PDA

View Full Version : party



GBH2
01-15-2005, 02:09 PM
so... what party are you?

pOpe
01-15-2005, 02:20 PM
I can't say nothing, bacause I belive and I hope that one day people will be ready to live in anarchy, without laws and without people who say what we have to do
________
Honda Today history (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_Today)

wheelchairman
01-15-2005, 02:33 PM
you're no anarchist. No self-respecting anarchist would dislike an entire nationality.

I am a member of Denmark's Communist Party Marxist-Leninist,
Red Youth, and the People's Movement Against the EU-Youth

RXP
01-15-2005, 02:36 PM
Where is Mr. Tony Blair's labour party?

NOAMR
01-15-2005, 02:41 PM
Euhm, what do u mean? I don't know Pope, so.

wheelchairman
01-15-2005, 02:53 PM
Where is Mr. Tony Blair's labour party?
There's an other option, cause this guy assumed we were all americans.

Noodles is gay
01-15-2005, 05:35 PM
There's an other option, cause this guy assumed we were all americans.

Oh damn - i put 'independent' thinking mayhap it meant conservative for some odd reason - i just kinda blanked ‘other’, hummm...well.

lousyskater
01-15-2005, 06:41 PM
i originally registered Demoocrat, but changed it to independent.

Unnatural Disaster
01-15-2005, 09:59 PM
Democrat.....

Dead Cheerleader
01-16-2005, 04:19 AM
I love how WheelChairman thinks he is so brillant but he is really nothing more than a mindless asshole.

RXP
01-16-2005, 04:22 AM
I defy you to find me an ass hole that has a mind in it.

Some my argue that a back does, well the spinal column but noone's ass has a mind in it. I'm a mindless ass hole too.

wheelchairman
01-16-2005, 05:09 AM
I love how WheelChairman thinks he is so brillant but he is really nothing more than a mindless asshole.
I love it too. But then, how come you have never proven me wrong? I mean, if I am just a mindless asshole, then why do you people fail so miserably at arguing against me?

Dead Cheerleader
01-16-2005, 05:16 AM
My only argument is that all your babble merely derives from some personality disorder and deep-felt inadequacy. Prove me wrong you stupid fuck.

wheelchairman
01-16-2005, 05:25 AM
Why should I prove you wrong? You've proven nothing.

Marion
01-16-2005, 05:57 AM
My only argument is that all your babble merely derives from some personality disorder and deep-felt inadequacy. Prove me wrong you stupid fuck.
Just look at his posts that proves it.

I am a member of a national party. i belive my country should be run for the people by the people, if your elected members of goverment don't act in the intersts of the people who voted for them then they should be voted out. However, thats just me if someone feels different then so be it.

wheelchairman
01-16-2005, 05:58 AM
Just look at his posts that proves it.


More ad-hominem, why don't you just prove me wrong? cause you can't.

Dead Cheerleader
01-16-2005, 07:07 AM
Dude our elections don't say anything about our fucking country. Our country is run by oil investors and easily corrupted hicks. Don't get confused. The people who fund the campaigns support those who help them make money, and the politicians work to make their supporters happy and prosperous. It's amazing how when you get involved in a social group that takes part in such bargains as this, all these things become obviously more clear. I'm fucking really drunk.

Panzerfaust92
01-16-2005, 07:48 AM
I don't vote, so naturally, I didn't mark anything.

Mota Boy
01-17-2005, 12:37 AM
Most Americans describe themselves as "leaning" towards a party or as "weak" Democrats/Republicans. Though wcm, SicNTwisted and many on the political preiphery wish to deny it, the parties have increasingly alienated the centrist voter... but that voter his/her/self has been more likely to seek out the periphery, so it ultimately all works out...

My own opinion, however, is that the average voter is becoming more libertarian than anything else. They think gay rights are hunky-dory but think government taxes are the devil. Ultimately, I say that Republicans are in the worse shape, because the religious right will come out against such... enlightened... voting... which, in a decade or two, won't be the type of thing that plays in Peoria (anti-gay legislation).

However, we'll have to see whether or not the Democratic party emerges as the counterweight. Ultimately, I'm voting for my own values, but I think the Democratic party is closest to representing them.

