where do you growers here stand politically? conservative or a liberals?

[Rob Roy]

Now there's semantics. Believe what you wish, but that doesn't get you into a voting booth, just look around the globe and see the evidence of that.

No, the USA says it in it's constitution, and you will be hard pressed to find it elsewhere in any significant volume.

That's sort of why Millions of foreigners are CLAMORING to come here......

Voting booth? Try this. Grow some weed. Get caught trying to own your own body and property. Have your right to vote taken away for committing a victimless crime "against the state". Oh and for a nonviolent "crime" lose your right to bear arms too. Lose your liberty too for the crime of practicing self ownership. That happens here, in the land of the "free".

Albeit there are many things to like about the USA, the assualt on individual liberty and choice isn't one of them.

The fact that other countries may be far worse does not mean I am going to be complacent and accept everything that this government does as good. Given enough time and no resistance I believe all governments end in tyranny.

The nature of government is to control, that nature does not make an exception just because we have a better history than other countries. Freedom is lost by bits and pieces...we are in that slide now. The unfortunate thing is there may be no other place to go, some are as you infer much worse places.

When I rail on about freedom, it is the love of it that drives my thoughts. I support freedom, which often makes me question "government". Any government is capable of stealing rights...even the U.S.A.

 

[hanimmal]

Fiscally both parties are basically the same, so I could care less which is in office based on that.

And the reason why I say this is that both sides will screw it up because they half ass everything and compromise the things that will actually work, and distort the recommendations of the economists and financial advisers so what ends up being produced is so watered down and locked in (because they are so paralyzed to change things) that in the long run it won't work well and will need to be changed again eventually.

Even though you may want to refuse to understand why many of the liberal programs are good for the economy (before they get mangled with politics) it doesn't mean that they are not sound. Likewise many of the things that the conservatives come up with would work too if they went through as orgionally intended. But they get screwed up by the same process.

So the only real thing that I can base my political affiliation with is social issues. And that is liberal all the way. Libertarian would be great too there. But its a shame that the republicans are mostly alligned with them. And stuffing christian morals *not all are bad of course, but almost all the ones that are argued are for taking away our ability to make our own decisions. So that pretty much wipes them out, guilt by association.



So I am taking the political compass test and come across this:

Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.

What a loaded question that fails to realize that they are both so intertwined that controlling one (not eliminating) pulls very hard on the other. This is the problem with the rep. dem. thing. The economic decisions are not really understood by almost all Americans and they depend on the talking heads of the media to tell them what they should think about it. If people actually understood it (which is very difficult to really understand all the political issues out there and how they affect peoples lives and pocketbooks long term) we would all be a lot less stressed.

And some loaded questions like:

Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support.

Of course they should not get society's support, but that doesn't mean that the system around them should be removed. This doesn't work with reality. At some point the amount of money to try to make sure that everyone that uses the system are the correct ones that need it is more costly than just paying the ones that are milking it. So it is actually cheaper to just not try to make sure everyone is legit.

My score:
Economic Left/Right: -0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.10

 

[Hemlock]

They do! It's sort of insane, imho....

such liberal typical comment

yes we do..

 

[Hemlock]

hanimmal this is your statement above,,,Fiscally both parties are basically the same, so I could care less which is in office based on that,,,, and I want you to know that it is fundamentally WRONG.
Are you from this country, have you EVER followed politics? Fiscally we could be no farther apart...

 

[CrackerJax]

Yes, that was the NAIVE POST of the WEEK.....

Both parties are NOT fiscally similar.

If you're wrong on the basics ... what's next?



RR, so now we're on to growing weed an an inalienable right?

It's all in the voting booth. Ur rights and mine. You can take any issue you wish, and it can be addressed through the voting booth.

It's up to you to get it there.

Semantics..... this is the BEST place on earth, and don't forget it. We are being damaged by Obama and the Dem's severely, but if all goes well in 2010, some of this nonsense can be repealed.

The USA can still be saved.

 

[hanimmal]

Really Hemlock? Any bill that gets put up to be voted on becomes so dilluted that it ends up meeting in the middle. It doesn't matter which side puts what up, it all ends up about the same.

