INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Scrapheap on March 22, 2007, 08:22:54 PM
-
How would you describe your political beliefs ??
Personaly, Mine defy conventional labels. I could convince a Conservative that I'm a communist and a Liberal that I'm a fascist.
I take Bruce Lee's Jeet Kune Do aproach to political philosophy. Have no form as your form, have no method as your method.
-
i just wanna be a gun toting redneck that plays the banjo on the porch of my cabin.
-
My own - my political beliefs usually stem from anarchist principles, but with a healthy dose of pragmatism and working class ethics thrown in.
-
I am moderate in My beliefs politically.
-
Me? I'm often more liberal than conservative, but I make up my own mind instead of using other people's labels. The results are sometimes weird.
-
i just wanna be a gun toting redneck that plays the banjo on the porch of my cabin.
If it's any comfort, i think you'd do the job quite well.
-
i just wanna be a gun toting redneck that plays the banjo on the porch of my cabin.
If it's any comfort, i think you'd do the job quite well.
don't forget about my droopy eyed hound dog.
-
i just wanna be a gun toting redneck that plays the banjo on the porch of my cabin.
You mean like Fuzzy Lumpkins ?? ?? ??
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I started out as an Anarchist, however this has more or less been tempered into more or less Left leaning Libertarian beliefs.
-
My own - my political beliefs usually stem from anarchist principles, but with a healthy dose of pragmatism and working class ethics thrown in.
Do you mean Libertarian when you say "anarchist" ?? or something else ??
-
I mean Left libertarian as with ASpHole, i.e. social rather than economic. American Libertarians typically favour an extreme free market model - I'd rather see small scale cooperative ventures and an extension of free association and syndicates/umbrella groups of free operators creating economies of scale replacing the corporate led, people crushing model we have today. No need to squash individual freedom or innovation, while not riding roughshod over the environment, the workers, or a country's citizens for profit or competitive advantage, or in the name of dogma, as the IMF and the transnationals and their political puppets do today. In all social matters I prefer as little interference by the state as possible. A lot of other state functions regarding health, welfare etc could and should be handled on a collaborative level rather than being stripped away - in a syndicalist/cooperative model the pooling of resources should not be difficult to achieve and would be resented less than the existing taxation model I reckon. Thats the basics anyway. I've no illusions as to whether it is likely to happen but thats what I'd like to see happen.
-
I'm moderately conservative I guess.
But others would say I am very conservative. I do agree with libetarians a lot on economic policies. But not on moral and social policies which I believe in what I say a 'big government' approach. Defending traditional values, fanatical on law and order.
The politican who would match me ideologically is Rudi Guilani. Although I oppose same sex marriage and believe divorce laws should be more strict.
-
.......... I do agree with libetarians a lot on economic policies. But not on moral and social policies which I believe in what I say a 'big government' approach.........
You're confusing Libertarians with Liberals. Libertarians don't advocate a "big government" approach to social issues. Rather they believe on letting people make their own choices.
......and believe divorce laws should be more strict.
Why should divorce laws be more strict ?? If two people made a mistake by getting married and want out should'nt they be allowed to make that choice ?? What about a woman who's being abused ?? Why would you make it harder for her to escape being beaten ??
-
I mean Left libertarian as with ASpHole, i.e. social rather than economic. American Libertarians typically favour an extreme free market model - I'd rather see small scale cooperative ventures and an extension of free association and syndicates/umbrella groups of free operators creating economies of scale replacing the corporate led, people crushing model we have today.
Although I agree with this philosophy, it's the actual implementation that I would have a problem with. Large Corporations aren't simply going to give up their power AND money just so we could have a more socialy equitible system. To dismantle large corporate structures would require a MASSIVE WORLDWIDE government agency with almost pure dictorial athority. That much power in on place will certianly be massively corrupt.
No need to squash individual freedom or innovation, while not riding roughshod over the environment, the workers, or a country's citizens for profit or competitive advantage, or in the name of dogma, as the IMF and the transnationals and their political puppets do today.
Again, in theory I would agree, but it's where these beliefs meet the real world that the laws of unintended consequences come into play.
In all social matters I prefer as little interference by the state as possible. A lot of other state functions regarding health, welfare etc could and should be handled on a collaborative level rather than being stripped away - in a syndicalist/cooperative model the pooling of resources should not be difficult to achieve and would be resented less than the existing taxation model I reckon.
The closest thing to that I've ever seen is health ASSURANCE programs where the money paid into the system is invested in low risk ventures. The profits from the investments are used to run the system, while the money the members pay in is accounted for and exists in a seperate "account". when a member pulls out of the system, they get most of what they paid into it. It sure beats health "Insurance" (or taxation in you case) where your money just goes down a black hole.