SicN Twisted
01-18-2005, 12:42 AM
Mota, what values do the Democratic party represent that's even slightly different then the values of Republicans?

Pope, you are no anarchist. Stop discrediting us.

BlackCat
01-18-2005, 01:19 AM
I am a member of a national party. i belive my country should be run for the people by the people, if your elected members of goverment don't act in the intersts of the people who voted for them then they should be voted out. However, thats just me if someone feels different then so be it.

That is actually the way most countries are run. The government works for their own national/personal interest. And they don't give a shit about the rest of the world. Except for, you know, client states. But that's about it.

Mota Boy
01-18-2005, 10:44 AM
Mota, what values do the Democratic party represent that's even slightly different then the values of Republicans?
Sic, I've tried to explain this a half-dozen times already only to be met by your and wcm's continued skepticism, but if you wish me to reiterate...

The seventies was the peak time for party similarity. It was then that the notion that we were really living in a one-party system began to take hold. And it's a notion that continues today, despite a period of three decades where, on every conceivable way to measure it, the parties have been growing further apart. In fact, many political scholars say that the parties are more different today than they've been in almost a century.

Now, compared to the seventeen major parties that regularly vie for control in Italy, our two-party system isn't greatly different. Both believe in many of the same values and both, most importantly, have much staked in the continued survival of the system. But you know what? So do I. The truth of the matter is that most Americans are reasonably centrist also.

But today we've seen a shocking party difference. In fact, in the pre-election Senate, only one Republican Senator voted closer to Democratic values than Republican (someone from Rhode Island) and only one Democratic Senator voted closer to Republican values than Democratic. And that Senator, the now-infamous Zell Miller, retired at the end of the term to be replaced by a Republican.

But to get specific about the different policies that would be enacted by each party...

I, for one, don't believe in moral legislation.
I support gay marriage. But, more importantly, I am wholly against a constitutional ban on gay marriage. While Democrats in power wouldn't press for legalized gay marriage, they won't be trying to enact a constitutional ban on it, one of the centerpieces of the Republican platform.

Likewise, I support the right to burn the American flag. Although the Republicans haven't been making as big a deal about a flag-protection Amendment lately as they have in the past, the issue is still somewhat on the table.

I also support abortion, which most Republicans are dead set on banning. Democrats, not so much.

I support some gun control. The Republican party might as well negotiate a merger with the NRA. I don't mind the right to carry a concealed handgun or to own hunting rifles/shotguns, but anything beyond that probably shouldn't be in the hands of civilians.

Since Reagan came along, Democrats have been the party of fiscal responsibility, which I support. Dick Cheney has said that Reagan proved that "the deficit doesn't matter anymore". Republicans are so eager to distance themselves from "tax and spend" Democrats that they've adopted a policy of "don't tax and spend". It's going to severely harm our nation in the long run.

I don't support invading Iraq. It's pretty obvious that Democrats were with me on that one and Republicans against me.

Also, the treatment of prisoners. The Bush Administration is increasingly coming close to openly advocating torture. They've already locked up countless individuals, even some Americans, with no access to a lawyer or any freedoms in the least.

There are more, but I'm not going to keep listing them until I've covered every possible thing over which the government has control.

Now, if I was dictator, my policies would look drastically different than either party. However, that's not the system that we're in. We've got to choose the available sides, and I think the Democrats present an immensely more favorable option.

wheelchairman
01-18-2005, 02:46 PM
Alright, interior American politics, are far from my expertise, but I'll give this a shot.


Now, compared to the seventeen major parties that regularly vie for control in Italy, our two-party system isn't greatly different. Both believe in many of the same values and both, most importantly, have much staked in the continued survival of the system. But you know what? So do I. The truth of the matter is that most Americans are reasonably centrist also.
To claim that the Republicans and Democrats are different, and then to say most Americans are reasonably centrist, is a contradiction, is it not?