So how would it really matter if you voted dem or rep?

Take the healthcare bill.

There are 60 dems so according to you the bill should not matter, it should be full of what you view the liberal agenda to be. But look at what will come out of this, no public option, no total gov't run system (ie England), full of profit for the large companies, ect. Basically it landed right in the middle again.

Now before people go all testicular, if you would sit back and look at what this bill actually is instead of the political cartoon version that the right is pretending this is, you would see it is the case.

It wouldn't matter if the republicans had 60 any major bill they did would end up swiss cheese by the end of the process too.

So again I stand by it, fiscally it doesn't matter. And not to jump into all the conspiracy theories that people jump onto here, look no further than the fact that president pretty much keep in line with Fed chairmen, they vote in the people that the previous president put in place (regardless of party) since the 50's at least.

Even though we were just at the brink of a financial meltdown, Bush did the best thing, and did bailout the big three and the banks (remember this was before Obama), and Obama would have done the same thing.

During the 80's Regan went on one of the largest spending binges in our history, he spent I believe about 7 trillion in nukes that we never even used. But instead people will say that is different than Obama spending 1.4? trillion on the stimulus package. Either way it is money that the government spends to stimulate the economy. In a recession it is not a good diea for the government to stop spending because usually it comes about because the people stopped spending (for many reasons) so it is up to the government to ramp up and get the surplus out of the system and ramp up demand.

And that again is regardless of which party you are dealing with.

So yeah I disagree with your political bias.

If you would actually take off the team colors for a second and look at the similarities instead of just trying to say how your team is better, you would see they are more similar than they are different, and in the end it really doesn't matter fiscally.

 

[hanimmal]

Because the jiggle at the end is worth watching regardless of what your polics are.
[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sSPw_9GX9HI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sSPw_9GX9HI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

 

[OregonMeds]

Really Hemlock? Any bill that gets put up to be voted on becomes so dilluted that it ends up meeting in the middle. It doesn't matter which side puts what up, it all ends up about the same.

So how would it really matter if you voted dem or rep?

Take the healthcare bill.

There are 60 dems so according to you the bill should not matter, it should be full of what you view the liberal agenda to be. But look at what will come out of this, no public option, no total gov't run system (ie England), full of profit for the large companies, ect. Basically it landed right in the middle again.

Now before people go all testicular, if you would sit back and look at what this bill actually is instead of the political cartoon version that the right is pretending this is, you would see it is the case.

It wouldn't matter if the republicans had 60 any major bill they did would end up swiss cheese by the end of the process too.

So again I stand by it, fiscally it doesn't matter. And not to jump into all the conspiracy theories that people jump onto here, look no further than the fact that president pretty much keep in line with Fed chairmen, they vote in the people that the previous president put in place (regardless of party) since the 50's at least.

Even though we were just at the brink of a financial meltdown, Bush did the best thing, and did bailout the big three and the banks (remember this was before Obama), and Obama would have done the same thing.

During the 80's Regan went on one of the largest spending binges in our history, he spent I believe about 7 trillion in nukes that we never even used. But instead people will say that is different than Obama spending 1.4? trillion on the stimulus package. Either way it is money that the government spends to stimulate the economy. In a recession it is not a good diea for the government to stop spending because usually it comes about because the people stopped spending (for many reasons) so it is up to the government to ramp up and get the surplus out of the system and ramp up demand.

And that again is regardless of which party you are dealing with.

So yeah I disagree with your political bias.

If you would actually take off the team colors for a second and look at the similarities instead of just trying to say how your team is better, you would see they are more similar than they are different, and in the end it really doesn't matter fiscally.

He's right you know... In how he describes the swiss cheeze everything becomes.

Except I don't think the republicans would have put forward any health care bill ever period.

 

[hanimmal]

No you most likely are right meds. But that is not my point, whatever comes through is the end is ultimately in the middle.

If it was republicans they may have decided to up the anti even further in Iraq and Afghanastan, maybe popping some more troops into pakastan, and north Africa. They would then have to equip the troops and that means buying from the public the gear they need.

