medium between preaching and standing for wholesome values thats hard part.

[Kibiyama]

Disclaimer: I don't disagree with everything you guys are saying, so don't take this as an attack or anything.

I also apologize for the rampant use of quotes.

So any of you guys old enough to vote? if so who you looking at? I know this is a touchy subject but was curios anyway.

I already voted in the primary: Ron Paul. Since he's not going to win, I'll be voting Obama in the general election.

Yeah, my family has been strong Republicans for many years...

I don't mean to insinuate anything, but every Republican my age that I've met, I've asked them why they were a Republican. Usually it was an instant "Because my parents are" reply, but sometimes it was this issue or that, which, when questioned on why they felt that way, always came down to "Because of my parents".

They are also big supporters of lowering taxes, reducing government power, cracking down on the borders, and strong defense.

This is my real issue with the republican party at the moment: They CLAIM these, and don't live up to any except to last.

Right, because expending our forces attacking a country that posed no real threat to us and inciting more turmoil and hatred in a part of the world that was already unbalanced and pretty pissed at us was the best way to keep our nation safe.

They do tend to lower taxes more then democrats

For the richest among us. But it's not like the Democrats need to raise taxes to socialize the country, they just need to stop giving the wealthy such an easy ride and stop subsidizing failed businesses. If the products we subsidized were worth spending money on, the free market would take care of it. Of course, they don't really want to socialize the country; perhaps just slow our descent into fascism.

Also, don't forget the most important part of what the republican party claims to be for: shrinking the federal government to empower state and local governments. Another ideal abandoned completley in practice. Perfect example is the Department of Education, a horrible federal entity that shouldn't exist yet was doubled in size under Bush.

Also Homeland security. Next time the neo-cons are in power, airports will be completely run by the government!

...the republican party once held but have abandoned in favor of a slow creep towards socialism.

*fascism

Not that socialism is what the country needs right now, but it seems to work alright for the rest of the Western world. And I'd gladly take socialism over fascism.

I made that!

I actualy support the patriot act, short term, and do not feel its intended or being abused as of yet. I do however feel its most likely unconstiutional, and could have been approached in a better way.

You support it? And you're a libertarian? It's, at best, useless, and at worst a grave, fear-mongering trespass on our civil liberties, not to mention a giant shit on the Constitution. (as if anyone cares about it anymore)

Their main problem is that their too obsessed with trying to please Liberals and then they just piss off the rest of the Republicans, making the whole issue that much worse.

Objectively, there are no liberals in US politics. The Democrats are centrist, or at best middle-left. But it's bogus that liberal is such a dirty word, anyways.

Especially the bit about the media being liberal, when it's all controlled by the same 6 mega-corporations that own everything (and I mean everything) who happen to have a well-known neo-conservative bias. It's doublespeak at its best.

Bush kinda fell into this

I disagree. His initial platform was relatively libertarian: small government, humble foreign policy, no policing the world. He gradually shifted to a more populist view: new agencies, nation-building, abridging civil liberties.

I'm a strong supporter of this, people not interfering with personal lives.

I know your parents oppose abortion, but given this statement, do you think it should be illegal? If so, what should be the penalty?

But Huckabee sort of has said he wants to force his beliefs upon others, and that's the point at which he went from "scary but acceptable" to "dear god no" to me (before I found out about his history as governer). The quote was something to the extent of "we need to alter the constitution to be more in line with the bible". I don't know the exact quote, but I know for certain it implied that, not just an exaguration.

"And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards"

Also, "Native Americans". They're not from India, dudes.

[DarnYak]

Disclaimer: When i use numbers, I do them to the best of my recollection. Some may be off a bit, but not by much.

I don't mean to insinuate anything, but every Republican my age that I've met, I've asked them why they were a Republican. Usually it was an instant "Because my parents are" reply, but sometimes it was this issue or that, which, when questioned on why they felt that way, always came down to "Because of my parents".