I wouldn't say Americans are centrist. I would say the system they are in is, they don't really have much choice or say. As beautifully democratic as Federalism was meant to be, it's decayed quite a bit. But American's certainly weren't centrist when they were pissed off about Taxation without Representation, they weren't centrist about the whole Negro issue from the mid 1800's to the mid 1960's. They weren't centrist about their conditions during the great depression. They weren't centrist in their support for Roosevelt and Kennedy (who if they were in the Democratic party today, would be considered Socialists). Americans are a deeply polarized people actually, city-folk tend to be on the left wing, while the countryside is rooted in conservatism (this is true of every country.) what we have though, is a system, in which major multinational corporations are able to purchase which policies they like, and you know every company that means anything, has it's fingers deep in both parties. What we have is a two party system, that is, in practice one right-wing party.

The Democrats are elected when blatant rape of the economy for the sake of corporations, becomes intolerable to the American people. Then it needs to be better hidden, but who are we kidding, Clinton was no enemy of corporations, he wanted the Health Insurance Companies to be his pals for his health-insurance plan.

And the democratic party is very ambiguous. We have a christian right, inside the democratic party, while there is also something resembling a European Social-Democratic left in the Democrats. It is rather hard to find this blend inside the Republicans (from where I'm sitting at least.)

I'll agree with you, morally speaking, this is the only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. That's rather pitiful, any and every European from a parliamentary system will tell you your system feels like a dictatorship. Even a country like England, which, more or less, is a two party system with some smaller fringe parties, is more democratic than the American system. The differences between the policies that are implemented under a republican government, and of that under a democratic government, are small enough to be simply the differences inside one European mainstream party.

Although I actually support the republican stance on gun control.

In handling Iraq, I don't think John Kerry would've been capable, or willing, to pull us out immediately, or even in the near future. As long as these two parties are the only choice, then the Iraq war will continue, even past the sham election we are giving to them.

Economically speaking, well let's face it, after Reagan presidents never really had control over the economy, and not much before then. Any libertarian economist will tell you this, and I'll tend to agree with their logic on that one. Even though I don't like them. I mean the president can't control consumption, he can't control production. He has limited powers over import and export. He has none of the power a European equivalent to the American president would have.

Vicky
01-18-2005, 03:06 PM
Apparantly my friends dread that I'll be able to vote soon... "But Vicky, you'll vote BNP" hahaha... no, I joke about it, but I wouldn't actually do it :p
Anyway, I'm english so you should change the poll, just for me. ta

wheelchairman
01-18-2005, 03:11 PM
That's not bad Vicky. I have a friend who is really pro-Israel, so around him I act like a raging anti-semite. He once asked me what it's called when you kill a lot of Jews, and I told him pesticide.

Lars
01-18-2005, 03:31 PM
Apparantly my friends dread that I'll be able to vote soon... "But Vicky, you'll vote BNP" hahaha... no, I joke about it, but I wouldn't actually do it :p
Anyway, I'm english so you should change the poll, just for me. ta

A stupid woman at my old workplace actually voted BNP in the last local elections.... She really is stupid.

Betty
01-18-2005, 03:52 PM
WCM, we spoke about this before when I said that the media (at least in Canada) leans left overall. Obviously you disagreed. But the point that was brought up was that it depends what perspective you take. If you look at the parties from an American point of view, then YES, there is quite a diffence between the parties. One is very much more left and one very much more right, based on the system that America runs on. Sure, maybe on the global scale they would be closer together on the political spectrum, but that's not the point. It's at least very different than having a "one party system" because the two have to compete to win over the people, regardless of how much is actually true. And they can't lie too much or they will not be re-elected.

I think it's true that a lot of Americans are "centre-leaning". There must be tons of swing voters out there, but I suppose I could be mistaken. I suppose you would agree that the Canadian system may better represent voters with the three major parties... left, centre and right. Where the centre is pretty close to what the democrats would be probably, maybe a bit one way or the other depending on the issue. Either way, I'd also imagine that a love of Americans LOVE America and all of the terrible, terrible things it stands for.

Mota, I agree with most of the things that you do regarding politics, however I think I'd still consider myself Republican. I don't agree with many "moral/social" values that many conservatives do, but don't consider that of prime importance in an election. And also, they don't really affect me or anybody close to me, so that also helps them to be put on the backburner. Maybe if I were gay, that would swing me. The thing about the deficit intrigues me, I don't really know much about how the two parties handle it. However I believe in theory that the republican party should be more fiscally responsible than the democrats when it comes to things like that. So if the current government isn't, then they should be. It could sway the vote, but not so much for the party, but for the specific people governing at the time. I'm not as much in support of the social programs though, and that's where a big difference comes in. That and privatization and the like. I suppose you didn't really say you WERE a democrat, but just that they better represent you at this point in time. So basically I'm just babbling, I think.

wheelchairman
01-18-2005, 03:58 PM
Of course there is a difference, it would be impossible to have any kind of election without one. The difference is blown out of proportion to what it actually is though. It has to be. Especially in practice, with the legislative process, the two parties, in effect, are basically the same in practice. Sometimes you have strong leaders like Reagan who can make major reforms, but that isn't particularly frequent.

