Political Parties: Support or Defend Your Political Affiliations

[Matt308]

Okay Forum Members... the Admins and Mods have cussed (and discussed) the idea for a place to post your thoughts about your particular political affiliation, its merits, advantages compared to others, and why other beliefs are a trifle off-base.

This will be the ONLY sticky thread where the mods will come down hard on any of the following are used in a disparaging format:

1) Personal attacks against forum members, political persons, or related individuals. It will be acceptable to quote political persons plans, actions, activities and accomplishments. You move it beyond that and the Mods have full discretion to warn, delete, and ban.

2) Disparaging comments on sexual orientation, gender, race, religion, or skin color.

3) Use of extreme foul language in any format.

4) Posting of off-color, inappropriate or rated-R (adult only) video links, URLs, or pictures will not be tolerated.

Okay you GOP, Democrats, liberals, right wingers, neo-cons, progressives, Greens, Socialists, Fascists, conservatives, constitutionalists, Nazis, KKK'ers and conspiracy theorists; put your philosophical beliefs upon the table in a coherent format. State your pros. Defend your cons.

But most importantly, behave yourselves. If the Sticky gets out of hand, LesOfPrimus will shut it down like a subprime foreclosure.

And let the debate begin...

 

[Matt308]

Oh... and no more whining about unfair Forum practices against any particular affiliation. It's annoying.

 

[ToughOmbre]

No political affiliation for me. Guess you would call me an independent. But don't get me wrong, I'm a traditional, conservative American and in today's political climate that means I'm generally voting Republican.

I've never understood party affiliation. The terms Republican, Democrat, etc. really have no meaning to me. A person's beliefs, value system and philosophy should govern his vote. I believe in the Judeo-Christian tenents and beliefs this country was founded on, and that certainly influences my vote.

What I don't understand are the folks who vote one party or the other, based on the fact that their father, grandfather or entire family have historically voted that way.

I don't believe in the secular progressive liberal idea of what America should be.

I will resist the influence of the ACLU, George Soros and the rest of the far left, San Francisco type nutjobs that are ruining this country.

Does that answer the question?

TO

 

[Freebird]

No political affiliation for me. Guess you would call me an independent. But don't get me wrong, I'm a traditional, conservative American and in today's political climate that means I'm generally voting Republican.

I've never understood party affiliation. The terms Republican, Democrat, etc. really have no meaning to me. A person's beliefs, value system and philosophy should govern his vote. I believe in the Judeo-Christian tenents and beliefs this country was founded on, and that certainly influences my vote.

What I don't understand are the folks who vote one party or the other, based on the fact that their father, grandfather or entire family have historically voted that way.

I don't believe in the secular progressive liberal idea of what America should be.

I will resist the influence of the ACLU, George Soros and the rest of the far left, San Francisco type nutjobs that are ruining this country.

Does that answer the question?

TO

A noble idea TO, but could you really vote for a Democrat?

And I know that quite a few Republican leaning regulars here {who I know like! } have stated they have "Judeo-Christian" beliefs, does that include the Christian ideas of "Morality"? Or is that a personal choice?

 

[Freebird]

secular progressive liberal idea

TO

One thing I have to state TO, I have an objection to the "Secular Progressive" label, I know Bill O'Reilly has coined this term, but what he calls "SP" liberals have little in common with the "Progressive" movement, as exemplified by Teddy Roosevelt.

It's time that the term "Progressive" was re-claimed for what it meant.

Some of the ideas advanced by Priogressives:

from Wiki: Progressivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1.) Secret Ballots for elections

2.) Women's Sufferage

3.) Elected Primarys {not by party bosses}

4.) Proffesional Administration {Government personnel in the INS, FBI, NSC, etc. should be proffesional, non political - not party hacks}

5.) Eliminate Government Corruption

6.) Trust-Busting - Eliminate Monopolies

7.) Government Regulations for Environment, Safety, Banking, Labor etc.

8.) Ending Child Labor

9.) Consevation of Natural Resources


In Canada in the early part of the Century the "Progressive" party merged with the "Conservative" party to form the "Progressive Conservatives" until the 1990's when the "Progressive" was dropped.

 

[ToughOmbre]

A noble idea TO, but could you really vote for a Democrat?

And I know that quite a few Republican leaning regulars here {who I know like! } have stated they have "Judeo-Christian" beliefs, does that include the Christian ideas of "Morality"? Or is that a personal choice?