This isn't really any different for democrats either. Social pressures tend to push people into one party or another, rather then actual issues.

Right, because expending our forces attacking a country that posed no real threat to us and inciting more turmoil and hatred in a part of the world that was already unbalanced and pretty pissed at us was the best way to keep our nation safe.

Weither or not you think it had a result of strengthening the defense of the us, I don't think you can deny the intent was there. Combined with the increased funding of our military (some to a fucking lot of it wasted due to corruption, I know) i think its safe to give them credit for trying to stick to that one point.

They do tend to lower taxes more then democrats

For the richest among us. But it's not like the Democrats need to raise taxes to socialize the country, they just need to stop giving the wealthy such an easy ride and stop subsidizing failed businesses.

For more then just the richest. The bush tax cuts, the ones you're probably refering to, were acutaly considerably more favorable to the middle class proportions wise. Its just when 5% of the population is paying 95% of income taxes any tiny change to their taxes looks unfair.

Not sure what you're refering to by subsidizing failed bussinesses (or even what you mean by the second sentance), but I will fully agree subsidies are often abused. There are some good uses (farming SOMETIMES, saving the airline industry), but mostly corruption.

...the republican party once held but have abandoned in favor of a slow creep towards socialism.

*fascism

That word is thrown around so goddamned much and completley inappropriately. I swear everytime i see it i want to give up talking politics with the person becuase they've just stated they're more interested in hating bush then any sort of objective discussion.

I actualy support the patriot act, short term, and do not feel its intended or being abused as of yet. I do however feel its most likely unconstiutional, and could have been approached in a better way.

You support it? And you're a libertarian? It's, at best, useless, and at worst a grave, fear-mongering trespass on our civil liberties, not to mention a giant shit on the Constitution. (as if anyone cares about it anymore)

Support as in I'm ok with it, short term, as I said before. They wanted an immediate tool to response quickly to terrorism, some of them claim it has been vital in getting actual results. I certainly don't think it was anywhere close to the best solution, and I do hope its properly ruled unconstitutional so it can never happen again. What I don't do is buy into the whole arguement that its purely to fuck over the civil liberties of every american. Which it does technicly do, but nobody outside a few involved in terrorism feel the effects of.

Make no mistake, I want anyone abusing it outside its intended scope executed for treason, but I've only heard of one real case of that so far, and that case alone is why I think its past the point of a temporary measure that needs to be replaced with something proper.

I'm a strong supporter of this, people not interfering with personal lives.

I know your parents oppose abortion, but given this statement, do you think it should be illegal? If so, what should be the penalty?

Abortion is a nasty issue becuase it all depends on if you consider the fetus an independant life with rights or not. This is personal opinion/feeling, not what the courts have decided. Thus if you feel a fetus is a life the instant its conceived, saying you don't want the government interfering with personal lives is perfectly in line with anti abortion, as protecting lives is generaly considered acceptable interference by the government. Protecting in the sense of making murder and such illegal and the cops stopping anyone who tries to. Or, in other words, personal freedom only extends to the point where you're infringing upon another's personal freedom, and in the case of an abortion it would be the baby's freedom/life being infringed upon.

Just to be clear, anti abortion is dawn's stance. Mine is I don't care about early abortions, I'm opposed to late term without damn good reasons, and the whole mid term thing is still pretty muddled.

Also, "Native Americans". They're not from India, dudes.

I hope this is a joke, I'm not intersted in political correct bullshit ;P

DarnYak

[A_New_Dawn]

Hmm, so you start out saying your not pissed at anybody then you post heads? then you say DONT TAKE IT AS A THREAT, hmm sounds to me your being hypocritical. Lol, and people like you are bashing Christains for so called being "hypocritical". Or maybe you Liberals should learn to buck up and use the balls God gave you. Yes, I'm talking about the ones between your legs man.

Hmm, firstly I didn't vote Republican cuz my parents did, I did and do cuz their more in line with my believes. And don't kids learn from their parents? yes, so its not uncommon for kids to vote for the same guy.

