I am curious to see how the response to this goes. Normally, religion ones cause a big stir so lets see what political ones do.
Printable View
I am curious to see how the response to this goes. Normally, religion ones cause a big stir so lets see what political ones do.
I consider myself conservative.
liberal-moderate here
I'm liberal/moderate.
Is voting compusory where you live?
Do you vote if it is not?
(approx US$25 fine in Aust for not voting)
in the us it's totally optional. i haven't voted because i'm underage.
i'm not sure about the whole of the united states, but in california, 18 percent of the population make decisions for themselves, and the other 88 percent... for shame... [i actually think a penalty for not voting might be beneficial, unless they get some sort of waiver y'know... wow i wouldn't have thought that penalties existed, what a world we live in... far away from home...]
im4 socialists... where is it?
Communist here!
No such option?
I'm a pinko liberal. I predict this thread tanks within 10 more posts.
I agree... although I'm really surprised this hasn't sparked a discussion on religion or something equally intruiging like how monkeys will rule the world someday...Quote:
Originally posted by Govtcheez
I predict this thread tanks within 10 more posts.
conservative/republican here... (get over it)..
Socialist, but we don't have that in USA so I would have to say Nader
> 18 percent of the population make decisions for themselves, and the other 88 percent...
Hold up a sec - I know California's a big state, but... :D
we had a socialist choice. the guy's name was harry browne :p
I blame his parents for naming him after adjectives.Quote:
Originally posted by ygfperson
we had a socialist choice. the guy's name was harry browne :p
sigh...we really need a sarcasm tag... i was being sarcastic... but harry browne was a real presidential canidate... saw him on c-span... "end this insane war on drugs"
> "end this insane war on drugs"
Cool, a dirty hippie (I'm going to see how many people I can offend in this thread... It seems like a good place to do it)
I was also being sarcastic. I guess we really do need a sarcasm tag :)Quote:
Originally posted by ygfperson
sigh...we really need a sarcasm tag... i was being sarcastic...
he's a libertarian. (aka a republican anarchist)
I don't particularly like any of the political parties available right now, though, come November, I will probably vote for more Democrats than Republicans. I would consider myself independent moderate with, maybe, slightly liberal leanings. I am definitely opposed to the sharp social conservatism of most elected officials of the Republican party and oppose such things as school prayer (although not school vouchers) and increased government censorship; the Democratic party upsets me here, too: I am opposed to affirmative action because I am opposed to regarding racial, ethnic, religious, and gender for employment and applicability; oppurtunity should be by merit, not race.
I consider forcing citizens to vote to be just as bad as not voting when it is optional--if not worse. Freedom includes the freedom to abstain.
For those of you who said communism seriously, why would you choose communism?
A) Communism is one of the BEST governments in principle; however, it provides no incentive to work hard so it will never work.
B) A lot of people believe the way you do Cruxus. The only problem is that none of them are rich enough to run or have the political background to be successful. Sad, isn't it??
Independant because it depends on the issue, I could vote liberal or conservative.
Democratic people are too soft...consider this
if we had gore for president and september 11th occured then what do you think would've happened? I bet gore just would of sat on his butt saying 'we'll get you!!!! someday....' and if china sent nukes at us i bet he wouldn't even have a nuclear defense and wouldn't even fire back to make the world a better place. I bet in this time of 'crisis' *ack* gore wouldn't do much. The taliban would still exist.
I'm republican and proud
And 12, so how do u know what u r talkin about!!!!! JK:D
Xterria...People your age shouldn't talk. Wait, that's being discriminate, just you shouldn't talk.
First of all I'm a Republican. Second of all, Democrats and Republicans both rallied behind Bush. Third of all, Gore shouldn't have been representing Democrats. Third of all, China won't nuke us, because we are basically in control of the economy...Inidirectly.
dude you have something aganst me...i've known it for a long time
Cruxus
>>I consider forcing citizens to vote to be just as bad as not voting when it is optional--if not worse. Freedom includes the freedom to abstain.