Betty
01-18-2005, 04:59 PM
There ARE more parties though, people are allowed to vote for more than democrat or republican.

Sure it's "the system" and they are "brainwashed" so they really can't. But if people really wanted a change, they could get together and vote for a third party.

wheelchairman
01-18-2005, 05:06 PM
I am not sure about this, but I believe in the 96 elections, a third party got 20% of the vote. They weren't even represented in Congress though. But that number could be very wrong...

The thing is, none of the third parties have the opportunities, resources, or ability to reach the entire nation. It would be impossible to win an election wouln't it? An irony of today's version of federalism.

Betty
01-18-2005, 07:27 PM
In Canada, they did a thing where each party gets like $1 or something per vote. Therefore, they can use that for funding in future years, allowing them to gain ressources, etc. The green party, which only gets a few percent of the vote, and didn't get elected in one riding, had a candidate in every single riding I believe. So people could have very well voted for them. Their platform was fairly well advertised. However, I don't think the leader got to take part in the major debate, which was unfortunate. Anyway, the point is, maybe this is a good system? And also, parties can gain popularity slowly if they appeal to the masses.

nieh
01-18-2005, 07:34 PM
I lean more left than right, which means i'm more likely to vote democrat than republican (but I'm not either of them).

Mota Boy
01-18-2005, 08:19 PM
Alright, interior American politics, are far from my expertise, but I'll give this a shot.
...and I just took a course last term titled "American Political Parties", with one of the final exam questions concerning the relative similarity of American political parties, so it's a little unfair.


To claim that the Republicans and Democrats are different, and then to say most Americans are reasonably centrist, is a contradiction, is it not?
Not that I see it. In fact, you have more people getting fed up with the parties nowadays not because they're too far to the left or right, but because they're fairly centrist and the parties are more extreme than they are. For a variety of reasons (which I could go into if you want), Democrats/Republicans are more liberal/conservative than the average American. In fact, much more so.


American's certainly weren't centrist when they were pissed off about Taxation without Representation, they weren't centrist about the whole Negro issue from the mid 1800's to the mid 1960's. They weren't centrist about their conditions during the great depression. They weren't centrist in their support for Roosevelt and Kennedy (who if they were in the Democratic party today, would be considered Socialists).
I'd argue that they were. The center has shifted remarkably over the centuries of history in this country, but that the majority of Americans in the past held ideologies that would be considered radical today has as little significance as that the majority of Americans today hold ideologies that would be considered radical thirty, fifty, a hundred or two hundred years ago.


what we have though, is a system, in which major multinational corporations are able to purchase which policies they like, and you know every company that means anything, has it's fingers deep in both parties. What we have is a two party system, that is, in practice one right-wing party.
Well, for one, you forget that not all industries support each party equally, though that's a rather weak rebuttal. Ultimately, though, your argument boils down to that both parties are similar because both parties have a roughly similar view of industry. However, this is but a small fraction of government power. Also, you'll note that industry heads rewrote EPA legislation under the Bush administration, which wouldn't've happened under a Democratic one. On certain issues, especially the environment, you can count on Democrats to be opposed to big business. Just because Clinton thought that health insurance could be brought about privately... a plan that, mind you, was soundly defeated, says little about the man as a whole.



And the democratic party is very ambiguous. We have a christian right, inside the democratic party, while there is also something resembling a European Social-Democratic left in the Democrats. It is rather hard to find this blend inside the Republicans (from where I'm sitting at least.)
The Christian right in the Democratic party? Blue Dog democrats - the conservative wing of the Democratic party that voted with Republicans on many social issues in the seventies has dwindled to just a handfull of members today and only votes as a block sporadically (as in, once every few months or so).