Ok, let me see if I can understand this, your saying one of our current enemies are NOT a threat. So which one is it? Afghanistan or Iraq? if you don't remember those sick bastards (I know kinda strong for me, sorry) killed 2,000 innocent people, so saying Afghanistan is not a threat would make you a discrace to evey freedom-loving American. Iraq openly supports terrorism, and has said so, so their standing right nxt to the Afghan's as far as hating Americans. So actually your plain wrong, doesn't matter which one you choose, sorry.

Look, just becuase you make more money doesn't mean your should be taxed more. Some people are just going make more money than others, just except it. This isn't USSR were everybody makes the same wages. Rich people are trying to evade taxes because people like you are tryig to steal more of their money.

Socialism works? yeah right, thats why China and Russia are almost to the brink of 3rd world. Socialsim nvr and will nvr work.

Actually the Liberals are the ones trying to change the constitution, not Republicans...
The constitution says freedom OF religion, not fredoom from religion.

No, cuz the the babies life is his, not the womans or anybody elses. The statement "its my life, my choice" is complety ubsurd. Granted, if a woman get raped and becomes pregnat thats unfortunate, but she can put it up for adoption if she doesn't wan't it.

Well you seem to lack standards and morals all together so why not...

[DarnYak]

Iraq openly supports terrorism, and has said so

Ok, I was going to wait a little longer but i have to pre-empt this one.

This statement is both technicly true, but completley false in the sense most people would think of it as. First, we're talking about Saddam's Iraq, not the current government. Second, it mostly, if not entirely, applies only to supporting Palastinian terrorists attacking Isreal.

We had so much better reasons to invade Iraq, its a shame Bush relied so heavily on the extremely weak terrorist ties to sell it.

Socialism works? yeah right, thats why China and Russia are almost to the brink of 3rd world.

Communism, not socialism, although they do share some similarities. The basic idea of socialism is blending capitalism with the "best" elements of communism. People often cite most of Europe and Canada as succesful socialist countries...which is highly debatable.

Well you seem to lack standards and morals all together so why not...

Personal attacks quickly render threads worthless.

DarnYak

[Ion]

Yak you post more on politcs then on EotA.

Don't fight. Keep the thread all nice and happy! That way it's easy to sift through the information, and not have to pop over like 1 billion flame posts (which is potentially what could come up).

Yak you post more on politcs then on EotA.

Don't fight. Keep the thread all nice and happy! That way it's easy to sift through the information, and not have to pop over like 1 billion flame posts (which is potentially what could come up).

People often cite most of Europe and Canada as succesful socialist countries...which is highly debatable.

I won't speak for Europe, but I'll speak for Canada. We are not, unfortunately, a socialist country. I agree with Yak that this is a highly debatable topic. Socialism is such a broad ideology and there are a gajillion definitions for it (for example China claims to enact socialist policies, and Libya claims their form of government, Jamahiriya, is also socialism, and they run two completely different systems of it).

Quick overview: there are three main parties in Canada, and one centralized only to Quebec but is very influencial in federal and provincial politics. The three parties are the Liberal Party of Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada. The Bloc Quebecois (Quebec Party) runs only in Quebec, and they're a little complex. The current make-up of the Canadian House of Commons (our equivalent to your House of Representatives, although argueably they wield almost as much power as your Senators as well). These four parties make up the basis for federal politics in Canada.

I hate using the terms "Conservative" or "Liberal" or "Socialist", as well as "right-wing" or "left-wing" so I'm going to tell you straight up what they all do, and why Canada is not "socialist" by the American defintion.

This is the wiki definition of Socialism:

"A system where property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state." Cut and pasted from Wiki.

Probably not what you're thinking of. You're probably thinking more along the lines of a system where direct government-intervention into the economy (planned or direct economy), public ownership and the nationalization of industries, as well as things like community-payed or provincially-payed or federally-payed things such as medicare or transit.