-
You're confusing Libertarians with Liberals. Libertarians don't advocate a "big government" approach to social issues. Rather they believe on letting people make their own choices.
I believe in people making their own choices to an extent. Especially on things like economic matters, however when I come to social and moral issues I am traditionalist and believe the government has a role in defending traditional values. I am very much opposed to things like cultural relativism and environmentalism.
Why should divorce laws be more strict ?? If two people made a mistake by getting married and want out should'nt they be allowed to make that choice ?? What about a woman who's being abused ?? Why would you make it harder for her to escape being beaten ??
I do not believe in no fault divorce laws, divorces should only be granted if there is fault with the marriage (i.e a woman is being beaten by her husband). Also couples should go through compulsory counseling before marriage. Divorce is a serious social problem and it especially affects the childern involved. I find it worrying half of all marriages end up in divorce.
-
You're confusing Libertarians with Liberals. Libertarians don't advocate a "big government" approach to social issues. Rather they believe on letting people make their own choices.
I believe in people making their own choices to an extent. Especially on things like economic matters, however when I come to social and moral issues I am traditionalist and believe the government has a role in defending traditional values. I am very much opposed to things like cultural relativism and environmentalism.
Why should divorce laws be more strict ?? If two people made a mistake by getting married and want out should'nt they be allowed to make that choice ?? What about a woman who's being abused ?? Why would you make it harder for her to escape being beaten ??
I do not believe in no fault divorce laws, divorces should only be granted if there is fault with the marriage (i.e a woman is being beaten by her husband). Also couples should go through compulsory counseling before marriage. Divorce is a serious social problem and it especially affects the childern involved. I find it worrying half of all marriages end up in divorce.
This is what I'm talking about - the moralising that makes it difficult for me to get on with social conservatives. Why do you believe the government, or you, has the right to dictate to other people how to live their lives, or to decide that you are right and others are wrong? As for being 'against environmentalism', that just makes you sound like a total fucking moron. Let me know when you start going crispy.
-
I'm moderate in many things, socially liberal, pragmatic, sometimes leaning towards anarchistic ideas, pretty much I look, listen and decide for myself. I hate following a "herd".
-
This is what I'm talking about - the moralising that makes it difficult for me to get on with social conservatives. Why do you believe the government, or you, has the right to dictate to other people how to live their lives, or to decide that you are right and others are wrong? As for being 'against environmentalism', that just makes you sound like a total fucking moron. Let me know when you start going crispy.
Well it becomes a issue when the government has to pay out cash, for the consequences of things like drug abuse, divorce etc. Defending traditional values in my eyes is also economically efficient because in the long run less money is spend and can be given back in tax cuts. One of the consequences of the 60's and 70's is that 'it feels good, do it' approach to life is not necessarily good for society as a whole. I believe in rebuilding a sense of community, society once more sharing common values and expecting immigrants to assimilate into our society and accepting our values.
I'm all for conserving the environment and fighting real environmental problems. However not at the expense of human living standards and the economic development of the third world, that is not on. The radicals in the environmental movement are often anti-human Luddites. They oppose technology like nuclear power and GM technology which can benefit humanity and address the legitimate concerns they have like Climate change and level of pesticides in food.
-
Well it becomes a issue when the government has to pay out cash, for the consequences of things like drug abuse, divorce etc.
Although this is true to a point, it's very easy to get on a Faustian slippery slope here. To what degree does economic benifit outweigh having an omnipotent government that can tell you what to do behind closed doors ??
Homosexuality has increased medical costs associated with it. Does that mean Gov should outlaw or put a tax on it ?? How would you enforce that ??
What about these winter mountianeers who get stranded and 5 million dollar search and rescue efforts are needed to save them ?? Should we regulate mountian climbing too ??
Liberals complain about gun violence and liberal attorney grops have tried to sue gun makers for damages. At what point to you call an end to this ??
And finally, what about abortion ?? Economists Steven Levitt ans Steven Dubner, along with several leading criminologists, have found that and INCREASE in the number of abortions leads to a DECREASE in crime !! Should we mandate abortions for low income women who have alcohol/drug abuse or crime history ?? The science tells us that this would be a GREAT idea !! (I'd almost agree myself)
You can use economics and pragmatism to rationalize almost any government regulation of our day to day lives.
-
Although this is true to a point, it's very easy to get on a Faustian slippery slope here. To what degree does economic benifit outweigh having an omnipotent government that can tell you what to do behind closed doors ??
Homosexuality has increased medical costs associated with it. Does that mean Gov should outlaw or put a tax on it ?? How would you enforce that ??
While I am quite homophobic. But I am tolerant of homosexual relations, although I oppose same sex marriage.
Liberals complain about gun violence and liberal attorney grops have tried to sue gun makers for damages. At what point to you call an end to this ??
