Huh, this seems to have lasted much longer than most politically based topics…I’m going to credit Jerk for starting it.
I don’t think the Republicans will be in a compromise mood when budget time comes along for the upcoming congress, I smell a government lockdown in the future, wonder how that will pan out.
Bittersweet Candy Bowl
Archived Forum
Election 2010: The Red Menace
Comment ID #121555
Comment ID #121631
I know, people are more opinionated than you might think here.
@ Ryan It’s really more like the top two percentile controlling 70% of U.S. wealth, so we’re good for now. And really our checks and balances are working quite admirably. So much so that we’re not getting anything done. Most of the exploitation happens between the media (the so called “fourth branch” of the government, though I find this massively insulting to the very nature of existence) and about 25% of U.S. citizens.
Comment ID #121887
Jerk said:I’m fairly certain that the Department of Education doesn’t keep any illegal prisons overseas or keep profitable dictatorships propped up, etc
No, but the Ministry of Educations is MUCH, MUCH more evil than that! Having worked as a teacher, I warn all of you: Don’t mess with the Ministry of Education! Those guys are crazy and can put you under much worse torture than illegal overseas prisons! I only have one thing to say to the Ministry of Education: “GIVE ME MY MONAAAHH!!”
@ Anon: All americans are stupid -.-
Comment ID #121912
“and capital punishment serves as the best crime deterrent.” — kazi
Maybe in your head, but in reality it seems to be hard to say that with much certainty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Capital_punishment_debate#Deterrence
“Wait, suit, do you have hatred for conservatives in general, or just social conservatives?” — Ace
There’s nothing good about social or fiscal conservatives. Both lead to regressive lame-o policy
It was a governor I was mostly talking about, so I doubt the military and defense spending is within his power. – Senpai
Maybe, but if you were to ask them, it might give you an idea of how serious they are. Republicans are remarkably uniform in their views and this seems to me proof that they’re willing to sacrifice what’s right just so they can tow a party line very particularly tailored to the interests of others. It’s a bad trait, even in a local politician.
“And I have to LOL at your contradictory “Everyone should vote, BUT LOLS UR A FAG U VOTED STUPID” approach. Don’t argue that everyone should vote and then insult people for voting because it didn’t fit your own desires.” – Senpai
You’re entitled to vote however you like, and I’m entitled to say you voted against your own interests if the facts show me to be correct! There’s nothing wrong with conservative faggots voting, but it’s sad to see ignorant people voting. People should be better educated, so that they can make the right decision for themselves and the country by voting left-wing.
Anon, you have an interesting perspective. I agree that Dems are really bad, but they’re still not as bad as the Republicans. While both sides are filled with selfish politicians who continue to support inefficient military spending that pleases their electorate and nobody else, only the Republicans have launched ridiculous, gigantic wars lately. And the only real prospect for reform of the system, however distant, is through Democratic leadership.
“Your accusations of ‘conservatism = evil’ very much mirrors the ‘liberal = evil’ phrases the conservatives always spew. Many things liberals and conservatives argue about are based on belief and faith (not the religion kind).” – Ryan
This is more true than I’d like, especially of the issues you pointed out. We started off with economics, though, not social issues. And there are historical examples of social issues that I will insist are unequivocal proof that progressivism is the Right Way and conservativism is evil: womens’ suffrage, segregation/slavery/race-discrimination, imperialism, child labour, war conventions, diplomacy and compromise. All of these ideas have a progressivist bent, and an archetypical conservative of their era would argue against them. It would make me ashamed to identify as a conservative simply because of the stigma of being on the side of that.
As for your argument about fiscal conservatism, no, Reaganomics was an unmitigated fucking disaster! I can try and source this but I am sure you can take it at face value. No serious economist thinks trickle-down works. The lesson of Reaganomics is that it failed. So you cannot contrast it against stimulus, which I might also add is not a progressive idea and only seems that way these days due to expert GOP framing techniques. The world came to the realisation a long time ago that laissez-faire doesn’t actually work, and this is why economics evolved as a discipline with a lot more intellectual weight than a few books by Adam Smith.
The debate on economics is nuanced, but not in America. In America, it’s “GOVERNMENT DOESN’T WORK!!!” vs “hey maybe we can stimulate the economy with something other than tax cuts… oh shit um sorry never mind we’ll just do tax cuts” (see 2009 stimulus bill). True progressive warriors can point to this amazing program and use it as evidence in favour of government intervention against the impassioned complaints of classically liberal economists, but honestly, this is not even a part of the debate. It’s “shall we regulate the economy in a very conservative fashion” or “shall we fuck up the economy so we can give more to our rich donors”. It is really that simple.
“Though I myself lean heavily liberal, I make sure never to call my opponents evil. Why? Because they’re not evil. They’re just people with their own interests, upbringing, environment, and their own myriad of factors that affect them.” – Ryan
They’re ignorant, tricked or confused people who have come to have evil ideas. There is no such thing as an evil person, we are all made what we are by the people around us, but as long as we can agree on equity, prosperity and freedom as important things to strive for, there are objectively evil political ideas in the world.
Regarding Sean’s interjection, this column is worth a read. The stat quoted is “The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976” and “the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana.” You know, broken, planned-but-badly-planned economies that were ruined by corruption.
Comment ID #121916
That article sums it up nicely, this is another reliable site worth checking out. http://zfacts.com/
Comment ID #121917
I’m just waiting for some conservative to pop in here. Then we can see some real bloodshed!
