2013-03-02, 17:20 | Link #541 |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
When most of the countries more Right of America are islamic militant nations, you can't honestly say that's not a sign.
When Obama won the 2nd term, Romney supporters were at a loss for words in which nation they want to immigrate to instead. If you are a Christian extremist, America is your only refuge.
__________________
|
2013-03-02, 17:20 | Link #542 |
Banned
|
It matters, because there is a sliding scale to everything(what level of government intervention is appropriate?), and some things are binary choices (are you for a death penalty or against it?). You can think of right/left being on those sliding scales. Yes, there are good things to both sides, and also that extremism on either side is bad. But that *doesn't* mean you can't look at the overall situation, and determine that society needs to generally move one direction or the other.
Take health care, for example. The countries with universal government coverage do much, much better than those with simply private health care. Private is on the right. Government is on the left. I think most of us here would agree the "left" version of a lot of european countries works better. THAT is what I mean when I say we need to tack left. Sliding scale. Where are you? Where is your country? If you are too far left, or too far right, it doesn't matter: you need to tack to the center. And right now, the US is too far right. Trying to say there is nothing like right/left, ultimately reveals only that one lacks an understanding of the philosophies of societies and politics. I may not know where the center is, but I know how to get there from in the US. Move left. You may want the center, but do you know how to get there? You need a direction. Right and left are merely the words that start you on the path. If you won't move right or left because they are "like, just words, maaan" then you are going nowhere. Take any issue, and you will find a right/left scale. If right/left bothers you so much, then maybe you'd like north/south. Or maybe east/west. Or perhaps up/down. I don't care. Right/left is just how society at large has chosen to mark those directions. Not using them, just separates you from everyone else and makes your own ideas more confusing. You wanna be less radical and convince people? Then use their language. |
2013-03-02, 17:28 | Link #543 |
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
What bothers me isn't that there's left and right, but your implication that everything as a whole should move left. As I said before, just because I may agree with you on some things, doesn't mean I have to agree with you on everything else.
I also don't recall when I became a radical, nor do I care about convincing other people, if I did I would've picked a different profession. I reject the notion that I must belong to a camp and follow the preset "directions" created by other people that carries with it a whole hosts of baggage and implications that I want nothing to do with. I'm pro-gun rights, but also pro-choice; I'm pro-gay marriage, but I'm not anti-religion; on some issues I may be an idealist, on others a realist; I hold a whole bunch of positions across a wide range of issues that would have the hardliners on BOTH side accusing me of being a sheep from the other camp, so what does that make me? Last edited by kyp275; 2013-03-02 at 17:48. |
2013-03-02, 17:51 | Link #544 | ||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
America may harbor some extremist Christians, but that doesn't mean that all of America is made up of Christian extremists. They're a minority - vocal, but still a minority. That the rest of the world is unlike them is probably an uncomfortable thought: America is the only place that they feel is theirs, and any moves to make it more like the rest of the world are seen as threatening. Quote:
__________________
|
||
2013-03-02, 17:52 | Link #545 | ||
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
I have been told to stop blaming Americans for what the government is doing. But I say that's something I can't do. You live in a democracy, and that means the people takes the blame. I don't care how much money the corporations are spending lobbying, or how you don't like your electoral system. You have a democracy, and it happens the way it does because people who do vote wanted it that way. Those who don't vote at all, and I know there are many of you here, made that choice yourselves. Quote:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/0...ng-women-vote/
__________________
|
||
2013-03-02, 18:01 | Link #546 | |||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
Naw, the libertarians would've cast me out for believing that government can, and should have roles to play in certain aspects of society Quote:
|
|||
2013-03-02, 18:10 | Link #547 | ||
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
Is "America evil"? Well, as far as I can tell a large chuck of Americans think non-Americans are evil. The evil "universal health care" for example, which was claiming to be soviet style communism. Which means the entire Europe is now considered communists. And we know in America Communism is a code for Satanism. There is also the argument that Obama is Kenyan, which makes Kenya evil. And also the claim that Obama is atheist, and atheism is bad. Which means the Prime Minister of Australia is evil. And taxes is evil. And... In short. Everything not American is evil. And since the only thing that truly defeat evil is hellfire, America needs to kill the rest of us for our own good... Quote:
__________________
|
||
2013-03-02, 18:17 | Link #548 | ||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2013-03-02, 18:20 | Link #549 | ||
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
No, it is true most people don't vote. But they don't count until they do. Quote:
__________________
|
||
2013-03-02, 18:26 | Link #550 | ||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
I voted for Obama, does that mean I agree with everything he's for? hell no. There are a whole host of political, economic, and social issues that affect each voter differently, and everyone must weight all the differences and the pros and con before reaching his/her decision. To say that everyone who voted for Romney is automatically a stupid, ignorant racist bigot would itself be ignorant. Quote:
|
||
2013-03-02, 18:33 | Link #551 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2013-03-02, 18:33 | Link #552 | |
Ass connoisseur
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Florida
Age: 37
|
Quote:
Look, we had two choices-- Romney or Obama. That much is irrefutable. Obama won. Your so called "better choice" And yet you still point fingers pretending you know what america and its citizens are like. Your points aren't even making any sense. You can't expect people to vote for some third party choice who is barely ever presented the ability to campaign on a national level. Not to mention people are likely more concerned voting for the candidate closest to their views, while still having a believable chance of winning. You have shown me more ignorance in a single one of your posts then I've seen all week. You accuse Americans of blind hate, yet you define the term.