I agree overall there is too much ligitation in our society and law should be changed to reduce ligitation. I'm a skeptic on gun control because the link between less guns and less crime just simply is not there.
And finally, what about abortion ?? Economists Steven Levitt ans Steven Dubner, along with several leading criminologists, have found that and INCREASE in the number of abortions leads to a DECREASE in crime !! Should we mandate abortions for low income women who have alcohol/drug abuse or crime history ?? The science tells us that this would be a GREAT idea !! (I'd almost agree myself)
I dunno if abortion leads to a decrease in crime, it is much more clearer, tougher sentences, more prison building and more police reduce crime. I believe abortion should be discouraged and at least outlawed beyond the first trimester.
-
You did'nt see the forrest for the trees in my post. I was merely giving examples of how your argument that conservative policies make economic sense can be warped.
The vocabulary word that was important there was Faustian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faustian)
-
Liberals complain about gun violence and liberal attorney grops have tried to sue gun makers for damages. At what point to you call an end to this ??
This is a terrific idea. I hope it catches on. ;D
-
Why are people banning every freedom and anything fun called "liberals"? They're only liberal on political correctness and immigration. ::)
-
'kay. I fully support Iran's right to a-bombs.They should be allowed to have as much fun as the US, Russia, Israel, et al.
-
Sure. But they'll better be ready for pay-back time. 8)
-
Did you ever play the game "Nuclear War" on an Amiga computer? Four countries race to build the biggest bombs and then, inevitably, end up bombing each other. In some cases, one leader was left standing in a barren landscape, yelling "I won, I won!"
Why is it that trying to save lives is always called "liberal" while supporting people's right to blow each others' brains off is called "conservative"?
-
Yep. I've played it. And other similar games, back in the 80s. 8)
I don't really know about the re-interpretation of political terms. The word "Libertarianism" is actually kind of opposite to the word "Liberalism". Marquise de Sade was a Libertarianist.
-
You mean libertine, I think Lit.
-
Oh, yes, my mistake. :-[
-
Liberals complain about gun violence and liberal attorney grops have tried to sue gun makers for damages. At what point to you call an end to this ??
This is a terrific idea. I hope it catches on. ;D
It did catch on. The Lawyers cases were almost all thrown out of court. In the few cases with sympathetic Liberal judges, the gun makers threatened to quit doing buisness with that juristictions police departments. The police departments pressured the lawyers inot dropping their suits.
-
Damn lobbying.
-
Yes, what a shame that the cowards didn't succeed in making Americans as helpless against criminals as most of us Europeans are.
-
Yes, what a shame that the cowards didn't succeed in making Americans as helpless against criminals as most of us Europeans are.
i read somewhere that armed robberies are less likely to occur in plces where it is legal to carry a concealed firearm.
-
Yes, what a shame that the cowards didn't succeed in making Americans as helpless against criminals as most of us Europeans are.
i read somewhere that armed robberies are less likely to occur in plces where it is legal to carry a concealed firearm.
They are. Criminals are cowards, so they won't commit armed robberies that easy if ordinary people can shoot back on them. But here in Europe the politicians and news reporters twist all that statistics, and my naïve European fellows usually believe them, not only the Swedes.
-
Show us the statistics and spare us the platitudes. ::)
-
Check out the NRA home page. 8)
-
Ah, yes, why look further when we have the NRA. :laugh:
-
It's a shame we don't have an NRA in Sweden. I know some guys that are shooting club members and have about the same opinions on guns as the NRA, but they'd risk their licenses if they'd go out with those opinions openly. Or their club membership, which would make the cops revoke their licenses anyway. :(
-
Yeah, maybe we could have Charlton Heston as some kind of honorary moron, too. "Over. My. Cold. Dead. Hands."
-
That was a manly speak. 8)
-
He's the definition of "manly", as a matter of fact. ;D
-
What does very liberal and very conservative mean?
-
That's weird. According to the original meaning of the word "liberal" (Latin "liber" means "free"), a liberal should be pro guns, not against them.
-
i think that the dividing line for current polititians was drawn over the Roe v. Wade case.
so pro-abortion means liberal.
-
That's weird. According to the original meaning of the word "liberal" (Latin "liber" means "free"), a liberal should be pro guns, not against them.
FREE of guns? ;)
-
Whatever. ::)
-
That's weird. According to the original meaning of the word "liberal" (Latin "liber" means "free"), a liberal should be pro guns, not against them.
liberal may mean antiliberal today. :laugh:
-
Feudal/libertarian.
-
Feudal/libertarian.
Aren't those two mutually exclusive?
-
I am a libertarian, but if I really did my homework and found out what people really represented how I want the country to be run, i'd probably be a moderate republican (unless the democrats and socialists made more ideas that work).
-
Feudal/libertarian.
Aren't those two mutually exclusive?