Although I actually support the republican stance on gun control.
Eh, my stance is a bit of a halfway point between Democratic and Republican platforms, at the moment I agree with the Democrats there is too little regulation of arms. If the Democrats were in power and pushing through tough anti-gun legislation I'd probably side more with the Republicans.


In handling Iraq, I don't think John Kerry would've been capable, or willing, to pull us out immediately, or even in the near future.
Oh no, of course not. In fact, many Iraqis viewed Kerry as tougher than Bush in regards to Iraq, as he insinuated that we'd stay longer. I figure we don't have many choices regarding the country at the moment, I was talking about Bush v. Gore, that voting one way or the other made a huge fucking difference in terms of our Middle East policy.



Economically speaking, well let's face it, after Reagan presidents never really had control over the economy, and not much before then. Any libertarian economist will tell you this, and I'll tend to agree with their logic on that one. Even though I don't like them. I mean the president can't control consumption, he can't control production. He has limited powers over import and export. He has none of the power a European equivalent to the American president would have.
I don't know. After reading Robert Rubin's autobiography (Clinton's head of the NEC and then Secretary of the Treasury), I'm of the opinion that government control over economics has some very important ramifications. His basic point is that, if the government is in debt, it uses up capital that would otherwise be used by private individuals. Because there is less cash available, interest rates rise and slow the economy. Basic law of supply and demand.

Ultimately, the President has little direct control and the only President I really directly blame for causing a recession is that fucker Andrew Jackson, but in the long run a large federal deficit is going to harm our country. I believe this and Republicans don't. In fact, there's even a line of thought that says that Republicans intentionally run up a high deficit, so that when the Democrats get in power they don't have any money left over for their plans. I don't really believe it, but it's a fun idea.

Betty
01-18-2005, 09:19 PM
I hate the idea that Republicans are anti-environment. They are simply not crazy. Some may not give a shit, I'm sure. But overall, they definitely care to a certain extent, as I'm sure most people do.

For example, we had a speaker come in for our Chemistry and Industry course and he talked about the idea of incorporating ethanol into gas to make it burn cleaner and how unfeasible it really is. ALthough apparently the Canadian government is making us incorporate a certain amount of ethanol into gasoline by a certain year as part of the whole kyoto deal. Sure it sounds like a good idea, but you use more energy to make the ethanol than you get back from it (loss of profit/ressources) and you also make tons of pollution at the plants that actually produce it as well. A similar thing could be said about many ways people have proposed to reduce pollution.

I don't know... just not many pro-evironment people really know the whole issue to things. Some stuff can definitely be changed, I think. But it's not that bad. Otherwise, we'd really have to go back to living in log cabins, etc, to make a really drastic change.

SicN Twisted
01-18-2005, 09:38 PM
I support no political parties since political parties are basically institutionalized comformity. I used to be a member of the CPUSA, and the French Communist Party for a time when I was naive enough to consider myself a Marxist-Leninist.

Dead Cheerleader
01-18-2005, 10:52 PM
Betty, you should really get your posts more concise. They are like way too long to read. Organize your thoughts better and cut out what you don't need.

Mota Boy
01-18-2005, 11:18 PM
...or perhaps the problem is your short attention span.

Betty
01-18-2005, 11:25 PM
Paragraphs usually make things pretty easy to skim.

wheelchairman
01-18-2005, 11:27 PM
I'll reply to you soon Mota (likely)

Sic, well I'm sure an anarchist would feel welcome in a party like the CP-USA. If I was in the states still I'd most certainly join Socialist Equality or the SWP.

Mota Boy
01-18-2005, 11:40 PM
Not that I see it. In fact, you have more people getting fed up with the parties nowadays not because they see the parties as too centrist, but because they see the two parties as too extreme. For a variety of reasons (which I could go into if you want), Democrats/Republicans in office are much more liberal/conservative than the average American, and even the average Democrat/Republican.

Christ, that was a horribly-worded paragraph before I reworked it. And I'm so damn lazy with my replies that I'm in no rush for a response.

wheelchairman
01-19-2005, 03:23 PM
Betty, yeah normally I don't go up into pedantics, twas late in the evening and my brain isn't as effective for some reason that I am not sure of yet, damn brain. And by bonfire I thought you meant piles of wood being burned, not like...a barbecue type thing.