So a infusion of government money would have in effect done the same as the stimulus package, and been about the same amount of tax payer money being used.

Different means to a similar economic end.

Economically it doesn't really matter much, the government is going to spend our money, and a lot of it. And that much money into our economy (regardless of where it hits) is good when the people are too scared, or too broke from trying to dig out of a hole to spend it themselves.

But socially that is where I differ in my viewpoint.

 

[CrackerJax]

The stimulus money was a complete failure. It accomplished NOTHING good, except if you are in a governmental power position.

That money would have been far better off being spent on national security.

 

[Parker]

Voting booth? Try this. Grow some weed. Get caught trying to own your own body and property. Have your right to vote taken away for committing a victimless crime "against the state". Oh and for a nonviolent "crime" lose your right to bear arms too. Lose your liberty too for the crime of practicing self ownership. That happens here, in the land of the "free".

Albeit there are many things to like about the USA, the assualt on individual liberty and choice isn't one of them.

The fact that other countries may be far worse does not mean I am going to be complacent and accept everything that this government does as good. Given enough time and no resistance I believe all governments end in tyranny.

The nature of government is to control, that nature does not make an exception just because we have a better history than other countries. Freedom is lost by bits and pieces...we are in that slide now. The unfortunate thing is there may be no other place to go, some are as you infer much worse places.

When I rail on about freedom, it is the love of it that drives my thoughts. I support freedom, which often makes me question "government". Any government is capable of stealing rights...even the U.S.A.

Great post. I agree. I'm a conservative but don't align myself with the Republicans. They have lost their conservative way. Their belief that a controlling Federal government is a good government is lost on me. By voting in the same thieves into office we allow corporatism to control our lives.

 

[CrackerJax]

Wow. you are misinformed. No conservative thinks a CONTROLLING govt. is a good thing.

Ur not a conservative at all.

 

[Parker]

Wow. you are misinformed. No conservative thinks a CONTROLLING govt. is a good thing.

Ur not a conservative at all.

What post are you referring to? It was after mine but you didn't quote it and I didn't say conservatives think a controlling government is good and I didn't see the few posts before mine say that either.

Some say they are conservative but when it comes to having more government in their lives they don't care IF that issue directly benefits them.

 

[CrackerJax]

Their belief that a controlling Federal government is a good government is lost on me. <------ ur post.

That's ur post ... and you have it backwards. liberals like a controlling govt. Conservatives want the govt. to GET OUT OF THE WAY.

 

[Parker]

Their belief that a controlling Federal government is a good government is lost on me. <------ ur post.

That's ur post ... and you have it backwards. liberals like a controlling govt. Conservatives want the govt. to GET OUT OF THE WAY.

That's what I thought. My point wasn't clear enough to you. I didn't have it backwards and I do agree with your definition. That's why I made that other post. How can someone say they are a conservative yet support some non conservative, controlling Federal Government values

someone who is about to buy or sell a house and approves of the $8 k incentive. That's not a conservative value but that person may say they are a conservative.

 

[Murfy]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. &#8212; That to secure

these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
&#8212; That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to

alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will

dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right

themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is

their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
All on hemp paper i might add.

 

[CrackerJax]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That has now turned into racial profiling by the govt.

 

[Murfy]

i didn't think american was a race
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

 

[CrackerJax]

By using a quota system, the govt. initiates racial profiling. But ur right, it's not supposed to be that way.

 

[Hemlock]

for real. its kinda hypocritical to be a hardcore con and grow weed. ive only ever known one guy like that in real life. he loved everything bush did, listened to limbaugh, loved the military, and was the most hardcore republican square asshole but he grew herb.. its kinda like being a black guy in the kkk.. makes no sense. i guess some people are just ignorant.

Sorry it doesn't make any sense to you, but I'm also the guy you are descriping. As you can see I served in the Military and IMHO I think when history get done George W will come out as a hero and a President with BALLS.
Obama is gonna get us attacked on our own soil again because he is to soft on terror and he a Muslum

And where do you get off calling people who served to protect you Ignorant and square asshole.? Cause I'm sure that by your comments you ain't never served or done a fuckin thing for this GREAT country.