I would vote for a conservative Democrat over a liberal Republican EVERY time free.

As stated, my idea of morality is based on the Judeo-Christian beliefs but yes, also personal, and I respect the personal morality choices of others.

TO

 

[ToughOmbre]

One thing I have to state TO, I have an objection to the "Secular Progressive" label, I know Bill O'Reilly has coined this term, but what he calls "SP" liberals have little in common with the "Progressive" movement, as exemplified by Teddy Roosevelt.

Fair point free. My use of the term would mirror O'Reilly's use and meaning of SP. "Secular" is what differentiates the meaning in my opinion.

TO

 

[Matt308]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU6GSl2yu_o

 

[Matt308]

Sorry, couldn't resist. Says it all to me about the liberal (progressive) agenda.

 

[Freebird]

Good evening Matt, Kudo's for the political thread idea.

And no whining!

For the record, I'm as P'd off at the liberals too for hijacking "Progressive", almost as bad as the oxymoron "devout" Muslims blowing off bombs.

Perhaps you should move posts 746 - 754 from the "Global Warming" thread over here, as it starts a discussion of Socialism between Ren, Lear, Adler myself. This would be the right place to discuss the merits of Socialism vs. Capitalism I would think.

Cheers.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

I think liberals will want money oil too once they get their hands on it.

 

[Matt308]

Perhaps you should move posts 746 - 754 from the "Global Warming" thread over here, as it starts a discussion of Socialism between Ren, Lear, Adler myself. This would be the right place to discuss the merits of Socialism vs. Capitalism I would think.

Cheers.

Nope. But carry on.

 

[Freebird]

Nope. But carry on.

Umm Ok.

Would you have an objection if I quoted the relevant parts here then?

It seemed to be moving totally off topic for "Global Warming", but I for one would be interested to have the discussion continue, here if appropriate.

 

[JugBR]

socialism its easy to explain, just read karl marx, its everything there. the meanings of production in the hands of a strong and global onde-party state, the "dictatureship of workers", thats the idea of socialism. marx realized socialism as a transition period between the capitalist soceiety to what we call utopia. the meanings of production in the hands of workers comunities(theres no unions that time anymore), no more countries or frontiers no presidents, no mayors no senators, no states, but no crime, no wars, etc... utopia.

but understand the capitalism its quite more complicated. the capitalism of 21 century is very caotic. if theres an economic crisis in thailand, you will feel that in your homeland, because companies and the investiments have no passport. soccer balls from pakistan, eletronic devices from china, call centers from india, french cars assembler in argentina.... etc. everybody wants too sell more to other countries and buy less.

so, its kind of a hypocrisy, like, when we wants to sell more to another contry we talk about free market and free world, democracy, bla bla bla... then when the guy are selling much in your country and your home enterprises cant take the competition, lets talk about nationalism, im proud to be xxxx this is a xxxx factory with xxxx workers bla bla bla bla bla...

polititians ? must be vaccinated and castrated.

my party ?

once time ago i voted for lula, but im disapointed with him and the labour party (PT), because they was so corrupt than the other ones. but i believed they wasnt, my mistake.

left ? right ? once time the former argentinian president juan peron said: the power its like a violin: should be taken by the left and played by the right. so im a nationalist.

not nationalist like that ultra-right-conservateur/neo-nazi that you see in many parts, but more like nationalist as put to work together all people from left, center and right who is not corrupt and really loves brazil.

to resolve the main problems of that nation. in some issues left is better than right. another issues needs a right view to resolve. the ideology should be love brazil. thats the most rich country in the world. its a shame so many poverty.

 

[Freebird]

socialism its easy to explain, just read karl marx, its everything there. the meanings of production in the hands of a strong and global onde-party state, the "dictatureship of workers", thats the idea of socialism.

Umm no Marx was talking about Communism, not the same as Socialism

 

[stasoid]

Umm no Marx was talking about Communism, not the same as Socialism

He was talking abouth both. Sorry for copy/pasting but here it is:

Socialism refers to any of various economic and political concepts of state or collective (i.e. public) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services, some of which have been developed into more or less highly articulated theories and/or praxis. [1] In a Marxist or labor-movement definition of the term, socialism is a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done with the goal of creating a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Freebird]

I will re-post the relevent parts of our discussion of socialism that branched off from the "Global warming" thread.

