Do you consider yourself more a Democrat or Republican?

Page 2 of 5 [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

20 Aug 2009, 7:46 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Sand wrote:
Klaatu barada nikto

I have totally no idea about Klingon. I mean I've watched a bit of Startrek in the past, but never gotten too deep into it and certainly not deep enough to translate Klingon.


This is way, way pre Klingon. Look it up.



phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

21 Aug 2009, 2:01 am

Thankfully, i don't live in the U.S, so i don't have to answer that. I rather not align myself too much with a party. -.- (i have a short voting history, so i doubt that would be enough to say where i stand)



Cyanide
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,003
Location: The Pacific Northwest

21 Aug 2009, 2:55 am

I wouldn't consider myself to be either.



LinnaeusCat
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 484
Location: Le Monde

21 Aug 2009, 5:27 am

Hector wrote:
My views are probably further to the "left" of both the Republicans and the Democrats. I'm a Canadian and am very sympathetic to how things are run over there, on many issues. Whenever I read any tirade against "big government" I'm always quite puzzled. I'd swear that many Americans have been brainwashed to think that a government offering essential services to its people amounts to the enabling of a centrally planned economy similar to North Korea's.


I definitely agree. I'd class myself as a Progressive.


_________________
?How I wish that somewhere there existed an island for those who are wise and of good will.?--Albert Einstein

INTJ.


zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

21 Aug 2009, 6:48 am

I've always been "independent" but because I'm more conservative on many values, for a time I identified with the Republican party. Since ultimately both parties are corrupt, I really don't care for either of them.

I'm more libertarian now than anything else.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 Aug 2009, 6:53 am

I am a free marketeer. I detest collectivist systems. Boo Hiss on Socialism, Fascism, Communism. There is no such thing as collective property. All property is controlled by someone or some discernible group of people.

Despite its rough edges, Capitalism wins the economics race.

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

21 Aug 2009, 7:08 am

ruveyn wrote:
I am a free marketeer. I detest collectivist systems. Boo Hiss on Socialism, Fascism, Communism. There is no such thing as collective property. All property is controlled by someone or some discernible group of people.

Despite its rough edges, Capitalism wins the economics race.

ruveyn


And the race ends with a jump over the cliff.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 Aug 2009, 7:18 am

Sand wrote:

And the race ends with a jump over the cliff.


Better to jump off as a free person than to live as a cog in some Socialist gear train. Until we go Off the Cliff we capitalists we have much more fun and goodies than the fascists, socialists, commies and pinko stinko liberals. The fact that people run from dictatorial socialist or fascists regimes to come to the U.S. and struggle here for the goodies is proof that capitalism, warts and all wins the beauty contest.

At its best socialism is a rationing scheme for doling out scarcity in a "fair" manner. It is not the ideal system for the brightest, the best and the ambitious. If Andrew Carnegie, who came to the U.S. with just the clothes on his back and a dollar and change in his pocket, had stayed in Scotland he would have died a mediocre man. In the U.S. he became the first billionaire and this with with later 19th century dollars. He outdid Bill Gates. If Tom Edison lived in England it is doubtful that he would have become the industrial power house (quite literally) that he became in the U.S.

In the U.S. we have bigger and more, if not better.

Greed is Good --- Gordon Gekko

ruveyn



forweg
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 19 Aug 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 8

21 Aug 2009, 10:46 am

I don't see much difference between them. Seems they agree on all the issues I care about.

I'm just anti-government in general. Anarchist, I suppose...



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 Aug 2009, 10:48 am

forweg wrote:
I don't see much difference between them. Seems they agree on all the issues I care about.

I'm just anti-government in general. Anarchist, I suppose...



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 Aug 2009, 10:50 am

forweg wrote:
I don't see much difference between them. Seems they agree on all the issues I care about.

I'm just anti-government in general. Anarchist, I suppose...


You may think you are anarchist, but I will bet your would not want to live in a real live anarchic society such as Somalia. Anarchy works fine if practiced by nice decent folks who have self control. This is not descriptive of a good part of the human race. According to Hobbes without governments the strong would eat the weak alive.

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

21 Aug 2009, 10:53 am

ruveyn wrote:
forweg wrote:
I don't see much difference between them. Seems they agree on all the issues I care about.

I'm just anti-government in general. Anarchist, I suppose...


You may think you are anarchist, but I will bet your would not want to live in a real live anarchic society such as Somalia. Anarchy works fine if practiced by nice decent folks who have self control. This is not descriptive of a good part of the human race. According to Hobbes without governments the strong would eat the weak alive.

ruveyn


In other words, the government is the only expert at cooking and serving humans in a delectable form.



phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

21 Aug 2009, 10:57 am

^ :lmao: Nice one Sand...



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

21 Aug 2009, 11:40 am

ruveyn wrote:
You may think you are anarchist, but I will bet your would not want to live in a real live anarchic society such as Somalia. Anarchy works fine if practiced by nice decent folks who have self control. This is not descriptive of a good part of the human race. According to Hobbes without governments the strong would eat the weak alive.

ruveyn

Well, I am relatively sure that most anarchists don't want to live in Somalia, and I am relatively sure that most communists wouldn't want to live in North Korea. The question isn't whether we can argue that Somalia or North Korea fit into the belief, but rather whether or not the belief we describe necessarily leads to Somalia or North Korea.

In any case, if Somalia is anarchist, then Hobbes is at least partially wrong, as the Hobbesian view is closer to the notion that something like this is impossible("without government the strong eat the weak alive"), but if you say Somalia is anarchist, then a flat contradiction to this idea exists, as Somalia is in some ways doing better than it did without it's government.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 Aug 2009, 1:57 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
ruveyn wrote:

In any case, if Somalia is anarchist, then Hobbes is at least partially wrong, as the Hobbesian view is closer to the notion that something like this is impossible("without government the strong eat the weak alive"), but if you say Somalia is anarchist, then a flat contradiction to this idea exists, as Somalia is in some ways doing better than it did without it's government.


I suppose a very bad government can be worse than no government at all. In any case would you choose to live in Somalia as it is now? If not, why not? A slightly obnoxious government that interferes with one's personal life might be better than life in a shooting galery.

The problem with Somalia is the property rights are not protected, so no one is going to invest large sums of money into Somolia to turn it into a half way civilized industrial society. Life in Somolia will be be economically marginal for the foreseeable future.

In theory an anarchistic society could evolve into a minimalist state, with a minimal government (or the operating equivalent thereof). But this has not happened in Somolia nor is it likely to. The same could be said of Haiti which is another sh*t pile.

ruveyn



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

21 Aug 2009, 2:30 pm

I'd say right of center independent. Don't like the religious right in the Republican Party or the far left that controls the Democrats(and the media).