Now, Canada is not really like this at all. We do have free-medicare, and that was founded by a self-proclaimed socialist. It is true that no party in federal politics seeks to actually undermine this system. However, you can't call Canada a socialist country because the two main political parties are anything but asking for the above definition of socialism.

The Liberal Party of Canada is essentially the "do-nothing" party. The enact policies that are usually not generated from themselves but are watered down versions of policies thrown out by other parties. They ask for things like tougher gun laws and tax cuts for the lower tax brackets, which are "socialist" under the defintion above while conversly they also wish to increase military spending (usually not attributed to "socialism" but you could if you defined socialism by China and Libyan standards), fund alot more research and lax some taxes on buisnesses to pull investment from Americans and others abroad. They are "progressive" by religious standards, since they legalized same-sex marriage and medical marijuana (and were to legalize marijuana before American intervention). However, conversly they're also very tough with regards to crime, and aren't very open to things like community-based projects or intervention into the economy. Infact, they usually like to leave it as it is.

The Conservative Party of Canada is what they say. They're "conservative" on issues such as abortion and not legalizing same-sex marriage, and have historically enacted policies very similar to American things like Reaganomics. While they accept medicare, they are in their platform "open to new ideas", basically meaning if they could they'd privatize. However, the population really likes free medicare, so you can't really do that for votes. By American standards the Conservatives may be a little "lite" when it comes to their name but really, their pro-buisness policies and laissez-faire sort of attitude towards the economics of Canada make them quite unsocialist. They currently hold a minority government. As a thing of interest, they recently cut GST taxes (General Service Tax) to 5% and under them we have a very strong dollar (can't give all the credit to them). They leave alot alone and do very little with social programs, far from what Americans consider "socialist Canada" they've actually cut back on a lot of things, which you can go read at wikipedia if you're interested.

The last two parties are more to the Socialist end. The New Democratic Party advocates for basically everything I said up there about the American definition of socialism. The only thing they don't advocate is government spending. They don't have that many seats and aren't very influencial in politics, and really just hold the power to knock down the Liberals and Conservatives on bills they don't like. The Bloc Quebecois are a mix of your traditional concepts of "right" and "left" wing. They want to intervene in the economy but only enough to get Quebec rolling. They believe in a lot of "progressive" policies but advocate military spending, iscolationism from international affairs and Quebec soverignty. Conversly, they also advocate the nationalization of major industries, but only to "protect" them from Canadian enroachment. Basically, they're socialist, without being completely socialist. It's weird, go read if you're interested.

Anyway, systematically compared to the United States yes we are more "progressive" socially (a bad term; to religious people, "progressive" would mean degenerative, and then it gets all confusing) in terms of things like abortion and other matters. We do have free-medicare, and our tax-system is infact a little more harsh on the upper-class then in America. We haven't any real tax-havens, and our country has quite a few nationalized industries. However, at the same time, our banks run about the same as America. We haven't any major nationalized companies any more, we let them get bought out by Americans (even our railway, the CPR). The government is cutting taxes on buisness and the upper-class and is enacting policies that resemble more closely the Bush-Senior administration in America (go look it up I'm too lazy to put details in here). Our major play in NATO in Afganistan also puts us in a weird position.

Now, personally you couldn't define my political views by any words because they'd all only get a piece of what I believe in, but I don't think calling Canada a socialist country is fair. America-lite? Maybe? Not culturally but with regards to social issues and stuff, we aren't so heavy on alot of the things Americans are having major debates on right now. With a medicare system that's free and alot of other sort of "socialist-tendancies" yeah sure we're leaning a bit on the "socialist" side of things but we have by no means stepped over the line and had our government intervene in every aspect of our economy. And like Yak said, teh extent to which this policies has helped or hindered Canada is debatable.

I just don't think it's just to use Canada as an example as a socialist country, cause we're not.