If you old enough to vote did you vote last election?
lol...do i? :D
I think that pretty much every government sucks. Democracy sucks because most people are stupid. A republic is like a democracy, just more corrupt. In theory, communism works but in real life it fails and turns into a dictatorship where the dictator takes advantage of his people. Anarchy doesn't provide protection for the people. Monarchies don't work because you're screwed when you get an idiot into the throne. The BEST in theory is an enlightened monarch, but that's a hypocritical statement.
So choose one. I think democracy is the lesser of all these evils. Oh yeah I forgot socialism. It sucks cuz its inefficient.
okay, i will try to be nicer xterria. :D
>>okay, i will try to be nicer xterria.
Why bother? He's practically asking for a nuclear war. Developing nuclear weapons is the stupidest thing imaginable, especially at this point in history.
So if we are nuked, we just sit around?
Democracy sucks because the power doesn't really lie with the people. The only things we get to vote for are political office and local referendums (not the nationwide issues that affect us the most).Quote:
Originally posted by tim545666
Democracy sucks because most people are stupid.
Our style of government was undoubtedly useful when a letter took weeks to get from the east coast to the west coast (and then a few more weeks for the response to arrive). I would welcome a constitutional change that replaced (or severly curtailed the power of) the legislative branch and replaced it with annual or semi-annual nationwide voting.
There would be a number of issues to work out, such as who gets to pick which bills are voted on and how to handle 'emergency topics' that shouldn't wait for the next (semi) annual vote.
Other, The republicans are to authoritarian, the gov't doesnt have any right to control my actions that dont harm others. The democrats, are to socialist/communist in their economic policies, the money i earn should not go to those who dont make much.
Communism is the root of evil, the idea that what i produce should go to others who produce nothing, is simply wrong. Read anything by ayn rand, if your still socialist after that well then nothing can help you.
Why? What should we do? Shooting back would be killing hundreds of innocents, and would also be sinking to their level.Quote:
Originally posted by gnu-ehacks
So if we are nuked, we just sit around?
Revenge is not good.
I never said that we should make more nukes, i said a nuclear defense. We have more than 10 other countrys who would nuke us if they had the chance. like libya and iraq, who already have nukes...
>>Communism is the root of evil, the idea that what i produce should go to others who produce nothing, is simply wrong. Read anything by ayn rand, if your still socialist after that well then nothing can help you.<<
Argx, do you actually know anything of communism? I'm not really pro-communism, but it's surely utopian in its ideals. Everyone (read: everyone) works hard, and the money is divided evenly among the people. It's truly a shame that we're too greedy to have it ever work.
That fits so well with your image as a spolied overprotected brat.Quote:
Originally posted by Xterria
I'm republican and proud
Communism is perfect in theory but it has yet to be proven to work. I think, my personal opinion and I am certain that others agree with me, the problem with communism is incentive. If there was some kind of incentive in communism people would work harder and better. If you work your ass off, and the guy next door to you does a half assed job, and you still get the same benefits.....you might think "hey what the heck, why not do the same thing he's doing, I would still get the same benefits."
Note: I would rather stick to Democracy......this has been proven to work. Rule by the people......pretty cool if you ask me.
Comunism is great on paper but the theory is beaten by the fact that humans are born to be as lazy as possible. Really to bad
Quote:
...that humans are born to be as lazy as possible.
Not necessarily true, you're generalizing.
O yes I do..Makes the debate easier
You know, technically, America is a Republic...Not a Democracy.
Yes i do know something of communism, I have even read the communist manifesto.
This is exactly what I am against. Why should what I earn/produce (money, food, etc...) be divided amongst everyone else. If I perfect cold fusion, or propetual motion, why should I only get as much as someone who is only qualified to serve food at mcdonalds. The marxist idea that people should be paid by need rather than ability, is to put it simply, evil. If wanting to keep what I earn, or produce, makes me a greedy materialst, well than Im a greedy materialist.Quote:
Originally posted by -Ken-
Everyone (read: everyone) works hard, and the money is divided evenly among the people.