Well, SuitCase, you just pretty much exhausted everything I had to add in here. It’s a refreshing experience, having a proper debate with somebody else on the net, especially with a fellow liberal (you don’t get fun debates when arguing against a conservative).
I have to say, you keep yourself updated on politics, don’t you? Especially American politics. Or is it the only thing worth watching on the news these days? Europe’s been following the mid-terms very closely, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the Australian media does the same.
But going back to the mid-terms, I don’t think the Republicans are going to achieve too much, other than stopping some government spending programs. They don’t have majority in Senate, and with Obama still in the presidential seat, the House can’t really achieve too much on its own. Unless the Democrats manage to convert most Republicans in the House, we’re looking forward to an unproductive two years.
Pity. I was getting used to seeing conservatives cringe in pain as Obama passes the stimulus package and the health care plan.
Comment ID #121920
SuitCase said:“the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana.”
That’s just because these countries have NO money left. Even rich people there are poor compared to first world standards. If there’s nothing to go around to start with you can’t have much difference in the distribution.
Comment ID #121922
I find American politics most interesting, because they matter most. I briefly cared about the UK election season though! Which has been a good thing, as Cameron looks to be like a great new lesson in how to fuck up a lovely welfare state with neoliberal bullshit “policy”.
I only read and watch a lot of American news media and pop economics stuff, but I guess I draw on all the study I did (I majored in history, mostly American) and the (sadly single) political economy class I was lucky enough to do. I haven’t done government, but it sounds like the sort of thing that’d interest me, though without as much sympathy for the Marxists 
Yes, moving back to the election, it’s just how the pendulum swings. We got our few years of “progressive” governments, now the ignorant masses head back to the simple solutions and pushbutton fearmongering of the right. Too bad this wave of Western leftist governments were so gutless and unambitious. I really think we need political parties that are left-wing to realise that they will never hang in there for very long, and to instead be hostile and aggressively progressive so as to make up for the 2–3 terms of regressive idiot conservatism that will inevitably follow.
Comment ID #121923
Be careful what you wish for. If you swing the pendulum further to one side, it will then swing further to the other side, too.
Comment ID #121924
I eagerly await our radical insane far left governments.
Comment ID #121957
Ha! Ask certain people on the right and the U.S. already has radical insane far left government (Obama, the commienazimuslim president).
Comment ID #121999
Yea, specifically ask anyone working for faux news
Comment ID #122193
His preacher was perfectly capable of spewing hate from a pulpit without being Muslim. Not that Atheists won’t do it too as long as they have the proper outlet. That’s neither here nor there. I don’t identify as liberal or conservative; they’ve both turned into religions. Eco-terrorists and clinic bombers.
There isn’t anything you’ve said, Suitcase, that I don’t want with every fiber of my being if only because it has been so ridiculously stupid not to push those issues. But the rhetoric itself just leaves me so fucking exhausted sometimes. I mean, just the general stuff from both sides.
Anyway, I’d like some arguments on litigiousness from anyone willing to give them. Tort caps, etc. I need some perspective.
Comment ID #122198
Try looking at the world from the position of a fly that is trying to go outside but cant quite find the door
Comment ID #122312
@suit, way up there,
a southern state (i know, southern U.S is full of retards) recently repealed the death penalty for serious crimes and saw a sudden, huge rise in crimes that would formerly have meant death.
Comment ID #122916
kazi, sources? rebuttals from anti-death-penalty activists?
Comment ID #122921
I already said that people on death row statistically live longer than people who don’t. Supposedly, a conservative (don’t yell at me) estimate of the amount spent on executions in California wound up around $237 million after reforms and $11.5 million in toto for life sentences. Amnesty International makes a well-sourced case against it in pretty much every facet one could care to argue.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death- penalty-facts/page.do?id=1101088
But I digress. I quote a personal hero of mine when I recall a the words of another inmate imprisoned for life: “Any rational society will either kill me or put me to some use.” That said, I suggest forced labor. If they are proved innocent, they can sue the government and live comfortably thereafter. If not, society gains some use from these human vegetables. They won’t have liberty whether they are convicted justly or unjustly.
Head back to the forum index.
Comment ID #121457
Oh, hey, no worries. If the top 1 percentile actually controlled 95% of America’s wealth, I’d actually start a revolution right now. Or I’ll just stick with what I know: playing Fallout 3.
Well, though politics is said to be governance for the advancement of the people, it is also one of the ways ambitious people can gain a lot of power within a relatively short amount of time. And with people who care more about self-interest, exploitation of a certain caste of people is certainly not impossible (if anything, it may be required for advancement of self-interest).
But America has been founded on the idea of checks and balances. Why do we need three different branches of government instead of a parliamentary, unicameral government? Because the ambitions of either one of the three branches will cancel (and check) each other out. Why the allocation of power between state and national government instead of just having a strong central government? So then popular majority of the country cannot overwhelm the states, and neither can the states overwhelm the popular majority.
However, even with the checks and balances, exploitation still happens. That’s to be expected of any government or political body (I mean, a government that makes everyone happy? Ne’er heard o’ her, suh!) What is surprising to me (living half way around the globe) is that the rich people haven’t completely overwhelmed the masses… yet. Sure, there’s Faux News and the Executives of Fortune 500 companies, but they haven’t like, taken over the political system, as the Mafia have of the Italian government.
Well, I should get back to my government hw. Bye, as I’m sleeping after posting this comment and finishing my hw.
Ryan November 8, 2010, 3:39 PM EST.