/rantover

[AnAngryBearDoctor]

The constitution says freedom OF religion, not fredoom from religion

It also says freedom of opinion, but in kibi's case it's his lack of morality.

[DarnYak]

Great overview Ion, I honeslty wish we heard more about canadian politics here in America. Maybe I should find some canadian news sources to follow..

"A system where property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state." Cut and pasted from Wiki.

Can't say I like this definition very much, I'm hard pressed to tell the difference between this and communism. On the other hand, the distribution of wealth comment makes it also apply to basicly every democratic government on earth.

I probably should have said up front that there is no country I'm aware of that is completely socialist or completley non socialist, its a varying shades thing. I know canada is a lot less socialist, but I think most would consider it more so then the US (for now). My own personal definition would probably be two seperate but related parts.

The first is the government effectively telling you what to do or what not to do when it doesn't really involve others. Drug laws would be the most common form of this. The more extreme ones result in absurd things such as the cancellation of a 600 year old tradition. Not all of these are direct laws (in the latter case, its entirely due to liability, fucking insurance/lawyers), but the atmosphere is certainly there.

The second is the amount of "free" or basic services provided by the government. Welfare would be the most common one, but this obviously scales up towards free health care, free public transportation, free education, etc.

Both these have a similar theme: the government needs to ensure what's best for society, as well as a removal of personal responsibiltiy for your own affairs. In the US, its quite possible that our billions of nanny laws is already the worst in the world, but I dont know the full extent of how bad they are in other countries.

I hate using the terms "Conservative" or "Liberal" or "Socialist", as well as "right-wing" or "left-wing"

Some people do use them like they're dirty words. Hell, i'm sure you can find them in that context in my posts. But they're just categories that two intelligent people can dissagree on which is right, shouldn't refrain from using them. Granted, I hate the term progressive becuase it was specifcily picked to make liberalism sound inheriently better due to the word having inherient good context, where liberal and conservative are pretty neutral and descriptive, not to mention antonyms. (The antonym for progressive is obviously degressive, a negative term, so the term basicly comes packaged with an opinion)

The constitution says freedom OF religion, not fredoom from religion

It also says freedom of opinion, but in kibi's case it's his lack of morality.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Technicly it doesn't say its unconstitutional to make thinking a certain way or holding a certain opinion illegal ;P Just that stating that opinion can't be. We're screwed when we get brain wave reader things.

DarnYak

[Ion]

Granted, I hate the term progressive becuase it was specifcily picked to make liberalism sound inheriently better due to the word having inherient good context, where liberal and conservative are pretty neutral and descriptive, not to mention antonyms. (The antonym for progressive is obviously degressive, a negative term, so the term basicly comes packaged with an opinion)

Yeah I started getting sick of using it, if you'll notice by the end I actually make a point of saying the term is ridiculous since 'progressive' is in the eyes of the beholder and not in reality.

Anyway, with regards to left and right wings I feel it just over-simplifies a very complex system of politics. It's like calling all things frozen ice-cream. Sure popsicles are..kinda like ice cream, and they can have some in it but really, they're popsicles and to call them ice cream would be..right to an extent but overall just a little silly.

Yes, if you actually want to read more about Canadian politics Wikipedia has some great articles on them. You'll have to sift through some really pro-party stuff, since the parties themselves actually do alot of the editing. The Conservative and Liberal Parties overlap alot- it's kind of annoying, for federal politics. Provincial politics are always really different and diverse. In my province, British Columbia the leading party is the Liberal Party of BC, which is actually very much like a non-religious based Republican-party. In Alberta, the Conservative Party has dominated politics since the 70s, where before a weird party called the "Social Credit" party was most powerful. And in provinces like Manitoba, Saskatchuwen and the Maritimes, usually there's a major party (Liberal, "Progressive Conservative", Conservative, etc.) up against an NDP party.

And of course Quebec..which has the Parti Quebecois (lit. Quebecer Party) which distinguishes itself from the Bloc Quebecois by actually being alot less "socialist" (by my American definition) and actually quite pro-buisness and investment. Conversly, they nationalized Quebec Hydro so >>.