Not in my book. Subjugation is willful (in a perfect feudal society)
one can choose a master, or face the chaos alone.
-
Feudal/libertarian.
Aren't those two mutually exclusive?
Not in my book. Subjugation is willful (in a perfect feudal society)
one can choose a master, or face the chaos alone.
That's not much of a choice, Die on your feet or live on your knees. :-\
-
I'v been facing the chaos alone for most of my life. Too many people have wanted me to submit to their will or way of doing things......I'd rather face the chaos.
-
Feudal/libertarian.
Aren't those two mutually exclusive?
Not in my book. Subjugation is willful (in a perfect feudal society)
one can choose a master, or face the chaos alone.
That's not much of a choice, Die on your feet or live on your knees. :-\
Well, it's better than being forced on your knees no matter what. Plus, if
you're strong enough, you can be a master, and attract others to you.
-
Feudal/libertarian.
Aren't those two mutually exclusive?
Not in my book. Subjugation is willful (in a perfect feudal society)
one can choose a master, or face the chaos alone.
That's not much of a choice, Die on your feet or live on your knees. :-\
Well, it's better than being forced on your knees no matter what. Plus, if
you're strong enough, you can be a master, and attract others to you.
It takes more that just strength. you have to be a charismatic lying little weasel.
-
Feudal/libertarian.
Aren't those two mutually exclusive?
Not in my book. Subjugation is willful (in a perfect feudal society)
one can choose a master, or face the chaos alone.
That's not much of a choice, Die on your feet or live on your knees. :-\
Well, it's better than being forced on your knees no matter what. Plus, if
you're strong enough, you can be a master, and attract others to you.
It takes more that just strength. you have to be a charismatic lying little weasel.
Eh, as a charasmatic lying little weasel, I guess I only notice the part that I lack.
-
It takes more that just strength. you have to be a charismatic lying little weasel.
Eh, as a charasmatic lying little weasel, I guess I only notice the part that I lack.
QFT :agreed: :LMAO: ;)
-
Feudal/libertarian.
Aren't those two mutually exclusive?
Not in my book. Subjugation is willful (in a perfect feudal society)
one can choose a master, or face the chaos alone.
That's not much of a choice, Die on your feet or live on your knees. :-\
Except for the knights, no one could choose their master in, for example, the feudal countries in Europe. Sweden was one of the few that didn't have feudalism, though most Kings were practically dictators from the middle age to the beginning of or mid 19th century. "Ordinary people" were extremely poor and powerless.
-
Feudal/libertarian.
Aren't those two mutually exclusive?
Not in my book. Subjugation is willful (in a perfect feudal society)
one can choose a master, or face the chaos alone.
That's not much of a choice, Die on your feet or live on your knees. :-\
Except for the knights, no one could choose their master in, for example, the feudal countries in Europe. Sweden was one of the few that didn't have feudalism, though most Kings were practically dictators from the middle age to the beginning of or mid 19th century. "Ordinary people" were extremely poor and powerless.
In the early (purer) periods, one indeed had a choice of whether to surrender their freeholds for protection.
This was not limited to knights, but also to the peasentry. Many CHOSE to be serfs. Later, it became such
an expected situation, that it couldn't really be avoided. Once inheritence got involved, that also screwed the
whole concept.
-
Libertarian. Yeah, I know, I dug this thread out of its grave just to fuck its corpse. Fun, ain't it?
-
Libertarian. Yeah, I know, I dug this thread out of its grave just to fuck its corpse. Fun, ain't it?
:laugh: :plus:
-
Libertarian. Yeah, I know, I dug this thread out of its grave just to fuck its corpse. Fun, ain't it?
It's not long dead. I don't much like fucking them once they really begin to
decompose though. Still, the motion of the maggots can be somewhat
enjoyable.
-
Libertarian. Yeah, I know, I dug this thread out of its grave just to fuck its corpse. Fun, ain't it?
It's not long dead. I don't much like fucking them once they really begin to
decompose though. Still, the motion of the maggots can be somewhat
enjoyable.
Now posts like that make me think you're just looking for someone to ghey your ass- didn't you just post yesterday that you wished you could ghey yourself because you really don't like playing with dead things? Was the allure of the necro joke just too strong to resist?
-
Pretty much. I DON'T like dead things.
But necrophilia is often on my mind.
Sort of like blood - 'cepting I've not
tried the necro thing.
Whoa! I DIDN'T even say that I liked fucking dead
things above.
-
I like when people I hate suffer or bleed (I see it too rarely, though), but necrophilia isn't my cup of tea.
-
I like when people I hate suffer or bleed (I see it too rarely, though), but necrophilia isn't my cup of tea.
What about letting them know before you kill them that you'll be giving their corpse to your necro-gimp in the basement?
-
Igor want pretty thing when master done with it!