I'd argue that they were. The center has shifted remarkably over the centuries of history in this country, but that the majority of Americans in the past held ideologies that would be considered radical today has as little significance as that the majority of Americans today hold ideologies that would be considered radical thirty, fifty, a hundred or two hundred years ago.
Then I guess we disagree on the definition of centrist, I don't really see it as something that can move on the political line, while you seem to think it's whereever the majority of the population tends to hover. Which of course then makes anything the American people vote for in majorities...centrist.


Oh no, of course not. In fact, many Iraqis viewed Kerry as tougher than Bush in regards to Iraq, as he insinuated that we'd stay longer. I figure we don't have many choices regarding the country at the moment, I was talking about Bush v. Gore, that voting one way or the other made a huge fucking difference in terms of our Middle East policy.
Now Mota, you ain't that young, you know very well that at the time of the election of 2000 there was little difference between Gore and Bush. You did watch the debates yes? Do you remember how much they tended to just agree on everything and only disagreed on small things like implementation?

Robert Rubin, while I really would like to read his work, can hardly be called a reliable source, even though I'd probably agree with a lot of what he wrote.

I didn't reply to everything you wrote, and I apologize, I just don't have the knowledge and ability in this area to debate it.

the original pyro
01-19-2005, 04:56 PM
My own opinion, however, is that the average voter is becoming more libertarian than anything else. They think gay rights are hunky-dory but think government taxes are the devil. Ultimately, I say that Republicans are in the worse shape, because the religious right will come out against such... enlightened... voting... which, in a decade or two, won't be the type of thing that plays in Peoria (anti-gay legislation).

However, we'll have to see whether or not the Democratic party emerges as the counterweight. Ultimately, I'm voting for my own values, but I think the Democratic party is closest to representing them.

thats what should have happened during kennedy's regime, that more people should have became more liberal. But they didn't. People are becoming more ignorant. News stations function as entertainment, giving more stories about kitten fashion shows than casualties of war. Nobody LIKES bad news, and good news gets better ratings. Then consider that there are less and less news stations, then look at who these news stations are owned by. NBC is owned by GE? How in the world can that be impartial. And the kind of censorship of bad news that has been progressing for years is avialable in all other popular mediums, which are all declining in place of TV anyway. When people become more ignorant they become harder to argue with, and anyone who was raised into religeon is almost always religeous, and the religeos are almost always republican.

Also, the reason so many seniors vote republican is because they like a conservative person. They remember their times, and think todays people are too sinful.

Finally and perhaps most of all, when you grow old and less naive. When your old enough to expect about 10-15 years more of life, you start to not care so much about the world. Fuck em, because 1 vote will never make a difference, wouldn't you rather have a taxcut?

fuckin sweet
01-19-2005, 04:58 PM
so... what party are you?

I'm A BiRtHdaY PArtY.

Mota Boy
01-19-2005, 06:31 PM
Now Mota, you ain't that young, you know very well that at the time of the election of 2000 there was little difference between Gore and Bush. You did watch the debates yes? Do you remember how much they tended to just agree on everything and only disagreed on small things like implementation?
Of course. My point was that it turned out that even though they may have appeared quite similar at the time, in retrospect life would be very different under a Gore administration.

wheelchairman
01-20-2005, 09:09 AM
Of course. My point was that it turned out that even though they may have appeared quite similar at the time, in retrospect life would be very different under a Gore administration.
This is probably the best analogy I can do, let's say the Republicans are Pepsi, well then the Democrats are Pepsi light. That is how I see it.

The democrats either screw up to a lesser degree than the republicans in foreign policy, or they don't make anything worse (it's rare when it seems to get better.) I mean we can't forget, that Bill Clinton started a military operation against Iraq, without any real provocation. I believe it started in 2000 or December 1999 not quite sure. An aerial operation.
And throughout Bill's career we were busy destroying infrastructure, water purifiers and power plants. (if this doesn't sound like the thought for invasion was ever-present I don't know what is.) I really do think that with the current system, the war in Iraq was inevitable, the Republicans would've gotten into power eventually and it would've happened. I mean we all know that Cheney and Rummy have been playing it since the early 90's.