My room-mate when I went to Quebec this summer was a Liberatarian and we had some fun conversations. I wouldn't call myself one but it was fun listening to his thoughts on how Quebec was XD (it has the most government intervention in their Province of any place in Canada; probably more then the Parliament Buildings themselves).

[Soulbourne]

I didn't even try to read all this thread.....Bigger posts than last political thread on another forum, there were a few smaller there though....And what would Gravel's views be on all those things people worry about...Bit off topic but my mind wondered at school a bit about it....

[A_New_Dawn]

Hmm, so far this thread has been interesting...nice to see other peoples opinions of the world and political figures once in a while,

Nah, overall I'm very glad we are not like Canada, anyway.

[Ion]

I like Canada. >.>

[A_New_Dawn]

Iraq openly supports terrorism, and has said so

Ok, I was going to wait a little longer but i have to pre-empt this one.

This statement is both technicly true, but completley false in the sense most people would think of it as. First, we're talking about Saddam's Iraq, not the current government. Second, it mostly, if not entirely, applies only to supporting Palastinian terrorists attacking Isreal.

We had so much better reasons to invade Iraq, its a shame Bush relied so heavily on the extremely weak terrorist ties to sell it.

Socialism works? yeah right, thats why China and Russia are almost to the brink of 3rd world.

Communism, not socialism, although they do share some similarities. The basic idea of socialism is blending capitalism with the "best" elements of communism. People often cite most of Europe and Canada as succesful socialist countries...which is highly debatable.

Well you seem to lack standards and morals all together so why not...

Personal attacks quickly render threads worthless.

DarnYak

Hate to point this out Yak, but it happens all the time, we just get us to it,

[Ion]

Hate to point this out Yak, but it happens all the time, we just get us to it,

Lame.

[AnAngryBearDoctor]

http://www.thesimpsons.com/wiggum/
Solution for president, vote for Ralph.

[A_New_Dawn]

Hate to point this out Yak, but it happens all the time, we just get us to it,

Lame.

Lame

[Ion]

Anyway, go back to all your previous dispositions and revive the topic ^^

[Storamin]

I have been a registered republican for quite some time... and I voted for George W. Bush. I voted for him because the democratic nominees, at the time, were worse than he was. If I could describe myself, it would be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. This puts me at extreme odds with our current 2 party system. However, working in the financial services sector, the typically fiscally conservative republicans normally get my vote. Not this year, not after what George W. Bush did, and not after seeing that McCain will be the republican nominee. McCain does not meet my description of a fiscal conservative.

I will vote for Obama, barring anything extremely stupid he does. Among higher educated, wealthier, and younger voters (my demographic), he's doing very well. My roommate feels that the country isn't ready for a black president, but I completely disagree. After all, this guy went to Harvard Law School. The things that I really don't like are what he really wants to spend money on. While I would support health care, education, and white house reform, I feel that the national deficit and debt are more important. According to Henry Paulson, at some point what's going out has to equal what's coming in. We can't afford to finance these reforms and increase our national debt like he's expecting. In fact, Moody's has threatened that in 10 years it will have to decrease the rating on US Treasury Bonds from the perfect rating they have now. For anyone who doesn't know what that means -- it's extremely bad. The Chinese that have been holding our US Treasury Bonds (essentially they are financing your debt), will stop buying them, causing the cost of capital to raise among other things, which will have an enormous impact on the economy.

As much as I really wanted to like Romney, I just couldn't do it. As a former businessman, he probably would have been the best choice to balance the national debt.

Huckabee is a minister... of course he's an excellent speaker. He's been trained to manipulate people all of his life.

Ron Paul is one of those persons that the more you listen to him, the more you realize what an absolute idiot the guy is. While he has some good ideas, many of his ideas are way too radical and will never work.

[Storamin]

GD DOUBLE POST