You are indeed correct about the two main American political parties not being around during Mediaeval times, and that the original Republican Party opposed slavery. I am not indicting the Republican Party for slavery or witchcraft, I am simply making a point about right-wingers, or reactionaries, or conservatives or whatever you wish to call them. My point is that history seems to show that they are usually fighting a losing, rearguard battle against reason and science, hence my references to witchcraft, the Earth being the centre of the solar system, etc. Using the term Republican is simply a shorthand for conservatives, just as many on this site seem to use Democrat (or dimocrat – talk about vitriolic) as a comprehensive term for "leftists".

I don't agree with "conservative" being always reactionary and opposed to science. There is the "Teddy Roosevelt" model of conservatism, pro-environment, and for keeping thye big corporations honest from abusing their power.

Sorry to interrupt this mainly right-wing love fest, but as a left-winger (and as a recovering Republican, it's part of my therapy), I feel I have to respond (although Danielmellbin has done an exemplary job). Renrich (I think you implied this earlier, if you did not, accept [or not] my apologies), leftist does NOT mean communist as you seem to think (although it may mean socialist – see the definition of socialist, democratic). In terms of the media generally agreeing with the left-wing point of view, did it ever occur to you that they mainly agree, as you assert, because the left-wing view is correct, and they're just reporting the truth? No, it probably didn't. But think about it – when have right-wingers been proven correct over the long haul?

Yep, that makes a lot of sense. The majority of the media is left wing so they must be right in what they say. We should let the media lead us, most of which have never done anything concrete. All they do is talk about what other people do. They don't produce anything except BS. They don't create jobs for other people. They don't build anything. They exaggerate, they mislead, they sensationalise, they obfuscate, lie and you think they should be listened to. The only difference between communism and socialism is in degree and in all forms they are failures. In most cases the majority is always wrong. The only thing that saves this country from people like you is that you can't get everyone to vote!

Renrich – ouch, looks like I touched a nerve. My "observation" about the media was somewhat sarcastic, which you didn't seem to catch. Your observation that "The only difference between communism and socialism is in degree and in all forms they are failures." is rather fatuous and once again shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the enormous differences between communism (Revolutionary Marxism) and socialism (Democratic Socialism). That would be like me saying that the only difference between Nazism and conservatism is in degree. The one thing that's going to save this country from people like you is that this time we progressives are going to get enough people to vote. I find your comment interesting, "In most cases the majority is always wrong." - doesn't show much faith in democracy - you know, democracy - the reason we supposedly went to war in Iraq. Surely you must have read about democracy, it's been in all the papers. One question for you – where have you been for the last 7 years? We've had 7 years of "your" way and look at the results – gas at an all time high (I know, it's because of the pinkos not allowing drilling in ANWR), Iraq is still a mess (despite the so-called success of the "surge"), our economy is in shambles, the dollar keeps sinking to new lows, mortgage failures skyrocketing, enormous deficits that may take decades to bring down – you get the point (or not). I don't know about you, but this working-stiff hasn't exactly prospered while people like you have been in control of this country.

 

[Freebird]

...

The only difference between communism and socialism is in degree and in all forms they are failures.

So explain to me please how Canada, England, Germany, France, hell pretty much all of Europe are failures or have failed?

Seriously...

The simple answer to the question about socialism versus whatever you want to call our form of government is that the less socialism the more freedom and the more dynamic the economy is. The US has the most dynamic economy in the world and also the largest. In the meantime we are also supporting the largest and most effective military in the world. Chris, in the countries you mentioned, what would their budgets and or tax code look like if they continued to spend on social programs but spent as much on defense as we do. This takes place in spite of the US becoming more socialistic every year. I have been right here for the last seven years enjoying not another attack by terrorists and enjoying 52 months of GDP growth which was a record along with low inflation rates. However I don't give a lot of credit to the Bush administration for the economy but rather it is our system, which the liberals will continue to nibble at and dismantle. If one thinks the economy is in shambles that person has not been around long. Go back and look at the housing sector, banking and S&L situation in the 80s and then you will know real problems. For your information, the "recession" we are in is still not a recession. If you blame high oil and gasoline prices on the Bush Admin. we have nothing left to discuss.

 

[Freebird]

That did not answer my question. You said they were failures. How are they failures?