As I was proof-reading this I decided i should justify my calling communism evil. A governments first duty is to protect the natural rights of its citizens, this is its key moral obligation. Look at the societies we call immoral, more often than not it is because of terrible human rights violations. Communism fails to uphold the natrual right to property. In communism the government takes all the property through the governments monopoly on force. Therefore Communism is immoral, as it fails to uphold the natural rights of its citizens.
Please explain.
In the USA we elect people to represent us, since it is not practical to have the entire population vote on every issue. So its technicly a republic, or representitive democracy
>>like libya and iraq, who already have nukes...
No they don't.
>>America is a Republic...Not a Democracy.
Republic being a subset of democracy.
libya's goverment does have nukes, but not many...its in the latest issue of time magasine, and iraq, constantly trying to get checked by the un, probably does have them, just concealed unground somewhere like in the movies:p
I havent heard anything about libya having nukes, although it is possible that i missed something about it. Same thing with iraq, but its one thing to have nukes, or bio/chem weapons, it another thing to have a delivery method. Yeah N. Korea has nukes but they dont have a way to hit the USA (not even Hawaii), and its even harder to shrink a nuke down to use as some sort of suitcase terrorist weapon.
>>The marxist idea that people should be paid by need rather than ability, is to put it simply, evil.
OK. So say you have a bad accident and end up 100% disabled. No earning power (or not enough to survive the harsh winter).
So we should just let you die as it would be evil to pay you because you need it? You would be taking our money (taxes) in the form of welfare.
Don't confuse Marxism and Communism. Marxism is the ideal, communism the reality.
It is like saying all religion is bad because a particular church is a flawed entity.
The problem is because humans are fundamentally flawed, not with the idea of sharing.
Well novacain, what i ment was that purely paying all people by that system is evil, there are situations where it may be justified. However, isnt this why we save money, or have insurance. Second, is their really a medical condition that would stop you from earning any kind of a living, even Steven Hawking can still write books to earn money, he doesnt live off government handouts.
>>Second, is their really a medical condition that would stop you from earning any kind of a living
Yes. Down syndrome, autism, muscular dystrophy . . . .quite a few really.
Yes but in those situations, you werent able to make a living in the first place. Second, is it really the governments job to take care of everyone, if people feel bad for those who have it worse, such as these people, why dont they give them money themselves, why does the government need to take money from people to give it to them.Quote:
Down syndrome, autism, muscular dystrophy . . . .quite a few really.
>why does the government need to take money from people to give it to them.
because their welfare would be left to chance handouts. This may be your idea of how a civilised society treats it's disabled, fortunately it doesn't appear to be shared by the majority of people. Communism may be "evil" (whatever that means), but so are plenty of other political beliefs.
The government's job is not to be the parent of everyone, or to take care of everyone. The government is there to police the population, protect the rights of everyone, to protect its citizens from outside invaders, the military, and to handle disputes of law, the legal system. If people want to use their resources to help others let them, but the government shouldnt take money through taxes and use it to play the parent and take care of people. I believe that many people do need help, and i give money to causes i believe in, but that doesnt mean the government needs to take my tax dollars and give it away for me.
>The government's job is not to be the parent of everyone, or to take care of everyone.
I agree. Most people can, and should be encouraged to, take care of themselves.
However, whether you like it or not some people can't. Your charity idea would work if we lived in an ideal world, but like your communist friends you have acknowledge that we don't live in one. People need to be forced to help the ones who can't help themselves just as they need to be forced to take personal responsibility for their own welfare if they are capable.
:Claps after reading Sorensen's post:
I was wondering if someone was going to point out that i was basing it on a ideal world, and your right it has problems in a non perfect world, as all systems do. However I still think Capitalism is better than Communism even in its ideals.
Also, the government seems to go a bit to far, the welfare system is ok, but its not ok to keep giving people money when they dont even try to get a job, or go to school to get one.