__________________
|
|
2013-03-02, 18:55 | Link #554 |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Well, for what it's worth our government's approval ratings are pretty much the lowest they've ever been in history. It isn't like Americans are approving of the government's actions, it's just very difficult for us to get this beast under control. It's going to take some time. Lack of voter participation and interest in researching the issues is a valid criticism, but there are some inherent designs in our system that make it unlikely that even increased participation and interest would have much of an effect.
__________________
|
2013-03-02, 18:58 | Link #555 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
By the way, you are part of a growing minority of Republicans/conservatives, who are beginning to accept gay marriage, and that are pro-choice. But also still hold major Republican values of, say, smaller government. Call these people socially liberal, fiscally/governmentally conservative. To them, neither R's nor D's are a good fit. From their perspective, they might see themselves in the middle. But to the rest of the world, they are still right of center. And I call the rest of the world center (well, mainly European countries), because they seem to have found the nice blend. Take Germany for example: strong labor unions and regulations, universal health care, and yet a strong, healthy free market running briskly on capitalism. That blend of socialism/capitalism is what I call the center. Actually, we had Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, too. And depending on where you were in the US, you could vote for Virgil Goode, too. There was one other main 3rd party candidate whose name escapes me at the moment.... And for the record, I voted for Gary Johnson. Honestly speaking, I call people who voted Romney or Obama the "wrong way." People complain about no good third party candidates, but then don't vote for them. That's why I was doing my damnedest during the election to inform people of third party candidates. I don't like Virgil Goode, but I'd rather people vote for him than Obama or Romney. |
|
2013-03-02, 19:09 | Link #556 | |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
From what I've heard of it, I like Australia's system. Instead of voting for one person per position you create a rank list. If your first choice doesn't get enough votes, they are knocked out of the running and then your second choice comes into play. Vallen can probably tell us more about it. Basically, it means that you can take the chance to vote for whoever you really want to, and you don't have to worry about "throwing your vote away." Case in point, I would have loved to vote for Ron Paul or John Huntsman. Neither made it onto the actual ballot. I considered writing in for one of them, but I really didn't want Romney to win, and I thought Obama was OK. Being write-in candidates, I knew that neither Paul nor Huntsman had a chance of getting a majority against either of the establishment candidates. As such, I voted Obama. If I were allowed to create a rank list I would have voted as I pleased, knowing that even if my third-choice candidate were the contender, my choice would still be clear (and would still be against Romney). I suspect more people would vote as they wished if we had such a system.
__________________
|
|
2013-03-02, 19:12 | Link #557 | |
Ass connoisseur
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Florida
Age: 37
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2013-03-02, 19:20 | Link #558 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
You can call me ignorant. You can call me any number of things. It still won't change anything though. My country would still blindly follow America's lead on foreign policy. We would still be "allies".
__________________
|
|
2013-03-02, 19:35 | Link #559 | |
廉頗
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 34
|
Quote:
Plus, you should read up about the problems with a two-party system. We don't even have majority rule in the first place. |
|
2013-03-02, 19:37 | Link #560 | |
On a mission
Author
|
Quote:
Such rhetoric would be perfect for Fox News, wouldn't it?
__________________
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|