Chris, "failure" is a poor choice of words on my part. I should have said that relative to the US form of government, more socialistic governments IMO are not as successful or as likely to provide an environment where the citizens enjoy the maximum amount of freedom and opportunity to get ahead. You could say that the government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is not a failure because he still governs. Most other communist governments have failed in that those countries no longer have that system but rather a form of socialism. Of course, the terms, socialism and communism have many gradations but they certainly have some things in common. I believe that there is no perfect form of government because of man and his frailties. However the US form is probably the best that has been devised. There is no question however that we in the US are gradually moving into a more socialistic form of government. There are even greater or lesser opportunities for freedom and opportunity between the several states of the US. No one could deny that there is less government interference in Texas than there is in California. Right now, the dimocrat party is basically the party of the "public sector." The GOP represents the "private sector." The public is growing and the private is shrinking. If this trend continues,taxes will increase and the overall standard of living will not continue to improve and may even decline. We will grow less and less able to defend ourselves and our interests because our military will be starved of funding in favor of public programs. If, for instance, we have socilised medicine, we will have a bigger shortage of doctors than we already have. Good and timely medical care will be hard to find. Some dimocrats have already said they want to nationalise the oil companies. That will result in smaller supplies of petroleum and higher prices. FDR will turn out to be prophetic when he said that the communist system in the USSR will become more like us and we will become more like them.

Renrich, we may have the most dynamic and largest economy in the world but we need to look at it a little more closely and see where the money is going, because it sure as Hell isn't going to the middle class. Middle class wages have remained stagnant, at best, under this 52 months of GDP growth you mention. GDP growth doesn't really mean that much to the vast majority of people if they gain nothing from it. I do think the economy is in shambles, and as one who's unemployed I know firsthand just how swimmingly things are going, and I've been around the block once or twice (don't think you're lecturing some ignorant leftwing kid just out of college). It's interesting that you mention the 80's, as that's when Reagan was in power, intent on deregulating everything, including the Savings and Loans. An unregulated free-market system is a recipe for disaster (see Depression, Great). I don't propose, nor do most progressives, a state-controlled command economy like the Soviet Union had (we saw how well that worked out). What most of us propose is a regulated free-market system, where the people are protected from the worst depredations of laissez-faire economics (see Barons, Robber; Labour, Child, etc.). Call that paternalistic, if you must, but it's the way that makes the most sense for the most people. What regulations are for is not to create bureaucracy or undue burdens on business, but to make sure that they behave in a responsible manner to society, just as we have criminal laws to regulate individual citizens' behaviour (you don't propose getting rid of criminal laws, do you?). The problem with this economy is that we privatise gain (look at the huge bonuses the Fortune 500 CEO's receive) and we socialise loss, as with the S&L crisis. We don't get to see the profits these companies make, but we sure see our money being used to prop them up when they overextend themselves, such as Lockheed back in the 70's and the mortgage companies today. I know firsthand a little bit about companies overextending themselves in the absence of regulations, having worked for the late, lamented Enron. I agree that the responsibility for high oil and gasoline prices can't just be left on Bush's doorstep, but I know damn well that if this had happened under the Clinton administration, it would all be Bill's fault, even though for 6 years of his presidency he didn't control the legislative branch, just the opposite of Bush's situation. My problem with Bush is he seems to think that drilling everywhere in the U.S. is the solution, when mandating (yes – MANDATING) higher gas mileage standards for our vehicles and promoting conservation would be much more effective.

I'm not here to defend Communism or Socialism, I was pointing out that the form it supposedly exists today in Europe is far different than the "total ownership" that Marx was writing about.

"The only difference between communism and socialism is in degree and in all forms they are failures." is rather fatuous and once again shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the enormous differences between communism (Revolutionary Marxism) and socialism (Democratic Socialism). That would be like me saying that the only difference between Nazism and conservatism is in degree.

He was talking about both. Sorry for copy/pasting but here it is:

Socialism refers to any of various economic and political concepts of state or collective (i.e. public) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services, some of which have been developed into more or less highly articulated theories and/or praxis. [1] In a Marxist or labor-movement definition of the term, socialism is a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done with the goal of creating a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia

Wiki has the same quotes as on "answers.com", but I note are qualified with "various concepts" "more or less articulated theories", there is no one consensus. Also I note that the quote has a further disambiguation on Communism vs. modern Democratic Socialism

In communist theory, socialism is the first stage on the road to full communism. It differs from communism in that it is attached to ethical and democratic values and because it allows both common and state ownership.

Social democrats accepted the reality of the 'mixed economy', and turned their back on the Marxist analysis of capitalism and the idea of socializing the main instruments of economic production, distribution, and exchange.

 

[eddie_brunette]

I've posted this elsewhere, but after seeing this threat......




edd