Social Sercurity is same way, people get back the same amount regardless of how much they pay into the system, it has really changed from what it was designed as. FDR created it durring the depression to help retired people, and it was never ended because old people vote in large numbers. Social Security has changed in to a quasi retirement plan. And now because of population booms the system is bleeding itself dry.
I believe the current system gives me too little power in the affairs of the United States. A previous member said that he would welcome a semi-annual voting scheme on the issues that mattered most, and after thinking about it I believe I would too. My biggest problem with the government is that the majority of all resources go to the military. We could substantially downsize the military and still be a major player in world issues, though I am in favor of no intervening in global politics.
Our politicians have global ambitions, and are disguising them by saying that destroying a country will help us with this other goal. Such as destroying Afghanistan to supposedly get rid of the terrorist, while secretly Afghanistan has been a target for the US because the Afghanistans refused to allow a oil pipeline through their country. So, we just killed 2 birds with one stone, and frankly I dont think the government cared really if they killed the terrorist bird, because they can use the terrorists as an excuse to invade and demolish other countries. This is real, yet many people dont know, are too stupid to know, or refuse to think that thier country is capable of it.
On top of our military problems is the international problem of using depleted uranium weaponry. The government says it is an effective weapon, and so is a nuclear bomb, but the PEOPLE have decided that it is wrong to use nuclear bombs, and yet people havent come to the same conclusion about depleted uranium. Every missile we fire radiates or bullet for that matter, radiates 10 meters around the impact of the projectile. You may be thinking on terms of that one 10 meter radius, but think of it in terms of this, 300-800 tons of radiactive DU was dumped on Iraq. Our government cares about nothing, not even civilian life in countries we find as our aggressors for whatever reason. This DU will have a half life of 4.5 billion years, meaning cancer rates and childhood diseases and deformities will increase by 200-4500% for the next 4.5 billion years. And this is happening everywhere we have fired shots. Afghanistan, Iraq, the Balkans... more areas will surely be added as we become the global aggressors and destroy more countries in the future.
I say that America as a country deserves everything that it will get due to this. If every major city in US was destroyed I wouldnt care because as a nation we havent made it a point to our politicians that we arent comfortable with being the global aggressor. We have started something that will only end in a degressive spiral ending in our nation or every other nation that doesnt support us. And our allies. Will our allies be so kind to us when we act without thier approval? We may find ourselves in a pool of sharks and we will be the bleeding seal...
That's not a democracy then. It's a Republic.Quote:
Democracy sucks because the power doesn't really lie with the people.
Wow, and I thought half the Americans did not care about anything outside the US, and the other half did not vote (so their views are not considered by politicians).
>>Our government cares about nothing, not even civilian life in countries we find as our aggressors for whatever reason.
Anybody know the latest estimate for civilian casualties in Afghanistan? I heard 3500+ last night from Red Cross.
As to Depleted Uranium core rounds (these are heavier and so penetrate better than Savant (sheathed) rounds). It scares me that Bush sees nukes as an option and may haveused them on the Tora Bora caves not able to be bombed conventionally.
Just remember that casualties are not deaths, they are injuries. If someone trips and falls on some shrapnel, that's a casuality.
It really is too bad anarchy doesn't work. :(
And if a villager gets out of their truck on a lonely mountain road to talk to their friends, and seem to be too tall, a Predator (unmanned RC drone) will launch a missile at them. Reducing them, and the other villagers, to smoking mush. (as has happened)
They are also casualties.
Damn, I was wrong - it took more than 10 replies to tank.
LMAO... yeah... and the discussion is a fairly good one... hasn't veered off into a religion debate or anything yet... (at least what I've read of it)
where the hell do people get this "communism is perfect in theory" idea? I always hear this "if people were hardworking and not greedy and honest" thing. Guess what? There wouldnt be much need for a government in that case, would there? And the whole idea of "perfect in theory" and impractical in RL is ridiculous. If a system is "perfect in theory" and not in reality then its problem is builds upon incorrect axioms/assumptions, which sounds distinctly imperfect to me!
thank you, oh master of enlightenment...